New Members Redefining NATO by Sean OíDriscoll When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established in 1949, its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, gave a very frank assessment of its role in Europe: ìTo keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down,î he said. Fifty-three years later, however, the world is a radically different place. The Germans are leading the free world in Europe, the Americans no longer have to contend with another massive superpower, and the former Soviet bloc countries are rushing toward NATO and European Union membership. The new members are also redefining NATO, which was unsure of its post-Cold War role until discovering it had a penchant for peacekeeping in the former Yugoslav states. And there are new threats of ethnic tensions and terrorism for which NATOís Cold War framework has become vastly out of date. As current Secretary-General George Robertson said, ìThe choice is either to modernize or become marginalized.î In November, NATO held a meeting in a former Soviet bloc country for the first time, a little bit of history that would have left Stalin choking with rage if he could have foreseen the future. The meeting in Prague in the Czech Republic welcomed seven new members to NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Its importance was marked by the presence of President George W. Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who were also there to sell the U.S. position on Iraq to the new member states. For the most part, these invitees are Eastern European nations that were left out of NATO contention when Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited during the Madrid summit in 1997. (These nations officially became NATO members two years later in 1999.) Some bitterness remained in some of the rejected countries after the Madrid meeting. Romania and Slovenia, for example, were accepted by most NATO members in 1997 after lobbying by France, but were put on hold by the United States and Britain. For some in the rejected countries, this was just more heavy-handed U.S. domination of NATO, and in Slovenia, public support for membership plummeted to just about 50 percent. However, according to Romaniaís ambassador to the United States, Sorin Ducaru, the new membership round is much less of the ìbeauty pageantî that the Madrid meeting was perceived to be. ìThere was a sense that there could not be petty rivalry, and that one could not go in with the ëme, me, meí argument. Each country had to show what it could contribute to NATO,î he says. This desire for change was achieved through a project called Membership Action Plan, or MAP for short. Under the project, each country had to fulfill strict military, political, economic and legal requirements over a four-part cycleóa seemingly far-reaching proposal for a military alliance. ìThe message we would like to get across is that NATO membership doesnít just mean military,î says Elena Poptodorova, Bulgariaís ambassador in Washington. ìNATO membership also means more transparency and accountability in our political and judicial systems, which is also a means of attracting external investors.î The MAP project has attracted some criticism because the admissions criteria are difficult to quantify outside the military objectives of increased defense spending and decreased troop numbers. However, NATO spokesman Mark Laity says that membership success is not a mechanical process. ìThe MAP program is very rigorous, but I want to avoid being mechanistic,î he says. ìIt is not a subjective process, but you cannot turn it into a mathematical formula.î Some countries have found aspects of NATO a hard sell to their general public. According to Slovak Ambassador Martin Butora, polls conducted in Slovakia since 1997 show opposition to NATO membership at below 50 percent, but during the Kosovo crisis, opposition to NATO jumped to 53 percent. In March 2000, the Slovak government adopted a new plan to explain the role of NATO and the European Union (EU) to the public. The most recent poll in November showed support at 54 percent. Military forces in many of the new member states have also strongly objected to the new system because it will bring dramatic reductions in troop numbers in favor of more modern security measures. Ironically, the biggest problems occurred with the member states that were admitted under greater competition in 1997 because these countries did not have the MAP system in place to guide the difficult transition. According to Hungarian Ambassador Andr·s Simonyi, the new countries should restructure their military fast and avoid the pain endured by his country. ìIf you do it slowly, it will just become more difficult and the pain will not go away,î he says. ìI think Hungaryís lesson is that you do have to have a clear idea of where you want to take your army and what kind of contribution you want to make to NATO. I think we know now, but I wish we had known five or six years ago.