NATO enlargement 10 years on

For the Czech Republic and other central and eastern European countries, joining NATO ten years ago was a milestone on their journey from Soviet-style dictatorship to freedom and democracy. Joining the alliance meant becoming part of a respected, stable and democratic security structure; it confirmed that these countries, trapped in the communist block for four decades, had returned to the free world. With the fall of communism and the changing face of Europe the alliance has also had to redefine its role in response to new threats and challenges.

Václav Havel, photo: CTK

NATO officials gathered in Prague this week for an international conference “NATO: 10 Years On”, held to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Czech Republic joining the alliance, along with Poland and Hungary. These were the first post-communist countries, all former members of the Warsaw Pact, to join their one-time enemy and to become fully-fledged members of NATO. As Mr. Havel pointed out, no one was quite sure back then what the future would bring.

“There was this idea that if communism collapses and the Iron Curtain comes down, if the Warsaw Pact is dissolved as a tool of Soviet hegemony, NATO would also lose its purpose, and some other, all-European security structure would be established. This idea proved to be irrelevant and unsuitable as early as the late 1980s.”

It soon became obvious, Mr. Havel said, that it would be a waste of time, money and resources to build something new from scratch when there was an established and well-run security structure based on the common values of the democratic world. The Czech Republic, together with other central and eastern European countries made a bid to join the alliance and set about fulfilling the respective criteria. In 1999 three of them realized their ambition. Ten years on, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the Czech Republic’s entry to NATO had been a very personal experience for her.

Madeleine Albright, photo: CTK

“My father was a Czechoslovak diplomat, and he left Czechoslovakia in 1948 when the communists took over. Studying history, it was very evident to me that it took the United States a long time to figure out what the Soviets were doing at the end of the Cold War in assembling the satellite nations. And it took the coup in Czechoslovakia in February 1948 to have them realize the threat, and that is why NATO was formed. So I think it was a great accident in timing that it was President Clinton and I who had the opportunity to bring the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO, and to close that circle.”

NATO, too, understood that this was the end of an era, and the beginning of a new one. The alliance quickly recognized the fact that it could be instrumental in restoring the values of freedom and democracy in the former communist block states. The UK’s Edgar Buckley was NATO Assistant Secretary General at the time the Czech Republic joined the alliance.

“I think that it’s fantastic, the transformation that has occurred in this country, and indeed the other countries that joined NATO at that time. It’s a change for all time, and it was NATO that did that. NATO came to these countries years before the European Union did; NATO set the standard for democracy, and for governance and for the transformation of armed forces which was so important to the change which we have seen in Europe.”

From the Czech Republic’s point of view, joining NATO was the logical completion of the country’s transformation. But, at the time, some of the old members of the alliance had doubts about the wisdom of opening the door to the newly emerged democracies.

“The reason there was such a debate was that it was feared that countries like the Czech Republic, if they got into NATO, they might not agree to other countries coming in. They might have a rather selfish approach to membership in this organization. But then, in this debate, one very wise ambassador pointed out, if you don’t trust countries like the Czech Republic, to behave as we would, then you shouldn’t bring them in at all. And that was the end of the debate.”

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Mirek Topolánek (right), photo: CTK

The Czech Republic’s integration into the alliance was long and difficult but in the end, the Czech Army emerged as an efficient and professional corps, quite unlike the communist armed forces which relied on heavy weaponry and excessive numbers of rank-and-file troops. Today, the country has nearly 1,000 troops deployed in NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

“The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have all integrated smoothly. They have made their voices heard, of course. But they have also displayed the same team spirit as all the other allies, and contributed to the collective decision making that underpins our alliance. More than that, they have become important and valued contributors to NATO operations and missions. Look at the Czech Republic today – it deploys 580 soldiers in ISAF, and just over 400 in KFOR, which is a very considerable and highly appreciated contribution.”

These were the achievements both of the former communist countries, and of the alliance that took them on. But today, less than a month before NATO’s summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, the alliance is facing several serious challenges, and there is a marked lack of consensus among the member states on some of these issues. NATO’s secretary general said the war in Afghanistan is perhaps the most challenging task the alliance is facing today.

“As an alliance, we’ve had considerable success in training and equipping the Afghan national army, and we must build on that progress. But there’s a lot more we, and the international community as a whole, can do on the civilian side as well. Helping the Afghans to build functioning institutions, to better fight crime and corruption, and get a better grip of the narcotics problem. And of course, we must look beyond Afghanistan; we must take into account a wider region, and especially Pakistan, with which we must deepen our engagement.”

Another pressing issue the alliance has to deal with, and one on which agreement is even more difficult to reach, has to do with Russia.

“When NATO started its enlargement process in the 1990s, there were fears that we would alienate Russia. There were Russian concerns about what the enlargement would mean for them. Where we judged these concerns to be legitimate, we sought to address them; where we felt them to be inappropriate, we made it clear that the future of Europe could not be held hostage to outmoded concepts of spheres of influence. On balance, this approach worked.”

The way to go, according to NATO’s leadership, is to re-engage Russia in a dialogue. Last week, NATO foreign ministers agreed to re-launch regular NATO-Russia meetings which were disrupted after the Russian military attacked Georgia. Mr Scheffer emphasized that this was not tantamount to accepting Russia’s point of view.

“Does it mean we agree on Georgia? No. Does it mean that we accept the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? No. Does it mean that we accept Russia’s intention to build military bases in those parts of Georgian territory, as confirmed by 23 Security Council resolutions? Absolutely not. Let’s discuss it with the Russians at the NATO-Russia council. Let’s see when we can cooperate and work together, but let’s not forget to discuss and debate our fundamental differences.”

These are some of the problems NATO will discuss at the upcoming summit in Strasbourg. It will also welcome two new members on board – Croatia and Albania. It will elect its new leader, as Mr Scheffer’s term in office expires. And it will probably touch upon the subject of Georgia and Ukraine joining the alliance at some time in the future, although no set date will probably be announced. But the NATO Secretary General said that one thing was clear even now – the alliance will keep its door open to new members in the future.

“We have made clear repeatedly, and will no doubt do so again at our next summit, that NATO’s door remains open for future members. And interested countries, like everyone else, know and should know, that we mean what we say. NATO’s door remains open.”