Ukraine’s Slow Movement to NATO Is Irrevocable Even without the MAP

An interesting perspective from the Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research (UCIPR):

As long ago as the adoption of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan in 2002, officials and experts noted that by its essence, the document is the Membership Action Plan. Then Secretary of the NSDC Yevhen Marchuk stated, "By its gist, the Action Plan is de facto the Membership Action Plan. It incorporates almost all activities provided for in the MAP"

Full Analysis:

Research Update. Vol. 14, № 40/558, 28 November 2008
Ukraine's Slow Movement to NATO Is Irrevocable Even without the MAP
By Vitaliy Martynyuk, UCIPR analyst

The issue of Ukraine's joining the Membership Action Plan (MAP) is getting more and more acute on the eve of the important for our country meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels on December 2-3, 2008. Over the period after the Bucharest summit, positions of Member States actually remained the same. The United States, Poland, the Baltic States and some Central European countries support Ukraine on its path to NATO membership, whereas Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Luxemburg are restrained and believe the MAP premature for our country. Given the situation, the Alliance's problem is the absence of unanimity regarding Ukraine's membership provided that a respective obligation undertaken in Bucharest is carried out and that Ukraine determines its further progress towards its Euro-Atlantic integration.

There were statements that Ukraine and Georgia are not ready for the MAP. Yet, it is impossible to be ready or not ready for it because the MAP is neither an attribute nor a guarantee of membership but a mechanism of preparation for membership in the Alliance. Therefore, granting the MAP means a purely political and even geo-political signal. A failure to give the MAP to Ukraine might seem a little strange. Under the Declaration of the Bucharest summit, the political decision that Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members has already been made and the MAP is a long-lasting procedure for its implementation. And the beginning of this procedure takes longer than planned.

This week, the USA in the person of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has held a series of consultations with European allies on perspectives for Ukraine and Georgia's MAP in December 2008. On receiving a signal about negative attitude of some EU Member States and a high possibility that these countries, first of all France and Germany, will not support the MAP for Ukraine and Georgia, the USA changed rhetoric a little. Condoleezza Rice said about unreadiness of Ukraine and Georgia for membership and a possibility for their joining the Alliance bypassing current procedures as suggested by the Great Britain.

The USA did not convince the European allies to grant Ukraine the MAP as it happened on the eve of the Bucharest summit. First, the USA is on the verge of the change of Presidents, when political leaders avoid resolute actions. Next American President Barack Obama supports the MAP for both countries but is concerned about the attitude of the European allies and prefers to solve another problem, i.e. the support of NATO's military operation in Afghanistan.

Second, the Alliance, save different views on its further enlargement, has a number of other contradictions, in particular the further role of NATO in Afghanistan and the involvement of ISAF forces in the operation, the insufficient defense funding of some Member States, NATO further expansion and the content of its new Strategic Concept.

Third, NATO Member States, which are simultaneously the EU Members, especially Germany and France, gradually but persistently advocate the priority of developing the EU defense element, which has to become NATO's bulwark in Europe. The increase of pressure on the European allies might lead to the enhancement of the European Defense and Security Policy (EDSP) and the weakening of transatlantic ties. Notwithstanding France's statement that "the Atlantic Alliance play the core role in European security", and "is important for security of France" (see Livre blanc sur la d?fense et la s?curit? nationale), as long ago as 2007, French parliament assumed that the development of the European defense might erode the role of NATO with the lapse of time and, as a result, the gradual liquidation of the Alliance (see Rapport d'information N° 3700 sur les ?volutions des relations transatlantiques en mati?re de d?fense, Assembl?e nationale, France, 14 f?vrier 2007).

Fourth, Western European countries strive to develop stable and predictable relations with Russia. The fact that the EU decided to resume negotiations with Russia on the New Strategic Agreement despite its denial to let the EUMM mission's observers to the territory of the South Ossetia confirms the above. "Old" Europeans are against tension in relations and rapid steps that would irritate Russia, especially after the escalation of tension in the Caucasus this August.

As is evident, Ukraine just like Georgia shall not hope to get the MAP this December. The NATO anniversary summit is unlikely to result in the long-expected Plan as well. In Strasburg and Cologne, the allies will celebrate the anniversary, assess achievements over six decades and discuss plans for the future in the context of the new Strategic Concept. To make the ceremony more solemn, they might officially declare Croatia and Albania members of NATO, which has to demonstrate the progress in the enlargement process. The issues of Ukraine and Georgia will be considered though rather as a confirmation of the Bucharest obligations and opportunities for their implementation.

