Enlargement Summit
What’s next for NATO.

By Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
October 10, 2001 9:20 a.m.

orries about terrorist threats and concerns about the blossoming NATO-Russian rapprochement united the ten countries aspiring to join NATO in their support of the U.S.-led coalition.

As the heads of state of the NATO candidates wrapped up their summit here in the Bulgarian capital, the last thing they wanted was for the enlargement process to be delayed or derailed. Thus, the main tune at the summit was one of expressions of unanimity and pledges of cooperation. In addition, during the opening reception, the Bulgarian presidential guard band played the theme song from Love Story and other golden oldies, giving the summit a somewhat Fellini-esque air.

After President George W. Bush's message, it would seem they have little to worry about. Bush's letter — read to the conference participants by Robert A. Bradtke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs — reaffirmed the pledge he made in Warsaw in June, assuring the participants that Russia has no veto over NATO enlargement.

In the message to the summit, Bush said:

The United States shares the commitment of participants in this summit to protecting our common values against those who seek to sow fear through acts of terror…

Those who carried out this attack want to impose a rigid and intolerant vision on the world… You, as much as anyone in the world, have had first-hand experience with dictatorships imposed by people who believe that they have the 'one truth' for all… We will work together, we will make one another stronger, and we will win…

The United States supports NATO membership for all of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, who share our values and are ready to contribute to security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. The future of every European nation must be determined by the progress of internal reform, not the interests of outside powers.

Lord George Robertson, the secretary-general, connected the dots for the NATO candidates. Discussing the aftermath of the attack on the U.S., he said, "It has been a searing time of self-examination. A tragedy of this scale rips away illusions. It forces us all to look at hard truths, and demonstrate… where we stand — and what we stand for.

"We must trace the money and freeze it. We must deny them safe havens, anywhere in the world. And, where necessary, we must use force to prevent them from causing further loss of innocent life."

Two points made by Lord Robertson raised eyebrows among summit participants, however. First, he noted that instability and violence provide "the most fertile ground possible for terrorism. By contrast, there is no more hostile an environment for a terrorist than a stable, prosperous country in a peaceful, secure region...

"Supporting stable, multi-ethnic states is our best insurance against terrorism emerging in the first place. Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists precisely because it does not have a viable state structure. It is a 'black hole.' That is why NATO is engaged in southeast Europe, to prevent such 'black holes' from emerging on our doorstep."

While it is self-evident that poverty, instability, and violence breed more violence, the connection is far more complicated, summit participants told NRO. After all, the U.S. is the most prosperous and pluralistic country in the world, yet it nevertheless became a target for the most heinous terrorist act in history.

And other relatively prosperous and tolerant countries, not "black holes," are also under terrorist siege: Spain, Great Britain, France, and Israel. Tamil terrorism destroyed relatively sound Sri Lanka. Historically, in fact, totalitarian countries have seen the least terrorist action.

Robertson's second controversial point was that "it is no use having heavy metal armed forces which are structured for threats we no longer face, and which cannot contribute to the kind of allied operations the new threats will require."

If Lord Robertson meant the obsolete Soviet arsenals prevalent in Eastern Europe, he may be correct. However, the recent attack clearly demonstrated the need for NATO's out-of-area power projection capabilities, which are definitely both high-tech and "heavy metal."

The secretary-general focused on the internal stability of prospective members as an important component of overall alliance security. He emphasized "not only effective police, border guards and judiciary systems, but also ensuring good relations between different ethnic groups… good relations with neighbors, and tackling such difficult issues as corruption, money laundering, and organized crime."

And he stressed that the effort to join NATO does not end in Prague in 2002, with an invitation to join the alliance. Such an invitation "is not like finishing a sprint. It is like earning a ticket to begin a marathon."

But the two most puzzling statements at the summit were offered by Ismail Cem, the Turkish foreign minister, and Milan Kucan, the Slovenian president.

Cem asked that the term "Islamic" not be used in relation to terrorism, and suggested that Christian bankers might have paid for the terrorist attack. Mr. Kucan called for putting bin Laden and his associates "in front of a court," and for introduction of the global governance by democratic states to fight the terrorist scourge. Eyes rolled and tongues clicked.

More realistic was Zbigniew Brzezinski, national-security adviser in the Carter administration, who delivered the keynote address at the summit. He offered the most comprehensive vision for NATO's future. Brzezinski called for NATO members to create and embrace the new EU-Russian economic space, and the NATO-Russian security space. He also called for making the relationship with Russia a new strategic element of NATO's security.

"Integration into the Euro-Atlantic zone is the only geopolitical choice left to Russia. It is surrounded by 290 million Muslims in the south, and there will be 450 million Muslims in the immediate Russian periphery by the year 2020. There [are] also 1.2 billion Chinese in Russia's East, with the GDP currently six times higher than Russia's.

"If Russia hasn't decided whether to make a rapprochement with NATO a tactical move or a strategic choice, we need to convince it that it should be a strategic choice," Brzezinski told NRO. "Russians would be naïve to think that NATO will destroy itself in order to let them in. But if Russia enters into strategic cooperation with NATO during the coming year, President Putin and President Kuchma of Ukraine should be invited to address the Prague summit. Appearance of Putin in Prague will be the beginning of the road to further cooperation and integration."

Brzezinski also had a creative idea for the NATO enlargement for 2002: "NATO should issue invitations to all seven candidates: the three Baltic states, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania. This will be a declaration of intention to admit, but the members should ratify membership only to those who answer the NATO political and military criteria.

"NATO should stack ratification of membership for the rest of the candidates based on their performance. Let the NATO Council select the sequence of actual admission. Thus, there will be incentive for political and military reform. But it is time to end the uncertainty. Enlargement calls for real leadership, determination, and sense of historical dimension," Brzezinski concluded.

Held in a quiet south European capital, far away from the main theater of operations, the summit was almost anti-climactic. The meeting was one of the final chords in the coda of the old melody — that of the Cold War against Communism. And it held only a hint of the new motif — the martial song of the new war that's just beginning.