‘Founding Act’ Or ‘Final Act’ For NATO?
(Phoenix, Arizona): Albert Wohlstetter
must be spinning in his grave. The
Clinton Administration’s gross
mismanagement of the NATO enlargement
issue, and its ominous implications for
the Nation’s most important alliance,
would infuriate Dr. Wohlstetter — the
world-renowned and recently deceased
strategist whose six decades of brilliant
contributions to U.S. and allied security
policy and programs are to be honored at
a memorial service in Washington
tomorrow.
One can only imagine the withering
contempt with which Dr. Wohlstetter would
dissect the so-called “Founding Act
on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and
Security Between NATO and the Russian
Federation.” This sixteen-page
document was unveiled late last week in
Moscow with much fanfare and declarations
that the way was now clear for including
several former Soviet-occupied states in
Central Europe in the Atlantic Alliance.
Unfortunately, if the United States is
not careful, this “Founding
Act” could become the “Final
Act” for NATO.
A Bill of Particulars
Consider some of the particulars of
this agreement:
- As Richard Perle — one of Dr.
Wohlstetter’s most accomplished
protégés — noted at a splendid
congress of the New Atlantic
Initiative held here over the
weekend, the agreement
reads like a Soviet document.
This is, as the communists loved
to say, “no accident,
comrade.” After all, the
principal author for the Russian
side was an unreconstructed
apparatchik and long-time KGB
operative from the old Soviet
Union, Foreign Minister Yevgeny
Primakov. - Mr. Primakov’s fine hand is
evident in the mutation
of NATO contemplated by this
document — from a
free-standing military alliance
of democratic states to a
“Euro-Atlantic”
community with which Russia
becomes an “equal
partner” in political as
well as security matters. The
tone is set with the pledge by
the two parties to pursue
“to the maximum extent
possible, where
appropriate…joint decisions and
joint action with respect to
security issues of common
concern.” - Moscow will be in a good position
to try to enforce this commitment
as it will always
co-chair the new “Permanent
Joint Council” created
by this accord. The United
States, by contrast, will only
serve as a co-chair on a
rotating basis, taking turns
with the other fifteen-plus NATO
member states. Since NATO
operates by consensus, chances
are good that this arrangement
will make alliance
decision-making more ponderous
and problematic than ever. - In addition, the “Founding
Act” explicitly and
repeatedly affirms the
primacy of multilateral
organizations in which
Moscow enjoys a de jure
or de facto veto,
notably the United Nations
Security Council and the
Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). For
instance, it declares that
“any actions undertaken by
the Russian Federation or NATO,
together or separately, must be
consistent with the UN Charter
and the OSCE’s governing
principles.” While Russia
was not much concerned with such
principles in its war with
Chechnya, it is predictable that
it will find grounds in this
language to oppose or otherwise
constrain NATO’s planning and
freedom of action. - Concerns on this score are
further exacerbated by the myriad
institutional arrangements
promised by the “Founding
Act” agreement. In addition
to the Permanent Joint Council
which will be “the principal
venue of consultation between
NATO and Russia in times of
crisis or for any other situation
affecting peace and
stability,” meetings of
foreign ministers and of defense
ministers will occur twice per
year. As a practical matter, this
will likely translate into
including the Russians in at
least parts of the currently
scheduled semi-annual ministerial
meetings of the North Atlantic
Council and Defense Planning
Committees. Inexorably, Russia
can be expected to insinuate
itself more and more into these
important events, in much the
same way as it has functionally
transformed the G-7 into the G-8. - In addition, Moscow will get to
participate in regular joint
meetings of senior military
officers, and various committees
and working groups. Clearly, if
the spirit of this “Founding
Act” is faithfully honored
by NATO, the Russians
will have ample opportunity to
shape alliance decisions and
prevent those they cannot
influence. These bureaucratic
realities are, after all, more
likely to govern than will the
blithe assertion that neither
NATO nor Russia have “a
right of veto over the actions of
the other.” - The language of the
“Founding Act” is also redolent
of Soviet-style moral equivalence.
Fresh promises are made to
“observe in good faith [the
parties’] obligations under
international law” —
papering over the fact that
Russia has consistently violated
its treaty commitments, both at
the margin and in material ways.
Repeated pledges are made to
“transparency” when
there is precious little about:
the real status of Russian
strategic forces; chemical and
biological weapons programs;
Moscow’s continuing preparations
for nuclear warfighting
(evidenced, for example, by
enormous expenditures on vast,
deep underground command
complexes); its aggressive
intimidation of former Soviet
republics and client states in
the so-called “Near
Abroad”; etc. - Last but hardly least, this
NATO-Russian charter sows the
seeds of trouble for enlargement
of the alliance. It
clearly gives Moscow a seat at
the table before the new
candidates for membership —
presumably, Warsaw, Prague and
Budapest — get represented
there. It appears to relegate new
members to a second-class status
with what amount to pledges that
they will never have nuclear
deterrents or allied troops
deployed on their soil nor will
their existing military
infrastructure be available to
NATO. And it encourages
speculation that Russia will be
able to create insurmountable
friction if additional
enlargement is contemplated.
This Accord Demands the
Senate’s Advice and Dissent
The “Founding Act” is being
described by the Clinton Administration
as a “political” document, not
a legal one. Therefore, the Clintonistas
contend this agreement need not be
submitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent — even though it
threatens to modify the North Atlantic
Treaty more dramatically than Mr.
Clinton’s efforts to multilateralize the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would do to
the latter accord.
Fortunately, the Senate voted
unanimously last week to declare that the
Memorandum of Understanding concerning
ABM Treaty successorship must get the
approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Senators
should, accordingly, insist on no lesser
standard for an agreement that could
wreck NATO. Such an approach
seems particularly justified since the
Russian Duma will be asked to approve
ratification. How could the Kremlin
object if the United States treats this
agreement every bit as seriously as it
does?
The Bottom Line
In any event, since the Clinton
Administration agrees that Russia’s
consent is not a precondition for the
enlargement of NATO, there is no reason
why a Senate ratification debate on the
“Founding Act” should be
allowed to interfere with formally
inviting new members to join the alliance
at the Madrid summit in July. What such a
debate would do, however, is give the
Senate an opportunity to fix or reject an
agreement that threatens to make the
price for enlargement, at best, the
neutering and, at worst, the evisceration
of the Atlantic Alliance.
Albert Wohlstetter would certainly
approve.
– 30 –
1. See the
Center’s Decision Brief
entitled Will Senate Pass
‘No-Brainer,’ Insist On Right To Advise
And Consent On Major A.B.M. Treaty
Changes? (
May 1997).
- Beware dangerous Democrat gaslighting on the CCP - August 16, 2024
- The new WHO treaty is a “pox” on our “house” - August 15, 2024
- Paging President Trump - August 14, 2024