What is NATO's Enlargement Process, which angers the Russians? (1)

Today, the economic and political stability of many of the countries in Eastern Europe, the Balkan countries, the Caucasus and Central Asia is based on joining the European Union. It is aimed to associate the security of the said countries with being a "full member of NATO". These were accepted as two very important factors and became prominent issues in the security, political and economic structure of the 1990s as two conditions for the future of Europe.

After the Cold War, although NATO expanded to the East with the unification of the two Germanys, this geographical expansion remained, and did not bring an increase in the number of members of the Alliance.

NATO's enlargement process actually constituted a part of the changing and developing new NATO structure after 1990. The Alliance, which was founded in 1949 on the basis of defending Western Europe against the Soviet threat, aimed to indirectly contribute to the reintegration of Europe by opening its doors to new members from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea after 1990, through the enlargement process. In parallel, the Alliance began to implement a policy of establishing a cooperative relationship with its once-enemy Moscow. Without ignoring the collective defense needs of the member states, by the USA; Efforts have been made to encourage NATO to "engage in new threats and take charge beyond the Alliance's borders to protect Western values ​​and interests". The first application and starting point of this policy was the use of NATO to put an end to the turmoil and conflict in the Balkans. NATO enlargement, which came to the fore in such an environment, entered the agenda of the Alliance mainly as a United States project.

While the NATO Enlargement process was put into use, the obstacles that emerged in front of enlargement were grouped under four headings (Carpenter and Conry, 1993, p.2-9).

Cost:

Considering the cost of enlargement, the number of central and eastern European countries, the investments required to integrate these countries into the Alliance infrastructure, and the opportunities and capabilities to be provided to these countries, it has been calculated that approximately 125 billion dollars is needed for the process until 2012. Considering the declining military budgets of the Allied countries, the affordability of this figure has become controversial.

Security guarantees;

While the alliance was expanding towards the east, it started to enter the area of ​​interest of the Russian Federation. This situation has been evaluated as a cause of friction again, especially between the USA and RF, when the current weak Russia gets stronger. It has been expressed that providing security guarantees to new members at the expense of the RF may require NATO's readiness to engage in future combat with RF. On the other hand, not taking these countries under the protection of collective defense and only giving so-called membership could harm the reputation of the Alliance and its credibility in the eyes of these countries. Some NATO countries; They suggested that Eastern European countries should also benefit from the nuclear umbrella of the USA and that the security needs of these countries should be met with nuclear deterrence.

Conflict Risk;

The possibility of the Eastern European countries coming into conflict with a non-Allied force that may threaten them or clashing with a force within the Alliance has come to the fore. It has been calculated that at least a conflict similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina may arise between central and eastern European countries. It has been evaluated that this may cause a crisis within the Alliance and may impose an additional burden on the Alliance in order to suppress the conflict.

Russia factor;

The fact that the expanding NATO could be perceived as a threat to Russia has not been ignored. However, the Clinton administration; It wanted to act with the acceptance that this approach was not correct, that with a good diplomatic management, relations between the Western World and the Russian Federation would not deteriorate, and that the expanding NATO would not pose a threat to the RF, and it succeeded in convincing other NATO members to accept this approach.

At the London Summit held in July 1990, NATO; Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Soviet Union were invited to maintain regular diplomatic contact with the Alliance. In 1991, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NAIC) started to fulfill the function of an institutional framework for dialogue between NATO and the former Soviet Bloc. Later, the dissolution of the USSR revealed that the NACC was not sufficient for the development of cooperation between the countries belonging to the two former Blocs. 1994 PfP platform started a more appropriate cooperation and partnership process, and an environment for the development of mutual relations was created. Again, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, established in 1997, contributed to the development of relations one step further. 

Work (Jafarov, 2007).

The main idea behind NATO's enlargement was to spread peace and stability to the entire continent and to realize the idea of ​​an "integrated and free" Europe. The governments of NATO member states have argued that the enlargement of the Alliance is not an end in itself. Instead, the enlargement process has been seen as a tool to extend NATO's security across wider borders and to make Europe as a whole more stable. For NATO, the Enlargement process has been evaluated as a tool to help prevent conflicts. Because the expectation of membership played a role in encouraging willing states to resolve their disputes with their neighbors and to continue their reforms and democratization efforts decisively. Moreover, it has been paved the way for new members to benefit from the benefits of membership, as well as to contribute to the security of all member states. Thus, it is aimed to make the integration between countries permanent in the European continent.

The survival and security of the welfare society in Western Europe and even in the Western Hemisphere brought with it the need to keep the fault line passing through the Balkans and Eastern Europe under control. Such regions, which constitute the transition zones between different cultures and civilizations and have been the scene of ethnic or religious conflicts throughout history, have served as a "fault line".

In the past, the integration of Eastern and Northern European countries, which were part of the traditional Western culture, into the Western European social structure, and thus bringing all European countries under the common defense umbrella, was seen as a primary goal. It was aimed to prevent a possible "Orthodox Front" that may occur under the leadership of Russia, which has a great land power (continental power) with its expansion, nuclear capabilities, large manpower and natural resources and strategic depth. On the other hand, membership of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) was seen as an important step for the integration of the former Eastern Bloc countries with the West. It has been evaluated that the use of the PfP framework as a training phase before EU and/or NATO membership would be more appropriate in terms of adaptation of these countries to the Western world. In other words, the Alliance; With the PfP process, it first aimed to familiarize these countries with NATO. Thus, it was aimed to make these countries ready for Alliance and EU membership (Jafarov, 2007).

The fact that other European countries can join NATO in Article 10 of the Treaty of Alliance played an important role in the NATO enlargement process and the joining of new members to the Alliance. However, it was probably not thought in 1949 that this article would open the door for the Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO one day!

In this context, the integration of Eastern and Central European countries into Europe has emerged as an important need. NATO and the EU have made efforts to move these countries out of the Russian sphere of influence. For this reason, they started to follow a policy towards their participation in the European political and economic system as soon as possible. In particular, countries that were deemed suitable geographically and politically were brought one step closer to NATO membership. On the other hand, the relations of other countries with NATO have been further deepened, and contacts have been increased through bilateral mechanisms and the formation of PfP.

Considering the tasks included in NATO's strategic concept adopted in 1991, “The acceptance of NATO's enlargement has been evaluated, in a way, as the Alliance itself going through a referendum process (Barany, 2003, p.12). The enlargement of the Alliance has come to be seen as a natural consequence of a changing and transforming NATO formation.

Thus, on the eve of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Visegrad Group was formed by Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, under the direction of NATO, to increase the coordination between them. The Visegrad platform has been a suitable mechanism for these three countries to act within the framework of a common policy to be determined and to increase the solidarity between them. This group had the strength to declare at the Budapest meeting in January 1991 that the Warsaw Pact should be dissolved. Over time, three institutions (OSCE, EU and NATO) that the former Eastern Bloc countries can turn their course, which have emerged from the Soviet pressure, have come to the fore. The OSCE, due to its weak institutional structure, and the EU, with its slow functioning mechanism, were not seen as attractive institutions. In the Bosnian process, with the start of the conflicts in the summer of 1991, the EU could not be successful in the intervention process that it wanted to lead at first.

Since the European Union is primarily an economy-based organization and lacks American power and influence, it has been seen as a platform far from meeting the 'protection' needs of the former Warsaw countries, especially in the field of security and defense. As a matter of fact, the policies exhibited by the EU and its 'inaction' have also confirmed this thought. However, the newly independent countries 

they needed a power to rely on on the basis of security (Jafarov, 2007). The EU did not consider this necessary in terms of its own policies. Ultimately, there is no other option for these countries other than NATO, which includes the USA. On the other hand, every relationship these countries developed through NATO or directly with the USA started to cause discomfort to the Russian Federation. For this reason, EU-Russia relations have been adversely affected. Meanwhile, both organizations have mutually agreed that EU policies and NATO policies should play a complementary role (Oğuzlu, 2013).

