ENLARGEMENT PLAN: At the NATO summit held in Romanian capital Bucharest in early April, the international military alliance formally invites Croatia and Albania to become members

XU JINQUAN

NATO held its summit on April 2-4 in the Romanian capital Bucharest with an unprecedented number of participants. Its attention-grabbing enlargement plan once again became the meeting's focus. The summit approved the membership applications of Croatia and Albania, put on hold the entry of Ukraine and Georgia and turned down Macedonia's application because of NATO member Greece's objection.

Russia has been on full alert about NATO enlargement ever since the end of the Cold War. NATO has remained a big threat to Russia. NATO's enlargement has squeezed its strategic space little by little, forcing it to go on the defense time and time again by opposing the alliance's past two enlargement rounds.

In the meantime, the U.S.-led NATO has considered Russia the loser of the Cold War. It knows that Russia has been fairly weak since the 1990s, and that countries that joined NATO after enlargement started in 1994 have been anti-Russia and pro-U.S. NATO had hoped to take advantage of the post-Cold War situation to weaken Russia and limit its influence in order to bind it tightly to the track that the West had set for it. Doing so would have let the United States restrict Russia from becoming stronger, while maintaining Washington's global strategy as the only world superpower. It also would have let the United States guarantee its control over Europe. American leadership has made NATO enlargement a strategically significant issue, and Russia's opposition to it has been directed mainly at the Americans.

Bitter fruit

Russia and U.S.-led NATO have been at odds over the alliance's enlargement issue since the end of the Cold War. Their difference of opinion has become the focus of Russia's relationship with the West, which has a bearing on the security and political situation in Europe.

Russia is firmly against NATO enlargement, especially when it concerns countries in its own neighborhood. It iterates that NATO enlargement is harmful to mutual trust and stability in Europe. It also sees enlargement as a threat to its own security. But the United States claims that the aim of NATO enlargement is to promote peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The United States also says the applicant countries have declared that Russia had no right or reason to interrupt the alliance's enlargement. It is hard to tell which side's tone is more convincing.

RUSSIA ON THE ALERT: Russian President Vladimir Putin expresses the country’s strong opposition to the new NATO enlargement plan at a press conference after the NATO-Russia Council meeting on April 4 in Bucharest

XU JINQUAN

Russia is not as strong as the United States. It also does not have enough cards up its sleeve. Therefore, it has had to swallow the bitter fruit of NATO expansion when it has been given certain rewards in return.

Considering the overall situation, NATO and the United States are trying to establish stable ties with Russia as well as weaken the country. On the one hand, they carry out the enlargement strategy with a firm hand. On the other hand, they use comforting measures and offer Russia some practical benefits in other areas, so as to soften its stance and spare its dignity.

Disputes surrounding NATO enlargement usually are connected to other international issues and become an important part of the Russo-American political bargain. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, which belonged to the former Soviet Union's camp, became the first batch of countries captured by NATO enlargement after the end of the Cold War. Russia was enraged and expressed strong objections to their membership. As a first step to comfort Moscow, the United States held a summit meeting with Russia and promised it economic benefits and security guarantees. By signing a basic agreement to standardize their relationship, Washington and Moscow agreed to stop treating each other as enemies. Instead, they decided to cooperate to realize peace in the Europe-Atlantic region through negotiations and act under the framework of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, which was established in 1997. In response, Russia stopped opposing the NATO entry of the three countries and accepted the West's terms.

In the 21st century, NATO quickened the pace of enlargement and aimed to pocket the three Baltic Sea nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia set a redline for NATO enlargement that it should not include the former Soviet Union's republics. Angry when the line was crossed, Russia sharply opposed the United States again. After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, the two countries grew closer and began to reestablish their ties. In May 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush visited Russia. The two nations set up a new strategic relationship and agreed to reduce aggressive strategic weapons in both countries.

Then Russia and NATO met at a summit in Rome. They issued a joint statement and upgraded the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, which consisted of "19+1" members, to the "20+1" NATO-Russia Council. NATO said it would treat Russia as part of the family and let Russia jointly determine Europe-Atlantic affairs. Russia thus let pass the second round of NATO enlargement.

Tit for tat

The battles over NATO enlargement between Russia and the United State have displayed two main characteristics. First, tension between the two has coexisted with periods of relaxation during the whole process. The two sides sometimes have threatened each other with military moves, prompting crises to erupt suddenly. At other times, Russo-American ties have eased. But their stances on NATO enlargement have been irreconcilable, and every round of NATO enlargement definitely triggers new disputes between them.

The second characteristic is that each side has made progress and compromises, involving the exchange of interests. However, Russia has remained on the defensive and has had to make gradual strategic backtracks.

Now the United States is leading NATO to carry out the third round of enlargement, and this time Ukraine and Georgia's applications for entry have become the focus of another dispute. NATO announced that its enlargement would continue to progress without ending, and it would absorb any applicants that met NATO requirements. Its next targets are the countries in Southeastern Europe, including those in the Caucasus. By absorbing these countries, NATO can realize its political purpose of setting up beachheads along Russia's eastern and southern borderlines, further shrinking Russia's strategic space, and then fighting for a wider domain inside the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Russia condemned the new round of NATO enlargement, arguing that it would jeopardize its security. It strongly objects to the entry of neighboring Ukraine and Georgia. If the two countries joined NATO, the organization would surround Russia on three sides and have the capability to launch deadly strikes on the CIS. Russia considers the issue to be of life-and-death significance. The two countries' entry could provoke a possible chain reaction in the CIS and lead to its breakup.

The disputes over NATO enlargement between Russia and the West are a consequence of the Cold War. But these disputes also have taken on new characteristics and raised new questions. First, Russia's overall strength generally has grown in recent years. With growing economic strength, a stable domestic situation and support from the Russian people, the administration of President Vladimir Putin has become more confident in dealing with foreign relations. Under these circumstances, Russia has firmly protected its national interests, while objecting to NATO enlargement and the U.S. plan to station anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe. Russia also can influence many political forces in Ukraine and Georgia. Therefore, Russia and NATO will face sharper and more complicated disputes over the entry of these two countries.

Second, some influential European NATO members believe that absorbing CIS states might hurt Russia too much. This not only would damage the stable NATO-Russia relationship, but also would injure the overall interests of Europe. Therefore, they have not welcomed the new enlargement plan, which, as a result, has been put aside. But if the United States again tries to push NATO enlargement forward, it will be hard to say whether or not these European countries would be able to hold it back.

Third, Putin has emphasized the combination of diplomatic principles and strategies and has sought out the possibility of making compromises. For example, he promised to support NATO acts in Afghanistan so as to soften U.S. and NATO stances on anti-missile equipment in Eastern Europe and the overall enlargement issue. Russia and the United States have considered the arguments of the other to avoid a break down in their relationship, while they keep opposing each other on the enlargement issue. Therefore, it will be hard to tell where the new round of enlargement will go.

Fourth, Russia and the United States both are seeing presidential leadership changes. It will be uncertain how the two new presidents deal with disputes in their bilateral ties.

After Croatia and Albania join NATO, it is inevitable that Macedonia will become a member sooner or later. The rest of the Balkan countries are very likely to join the NATO family if they meet its requirements.