It's beta of the site. Let us know your opinion.
Weather       +5 °C
Currency:  1USD  7.38  1EUR 9.32
Search:  
 
 Sign In   Register
Nation

Georgia and Ukraine in NATO not in US interest: ex-US envoy

24 September, 07:15 | Reuters
Georgia and Ukraine in NATO not in US interest: ex-US envoy
NATO Photos
NATO troops in Afghanistan
NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine is not in Washington's or the alliance's interest, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock said on Tuesday as he and other ex-U.S. envoys decried the poor state of ties with Russia.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At a gathering of five former U.S. and Russian ambassadors, Matlock questioned a central tenet of Bush administration policy: its firm support for the NATO membership bids of both Georgia and Ukraine.

Some European countries have doubts about the policy, and some U.S. analysts have blamed it for helping provoke the brief war last month between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Since Russian troops crushed Georgian forces in that conflict, U.S. ties with Moscow have plummeted .

"To simply say every country should have the right to apply to any alliance it wants, that's true. But an alliance and its members should also have the right to determine whether it's in their interests to take in a member," Matlock told the forum in Washington, sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"I'm saying it's not in the United States' interests, and it's not in NATO's interests," said Matlock, who was ambassador to Moscow from 1987 to 1991 under former President George H.W. Bush and his predecessor Ronald Reagan.

Georgia had not settled territorial disputes with its neighbors, and appeared to want to use the NATO military alliance to help resolve them, Matlock said, in a reference to its conflict with Russia.

As for Ukraine, which like Georgia is a former Soviet republic, most of its population opposed membership and joining NATO would risk splitting the country, Matlock said.

He added that genuine strategic cooperation with Moscow, which vehemently opposes NATO membership for the two former Soviet republics, would be nearly impossible "as long as we're pushing this."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in New York on Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. A day earlier, she met Ukraine's foreign minister and pledged Washington's firm support for Ukraine's bid to join NATO.

But in Washington, Matlock and former U.S. envoys to Moscow James Collins and Arthur Hartman pointed to the consequences of ignoring Russia's attitude on NATO expansion.

They shared a platform with two former Soviet ambassadors to Washington, Alexander Bessmertnykh and Yuri Dubinin, who denounced the NATO expansion policy as a major irritant in relations.

"I personally believe that we need to go slow. ... If we don't, we will find that this is not something that stabilizes but rather divides," Collins said.

Hartman said that at the time the Soviet Union was collapsing in the early 90s, it was a "great failure" that the West didn't think creatively about a structure to replace NATO -- because the main purpose of its existence, to defend against a Soviet threat, no longer existed.

  Comments (9)
Add your comment
Left 1000 symbols
.
Comments on page
Mike  (Guest) | 30.09.2008, 15:51
Interesting prevous comment: \"as exerting economic pressure on Europe and the so called near abroad\":..... what economic pressure from the Russians??? They own their gas and sell it to whoever they want.

