Nato has betrayed its great record

This article appears in The Times.

Ernest Bevin described the treaty that established Nato, as “an endeavour to express on paper the underlying determination to preserve our way of life”. The former Foreign Secretary was right. The alliance has proved to be the most successful liberation movement in history.

That record was besmirched yesterday. Nato members, meeting in Bucharest, barred Georgia and Ukraine from the first stages of joining the alliance. It is a huge diplomatic success for President Putin. Ukraine and Georgia received support from the US, Canada and the nations of eastern and central Europe. There is no indication that Bevin's successors have any notion of the defeat inflicted on the cause of liberal democracy.

Defenders of Mr Putin's obduracy point to “legitimate grievances” that Nato's enlargement aggravates. Yet for two decades Nato has emphasised pacific intent, while Russia has become only more aggressive and threatening. On first meeting Mr Putin, President Bush gushed: “I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Yet since 9/11, no amount of brutality and authoritarianism on Putin's part has dissuaded Western governments from treating him as a valued ally in the struggle against Islamist terrorism.

There is no reason we should accede to Russia's demands and much justification for ostentatiously flouting them. Mr Putin has few talents on the international stage save bluster and obstructionism. Consider his crude meddling in the Ukrainian presidential election; his economic blockade of Georgia, and his posturing over its would-be breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; his malign encouragement of Iran's nuclear deception; his unilateral overtures to Hamas, nicely designed to sabotage Western efforts at Middle East diplomacy. The hostility is calculated, not reactive.

But the reasons for deploring Nato's decision are not only negative. The coloured revolutions in Georgia in 2003 (Rose) and Ukraine in 2004 (Orange) marked the failure of the Kremlin's dealings with the former Soviet republics. Mr Putin was on the side of the corrupt administrations that popular pressure defeated.

The integration of these states into Nato is not only about security. It symbolises, and consolidates, democratic advance. Mr Putin is a ballot-rigging autocrat whose natural allies are those, such as the Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, for whom the abuse of human rights is an end in itself. Any diplomatic posture adopted by Nato governments will be taken as provocative by Mr Putin. We might as well therefore do the right thing, not least by those who have to live alongside him.

Comments

[Ollie]

Oliver, the Times newspaper has been the main cheerleader for Putin over this issue (and others in the past). Any chance that they will let you write an article to provide some balance?

Anatole Kaletsky in that newspaper yesterday likened NATO enlargement to Hitler and Napoleon's attempts at encirclement of Russia/the USSR. Can he really not see the difference?

Immediately the Times posts one of its pro-Putin articles, the comments section is deluged with positive comment from pro-Putin posters. It seems the Kremlin PR machine is in full-swing, with the Times in the role of Pravda.

[Ollie]

Goodness me - I've just seen "This article appears in The Times". I hang my head. Well, my wish has been granted. You'll see the comments have already started on your article there!

[Alcuin]

"Mr Putin has few talents on the international stage save bluster and obstructionism". But he also has a lot of gas and oil - Georgia and Ukraine need it, and so does Europe. Ukraine is a rather special case, being effectively two countries - one looking West and one East. Allying with such a torn country could give problems.

We have a fairly simple clash between principle and pragmatism here. If principle were all, we would stand resolute by the side of Taiwan, Tibet, Israel and Darfur; we would not have allowed Indonesia to annex East Timor; and done many other things that were not in our own best economic interests.

How to choose between principle and pragmatism is one of the oldest dilemmas in history. If the choice were always straightforward, Evolution would have equipped us all with either infinite courage or infinite timidity, but as with other personality traits, it has begotten us with the complete spectrum, to allow for all contingencies.

I take a longer, broader view than Oliver. We may need Russia, and even China in the coming war with Islam, which I believe should inform all our foreign policy. Both have difficult Muslim provinces and borders with Muslim states. Russia and China have made far worse deals with Islamic dictatorships than any Western country ever did, and we need to persuade them both that we are more like them than we are like Islamists. Quite a tightrope.

Maybe I am wrong about Islam, but consider the consequences of a) appeasing Russia, b) appeasing Islam. The first may buy you a grudging ally, the second certainly will not, as the French have found. Russia produced both Breshnev the thug and Gorbachev the decent. Putin is not Russia, just as Mugabe is not Zimbabwe.

[Homer]

Mr Putin clearly has the overwhelming support of his people, who are both resentful of the loss of power arising from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and fearful of NATO.

I happen to believe that the NATO military campaign against Serbia in 1999 was justified, but the Russians thought: "If they do it in Serbia, why not Chechnya?" Would you have supported a NATO intervention in Chechnya, for the record? And if not, why not?

Allowing the Ukraine to join NATO would be absolutely wrong given that almost half its population is very pro-Russian and would doubtless prefer their country to be a part of the Russian Federation. This remains true even if one discounts the fear and hostility it will generate among the Russian people (not just its leadership).

[Alcuin]

"Putin is a ballot-rigging autocrat"

And so, on a smaller scale are Brown and Blair, in fact Socialism cannot function without it. Britain under Labour is not at one end of the spectrum of Totalitarianism to Freedom, it is about mid-way. Roy Hattersley: "You cannot run Socialism without discipline and you cannot run capitalism without profits. We are trying to run a mixed economy without either". Discipline? What could he mean?

Look at the probable 8% bias against the Tories due to constituency boundaries; the creation of a client state of Neets and their suppliers in our massive Welfare industry all beholden to Labour administrations; the importing of large numbers of (mainly poor) immigrants; the widespread introduction, poor control and minimal policing of postal voting; the impoverishment of families. If Thatcher had not removed other planks of Labour's entrapment - the Nationalised industries (remember Jack Dash, Red Robbo, Scargill), council house bondage and punitive tax levels (remember Jenkins - 33% basic, 83% top), this country would be in dire straits, requiring even more painful and radical surgery.

[Tarakan]

"Mr Putin is a ballot-rigging autocrat". This is slander. I can say what Blair, for example him stay on him place for money- he pay for that :) It's true? lol. If i be Mr Putin, i condemn you.

[Peacekeeper]

"Yet for two decades Nato has emphasised pacific intent, while Russia has become only more aggressive and threatening."
Have you been dreaming? For the last 20 NATO constantly invades independent countries. Just to name few: Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan. Not long ago NATO cut off a part of Serbia. Is this a "pacific intent"?
At the same time, let me remind you that the Russian Federation has NEVER invaded any country.

[Sergey]

Mr.Camm, please, go to this link http://inosmi.ru/forum/themes/viewthread?thread=31631
This one of the most popular russian sites. It's free (everyone in Russia can see the translate of your text)!!! If you can speak russian - you see how so far your mind from real life. Just read the comments!
Sorry for my bad english, but i can't read your lie!!!!

[jameshigham]

That record was besmirched yesterday. Nato members, meeting in Bucharest, barred Georgia and Ukraine from the first stages of joining the alliance. It is a huge diplomatic success for President Putin.

There is our side of it too, Oliver and that is that the US is currently trying to encircle Russia in what was formerly the Soviet Union.

One can't blame them and yet one can't blame the Russians for defending their space. They have a history of being invaded.

[sackcloth and ashes]

'For the last 20 NATO constantly invades independent countries. Just to name few: Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan'.

Never mind the fact that Iraq was invaded and occupied by a US-led coalition, not NATO. Never mind the fact that the 'invasion' of Serbia was a result of Milosevic's campaign of butchery and ethnic cleansing against the people of Kosovo (whose recent exercise in self-determination is hysterically described by 'Peacekeeper' (ha, ha) as 'NATO [cutting] off a part of Serbia').

Never mind the fact that NATO is involved in Afghanistan with the sanction of the international community, which supported the US-led invasion in October 2001 as a just reprisal for the Taliban's sustainment of Al-Qaeda. Don't let the facts interfere with your fantasies.

