Research Paper Research Division - NATO Defense College, Rome - No. 81 – September 2012 NATO Enlargement Reloaded by Karl-Heinz Kamp 1 The dispute about who will become a new NATO member and when is Contents set to make it back on the transatlantic agenda. Debates in the Alliance have for years been dominated by operations in Afghanistan or the Two Difficult Membership evolution of NATO’s partnership approach, but now the enlargement Applicants 2 question is coming up again and might lead to strong disagreements The Roots of the Debate 3 among the allies. First discussions among NATO members in the Russia and Enlargement 4 recent months hint into that direction. All NATO nations concur that Georgia in NATO – Pros and Cons 5 the door for new members should remain open; the question is which How to Deal With the Membership countries should join the Alliance, and when? Question? 7 At NATO’s Chicago Summit in May 2012, US Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton suggested that Chicago should be the last NATO summit not explicitly focusing on enlargement.2 From this statement, which went largely unnoticed by the public, it can be logically inferred that all forthcoming summits should deal with inviting new members to join NATO, showing the degree of emphasis the US government is set to place on the enlargement issue in the coming years. Even if a statement of this kind in Chicago – in the midst of the presidential campaign and at the first NATO summit on US territory since 1999 Research Paper – is partly directed to a domestic audience, it still shows the current ISSN 2076 - 0949 mood in US political circles: NATO enlargement is regarded as a (Res. Div. NATO Def. Coll., Print) ISSN 2076 - 0957 unique benefit, and the United States sees itself as the spearhead of (Res. Div. NATO Def. Coll., Online) the movement in favor of this. NATO Defense College Research Division With regard to most countries currently applying for NATO Via Giorgio Pelosi, 1 00143 Rome – Italy web site: www.ndc.nato.int e-mail: [email protected] 1 Karl-Heinz Kamp is the Director of the Research Division at the NATO Defense College. The views expressed in this paper are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Imprimerie Deltamedia Group the NATO Defense College or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Via Portuense 1555, 00148 Rome, Italy 2 At the Atlantic Council meeting on May 21, Foreign Secretary Clinton stated: “... I believe this summit www.deltamediagroup.it should be the last summit that is not an enlargement summit”. See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ rm/2012/05/190466.htm © NDC 2012 all rights reserved 3 In December 2011, NATO defined Georgia, FYROM, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina as “aspir- ant countries” and gave particular recognition to their interest in membership. 1 Research Paper No. 81 - September 2012 membership, the issue is hardly controversial within within the Alliance over enlargement, the upcoming the Alliance.3 The Former Yugoslav Republic of revival of the debate is set to bring the Georgia issue Macedonia (FYROM)4 was ready to join NATO as to the fore again. However, the battle order has in early as 2009, together with Albania and Croatia. A the meantime apparently changed to a significant difficult dispute about the name of the country led degree. In particular, informal discussions within the Greece to veto FYROM’s accession and keeps it still Alliance in mid-2012 showed that Washington heads pending. Other allies, particularly the United States, a large majority of NATO members in favor of are becoming increasingly impatient with Greek enlargement (including Georgia), whereas Germany obstructionism on this question. In March 2012, 54 and only a few others still strongly oppose such a members of the US Congress sent a letter to president step. Obama pressing for timely admission of FYROM. The FYROM case is thus more a procedural issue, This paper evaluates what is at stake in the newly and not a dispute on a “yes” or “no” to membership. emerging enlargement debate. What are the pros The very moment Athens lifts its blockade, FYROM and cons of Georgian NATO membership, and can become a member immediately. how should the Alliance proceed? Montenegro was admitted to NATO’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) in December 2009, and is said to Two Difficult Membership Applicants have progressed significantly in meeting membership requirements since then. Bosnia-Herzegovina was The dispute over Georgian membership within invited to join the MAP in April 2010, albeit with NATO dates back to the Bucharest Summit in April certain conditions attached. According to those in 2008. Georgia was one of the first to sign NATO’s favor of their accession, both these relatively small Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994, and countries deserve an invitation to join NATO in always justified its strong desire to join the Alliance the near future. This holds all the more true as their with what it perceived as the threat emanating from integration into Alliance structures would not pose Russia. In 2008, according to Georgian polls, 77% insurmountable problems and, by contrast with such of the public supported a referendum on NATO cases as the (former) application of Ukraine, should membership. In the weeks prior to the summit, not stir up Russian protest. Georgia as well as Ukraine strengthened their demands for membership, the immediate goal being The crunch point of the enlargement question, admission to the MAP. In NATO, there was a tacit however, is Georgia, a country that was involved in consensus to keep the door for both countries open, a war with Russia and still has Russian occupation but at the time it was felt that it was still premature forces on its territory in the renegade regions of to take them into the MAP. Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration was pushing strongly for At the summit, President George W. Bush surprisingly Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO – in the case touted again rapid NATO membership for both of Georgia, despite (or because of) its dispute with countries. Many allies were highly skeptical with Russia – whereas Germany, France and many others regard to the wisdom of such a step. Ukraine is the were opposed to rapid admission of these two second largest country in Europe (after Russia), with countries. The case was settled with a compromise, a large pro-Russian population in its Eastern part and and hardly anything more has been done on it since with particular historical significance for Moscow. Its then. Now, after a long, undeclared “cease-fire” integration into NATO did not seem feasible, and 4 Turkey recognizes the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name. 2 No. 81 - September 2012 Research Paper would have led to fierce Russian protest, probably Moscow would not have dared wage military action ending NATO-Russia cooperation once and for all. against Georgia if the country had already been a While Georgia would have been a much smaller bite member of the Alliance. Opponents of Georgian to digest, it was already engaged in a long-smoldering membership pointed to the difficult situation for the conflict with Russia over its renegade regions (Russia Alliance if one of its members were to be involved had shot down a Georgian drone over Abkhazia). in a war with Russia. There was thus general concern that the escalation of the conflict could drag NATO into an Article In the meantime, the other “difficult” NATO 5 situation if Georgia were to become a NATO applicant (Ukraine) indicated that it was no longer member. interested in speedy admission to the Alliance. In June 2010 the Ukrainian parliament adopted a law In Bucharest, NATO reached consensus by not declaring that the country would pursue a non-bloc taking Georgia and Ukraine into the MAP, but giving policy, i.e. it would not participate in political-military both countries an explicit promise that they would alliances but would further develop its partnership be admitted to the Alliance. The Summit declaration with NATO from a non-aligned position.6 Hence, it stated: “We agreed today that these countries will is Georgia which remains the major stumbling block become members of NATO”,5 without specifying in the upcoming enlargement debate. a concrete date for admission. Another important step at this time was the foundation of the NATO- Georgia Commission, in addition to the already The Roots of the Debate existing NATO-Russia Council and NATO-Ukraine Commission, in order to emphasize the special Since the end of the East-West conflict, the question status of Georgia in comparison to other applicant of whether or not to accept new members in NATO countries. has been highly disputed. Supporters at the time pointed to the benefits new members could bring to In the short term this settlement appeased all sides NATO, while skeptics warned against repercussions – albeit with a price to pay, in that NATO gave up a on the relationship with Russia or pointed to the core principle of its enlargement policy since the mid- difficulties of finding consensus in an ever-growing 1990s: taking in new members on an individual basis Atlantic Alliance. Particularly in Germany, one of the according to their merits, which have to be proved driving forces in the first enlargement round after in a gradual and transparent process. The Bucharest the Cold War, some wanted to limit the enlargement statement, instead, gave a guarantee for membership process to a very small number of states: the argument (sooner or later), without referring to merits or prior for this was that NATO should prove its capability achievements.