Should Ukraine speed up events and emphasize the need to get the MAP as soon as possible? Given the current situation, when Allied States are not unanimous, it should not. The allies will not yield unity, which serves as a basis for their collective security, for the sake of any other country. Neither will they want to sharpen the situation in Europe and in its eastern part, since the enlargement process must strengthen the Euro-Atlantic security and not generate challenges for it. Russia still views NATO eastward expansion as a threat to its national interests.

This is mirrored in the New Foreign Policy Concept of Russia reading, "Russia retains the negative attitude to NATO enlargement, especially as regards plans for membership of Ukraine and Georgia in the Alliance" (see the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, July 12, 2008).

And the Alliance itself will not take such a rapid step. NATO strives to keep up the dialogue with Russia without sacrificing its values. At the 54th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on November 11, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said, "After all, NATO enlargement was never a goal in itself. It was, and remains, a means to an end: a stable Europe at peace with itself; a Europe in which all countries feel at home and secure. Achieving this end required a three-track strategy: a broad cooperative framework embracing virtually all the countries on our continent; a specific policy for those countries interested in joining NATO; and a determined attempt to draw Russia closer to the Alliance" (see Keynote address by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the 54th Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, 18.11.2008). Though participants in the Parliamentary Assembly stated that Ukraine's joining the MAP this December could signal the priority of East European Security for the Alliance, the support to Ukraine's integration movement and the inability of any third party to affect NATO decisions (see 164 PC 08 E rev. 1- NATO's Future Political Agenda).

So, what shall Ukraine do in this situation? Our country should rather count on NATO membership in the long-term perspective. After the Alliance passes the new Strategic Concept, a clear mechanism for coordination of the ESDP and NATO will be worked out and a clear and unanimous attitude of the Alliance Member States to Russia will be assumed with regard to NATO eastward expansion.

As it has been mentioned, Ukraine has to continue Euro-Atlantic integration whether it is granted the MAP this December or not. At the same time, it is necessary to proceed with democratization of the country, carry out reforms in all spheres to meet membership criteria, inform Ukrainian population about the Alliance in order to increase the support level and depoliticize the process of Euro-Atlantic integration. If the above conditions are fulfilled, in two years Ukraine might embark on the path ending in NATO membership.

As long ago as the adoption of the NATO-Ukraine Action Plan in 2002, officials and experts noted that by its essence, the document is the Membership Action Plan. Then Secretary of the NSDC Yevhen Marchuk stated, "By its gist, the Action Plan is de facto the Membership Action Plan. It incorporates almost all activities provided for in the MAP" (see "The Course of Geo-Politics", the "Day" newspaper, No. 86, May 22, 2003). Ukraine still holds the same position. Specifically, on November 27, 2008, ex-Foreign Minister of Ukraine Hennadiy Udovenko underscored that the MAP is not fundamental but rather moral aspect for Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration. The Defense Ministry of Ukraine also stated about a possibility to join NATO without the MAP. On November 24, 2008, Chief of the General Staff Department for Euro-Atlantic Integration Major General Borys Kremenetsky pointed out that Ukraine could pass this way due to the active involvement in activities of the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

In fact, there is no difference whether Ukraine will comply with the MAP to be a member of the Alliance or will implement any other procedure, e.g. a new NATO-Ukraine Action Plan and activities in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission. The latter could be a body coordinating the implementation of needed reforms in Ukraine and the achievement of membership criteria or, in other words, a joint body responsible for the process of Ukraine's preparations for NATO membership. The main thing is to attain the ultimate goal that is guarantees of collective security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for Ukraine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Research Update bulletin is published in English and Ukrainian by the Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research (UCIPR) in assistance with the National Endowment for Democracy since December 1995.

From December 2006, the Research Update is published in English in the framework of the "Increasing Institutional and Program Capacity/2006-2008" Project of the Open Society Institute Zug Foundation. Distribution of the bulletin is free.

West Europe's Appeasement Emboldened Russia's Belligerence in Georgia

Excellent article by John R. Bolton in the Washington Post and an excellent letter to the editor in response to it by Robert McConnell, the co-founder of the US-Ukraine Foundation. If only the Western European states would heed the message before it's too late.

Response 10/21/2008

A NATO Path for Ukraine and Georgia

A16 (Post)

Article 10/20/2008

Russia Unromanticized

John R. Bolton, A15 (Post)

There is only one thing Russians understand: the language of power

An excerpt from an article from Der Spiegel:

Language of Power

"And," Miroslav Mamchak asks, smiling, "what was the outcome of that war? Russia lost, and Sevastopol fell. All enemies that have ever come here have captured the city - that is the bitter truth about this city of heroes."

