• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
24.11.2006

The factor of NATO

   

Gagik Harutyunyan 

Establishing relations with military-political alliances, taking into consideration changeable dynamic of present political processes, is one of the most important issues of Republic of Armenia’s national security. As it is known, the main stress in this field is put on establishing strategic cooperation with Russia. However, RA-RF cooperation, as well as participation in Collective Security Treaty Organization (SCTO) probably may not become unequivocal guaranties for RA security, taking into account multilayer policy of the first and the lack of self-affirmation of the second1.

Let’s notice, according to some opinions voiced in the circle of RF political elite with “Eurasian-Eastern” orientations, membership to Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO) may become a guaranty of RA security. Some Iranian officials are also for this opinion. However, in spite of its great efforts to become SCO full member, Iran is still having the status of observer in SCO. Attaching great importance to RA-China relations, one should state as a fact that SCO is still in the phase of formation. Let’s also notice that SCO sees its main problems in Central Asia, where it is in tough struggle with the US.

The issue of RA-NATO relations has been actively circling in information field recently. It is mainly connected with Georgia’s possible membership to NATO in the context of Russian-Georgian developments as well as the announcements of the NATO officials, who visited the region on Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement (let’s remember Robert Simpson’s words that NATO may undertake implementation of the decisions made on this issue). In its turn the opening of NATO’s information center in Yerevan will raise that organization’s presence in Armenia even more2. Besides it is not a secret that liberal political forces consider North Atlantic Alliance to be RA security guaranty grounding it by the fact that this alliance is the most powerful in the world. It is also known that NATO, like above mentioned SCTO and SCO, has its own problems and at present is not in very good condition.

In its time NATO was established to be “bipolar” to solve US-USSR (or more generalized – east-west) conflicts of military character. At present, when the conceptions of west and east have lost their once joint geo-ideological and geopolitical significance (US-Europe relations are more then equivocal and even the Chinese have refused of pure socialism) NATO feces the serious problem of transforming. It is noteworthy that at the beginning of 1990s some American political figures (including Strobe Telbot well known for RA political elite) and analysts thought that NATO has nothing to do in Post Soviet epoch. However, the further developments negated such attitudes.

At present, according to long range prospective of NATO’s development, the organization is to be expended on the expense of not European countries (according to the 10th article of NATO’s regulation in force, only European countries may be members of the organization and the 6th article restricts the area of NATO’s possible actions). Such an attitude, according to NATO strategists, will allow solving more global military-political problems. NATO-Israel cooperation problems should be observed in this context.

In particular during the summit of NATO, which is to be held in Riga, the issues of closer cooperation with Australia, New Zealand3 and Japan4 will be discussed. There will also be discussed a number of problems concerning to Georgia. However it is known that Germany and France (which have not only joint energetic and economic problems with Russia, but sometimes use the latter one as a counterbalance against the US, so they are not in a hurry to make their relations with those powers more complicated for the sake of the US and Great Britain) are against Georgia’s membership to NATO.

It is obvious that the problems of global character are more urgent for the US and Great Britain with Caesarian pretentiousness in comparison, for example, with Germany or France. That’s why political, ideological and economic contradictions among NATO member states of so called “Atlantic” and “Euro centered” orientation have a tendency to become more complicated. Well known Iraqi and Iranian problems as well as disagreements with Russia, especially in the field of energy cooperation, speak in favor of this tendency.

At the same time, today NATO is becoming the fundamental structure somehow linking Anglo-Saxons with Europeans, allowing them to unite together and solve common problems in the military-political field (for example the issues of restricting Russia’s political pretentiousness or ensnaring the presence of the west in Central Asia). One should accept that NATO’s importance in this aspect is accepted not only by the US and Great Britain but also by “real” Europe.

It is well known that vitality of North Atlantic Alliance is definitely guarantied by the orientation of East European countries, where political elites were shaped at the beginning of 1990s by the Americans and which are traditionally cautious of Russia becoming more powerful. However, it is also obvious that in case the process of the US rating fall continues the Eastern Europe will sooner or later turn its face from the US to its neighbors France and Germany culturally closer to it and in the economic field even to Russia. According to some observers, as for the last factor, there are already some more tangible tendencies in Hungary5.

Thus, today NATO is a structure where two contradicting processes take place in parallel.

  • “Expending” its representational membership and the geography of its presence, NATO is becoming more powerful turning into a global organization which today has not an equally matched competitor.
  • NATO is “shattering” as in parallel with liquidation of today’s unipolar system, the contradictions among the organization’s member states become more aggravated in civilization-ideological and political-economic fields.

Today it is difficult to predict which of these tendencies will prevail. A decisive factor in this issue is the possible transformation of the US monopolistic status. In any case this complex of contradicting factors makes it difficult to prognosticate RA-NATO relations in the long-term perspective.

1 In that sense, it is noteworthy the announcement of RA MF chief of Joint Stuff M. Harutyunyan made the other day in Moscow during the meeting of CSTO member countries’ Joint Stuff chiefs: he expressed dissatisfaction in connection with military support rendered by SCTO member states to the third word countries, having in mind Azerbaijan. Let’s add that allied obligations are often violated during the voting in the UN.

2 The center was to be opened on the 1st of November, howeve,r because of some technical problems it will work only after the 20th of November.

3 Cooperation with “spiritually close” Anglo Saxon countries in the military field is a part of the US official policy. In the official field it is expressed by two pentagon forms – the program of “standardization of land forces” and the system of global radio-electronic intelligence of “Echelon”, where only English speaking countries are involved. Let’s notice that during the whole Afghan military campaign, following the evens of 11/9 2001, though the Americans carry on this campaign together with NATO, they all the time aim at “withdrawing” not Anglo Saxon military forces from that country.

4 According to some experts, North Korea’s nuclear taste is the result of the provocative American Policy (the expression of which, in particular, is the epithets (like “dwarf”) president George Bush called Kim Chen Ir many times, and which is considered to be a terrible insulting in that region ) aiming at better “attaching” Japan with centrifugal tendencies to the US.

5 The last disturbances in Budapest are sometimes commented as a result of deeper political cooperation with Russia, which is realized by this country’s socialistic government.


Return
Another materials of author