î Simonyi says that NATO as a whole was also struggling to find direction without a defined program for the new countries. ìI donít think NATO knew exactly [what to do] and that has complicated things. I wish we had more advanced partnership cooperation. I wish we had more access to military planning and procedures prior to accession, like the new members have now,î Simonyi says. ìI donít hold this against NATO because NATO didnít know how to proceed with the whole enlargement process for former Soviet bloc countries,î he adds. According to Bulgariaís Poptodorova, it is the older members of the army who have been the strongest opponents of the changes taking place in Bulgaria as a result of NATO. ìI understand that these changes have brought great painóthey come at a price. The veterans believe they have served their country well, and we are conscious of that,î she says. The Bulgarian army has been slashed from 120,000 troops two years ago to 60,000 this year, with another 7,000 to go next year, while defense expenditure is up to 3.1 percent of the gross domestic product, a reflection of the new emphasis on modern security methods. For Poptodorova, this drive toward modernization has paid off, as seen by the praise her countryís peacekeeping forces have received from NATOís commander in Kosovo. In Romania meanwhile, the army has been reduced from 168,000 troops to 112,000, and it is expected to drop even further down to 100,000. ìThis started earlier,î notes Ducaru. ìAt the start of the 1990s, we had 300,000 plus. Itís part of the process of redefining armies. We have changed our doctrine from this old-fashioned Stalinist, Communist and Soviet territorial defense. You had big heavy conscript armies. We have started with the concept that the defense of oneís country starts beyond oneís boundaries.î However, despite the move toward modernization, history is never far away in Eastern Europe. Russia has strongly objected to this new alignment in Eastern Europe, which is seen as a threat to its national interests. After NATO accepted the first round of new members in 1997, the then-head of international relations at the Russian Defense Ministry, Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov, said bitterly, ìWe believe the enlargement of NATO is a dangerous and historic mistake which could have serious consequences.î According to NATO expert Priit Masing, who is the secretary of political affairs at the Estonian Embassy in Washington, Russia has cut back on its objections after a meeting in Iceland in which it was offered greater input with NATO leaders. ìI think Russia has dropped most of its opposition,î he says. ìI think the deciding factor has been the cooperation between NATO and Russia and the relationship established in Iceland. Since then, there have been few objections.î According to Masing, most of Russiaís opposition has been led by its military and some of its parliamentary officials, but not from the countryís leaders. ìOf course there are always people in every country who are against NATO enlargement, and the military has voiced its opposition, as have some policy making politicians. We havenít heard much from the Russian president or prime minister,î Masing noted. Vygaudas Usackas, Lithuaniaís ambassador to the United States, says Russia is starting to realize that regional stability is in its best interests, despite its complaints about NATO. ìPresident Putin met our president at the end of March 2001 and said that he was ënot excitedí by NATO enlargement, but he respected the rights of Lithuania. I think the Russian leadership has learned through the first round of NATO enlargement that it is in their interests to have good, stable relations with neighbors,î he says. Usackas adds that legal, economic and political stability brought on by NATOís strident MAP requirements will als o help the Russian economy. ìLithuania will be better prepared to be a bridge or springboard for democracy and free markets for Russian neighbors, which is good for all of us.î There is little doubt, however, that Russiaís sometimes shaky relationship with NATO and continuing instability in the Balkans have led to a refocusing of NATOís attention on strategically important countries that were overlooked in 1997. Slovenia tops the list because it is seen as a gateway between the Western world and the Balkans. The country enjoys good relations with Serbia, and its citizens have a lot of capital invested in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sloveniaís relationship with the Balkans is particularly important this year after tensions erupted between NATO and the EU over which organization should keep the peace in Macedonia. NATO officials said privately that the new EU military force had not been tested and was not prepared for the job. According to Ducaru, Romaniaís ambassador, there is no conflict in joining both organizations, despite reservations by some non-NATO EU countries. ìI donít want to sound too trivial, but the choice would be like kids choosing between the love of the mother and father. Sometimes you have to make a straightforward comparison like this,î he says. Sloveniaís ambassador in Washington, Davorin Kracun, insists there was no pressure placed on his country to join NATO, and he sees no conflict between the countryís desire to join both NATO and the EU. ìThere was no pressure and, on the contrary, NATO membership was one of the goals we stated when we declared our independence in 1991,î he says. ìWe declared independence to join the Western world, NATO and the European Union in particular. This has been the old wish of Sloveniaóto be part of the free world.