A retired sea captain in the Black Sea fleet, Mamchak was one of the first to swear an oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian flag, in 1992. Today he is one of the few who fearlessly expresses something that ought to be legally indisputable: that the port city is an inalienable part of Ukrainian territory and that the presence of the Russian fleet is contractually limited until 2017.

Mamchak, who is also the chairman of the "Ukrainian Society" and general manager of "Briz," a military radio station, has come under heavy fire from Russians in the city. He is caricatured on posters as an SS officer and fascist with a Hitler moustache, and, as he says, the words "Get out of Sevastopol" were scrawled onto the walls of his house. Mamchak insists that he will not be forced to his knees by "criminals" and "mentally ill" warmongers.

The sorely afflicted city of heroes, says Mamchak, urgently needs a civilian concept for the future. "We currently have 100 meters (328 feet) of quay for warships, but only 90 meters (295 feet) for cruise ships. That has to change," he says. Mamchak's vision of a Sevastopol of the future includes tourists instead of torpedoes in the city's harbors, and "Ukrainian culture" instead of post-Soviet hero worship.

And how is this to be achieved against Moscow's wishes? Quite simply, says Mamchak: "Ukraine desperately needs to become part of NATO. Or re-obtain nuclear weapons. There is only one thing Russians understand: the language of power."

Monday, October 06, 2008

Russia And Ukraine Jockey In The Black Sea

http://blog.kievukraine.info/2008/10/russia-and-ukraine-jockey-in-black-sea.html

Admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO

Alexander J. Motyl, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, has published this wonderful opinion piece in International Herald Tribune:

"All of Russia's non-Russian neighbors, know that the war in Georgia is really about them."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/27/opinion/edlet.php
International Herald Tribune, August 27, 2008

Resurgent Russia
Alexander J. Motyl, PhD

Russia's blitzkrieg against Georgia has taken place 70 years after the infamous Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938, when France, Britain and Italy agreed to cede Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the hope of establishing "peace in our time."

Like Hitler's Germany, Vladimir Putin's Russia is a post-imperial authoritarian state that must expand. The Soviet empire's collapse in 1991 left the Russian population feeling humiliated; economic collapse in the early 1990s only compounded their demoralization. As in Germany, Russians blamed democracy for their collapse and humiliation. And, as in Germany, a strongman promising greatness and glory seized power, dismantled democracy, and created an authoritarian, hyper-nationalist regime with a personality cult based on promises to re-establish imperial greatness.

The war against Georgia is not the first instance of Russia's aggressiveness vis-à-vis its former colonies. Estonia was the target of a cyberwar; Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic have been subjected to energy cut-offs; Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have been punished by trade sanctions.

These states, like all of Russia's non-Russian neighbors, know that the war in Georgia is really about them.

The Munich Agreement is considered a classic example of the perils of appeasement. Had the democracies said no then, it's possible that World War II could have been averted. At some point - and that point surely arrived with Russia's invasion of Georgia - the West must learn to say no to Russia. Expelling Russia from the G-8 would be symbolically nice, but Putin would respond with a laugh. Only an "anti-Munich" would say no in a meaningful fashion: Admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO's Membership Action Plan - immediately. Putin will glare in response; he will threaten retaliation - and then, like all loud-mouthed dictators, he will acquiesce.

Alexander J. Motyl
Newark, New Jersey
Professor of political science, Rutgers University

Ukrainians increasingly supportive of NATO membership

According to this Radio Liberty article:
"The Ukrainian government still has much to do to convince its people of the advantages of joining NATO. But the percentage of Ukrainians favoring membership has doubled over the last three years, reaching 36 percent. However, 28 percent remain opposed to membership and the other third are undecided."
http://www.rferl.org/content/Merkel_Ukraine_Visit_Crucial_Shift/1185043.html

If even half of this 36% of undecided Ukrainians can be convinced by the pro-NATO side, then Ukraine will be in NATO, sooner rather than later. All that's necessary is for another 15% of Ukrainians to go from undecided to supportive.

