NATO MEMBERSHIP: IT'S TIME FOR UKRAINE TO GET STARTED
OP-ED: by Steven Pifer, International Herald Tribune (IHT)
Paris, France, Monday, January 28, 2008
At NATO headquarters last Friday, the Ukrainian foreign minister presented a request from his government for a membership action plan for Ukraine, which Kiev hopes will be approved when the alliance's 26 leaders meet in Bucharest in April.
NATO should say yes.
The goal of NATO enlargement since the mid-1990s has been to achieve a
broader, more secure Europe. This has driven alliance decisions to take in
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, and seven additional Baltic
and Central European states in 2004.
Those decisions have produced a more stable and integrated Europe, and
underpin the dramatic democratic and economic transformations made by
the new member states.
The "open door" policy adopted by NATO in 1997 allows that any European
country that meets alliance standards and can contribute to Euro-Atlantic
security can be considered for membership.
A membership action plan - or MAP - offers no guarantee of membership,
but it would provide a guide for Ukraine's further integration in Europe and
internal reform efforts.
A MAP is not a request for membership; Ukrainian leaders have said their
electorate will have a chance to express its view on NATO membership in a
referendum before Kiev formally decides to make such a request.
Granting Ukraine a MAP at the Bucharest summit meeting would be fully
consistent with alliance policy. It would enhance European security and
stability. It would encourage the large and growing number of Ukrainians who
want greater integration with Europe. Moreover, none of the arguments
against the measure stand up to scrutiny.
Some might assert that Kiev is not ready to prepare for NATO membership.
Not true. Ukraine has made as much progress on democratic, economic and
military reform as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Albania when they
received MAPs in 1999.
Moreover, in late 2005, in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution, many in
NATO considered a MAP for Ukraine a strong possibility ahead of an
NATO should say yes.
The goal of NATO enlargement since the mid-1990s has been to achieve a
broader, more secure Europe. This has driven alliance decisions to take in
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, and seven additional Baltic
and Central European states in 2004.
Those decisions have produced a more stable and integrated Europe, and
underpin the dramatic democratic and economic transformations made by
the new member states.
The "open door" policy adopted by NATO in 1997 allows that any European
country that meets alliance standards and can contribute to Euro-Atlantic
security can be considered for membership.
A membership action plan - or MAP - offers no guarantee of membership,
but it would provide a guide for Ukraine's further integration in Europe and
internal reform efforts.
A MAP is not a request for membership; Ukrainian leaders have said their
electorate will have a chance to express its view on NATO membership in a
referendum before Kiev formally decides to make such a request.
Granting Ukraine a MAP at the Bucharest summit meeting would be fully
consistent with alliance policy. It would enhance European security and
stability. It would encourage the large and growing number of Ukrainians who
want greater integration with Europe. Moreover, none of the arguments
against the measure stand up to scrutiny.
Some might assert that Kiev is not ready to prepare for NATO membership.
Not true. Ukraine has made as much progress on democratic, economic and
military reform as Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Albania when they
received MAPs in 1999.
Moreover, in late 2005, in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution, many in
NATO considered a MAP for Ukraine a strong possibility ahead of an
Alliance summit meeting in November 2006.
But the Ukrainian prime minister at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, derailed
that prospect. Today, however, a unified Ukrainian executive branch, backed
by a majority coalition in Parliament, desires a MAP. And, over the past two
years, Ukraine has further burnished its democratic credentials, deepening
military reform and conducting two free parliamentary elections and a
peaceful changeover of power.
Others might argue that Ukraine's population does not support NATO
membership. Perhaps. While polls show that only about one-third of
Ukrainians currently favor membership, popular support for joining NATO
But the Ukrainian prime minister at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, derailed
that prospect. Today, however, a unified Ukrainian executive branch, backed
by a majority coalition in Parliament, desires a MAP. And, over the past two
years, Ukraine has further burnished its democratic credentials, deepening
military reform and conducting two free parliamentary elections and a
peaceful changeover of power.
Others might argue that Ukraine's population does not support NATO
membership. Perhaps. While polls show that only about one-third of
Ukrainians currently favor membership, popular support for joining NATO
in countries such as Slovakia and Slovenia was likewise weak in 1999.
Those two countries, use their MAPs to broaden popular support.
Ukraine's leaders have indicated that they will do the same.
Skeptics might assert that Ukraine would bring little to the alliance other
than an additional security burden. Wrong. Kiev has demonstrated that it
Skeptics might assert that Ukraine would bring little to the alliance other
than an additional security burden. Wrong. Kiev has demonstrated that it
has serious military capabilities and the political will to use them.
In recent years, the Ukrainian military has provided the alliance with
strategic airlifts; participated, often side-by-side with NATO troops, in
peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and elsewhere; and made a significant
contribution to coalition ground forces in Iraq during 2004-05. Ukraine
would be a net contributor to Euro-Atlantic security.
Finally, some might fear that preparing Ukraine for NATO membership
In recent years, the Ukrainian military has provided the alliance with
strategic airlifts; participated, often side-by-side with NATO troops, in
peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and elsewhere; and made a significant
contribution to coalition ground forces in Iraq during 2004-05. Ukraine
would be a net contributor to Euro-Atlantic security.
Finally, some might fear that preparing Ukraine for NATO membership
would provoke new difficulties with Russia. Let's be clear.
The Kremlin would not welcome the move, now or at any time in the
foreseeable future. But there is nothing to suggest that holding off would
prompt Moscow to take more accommodating positions on other issues,
such as Kosovo.
Indeed, allowing the Russia factor to block a MAP would only reward Russia's
petulant behavior. In the past year Moscow has suspended the Conventional
Forces in Europe Treaty, threatened to recognize the breakaway states of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia and blustered about targeting nuclear missiles on Central Europe.
NATO poses no threat to Russia. Unfortunately, the Russian foreign policy
elite choose to regard it as an adversary. While NATO should engage Moscow by offering new, cooperative programs, it is up to the Russians themselves to decide not to portray NATO as a threat.
NATO leaders should thus welcome Ukraine's request and give a positive
answer in Bucharest. Anything less would be a reversal of 10 years of
alliance policy, would discourage those in Kiev who want to modernize
Ukraine, and would waste an opportunity to advance the process of shaping
a broader, more secure Europe.
Steven Pifer is a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. A retired foreign service
officer, he served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000.
He serves as a senior advisor to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council
(USUBC), Washington.
LINK: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/24/opinion/edpifer.php
The Kremlin would not welcome the move, now or at any time in the
foreseeable future. But there is nothing to suggest that holding off would
prompt Moscow to take more accommodating positions on other issues,
such as Kosovo.
Indeed, allowing the Russia factor to block a MAP would only reward Russia's
petulant behavior. In the past year Moscow has suspended the Conventional
Forces in Europe Treaty, threatened to recognize the breakaway states of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia and blustered about targeting nuclear missiles on Central Europe.
NATO poses no threat to Russia. Unfortunately, the Russian foreign policy
elite choose to regard it as an adversary. While NATO should engage Moscow by offering new, cooperative programs, it is up to the Russians themselves to decide not to portray NATO as a threat.
NATO leaders should thus welcome Ukraine's request and give a positive
answer in Bucharest. Anything less would be a reversal of 10 years of
alliance policy, would discourage those in Kiev who want to modernize
Ukraine, and would waste an opportunity to advance the process of shaping
a broader, more secure Europe.
Steven Pifer is a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. A retired foreign service
officer, he served as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000.
He serves as a senior advisor to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council
(USUBC), Washington.
LINK: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/24/opinion/edpifer.php