No. 8. (14/03/97)        The Backround of the Enlargement of NATO;
                                    The Turkish and Greek Integrationist Policies

U.S. Undersecretary of State Strobe Talbott wrote an article in The New York Times on the enlargement of NATO on the occasion of the meeting of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Soviet Foreign Minister Jevgeny Primakov. According to Talbott, the enlargement process might be more successful if Russia did not only accept the fact of the inevitability of the enlargement, but it also understood its reasons.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the question was whether NATO should withdraw from Europe on its own or it should stay. When Bill Clinton became President of the U.S. in 1993 he decided that the Alliance should continue to operate because the security of the both the members states and the whole of Europe was not stable enough. He mentioned several arguments in favor of keeping the military organization: among other things he was worried about the possibility of the emergence of local conflicts because of ethnic tensions within the European states.

There also emerged the idea of creating a new alliance. Clinton decided that the existing one should be transformed because it is easier and cheaper to build on a basis that is already there instead of starting everything anew.

The answer to be given to the question of whether NATO should be renewed and enlarged could only be "yes" because the new democracies which regained their sovereignty should be given the chance to join the Atlantic community. The stability of Europe will be more stable if these states proceed on the way of creating a genuine bourgeois society, market economy as well as improving their already existing relations with the neighboring countries. Of course, NATO should not ignore the Russian counterarguments regarding enlargement. Russian protest is primarily voiced by the political elite, while - according to the opinion polls - the Russian man-in-street is more worried about the domestic problems - such as wages, social benefits, crime - than about the enlargement of NATO: however, the enlargement process should take the Russian interests into account and should do its best to dispel mistrust. It is important to establish mutual trust and cooperation between the Alliance and Russia.

NATO has never been an exclusively military organization, it has always had political functions as well. It was the Alliance after the Second World War that helped Italy and Germany become members of the Atlantic community. It promoted the solidification of democracy in Spain, it accelerated the process of rapproachment between France and Germany, it pulled the arms race of the West-European powers back, and its assisted in maintaining peace between Greece and Turkey.

As the political relations of the region populated by the Greeks and the Turks cause tensions in the European integration even nowadays, let us see how the individual countries deal with this problem, that is, with Greece's threat to veto the enlargement of the EU and Turkey's threat to do same as far as that of NATO is concerned.

The United States believes that the threat of a Turkish veto concerning the East-European enlargement of NATO is merely an "attempt", as it is not in the interest of Ankara to get into conflict with Washington. At the same time, it is important for the American foreign policy to maintain good relations, as Turkey functions as a bridge between Asia and Europe on account of her geographical position and it also represents substantial force in the Middle East.

According to German opinions, it is Washington that can really exert influence over Turkey on account of their strategic partnership. Bonn thinks that Greek behavior is more problematic than the Turkish question.

According to sources in Brussels, the individual NATO-members are aware of the real reasons behind the Turkish behavior and they believe that it would be foolish to weaken the easternmost member of the Alliance because this fact would have its impact on the situation in the Middle East and it would also benefit Russia. The threats of Ankara do not prevent NATO enlargment, but it may cause problems during the ratification process.

The British think that the Turkish threats of vetoing enlargement may create the impression of unreliability, though England supports the EU-membership of Ankara.

Greek experts are of the opinion that the threat of vetoing the eastern enlargement of the EU is the consequence of the European and American attitude which - because of strategic considerations - favors the Turkish interests. Athens intends to call the attention of the European Union to the national security interests of Greece, which are continuously jeopardized by Turkey.

Turkish politicians think that Greece is able to prevent Ankara's EU-membership, even if it needs military provocation.