\"When will the world finally learn that appeasement does not work.. It did not stop Hitler. It did not stop
Stalin and it will not stop Putin. Jack Matlock should have learned that. Unless he failed Histpry\" .....This is exacly what the russians think about dealing with agressive poodles of the US around them: Saakashvili, Yushenko, Etc.
Answer  
Andrew Olesijuk, M.D.  (Guest) | 26.09.2008, 06:34
The Soviet Union was nothing but a camouflage for Russian imperialism. The desire for Russia to become again a Russian Empire still exists and it is growing rapidly. Proof? Russia rattling her nuclear weapons as well as exerting economic pressure on Europe and the so called \"near abroad\".
When will the world finally learn that appeasement does not work.. It did not stop Hitler. It did not stop
Stalin and it will not stop Putin. Jack Matlock should have learned that. Unless he failed Histpry I.
Answer  
Gene  (Guest) | 25.09.2008, 23:49
The most important fact is that no country should be allowed to dominate or control another unless that particular country wants it. That the free world would ignore Georgia\'s and Ukraine\'s desires to remain free of Russia\'s influence is deplorable. I cannot comprehend how any democracy can stand aside. The West gave the whole of Eastern Europe to Stalin after WWII and look at the mess the USSR made of those countries. The USSR and Russia is nothing more than an organized mafia spewing multitudes of corruption. It will be decades before those democracies in Eastern Europe will free themselves from such massive corruption and incompetence. I am tiring very quickly of the passive and lazy behavior of the West towards Eastern Europe...thinking of them as only fat and lazy.
Answer  
Amerika  (Guest) | 25.09.2008, 03:48
The theory is quite right. NATO was developed not just to counter the USSR, but more correctly to counter the Warsaw Pact. The fture security in eastern europe would make more sense with a loose coalition of the eastern european countries, UK, US and Canada. After all if look where the defectors went to especially from Poland (USA), Ukraine (UK, USA and Canada)and Hungarians/Czechs (Canada) then it makes sense to bypass the EU, NATO and have a Trans North Atlantic Security Organisation. That way we could close our bases in old europe and bring our boys home and let germany and france run europe. Maybe we could relocate the UN to Paris or Bonn and let the europeans have all the headaches.
Answer  
Guest  (Guest) | 24.09.2008, 17:29
Jack Matlock has been objecting to the very existence of NATO and NATO expansion since the demise of the Soviet Union. He had been a long time advocate of Russian entry into a \"European security system\" - a concept strongly backed by Russia in that it would have virtually removed any barriers to Russian hegemony over its \"near abroad\" including the now free and secure nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

Matlock\'s brand of diplomacy consists of accommodating Russia....even if it means throwing countries like Ukraine and Georgia under the bus.

His comment that NATO membership would \"split\" Ukraine is nothing more than fluff. NATO membership has been on the Ukrainian agenda for over 7 years and the only \"splitting\" we have seen are a few hundred ladies in summer dress protesting the arrival of NATO ships in Crimea and a few communists and \"socialist progressives\" burning the American flag.

I think Matlock - like Ichabod Crane - has been asleep for the last 20 years.
Answer  
Guest1  (Guest) | 24.09.2008, 18:21
\"accommodating Russia\" isn\'t the right terminology..... I think more correct is \"working together\" or \"developing partner relations\". Is that a bad thing??

Is this not true that NATO\'s purpose was to counter the expansion of USSR? What\'s its purpose now?

About splitting of Ukraine, check your sources, because nearly entire Eastern Ukraine opposes NATO membership.
Answer  
Guest2  (Guest) | 24.09.2008, 22:12
\"What\\\'s its purpose now?\" well lets just say that if there was NATO Russian troops would most likely be standing not only in Georgian territory but also Ukraine, Poland, and few other Eastern European countries.
Answer  
Guest  (Guest) | 25.09.2008, 15:46
If it is occupation you want to talk about. Maybe you should be looking elsewhere. It is not Russian troops occupying Iraq, Afghanistan and bombing other countries such as Pakistan for example!
Guest  (Guest) | 01.10.2008, 01:27
It\'s always \"a bad thing\" when \"developing partner relations\" means the sell-out of a country such as Ukraine which has a \"strategic partnership\" agreement with the U.S. If Russia can not \"work together\" with the U.S. without demanding a veto over Ukraine\'s foreign policy vector, then that sort of \"partner relations\" isn\'t worth a bucket of warm spit.

As regards the old canard about \"splitting Ukraine\", the issue of NATO membership is no more or less a point of disagreement among Ukrainians as religious affiliation, language, economic policies, memorials, etc. None of these have \"split\" the country and none of these will.

Every election year in the U.S., the country is split into \"red\" and \"blue\" states - depending on whether the electorate of the state is \"liberal\" or \"conservative\". The elections take place and the country unites behind the winner.

It shall be the same in Ukraine. The referendum will be held, and the nation will accept the outcome.
Answer  
Advertising

Most popular articles: