No mincing words: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright with Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, at the Conference on the NATO's New Strategic Concept at Cernin's Palace, Prague, Jan. 12. Her most undiplomatic comments about Russia to the European Parliament were noticed in Moscow.
In Brussels on
January 28, Madeleine Albright, chairwoman of the NATO Strategic Concept Expert
Group, gave a speech to the European Parliament. During her discourse, she
criticized the position of Russia in relation to the North Atlantic Alliance
and reminded lawmakers that Russia is just one of the organization's partners, concluding
that Russia "should not be the tail that wags the dog."
In her speech to the European
Parliament, Madeleine Albright, speaking of NATO's
New Strategic Concept, touched on the subject of relations with Russia. The
former U.S. secretary of state called them "functional" and said NATO
was "in the process of taking inventory." At the same time, Albright
expressed dissatisfaction with the position of Russia, which in her view, tends
to forget its place. "Russia is just one of the partners, and it should
not be the tail that wags the dog," Albright said.
[Translator's Note: In
Russian, Albrights comments translated as, "eggs don't teach the hen,"
which is an age-old Russian saying.]
In her report, Albright, the
chairwoman of the Strategic
Concept Expert Group, pointed out that NATO is ready to expand. The
organization will accept as members, countries with European-style democratic
systems if they are prepared to assume the obligations of the Alliance. Albright
stressed, however, that NATO is, "not a philanthropic organization, but a
security alliance."
Let's recall that NATO
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has set out to improve relations
between NATO and Russia - as demonstrated during his first official visit to
Moscow in December 2009. His meetings with senior Russian Federation officials
resulted in mutual assurances that it was time for the parties to take relations
to a new stage, and thus overcome the suspicion that has prevailed since the
confrontation between the USSR and the West, as well as those which arose in the
aftermath of last year's war between Russia and Georgia.
"It would be
foolish to hide differences in our views. But we came to the conclusion that despite
our differences in certain areas, we need to concentrate on those where our
interests coincide," Rasmussen said during his visit
to Russia. The areas of commomality identified by Rasmussen were fighting piracy, countering
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism and
stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan. At the time, he called for the, "development
of a real strategic partnership in all these areas." [Rasmussen's quotes are
translated.]
The new NATO secretary
general's visit to Moscow is unlikely to seriously effect NATO relations with
Russia. Such relations can't even be assessed as being in crisis, since in
reality, for the entire post-Soviet period, they were never sufficiently normal.
So, the current situation is just another phase of this "abnormality."
Which is, however, completely natural, given the differences in views both military
and political, and in the interests of the parties.
Let me remind you that the North Atlantic
Treaty was established as a military coalition directed at the USSR (Russia).
Today, despite of all the geopolitical changes in Europe and the world, NATO still
has as its main objective, the collective military defense of the nations of Europe,
which includes its new members from Russia. More precisely, it can even be said
that if there was no Russia in the world, there would be no NATO.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
[Editor's Note: The author is
using Russia as if it were synonymous with the USSR. He refers to
the former members of the Warsaw
Pact, most of which are now members of NATO.]
From Moscow's point of view, the
transformation of NATO over the past decade and a half hasn't addressed the
essence of the Alliance. Undoubtedly, NATO is trying to adapt to the "fashion"
trends of contemporary military activity, such as the fight against terrorism, joint
peacekeeping and stabilization operations, and so on. However, let's ask ourselves:
why is this being done? Could it be to find new goals and ways of maintaining
the coalition, in the name of continuing its essential function - the containment
of Moscow?
It's beyond question that
NATO and Russia have common ground: cooperation in combating international
terrorism, stabilizing Afghanistan, as well as measures for the building of mutual
trust, including work within the framework of the still existing Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
But the significance of these
points of conversion shouldn't be overestimated. With regard to the joint fight
against the threat of terrorism, the main challenge for Russia is that posed by
the activity of Islamic extremists in the North Caucasus [which
includes Chechnya].
In their turn, the United
States and NATO are far more interested in stabilizing Afghanistan than Russia,
which is a country on the periphery of Moscow's political interests. The
question of whether total victory for the Western alliance in Afghanistan is in
Russia's interests remains a controversial question.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
The Treaty on Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE) is in fact in a state of collapse. It's clear that
in the field of conventional arms, Western countries want to maintain freedom
of action for themselves while maximally restricting Russia's capacity to act. However,
it's also perfectly clear that such an attitude was bound to lead to a destabilization
of the Treaty itself.
The Western countries must answer
this for themselves: what do they see as the role of the CFE in its relations
with Russia - like the Treaty of Versailles
or, symbolically speaking, the Locarno Treaties? And if
it is to be Versailles, then how does NATO expect to maintain for itself its
winning bargaining position?
[Editor's Note: The author seems to be
warning that the imposition of an unfair treaty on Russia could have a monstrous outcome,
in the way the Treaty of Versailles, imposed on Germany after World War I, led to the emergence of
Hitler's Nazi regime.]