'let me remind you that the Russian Federation has NEVER invaded any country.

Really? Tell that to the Moldovans, who have had to face Transdnistran separatists backed by Moscow. The same can be said for the Georgians vis a vis South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

It's also worth noting here that Russia has threatened to target nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic, and don't forget the bullying of Estonia because its government decided to move the Red Army War Memorial from central Tallinn.

Furthermore, Putin deliberately harks back to the 'glories' of the Soviet era. Not that the USSR ever invaded and occupied countries during its history.

You get some real numpties visiting your site, Oliver.

[NS]

I have been following these events, and I must say I am disappointed in your post.

Perhaps to you it's obvious that NATO is "an endeavour to express on paper the underlying determination to preserve our way of life", but don't the people of the Ukraine have some say in the matter? The whole world doesn't share your opinion about NATO.

From what I read in Ukrainian sources, a large majority (50% +) of the people are opposed to joining NATO; about 10 - 20% are for it. It is clear that the people are not comfortable with joining NATO.

Do you believe that forcing a population against its will into NATO best represents your way of life? Do you not believe in democracy?

You only say it represents "liberation" because it puts Ukraine and Georgia into your own military fold. For you, a truly free and independent Ukraine cannot exist without it becoming dominated by US militaristic interests.

How can you in the same article promote the notion of liberation and anti-democracy at the same time? Maybe you don't like it, maybe it doesn't serve your ideology, therefore you consider it wrong.

As for Russia and Putin, I am surprised you cannot find it in you to understand the Russian point of view. Gorbachev, when he dissolved the Soviet Union made an agreement with the USA that in the interest of peace, NATO would not expand into former Soviet territories. Now that NATO is essentially doing exactly that, I am not surprised the Russians interpret this as a signal that this agreement for peace is not going to be adhered to.

In sum, it is clear to me, Mr. Kamm, that you are very supportive of your own prejudices and your criticisms are not in the interest of the Ukraine, but of you own ideology. You present very little empathy and awareness of how grave the expansion of NATO exactly is. To you the Russians are just evil, the USA is just good, etc. etc..

In other words, NATO expansion is a signal of aggression. For you, that's a good thing; but don't expect people on the other side of the fence to take it lightly. Assuming anything you do is right and just is chauvinistic. It is not rational and it is exactly the kind of thinking that gets normal people of this world facing war and destruction. I see no difference between you and Milosevic and all the other chauvinistic intellectuals out there.

I am for a free Ukraine - free from both the domination of Russia AND the USA. Maybe when you can figure that out, you will begin to truly understand what liberty means.

- N

Sidenote:

To sackcloth: a correction: it is fairly well known that the bombing of Serbia was not a response to ethnic cleansing. The ethnic cleansing was a response to the bombing. NATO's involvement in Serbia completely destroyed any support for the moderates in Serbia who were supportive of the Kosovars. That doesn't excuse the Serbians, but it definitely doesn't justify the NATO bombings.

[Ollie]

Glad to see that all the Nashi nutters have made it over to here now...

[sackcloth and ashes]

'it is fairly well known that the bombing of Serbia was not a response to ethnic cleansing. The ethnic cleansing was a response to the bombing.'

Crap. Utter crap. That's like saying that the Holocaust was a response to Bomber Command.

The 'cleansing' of Kosovo in March-April 1999 was preceded by months of brutality against Kosovar Albanians. The manner in which Operation 'Horseshoe' was conducted also involved pre-planning and preparation that belies the claim that it was a snap response to NATO bombing.

Also, what Serb 'moderates'? Brave men and women like those associated with B92 aside, where were the people of influence within the Serbian elite who were prepared to treat Kosovar Albanians like human beings, and to restore the autonomy that Milosevice had stolen from them. Where were these 'moderates' when Rugova was leading a non-violent civil disobedience during the early 1990s.