Merkel is strongly supportive of Ukraine's NATO drive

"[German Chancellor Angela] Merkel stressed that the issue of Ukraine's membership does not concern anyone else. "It cannot be that other countries that don't belong to the alliance are discussing this issue," Merkel said. "It is a question for Ukraine and NATO." Merkel also said that Ukraine has made strong progress toward further integration with the European Union." http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/21/europe/EU-Ukraine-Germany.php

It's great to see European nations starting to coalesce in support of Ukraine's integration into European institutions. I have also read a recent article in Ukrainian press that the Czech Republic is opening an office in Dnipropetrovsk with the goal of increasing support for NATO in that part of Ukraine and "sharing with Ukrainians which mistakes to avoid in the integration process".

So, Angela Merkel telling the Russians it is none of the business whether Ukraine joins NATO, is welcome news indeed.

Henry Kissinger is Moscow's "useful fool"

Henry Kissinger recently wrote an opinion article in Washington Post, entitled "Finding Common Ground With Russia," in which he advises United States to appease Russia and not "humiliate it" and agree to many current Russian demands, such as stopping the push for Ukraine's NATO membership. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702218.html

My personal opinion is that Kissinger is a "useful fool" of the Putinist Russia. He seems so concerned about a decade of perceived Russian humiliation and is absolutely unconcerned about hundreds of years of actual and extreme Ukrainian humiliation and national destruction. Just one example here: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pages\E\M\EmsUkase.htm Kissinger is basically repeating the talking points of the Kremlin - if Ukraine wants to be in the EU, that's great, but NATO - that's not necessary.

To the Russians, brotherly behavior has always meant sucking resources and creativity out of Ukraine, but claiming credit exclusively for Russia. For goodness sake, many Russians still consider the Klitschko brothers to be "their boxers" and list them on Russian sports sites as Russian boxers, along with some other Ukrainian athletes. Basically, if an athlete is primarily Russian-speaking, then he is claimed as "Russian".

And don't even start me on where the name of their nation comes from. Peter the First renamed his fiefdom of Muscovy into the Russian Empire after taking over Ukraine-Rus.

In any case, one thing is clear - Kissinger is not a friend of Ukraine or its European aspirations.

Why Ukraine Needs to be in NATO

In spite of the fact that the Russian Federation is growing economically and is becoming more intertwined by trade with the rest of the world, I believe it still poses a major danger to Ukraine's territorial and cultural integrity. Ukraine absolutely needs to become a member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And this is quite apart from the fact that NATO is an elite organization, being a member of which will add political weight to Ukraine, and the fact that joining NATO has been a precursor to joining the EU for all of the Eastern European states that have taken this path.

Yes, trade and democracy tends to lessen conflict, at least between real democracies. But Russia is not a real democracy and neither does it pretend to be. "Managed democracy" is a form of authoritarianism, which is precisely what Russia is. Entangling the Russian empire into the European and global trading systems is going to make it more difficult for Russia to wreak havoc. But Muscovites are not a reasonable kind of people. They easily destroy their own economic benefit for the sake of pride and power. How else do you explain the recent events of the complete blocking of trade with Georgia, for example, and now bringing the situation to the brink of war by pulling Russia's troops into Georgia and shooting down a Georgian recoinnassance plane?

Wealth breeds pride and hubris, and power breeds corruption and desire for asserting that power. Russia's newfound oil wealth is getting to the Moscow leaders' heads and they are becoming much more assertive and reckless. The fact of the matter is that, unlike the Western European states (or Greece, or Rome, or the Mongols, or any other empire known to history), Muscovy has never lost its empire. And as long it has this empire, it continues to justify having it, and not just having it, but expanding it. Because in their view, if you are not expanding, then you are contracting. Which is probably true in Russia's case. And as long as Russia remains an empire, it will never be a safe and reasonable country to deal with, and especially so for its neighboring nations that used to be part of that empire and are now seen by Muscovites as a target for reabsorption, at least in part if not in whole. Russian officials are already threatening to break up Ukraine and refusing to leave Ukraine with their Black Sea Fleet on time, even though the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits foreign military bases on Ukrainian soil. Russia will cease to be an empire only when it looses its entire Asian possessions, as well as the Southern Muslim Republics and possibly the Tatar areas as well. Although they are so intermixed with the Tatars, they may choose to stay together, but if recent history is any guide, if Bashkiria and Tatarstan autonomous Republics within the Russian Federation were given a choice, they would choose to be independent.

On top of it, Russia will be a majority Muslim nation within a generation. Since it's not really a democracy, that's less of a concern, since democratic Muslim nations tend to elect more religiously and politically extreme governments. Also, since Russia's Muslims are fairly secularized, it could become more like Turkey - a secular Muslim empire. Easier to deal with, but not exactly European material.

So, NATO is going to remain an important option for Ukraine to take advantage of to secure its own future.