Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
East Europe remains in Cold War no man's land VACLAV HAVEL once eloquently warned the world of the dangers of neglecting the new democracies that flowered in Eastern Europe a decade ago. "If the West does not stabilise the East," he said, "the East will destabilise the West."
|
Since the fall of the wall statesmen from Sofia to Vilnius, from Warsaw to Ljubljana, have pursued one objective: to seize the historic opportunity of Russia's weakness to cement themselves into the economic, political and military structures of Western Europe.
But despite the West's protestations of support, they have still not achieved this goal. The East Europeans want rapid membership of both the European Union and Nato, to secure not only Nato's defence guarantee but the benefits of full economic integration with the West. Yet the obstacles placed in their way have been formidable.
After years of haggling, Nato's defensive umbrella has been extended to just three new members: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. And the EU, while it has started talks with those three, plus Estonia and Slovenia, full membership remains distant.
The line from Nato is that the alliance remains open to a "second wave" of new members. But no one is prepared to state when, and there has not even been a serious attempt to launch discussions on the issue.
As a result of the Kosovo war, relations between Russia and the West remain antagonistic, a factor that is further complicated by America's decision to choose just this moment to announce that it wants to start work on an anti-missile defence system - in Russian eyes, a destabilising threat to its own nuclear deterrent. So there seems to be no appetite for a further provocative act by Nato.
But this leaves the countries which were turned down for Nato membership when the alliance formally expanded last year in limbo. Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the three Baltic states are all anxious to be members, and increasingly frustrated that there is no sign of this coming.
The position of the Baltic states - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - is especially precarious. Western diplomats admit that there is no prospect of these three former Soviet republics joining the alliance in the forseeable future. "In Russian eyes, this would bring Nato to the gates of St Petersburg," said one. "It would diminish security in Europe, not enhance it." Excluded from Nato, the bulk of Eastern Europe must instead hope for EU membership, not just for its economic benefits, but because at least, in theory, no one would dare to attack an EU member.
But EU expansion never seems to happen. The latest (unofficial) target is 2003, though the original one was 2000. In December, the EU will add six countries to the continuing negotiations, which is likely to slow things further. There are two reasons for the delay. One is that there appears to be a consensus that Poland, in view of its tragic history and strategic importance, must be in the "first wave" of new members. But Poland is economically much more backward than Slovenia or Hungary. So the process is likely to be held up.
The second is that expanding the EU from 15 members to perhaps 27 will require root-and-branch reform, a task EU governments have ducked but will grapple with again next year. It will involve, among other things, demands for the Common Agricultural Policy to be scaled back, which the French will hate, and for national vetoes to be largely scrapped, anathema to the British.
11 November 1999: France 'leading campaign to break up Nato'
8 October 1999: EU defence plan must not challenge Nato, warns US
16 August 1999: Why Europe must not divorce itself from Nato
11 March 1999: Nato protection spreads across eastern Europe
7 March 1999: Eastern security chaos mars Nato's enlargement party
25 June 1999: Finland puts Turks at the forefront of EU expansion
6 June 1999: Monetary and military union are doomed
18 February 1999: Russian spies 'trying to sabotage Nato expansion'
28 January 1999: Slovakia confident of early EU membership
13 January 1999: Germany calls for end to EU veto
6 May 1998: [UK News] Defence chiefs warn against enlarging Nato
 | ||
|
 |
[
Front Page |
UK News |
International News |
City News |
City Analysis |
Businesses |
Personal Finance |
Sport |
Features |
Reviews |
Search |
Feedback |
Alex |
Site Plan |
Daily Index |
Weather |
Crossword |
Matt |
Travel |
Books |
Technology |
Students |
Schools |
Opinions |
Classifieds |
Appointments ]
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 1999. Terms & Conditions of reading. Commercial information.
|
Please don't forget that much of E. Europe wants to be a part of NATO because they are tired of being a speed-bump for the Soviets. The Baltics and the rest of E. Europe should be supported, unless liberty is an objectionable concept.
FYI
The Baltics and the rest of E. Europe should be supported, unless liberty is an objectionable concept.
Support for liberty - how? By having the UN and its family go in and set up shop? By having the IMF start dictating economic policy? And we all know that the IMF sure does have a wonderful track record.
Support for liberty - should be not be trying to entice a country's government to push for NATO membership without the major support of its population.
E. Europe is begging for our help. Let's throw them the life-line. They don't give a sh** what our true reasons are, they just want to belong to the winning side. [the side that they chose in the 40's]
Do you realize what NATO membership means? It means that the US and other member nations must commit their full military might behind any incursion of the territory of any other member nation. Are we willing to go to all-out war with Russia over defending fine democracies like Albania?
Take it to 'em . . . f*** the communists, let's kick 'em when they're down. Finish the f***ing job, let's go.
Oh yes indeed. Let's risk a military confrontation with Russia over Estonia. That's the by-product of Clinton/NATO's expansionist policies.
That someone thinks this is wonderful scares the living daylights out of me.
let's go.
No. You go. We'll see you when you get back.
