| Encouraging that the NYTimes is publishing something with this suggestion.
It would even more encouraging if the constant drumbeat of “Putin annexed Crimea” were modified to explain that after a coup encouraged by the US if not instigated by it, with lots of Neo-Nazi groups involved, the inhabitants of Crimea voted in a referendum to become part of Russia, and the Russian government accepted that. Ross Douthat in the Times today suggest a 25 year pause on consideration of Ukrainian membership. Kicking the can down the road seems like an excellent idea, and would likely open the door to other calming the situation measures. I have no sense of what Blinken and other Biden foreign policy advisors are like—there is so much of contemporary establishment thinking that just seems totally nuts to me now— but hopefully they are at least considering this.
Article ten puts the decision with the members. They must unanimously invite a new member. Nothing says that members cannot preemptively decide that a country fails to meet the alliance's purpose and standards. Objectively, adding Ukraine would not "contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area."
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
-----Original Message-----
From: Atwood, Brian <j_brian_atwood@brown.edu>
To: SCOTT MCCONNELL <scottpost@aol.com>
Cc: Chessset <chessset@aol.com>; salon@listserve.com <salon@listserve.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 23, 2022 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [Salon] Ukraine-Russia
NATO cannot yield because its charter requires it to consider applicants for membership. NATO is unified around that principle. However, unanimity is also required to admit a new member. If both sides wanted to see progress in a negotiation, this issue could easily be finessed. But it would be unwise to unilaterally contradict a principle on which all NATO nations agree. There is a nuance there, and clever negotiators can find their way around roadblocks without violating principle. That is preferable to war.
Brian Atwood
Excellent piece Doug.. I’m always puzzled by the way most experts, including our negotiators, speak of declining or deferring Ukraine’s NATO membership as obviously off the table. Sez who? I can see why Ukraine’s independence might be, but what is its quest for NATO membership is treated as sacrosanct. “On that, Nato cannot yield” Brian Atwood writes, without further elaboration, as if this is totally obvious. Nato expansion was not much debated in the 90’’s but it was somewhat and serious people (George Kennan, Daniel Moynihan) thought it ridiculous. Given the likely downside of pushing Ukraine’s right to join Nato (sanctions which harm everyone’s economy, possibly war, which could spiral out of control but even if not, pushing a renewed Sino-Soviet alliance) why can’t Ukraine’s NATO membership be discussed?
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
-- Salon mailing list Salon@listserve.comhttps://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon |