President Obama on campaign: Does his
administration's stance
toward Europe mean that the NATO alliance is
weakening?
Gazeta, Russia
'Un-European' Obama Demonstrates Why
Europe Needs Russia
"Obama, for whom all of Europe cheered passionately during the election
campaign, has turned out to be 'un-European' in action. … The U.S. and China increasingly
decide the global political atmosphere. This creates a fundamentally different
situation for two other players used to being the center of attention - Russia
and Europe."
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 that, 'Russia is just one of the partners, and it should not be the tail that wags the dog,' were not appreciated in the Kremlin.
U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and two of her deputies have commented on Russia's idea for a
new security architecture for Europe. While raising the inadequacy of the
existing system won the approval of the American diplomats, they rejected this
proposed method of solving the problem - no new institutions are needed, and it
would be enough to perfect the existing ones: NATO, the OSCE (Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe), and the CFE (Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe). Earlier, in the same vein, albeit
with slightly greater interest, European politicians responded to Dmitry
Medvedev's proposals. Does his initiative have a future?
In the year and a half of
discussions over the Russian president's proposal, the European situation has
changed. And we aren't referring to the issue of the Caucasian War [Georgian
War], which took place exactly two months after the release of the idea for a
"new architecture."
The presidency of Barack
Obama, for whom all of Europe cheered passionately during the election campaign,
has turned out to be "un-European" in action.
Washington is concerned about
the situation in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, South and East Asia.
Europe is a partner everywhere - and everywhere, a secondary one. The only
exception is, perhaps, Afghanistan, where the United States must rely on NATO,
but mostly because of the background of this war, not a desire to fight
alongside the allies.
Speaking in Paris recently,
Hillary Clinton sought to dispel European concerns. She repeated traditional
arguments about how transatlantic relations remain the cornerstone of U.S.
policy: commitment to the allies, common values, similar approaches to solving global
problems, "unfinished work" in regard to the democratic development
of Europe and Eurasia. The secretary of state assured listeners that U.S.
troops would remain in Europe and ensure that NATO has a plan of action to
address any threats or dangers. This was meant to reassure the Baltic
countries, which are sounding the alarm over the absence of a rapid deployment plan
for their protection. Separately, Hillary praised the European Union for its
efforts to further promote integration in the light of the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The positive effect was
smeared two days later, when Madrid (Spain now holds the rotating presidency of
the European Union) found out that Barack Obama isn't planning to come to Spain
for a routine E.U.-U.S. summit. A State Department official noted that because the
structure of the union has changed, with a rotating president leading the Council of
the European Union and a permanent president
of the European Commission, the
White House doesn't know who to meet. Meanwhile, the Treaty of Lisbon was supposed
to strengthen the E.U.'s position within the global arena.
The most interesting part of
Hillary Clinton's Paris speech was her answer to the question of whether, in
order to address the global challenges confronting Europe and America,
non-Western countries like India and Brazil should be allowed to join NATO.
Clinton noted that within the
Alliance, there is a clear reluctance to go beyond the traditional scope of
responsibility, especially because there remain unresolved issues - such as the
Balkans, and the future of Ukraine and Georgia.
As for other
missions, "It's completely clear that there are countries other than NATO
members that are concerned about the fate of Afghanistan." [translated quote]
Yes - and on many other issues, especially new threats, it's impractical to be
limit to the framework of the Alliance.
Work is being done on NATO's New
Strategic Concept - and results are expected by the end of the year. But what
Clinton said is unambiguous: the idea of the 1990s to transform the North Atlantic
Alliance into a global force isn't destined to materialize. And so NATO has
only one option: to remain a regional security organization, which is what it
has been throughout most of its history. If so, then Medvedev's initiative has little
chance, because its central component is precisely to prevent the transformation
of the Alliance into a common European security organization.
But the situation
has a flip side, which leaves Russia room to maneuver. It consists of the fact
that the differences between the strategic interests of Europe and America remain
quite great. And so neither side wants to completely discard the Russian "architecture."
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Next week in Moscow, as part
of the preparations for NATO's New Strategic Concept, a group of "wise men"
headed by Madeleine Albright will arrive, which is in itself a sign of the
times. For America, the Kremlin initiative is an opportunity to engage Russia
in addressing outstanding strategic issues in Europe and Asia. Zbigniew
Brzezinski wrote about this a few months ago, although he
made it clear that Moscow is only a mediator of sorts, the main objective being
Beijing. The United States is trying to find any way to draw China into some
kind of binding relationship, and if it (China) can be reached by linking NATO
the Collective
Security Treaty Organization and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation, then why not try? Although Russia itself is also potentially
interesting: it is, after all, difficult to deal with Afghanistan and Iran
without it. This is a hypothetical construct. But even a year ago, imagining
anything like this was impossible, and now such discussions are legitimate.
Madeleine
Albright: Going to Russia to discuss NATO's 'New Strategic
Concept',
her recent comments on Russia have not pleased the Kremlin.
Europe, for its part, doesn't
entirely understand America's plans, and therefore is trying to hedge its bets
for the future. Of course it's difficult to imagine that Washington would
entirely abandon Old Europe to its fate. But leading European states will have
to get used to the new situation, as they become less and less able to
determine the direction of global development, and more dependent on it.
So in order to craft a new
identity, if it is to arise at all, a new format for relations with Russia may
be required.
Dmitry Medvedev's idea is
long-term in character. And as European issues increasingly recede into the
background of global strategic change, the greater the chance that this "architecture"
will be translated into reality in some form.
At the annual international conference
on security in Munich this week, all attention will be fixed on Chinese
Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi [see video below]. This is the first time a
Chinese delegation will participate in an event on this level, where the lead
fiddles are traditionally played by those discussing Euro-Atlantic issues - and
this is symbolic.
Chinese
Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi at the 46th Conference on
According to the conventional
assessment, China overcame the acute phase of the crisis with relative ease, maintaining
the dynamism of its economic development. Because of this, Beijing feels
confident and hasn't declined to participate in discussions about issues of
international security, as it has in the past. Amid the current tensions
between the United States and China, the minister's behavior will provide an indicator
of Beijing's mood.
The field of
attraction and repulsion between the two most influential world powers is
increasingly deciding the global political atmosphere.
This creates a
fundamentally different situation for two other players used to being the
center of attention - Russia and Europe.
*Fyodor Lukyanov is Chief
Editor for the magazine Russian in Global Affairs