î Slovenia is also in a unique military position because its armaments where seized by the Yugoslav army in 1991 and so the country has had to rebuild its army from the very beginning. In some ways, this has made NATO transition easier for Slovenia because the country carries more modern equipment and less of the military legacy of other new members. ìSlovenia had to rebuild its military capability from the start because the country did not have a regular army,î the ambassador says. ìFrom the very beginning, we started to build up an army regarded as NATO standard. Next year, we will go into the system of professional armies with no more conscripts.î For Latvia, rebuilding from the very start was a matter of pride. ìWhen we regained independence, we refused to take anything which was left over from the Soviet military, as the Soviet Union was still in existence,î says Latvian Ambassador Aivis Ronis. ìWe are in the process of rebuilding our military forces from scratch.î To make a meaningful contribution to NATO, Latvia and other smaller nations have concentrated on niche areas of expertise. ìFor a small country rebuilding its military, it was best for us to focus on specialized areas we could offer NATO. We have accumulated expertise in Russian negotiations, in de-mining soil and water, military doctors, deep sea diving and Special Forces. I think we will be in close concentration with NATO to develop our niches more precisely,î Ronis says. A move toward a more professional army is taking shape across the new member states. Part of this move has been reflected in U.N.- and NATO-sponsored peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans and Afghanistan, which each member country has enthusiastically endorsed. The experience also redefined NATOís role as a peacekeeper, particularly after the simmering U.S.-Western European tensions during the bombing of Serbia. According to Slovenian Ambassador Kracun, Slovenia has learned a great deal from its peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. ìWe think this is one of the roles that can affirm Sloveniaís position in the region and help to bring about stability,î he says. According to Slovakian Ambassador Butora, his country has close to 800 troops in U.N. and NATO peacekeeping operations around the world, including 100 troops in a joint battalion with the Czechs in Kosovo. Reflecting this cooperation among new NATO members, Polish, Czech and Slovak defense ministers signed an agreement this year that establishes the Slovak town of Topolcany as headquarters for a joint rapid reaction brigade with 2,500 troops. A rotating command between the countries will train this unit for peacekeeping missions by 2005. For Hungary, the Balkan crisis was an opportunity to finally shake off its Soviet bloc past and show its NATO loyalty. ìDonít forget that we are all former Warsaw Pact countries,î says Hungarian Ambassador Simonyi. ìIn just eight to nine years, we went from being enemies to being good and firm allies. It took Bosnia and Kosovo to prove that Hungary is clearly and relentlessly with the alliance.î For Usackas of Lithuania, peacekeeping is a natural part of NATO responsibilities, even for smaller members. ìWe consider NATO membership not as a free ride. On the contrary, it is an opportunity for us to contribute, to precipitate peace. Thatís why we have been very active in the former Yugoslavia,î he says. The lessons learned from peacekeeping missions and a desire to share a common cause in NATO have brought on strong support in many of the member states for military action against Iraqóif all diplomatic channels have been exhausted. However, according to Ducaru of Romania, the challenge with Iraq is to remain a strong NATO ally while at the same time keeping in focus with international opinion. ìFirst, Romania wants to do whatever it can to show it is a reliable ally. At the same time, we are with the international community and the U.S. in seeing that the Iraqi threat is eliminated diplomatically,î he says. ìWe havenít come to a concrete decision, but the political headline is that the U.S. and NATO can count on Romania as a reliable partner and ally,î he adds. Ducaru says the main lesson that will guide NATOís future is that each country must be willing to make the radical changes necessary for a new world of state-sponsored terrorism and ethnic conflict. ìEach country must face up to these challenges when joining NATO,î he says. ìWhat we have learned is that no country can do the otherís homework. That must be the guiding principle for a new NATO alliance in the 21st century.î Sean OíDriscoll is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.