In the years after the Cold War, Central and Eastern European countries have always welcomed an approach to NATO membership. These countries can assure themselves against the Russians, rather than a 'brother-brother' relationship with any big country; They adopted an understanding based on equal, mutual cooperation and partnership and wanted to act in this direction. NATO has attracted the attention of Eastern European countries as a multinational organization that includes superpowers, large and small states, and 'provides a living space for everyone'. Again, these countries have preferred to be a part of NATO, as the Alliance platform provides an environment where they can make their voices heard and creates a "democratic and balanced" structure that can eliminate hostilities between them in overcoming territorial, border disputes and population problems. Most importantly, they needed NATO support, which would strengthen them in integration with Western institutions, in the face of possible pressures from a great power like Russia (Mattox and Rachwald, 2001, p.9-10).

US President Bill Clinton; It acted with the idea that NATO, which is moving towards a crossroads towards enlargement, “could serve to resolve the problems between Eastern European countries and to integrate these countries into the West, similar to what the United States did to Western Europe (after the Second World War) (Sjursen). , 2004, p.691).

This approach was met with skepticism by Western European countries. Eastern European countries, on the other hand, were pleased with the approach of the American administration that opened the door to NATO membership for them. Visegrad countries (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia), especially Poland, did not delay in starting contacts to obtain NATO membership. For example, Poland activated the NATO Commander-in-Chief (SACEUR) and Polish-born Shalikashvilli at that time and asked for support to realize this membership as soon as possible. On the other hand, Polish leader Walesa also tried to lead a formation that brought together central and eastern European countries (NATO-II or NATO-bis). As a result, it has been brought forward as other options other than membership that these countries can act together with the Alliance without being a member of the Alliance, but in a special and close relationship. Meanwhile, the turmoil in the Former Yugoslavia, defined as the "ethnic Cold War" by the Hungarian writer Gyorgy Konrad, served as a warning. These conflicts pointed out that it is a necessity for Central and Eastern European countries to resolve their border disputes and minority issues.

Clinton, who became President in 1992; He argued that the NATO enlargement process should be supported for three reasons (Asmus, 2002, p.25):

Clinton believed that a historic mission had been assigned to him. Just as Truman pioneered the unification of Western Europe, he thought he could lead the formation of an integrated Europe with Eastern Europe. Thus, he developed a policy that NATO's security umbrella could serve to create a democratic, secure and stable Europe by covering the whole of Europe.

Clinton believed that one of the greatest lessons of the 20th century taught the necessity of the unity of the West, that is, of the USA and Europe. Despite the disappearance of the Soviet threat, the need for the unity of the USA with Europe has not disappeared. Clinton wanted NATO to be subjected to the modernization process and to be a factor that strengthens the bond between the United States and Europe. Clinton; It has been assessed that no other region of the world shares so many common interests and values ​​with the United States. It was thought that it would be easier for the USA, which would act together with a stable Europe, to be involved in the instability that may arise in other parts of the world.

Meanwhile, it has been seen that NATO's enlargement process conflicts with the US's own policy preferences. In the 1990s, the United States will either return to the continent and isolate itself; Or he would be a partner in world affairs. In the second way, the USA preferred to be involved in the problems of Europe. For this, the closest intervention area was defined as Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the American policy was built on this. Against the threats of the future, the USA itself Clinton believed that it was more acceptable for the United States to act together with the Alliance and other countries that support the Alliance, rather than get involved. For this purpose, Clinton led the change and transformation process of NATO, which began to take place in the 1990s, and also argued that the Alliance should implement an 'open door' policy towards new members. Clinton adopted an approach that serves to increase the friends of NATO, and therefore of the USA, and realized all his perspectives and decisions and actions in line with the enlargement process in this context.