What is NATO'sa Enlargement Process, which makes angry the Russions (3)

Sending IFOR to Bosnia at the beginning of 1996, to which the Partnership for Peace countries, some of whom were candidates for NATO enlargement, contributed force, positively affected the NATO enlargement process (Asmus, 2002, p.127). Thus, the willingness of these countries to contribute to NATO even at the very beginning of the NATO enlargement process has provided a benefit that reinforces the importance and necessity of enlargement for the Alliance.

In intra-Alliance discussions, new member states are not considered as 'second-class' members, new members reap the benefits of being a member of the Alliance, while taking on the same responsibility as other countries, adopting NATO doctrines and strategies, agreeing to participate in operations beyond the Alliance's borders, including collective defence. necessary has been decided. In this context, since the beginning of 1996, visits to these countries have been planned to evaluate the possibilities and capabilities of potential member countries. Thus, an evaluation process for on-site examination of these countries was put into effect by NATO military officials. In the end, country visits were carried out by NATO in line with the homework assignments that the candidate countries had to complete, namely “Performance criteria” (Oğuzlu, 2013).

The NATO Enlargement Process paved the way for the candidate countries to carry out their military reforms and to move the civil-military relationship in these countries to a democratic platform. This situation was seen as an important achievement, with the emergence of an environment suitable for the adoption of Western values ​​by the candidate countries and therefore the elimination of risks and threats for NATO (Edmuns, 2003, p.145-146).

NATO; has prepared a set of rules or norms that every new member will have to comply with or apply. These are defined as three packages. The first package consists of a set of rules with security content, the second package with economy content, and the third package with human rights and individual freedoms.

Thus, NATO has indirectly stated that it opens the door to new countries and agrees to defend them as long as they are democracies that adopt the three-packet principles. But the cold war NATO came to the fore primarily as a defense pact, not a political establishment. Post-Cold War NATO has clarified its political stance and stated that it sees its members' commitment to democracy as imperative. In fact, NATO has started to transform into a political institution with this new enlargement process (Fouskos, 2000, p.2).

By 1997, the Allies tended to adopt an approach that supported the candidate countries, each in line with their own interests. However, the membership processes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were supported by almost all Alliance members. In addition to these countries, the support of the allies continued to ensure that other candidates take part in the first phase of this enlargement process. For example, Italy Romania and Slovenia; Germany, Poland; France, Slovenia and Romania; Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria; Spain and Portugal (with the influence of France) supported Romania. However, these countries were not included in the first stage membership negotiations for many reasons. Especially Romania, the continuation of instability in this country, Slovenia and Lithuania not making an effort to improve their defenses etc. For these reasons, membership processes were continued to be evaluated in the next leg of the enlargement.

At that time, Turkey advocated paying attention to the geographical balance in the enlargement process in the first place and that at least one Balkan country (especially Romania) should be included in this first enlargement. One of the reasons why Turkey supported Romania's membership was that this country has a coast on the Black Sea and thus acting together with this country, which will become a NATO member, was thought to be in line with Turkey's interests. As a result, the need to act together with countries like Romania at that time in order to create a balancing power against Russia's superiority in the Black Sea was seen as an appropriate strategy. Meanwhile, Turkey wanted to link the process of being declared a candidate country to the EU and the NATO enlargement process. For this purpose, at the 1997 Luxembourg summit of the EU, Turkey; He stated that he expected to be given the status of candidate country and for this he brought up the veto trump that he could prevent the NATO enlargement process if necessary. However, later on, Turkey softened this policy and the candidacy process of three countries to NATO was approved by Turkey at the Madrid summit. Nevertheless, Turkey has brought forward that the enlargement process of NATO and the EU and the WEU should go in parallel.

Initial reactions to the NATO enlargement process, especially the development of policy and cooperation based on mutual trust between Russia and NATO over time, the Central and Eastern 

As a result of the assurances given to the Russians that Europe would not be armed against the Russians, Russia's positive approach was ensured.

In the discussions on this issue, it has been adopted as NATO policy that the new member countries are not armed by NATO, that force is not transferred, that these countries continue their defense policies with their own armed forces. However, it has been agreed to introduce some capability packages in order to construct the infrastructure facilities that will be necessary for the transfer of NATO reaction forces to these countries during any crisis, in peacetime. Thus, with a series of improvement packages covering the air bases of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the infrastructure of these countries was prepared in advance for NATO operations.

Thus, the July 1997 Madrid Summit opened the door to NATO membership, including the military wing, for Visegrad (except Slovakia), a member of the PfP, in the first place.

Germany came to the fore as the key country at the Madrid Summit. On the other hand, France adopted a stance advocating the membership of Romania and Slovenia in particular. In fact, the view of France; It has been supported by almost all countries (including Turkey) in NATO's South Flank. In a sense, NATO, which adopted only the candidate countries in the North (Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic) for membership at that time, was almost faced with the North-South divide (with reference to the East-West divide). Despite the widespread support for the membership of Romania and Slovenia to NATO, the USA, the UK and the Nordic countries did not take kindly to the membership of these two countries and did not support them. This situation was indirectly evaluated as a reflection of the political disagreement between France and the USA within NATO. The conflict situation that emerged within the alliance resulted in Germany's support of the USA instead of France's opinion. The fact that the USA, England and Germany did not support the membership of Romania and Slovenia caused France to be alone in its policy.

However, NATO's continued close relations with other countries (Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) mentioned for membership was adopted as an Alliance policy at that time. With the Membership Action Plan (MAP), it is aimed to encourage the membership processes of these countries and to keep NATO's enlargement process alive with the 'open door policy'. An open door policy, which means that the way to membership is open, has been adopted for the candidates who can meet the membership criteria of NATO. Therefore, NATO's door has been kept open for all candidate countries that meet the criteria preferred by NATO and which are kept somewhat ambiguous.

NATO's procedures for the accession of new members are designed as a tool to ensure that the Alliance achieves its goal of strengthening security throughout Europe. Emphasis has been placed on preparing new members well for their membership responsibilities and obligations. While these countries joined NATO, they were expected to be a part of the goal of increasing security and stability in Europe (Moltke, 1998, p.62).

NATO; He preferred to implement a 'carrot policy' with Madrid, opening the door to membership to three countries, and giving the message that NATO's door would be opened when the time came to the rest. From now on, the alliance has signaled that it will accelerate the process of incorporating new members into NATO within the framework of Article 10 of the Washington Treaty (NATO Strategic Concept-1999).

In the enlargement process, a policy giving priority to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic was started to be implemented by the US administration and followed within NATO. For this purpose, three Americans of Central European origin and in the US administration began to play an active role in this process: Czech-born US Secretary of State Albright, Polish-born General John Shalikashvili and Hungarian-born Charles Gati (Asmus, 2002, p.63). First of all, this trio made a persuasion visit for the Polish President Walesa to support the formation of the PfP. They have been the 'interface' to give the message 'we are from you' in the formation of both enlargement and PfP policy of America and therefore NATO (Oğuzlu, 2013).

The NATO enlargement process, which was opened in Madrid, completed its first phase in 1999 with the membership of three candidate countries to NATO. It took place at the Washington Summit held in the 50th anniversary of the Alliance, and the former communist bloc countries Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were accepted as full members.

The Romanians, who made NATO membership "a matter of national honor", were not satisfied with the lack of membership. However, with the existence of NATO's 'open door' policy and behind closed doors, the promise to Romania that this country would be accepted as a member in the next stage, the relationship between NATO and Romania continued undisturbed.

(To be continued)