The agony of NATO

A phantom organization is trying to restore unity

Seven former socialist countries (including the three Baltic states), invited to join the NATO military bloc in November, found themselves in a delicate situation. The alliance they so strive to join is in a grave crisis. NATO Secretary General yesterday assessed the situation as “very serious,” and US Secretary of State Colin Powell called on the Alliance for unity. However, it is no secret that Americans already look at the bloc created in 1949 as an anachronism, suitable only for satisfying the vanity of neophytes like the former Soviet republics.

The crisis began due to Article 4 of the NATO Charter, which was invoked, as the Vremya Novostei newspaper was told at the Alliance headquarters, “most likely for the first time.” The article provides for urgent consultations at the request of one of the bloc countries if it perceives an external threat to its security. Türkiye, which borders Iraq, will inevitably become a springboard for the Americans attacking it: accordingly, it may find itself the victim of a counterattack from Baghdad. The US responded favorably to Ankara's request for protection. However, Old Europe suddenly rebelled.

France and Belgium, and later Germany, officially yesterday broke the so-called “procedure of silence” regarding the package of measures proposed by the United States to protect Turkey in the event of war in Iraq. The “procedure of silence” involves the automatic entry into force of the draft if, by a certain hour, none of the allies has sent a formal objection. But the mentioned “troika” took advantage of the veto power that each member of the alliance has and blocked the package. The point, of course, is not in Turkey. France, Germany and Belgium are convinced that making a decision on NATO's participation in the anti-Iraq campaign is tantamount to admitting that political options for resolving the crisis have been exhausted and war is inevitable.

The anti-war positions of France and Germany were known. In addition, France is not a member of NATO's joint military structure and, to some extent, its veto can be regarded as an attempt to dispose of property that does not belong to it. Nevertheless, France is a full member of NATO, makes political decisions on the use of force, and there are formulas for its participation in military operations. Paris was expected to transfer units to protect against weapons of mass destruction to the southeast of Turkey.

It is more surprising that this time Belgium, the host country of NATO’s governing bodies (the organization’s headquarters is located in Brussels), became an active promoter of the troika’s ideas. “Belgium may be a small country of Old Europe, but it is proud of its closeness to France, which to some extent saved the honor of the continent by preventing war from breaking out so far,” said Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel. He rejected US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prediction that the people of Europe would condemn the "shameful" position of "certain NATO countries." According to the Belgian minister, Brussels “takes into account the pressure of public opinion.” “We must do everything to avoid this conflict, which will not only be a blow to the population of Iraq, but will also result in great damage for us, European countries, for our economy,” he said.

Yesterday, Belgium's disagreement with NATO's involvement in military preparations was confirmed by the Prime Minister of this country, Guy Verhofstadt. And the Belgian Minister of Defense called for an urgent meeting of his colleagues in the European Union. Greece, which presides over the EU, also plans to organize a meeting one of these days on the problem of Iraq, which, by the way, is now making serious concessions. Just yesterday, Baghdad allowed U-2 reconnaissance aircraft to fly over its territory, which it had previously objected to.

According to an informed NATO official, who agreed to answer questions from the Vremya Novostey newspaper on condition of anonymity, the NATO Secretary General hopes that the Turks will present a new document to the NATO Council - analyzing the reasons for their fears for security and territorial integrity. After hearing these arguments, the troika may decide not to interfere with the start of military planning. After all, planning is not yet the deployment of forces, which requires a special decision and also by consensus.

This outcome is the hope of those who are trying to salvage NATO's image as a reliable defense organization. Its leadership seeks to downplay the significance of the conflict within the alliance, recalling that there were disagreements before, for example, on the war in Kosovo or on NATO expansion, but then they were eventually resolved. True, today it will be more difficult to save face and, importantly, to finance NATO. US Permanent Representative to NATO Nick Burns, speaking to reporters from the meeting room, said that due to the actions of Belgium, France and Germany, the Alliance faces a crisis of confidence.

NATO will re-meet on Turkey and the related issue of Iraq this morning at an emergency meeting of the NATO Council. “We are faced with a very serious problem that needs to be solved,” Alliance Secretary General George Robertson said yesterday after a difficult evening meeting on the same topic. At the same time, Pentagon chief Rumsfeld sarcastically noted that if NATO does not return to unity, the United States will use “other opportunities, bilateral and multilateral,” to help Turkey. Although “I would like,” he added, “for all this to happen within the framework of NATO.” It seems that if this continues, the once powerful bloc will no longer threaten anyone, including Russia, whose borders it is formally approaching. Former Soviet republics are rushing to join a phantom organization.

Alexander MINEEV, Brussels, Elena SUPONINA