Serbia lost Kosovo because from 1989 to 2000 it had been hijacked by a cynical coalition of former Communist apparatchiks and hard-right nationalists, whose actions and treatment of the Kosovars precluded any peaceful settlement to the problem of Kosovo. No amount of apologias can change this hard fact.

[Matt]

'To sackcloth: a correction: it is fairly well known that the bombing of Serbia was not a response to ethnic cleansing.'

Oh good lord, not this garbage again. The campaign of expulsions that began after the NATO bombings started was simply an acceleration of what had been going on at a more leisurely pace over the past year. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, around 460,000 people had been displaced before the beginning of the campaign. I really hope most people would consider that a problem.

[PJD]

sackcloth and ashes, "Operation Horseshoe" has long been revealed as German propaganda during the 78 day conflict by Heinz Loquai.

Matt: "The campaign of expulsions that began after the NATO bombings started was simply an acceleration of what had been going on at a more leisurely pace over the past year."

So they weren't displaced due to the KLA/Yugoslav war then? No one in NATO claimed this at the time. During the 78 days of bombing, proportionally more Serbs civilians left Kosovo than Albanians which throws a big spanner into the "explusions" theory.

[sackcloth and ashes]

PJD, read this before you repeat your denials about ethnic cleansing in Kosovo:

http://shr.aaas.org/kosovo/pk/p1_2.html#timing

Some money quotes:

'These findings reveal that a majority of the documented killings occurred between late March and mid-April. This timing correlates to a substantial degree with refugee flows. Building upon past AAAS research on this topic, the results of the ABA/CEELI-AAAS study support the proposition that there was a systematic campaign conducted against the Kosovar Albanian population.'

'In the AAAS study Policy or Panic,27 refugee flows out of Kosova/Kosovo are described as having occurred in three distinct phases: March 24 - April 6, April 7 - 23, and April 24 - May 11. During the beginning of each phase, the flow of refugees was relatively light. The number of refugees leaving Kosova/Kosovo would rise to a high point (a peak, group of peaks, or plateau) during the middle of the phase, before tapering off toward the end of the phase. These estimates of refugee flows are depicted in the upper segment of the line graph in Figure 2, with the three phases noted by the shaded portions of the figure.'

'By comparing the estimated numbers of people who left each municipality over time to the times when NATO airstrikes occurred, the AAAS study concludes that only a small fraction of Kosovar Albanians fled Kosova/Kosovo as a direct result of NATO bombing raids. It also concludes that the mass exodus of refugees from Kosova/Kosovo occurred in patterns so regular that they must have been coordinated. In the context of descriptive accounts given by refugees, the most likely explanation for the migration is the implementation of a centrally-organized campaign to clear at least certain regions of ethnic Albanians.'

'The municipalities of Skenderaj/Srbica and Rrahovec/Orahovac reflect a substantially higher concentration of killings than the others. These findings can be attributed to the fact that those two municipalities historically had been deeply-infiltrated by the UÇK and were therefore the site of heavy fighting. However, there were also killings in places with little or no reported UÇK activity, for example Gjilan/Gnjilane. With the low levels of UÇK activity, it is difficult to explain these killings as casualties of fighting between Serbian and UÇK forces. This wide dispersal of killings across municipalities with low UÇK activity lends support to the conclusion that the deaths were mainly a result of a centrally-organized campaign that targeted civilians. Moreover, the wide dispersal of killings provides an explanation for why the number of bodies discovered in ICTY exhumations of mass graves to date do not match public expectations.'

Whatever its name, 'Horseshoe' happened, and what you have to say amounts to Operation 'Horseshit'. Let's leave the final word (or rather euphemism) to Zoran Andjelkovic, former Governor of Kosovo and a Milosevic loyalist:

'All we want is to reduce the Albanian population to a manageable level.'

Genocide is defined as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'. So Mr Andjelkovic is basically contradicting you.