The results of the NATO summit in Bucharest are known, but like in case of every compromise, their final assessment is ambiguous.
Let me start with Ukraine. The EU’s eastern neighbour was not offered the membership track. Neither was the application for its NATO membership rejected. Instead, the discussion over the prospect of Ukrainian membership was postponed until December. This is not exactly what Ukraine’s NATO membership supporters wished for, but at least they have managed to avoid humiliation of fighting for what was in any case unrealistic. One should keep in mind, however, that no promise of positive consideration in December was given to Ukraine or Georgia.
How can we then judge these results? On one hand, it was a defeat because the countries were not given an access to Membership Action Plan, on the other, a success, because the subject of Ukraine’s membership was brought up and — what is more important — was not refuted right away.
While considering the outcome of Bucharest, one should remember that the gestures of Presidents Bush or Yushchenko were not enough and could not substitute the solidarity and consent of all NATO members. Normally, we all know that NATO is a very democratic organization but the last word belongs to Washington. Not this time however. This was a very bad timing for counting on American support. Outgoing US President has little power to influence the future of the Alliance and everyone knows it. This is not to say, that Ukrainian authorities should not try to hold Americans accountable for their President’s promises, but the real decision will be made by the next White House administration.
Another factor, which could serve as an explanation for the outcome of the recent summit, is a question of a very low popular support for membership in Ukraine. As I have written in my last piece “NATO invites countries to join the Alliance, where the authorities want to join either without consulting their citizens or they know how to convince its people. In any case the explicit expression of willingness is essential for the accession”. Among most of the key NATO members, there is no certitude in this regard. This is probably, why the conclusions of NATO-Ukraine Council, which also took place in Bucharest, included a call for Ukraine’s government to organize an information campaign on the Alliance.
Contradicting the above, some say, that in its history NATO accepted countries, whose societies, where deeply divided over the issue, giving the example of Spain and Javier Solana, who was vehemently against Spanish membership in NATO. For those who don’t remember, I remind that Spain in those days was still ruled by the Frankists and a decision regarding the membership was based solely on geopolitical grounds. I hope that Ukraine is not aspiring for such comparisons.
***
As for the other areas...The good news is that the North-Atlantic Alliance will enlarge towards the Balkans (Croatia and Albania). If there is any possibility to restrain Balkan passions within the European structures, then NATO is perfect for that purpose. My experience shows that a military staff communicates well with each other and is capable of defusing many crazy ideas born in the heads of politicians. Croatia and Albania represent two totally different worlds — Croatia negotiates the membership in the EU. Thus, Albania will be a real test for NATO’s efficacy.
Let’s now move on to the next issue on the agenda. Greece blocked Macedonia’s efforts to join the Alliance. Despite the fact that Macedonia fulfilled many criteria for membership, the controversy related to the name of the country (Northern Province of Greece and a part of Bulgaria are also called Macedonia) proved to be enough to obstruct Macedonia’s membership in NATO.
And last but not least — the Alliance adopted positive stance with regard to a missile defence system in Europe. Consequently, the major political obstacle for conducting talks concerning this installation disappeared. It is also worth noting that NATO, due to its allied contacts with Russia, constitutes an ideal forum to resolve all uncertainties and reservations in that sphere. Thus, one can conclude that the middle-aged (59 year-old) gentleman is in a quite good shape.
PS. Similar to credit contract, also in the summit conclusions the key clauses are written at the end in small font. France considers returning to NATO military structures and deploying a battalion of extra troops to Afghanistan. If that actually happens, the common European defence dimension will gain more sense and momentum.