Rabid support for NATO may be a side effect from taking too much Viagra, as in the case of Bob Dole. I noticed that VACLAV HAVEL married a "trophy bride" - could he be afflicted too? The only problem with this theory is how do you explain Halfbright? Sorry, I could not resist, just this once.
I take it you mean NAZI Germany, when you refer to the side they chose in the 1940's? Nice use of dry humor.
hehe . . . thanks for pointing that out . . . I won't use that phrase again.
My point is not that we should go to war over Estonia, but that the countries of E. Europe deserve our support. Unlike the Balkans, the populations of these countries want to integrate themselves with the West. Let's put something together, if not a military alliance, than an economic one. Why give the former Communists a foothold? Again, we should kick them while they're down. Why wait for the Communists to come to us? I feel that our next president should specialize in foreign policy, or the one after better brush up on the Cold War.
If that is your point, then you are ignoring the thrust of the story. The purpose of NATO is not to "offer support" to these nations. It is specifically to offer "mutual defense," in effect that we WILL go to war over Estonia. If you are supporting something different, then don't say you want NATO to bring us to the brink of nuclear war.
From Stratfor.com
2209 GMT, 991116 – Duma Vote Speaks to Russian Politics, and Latvian Law
The Russian Duma passed a bill Nov. 16 that would prohibit trade with Latvia or Latvian businesses. Lawmakers, and the Russian press, framed the measure as an attempt to protect ethnic Russians from Latvian efforts to declare Russian a foreign language. Rather than aiming at the creation of an actual law, the vote appears to be part of an ongoing effort to pressure the Baltics away from an alliance with the West – and an attempt to play the nationalist card in election-year politics. Russia has consistently reminded the Baltic states seeking NATO admission that they have a powerful neighbor to the east.
Russia objects to Latvia’s proposed state language law, which comes before parliament Dec. 9, because it defines Russian as a foreign language. Ethnic Russians make up about 30 percent of the population and are part of the non-Latvian minority that controls 80 percent of the Latvian economy. Latvia has already tempered the law to meet NATO and European Union requirements. Still, from the Russian viewpoint the language law symbolizes an attempt by Latvia to move out of its sphere of influence.
The proposal to sanction Latvia was undoubtedly influenced by the campaign for upcoming parliamentary election. Duma politicians may be hoping to cash in on the nationalist sentiment that has pushed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s popularity to record levels. The fact that the sanction bill passed the lower house with all 255 representatives present voting in favor suggests a symbolic vote. The bill still needs the approval of the upper house and the Yeltsin administration. Either may balk at the economic implications of the measure.
Implementing this law would hurt Russia, which depends heavily on Latvia to get its oil out; shipping Russian oil abroad is Latvia’s primary export industry. Russia depends upon export terminals in Latvia -- as well as Ukraine -- to export its crude to foreign purchasers.
The measure was more likely intended to influence Latvian lawmakers and Russian voters, than to become Russian policy. Moscow politicians want to halt the shift of former Baltic territories toward the West. Relegating Russian to the status of foreign language is a symbolic step in this direction. For the domestic audience, Duma politicians wish to appear protective of Russian interests, and strong enough to punish states that step out of line. They also want to make sure Latvia sees this strength and knows Russia is willing to slap them with sanctions.
______
I agree with you concerning the "mutual defense" aspect of belonging to NATO, and that it would be unwise to enter into a defense alliance with countries that cannot be defended. I honestly do not believe that the Baltics are expecting thousands of troops to be stationed on their territories.
But can anyone fault them for seeking closer ties of any kind with the West? Look at what the Russians are doing. The Baltics have nothing in common with Russia, other than the fact that they were forcibly occupied by Russia for 40 years. Let's bring them into the sort of alliance that doesn't threaten military retaliation if they're occupied again, but at least some form of economic sanction.
By the way, they're accustomed to the US doing nothing, but they keep trying anyway. Doesn't that count for anything?
>>>The Baltics have nothing in common with Russia, other than the fact that they were forcibly occupied by Russia for 40 years.<<<
Do they still teach history in American schools? (no offence, just wondering).
Again, we should kick them while they're down....
This is the type of attitude that can get a lot of people killed. I guess they don't teach history, or current events either, much anymore. Can you spell F-A-L-L-O-U-T S-H-E-L-T-E-R. Nah, why bother, I forgot we also gave up civil defense years ago. Guess who didn't.
Buchanan was absolutely right about one thing in his book - Britain and France should never have made guarantees to Poland that they were unable and unwilling to honor. Nato simply don't have the ability to project power that far east. Hungary is a defensive nightmare. Nato expansion is nuts - provides no benefits that I can see, is a hollow promise to the prospective new countries, inflames the Russians and puts the U.S. military at greater risk.
Let me try to put my position in perspective. Should we f*** with China now, or wait for them to come to us? Should we hang Taiwan out to dry because they don't respresent a strategic interest?
The observation that I'm making, based on a study of military history that goes back to Alexander the Great, is that other peoples' problems tend to become your own pretty damn quickly.
I doubt that they spend much time on WWII. I figured occupation in 1945, independence in 1990 (Lithuania) on the fly. I never claimed I was good at math.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
