It is becoming increasingly clear that for candidate countries like Bulgaria, accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be a two-way street.
NATO foreign ministers met in Reykjavik this week for discussions which, while not producing any firm conclusions about invitations to candidate states, nevertheless represented another milestone in the unfolding saga of the alliance.
It is essential that the context in which decisions about invitations will be made is not lost.
In the post-September 11 world, there has been a shift of emphasis in the considerations surrounding NATO expansion from stabilising post-Cold War Europe, to the more urgent imperative of combating international terrorism.
It is logical that the United States lately has sent stronger positive signals to countries like Bulgaria about the possibility of an invitation, because for the US expanding the organisation has become part of its broader strategy against terrorism.
At the same time, and as a consequence of the September 11 events, there has been a perceptible shift in relations between NATO’s Western power bloc and Russia.
So much so, that this week’s meeting in Reykjavik produced finalisation of an agreement on setting up a NATO-Russian council.
Success in this last respect means a significant shift in the dynamics of the game. With Russia coming to terms with the concept that such a formal accord with NATO is in Moscow’s self-interest, this should be a signal to those sections of the community in countries like Bulgaria that the inevitability of an embrace with the West in military terms should be accepted with fewer qualms.
But the broader debate about expansion goes beyond finding the optimum way of dealing with Russian reservations.
In the alliance itself, debate is likely to continue right up to the opening speeches of the Prague summit in November about what “big bang” expansion will mean for the character of the alliance, particularly in the light of concerns that it will make the organisation unwieldy and bureaucratic.
Regarding this debate, Bulgaria is fated to remain a bystander. But there is another important dynamic, to which President Georgi Purvanov referred this week.
In the person of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Washington is adamant that NATO members should be making substantial new investments in their defence budgets.
Reportedly, the US is keen to see its allies spending more on transport aircraft, precision-guided munitions, special forces, and secure communications.
This week, Purvanov told a delegation of visiting British MPs that he would insist on increased spending on Bulgaria’s defence budget should this country get an invitation to join NATO.
It is to be hoped that his remarks prompt a vigorous debate.
There can be little doubt that such a commitment by Bulgaria, even just at the level of a signalled intention prior to Prague, would sway votes in its favour. As a candidate, this country has important reservations to overcome about its candidacy, including that some NATO members believe corruption in Bulgaria continues to be at levels unacceptably high for it to get an invitation.
But at the same time, there will have to be a serious “guns vs butter” debate before this country commits itself to the undoubtedly expensive items named in the US recommended shopping list.
Civil society in Bulgaria has made it clear in recent months that there are pressing arguments for ensuring that social spending is adequate, and it must be accepted that quality of life in this country is at risk unless this imperative is taken seriously.
Equally, it may be argued that high social spending in a country outside the security of an alliance of armed defenders will serve only to create a fool’s paradise.
In the end, a less than happy compromise may have to be struck, and it may be this will mean spending on defence for the sake of buying a place in a world where terrorists do not reign.
NATO foreign ministers met in Reykjavik this week for discussions which, while not producing any firm conclusions about invitations to candidate states, nevertheless represented another milestone in the unfolding saga of the alliance.
It is essential that the context in which decisions about invitations will be made is not lost.
In the post-September 11 world, there has been a shift of emphasis in the considerations surrounding NATO expansion from stabilising post-Cold War Europe, to the more urgent imperative of combating international terrorism.
It is logical that the United States lately has sent stronger positive signals to countries like Bulgaria about the possibility of an invitation, because for the US expanding the organisation has become part of its broader strategy against terrorism.
At the same time, and as a consequence of the September 11 events, there has been a perceptible shift in relations between NATO’s Western power bloc and Russia.
So much so, that this week’s meeting in Reykjavik produced finalisation of an agreement on setting up a NATO-Russian council.
Success in this last respect means a significant shift in the dynamics of the game. With Russia coming to terms with the concept that such a formal accord with NATO is in Moscow’s self-interest, this should be a signal to those sections of the community in countries like Bulgaria that the inevitability of an embrace with the West in military terms should be accepted with fewer qualms.
But the broader debate about expansion goes beyond finding the optimum way of dealing with Russian reservations.
In the alliance itself, debate is likely to continue right up to the opening speeches of the Prague summit in November about what “big bang” expansion will mean for the character of the alliance, particularly in the light of concerns that it will make the organisation unwieldy and bureaucratic.
Regarding this debate, Bulgaria is fated to remain a bystander. But there is another important dynamic, to which President Georgi Purvanov referred this week.
In the person of US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Washington is adamant that NATO members should be making substantial new investments in their defence budgets.
Reportedly, the US is keen to see its allies spending more on transport aircraft, precision-guided munitions, special forces, and secure communications.
This week, Purvanov told a delegation of visiting British MPs that he would insist on increased spending on Bulgaria’s defence budget should this country get an invitation to join NATO.
It is to be hoped that his remarks prompt a vigorous debate.
There can be little doubt that such a commitment by Bulgaria, even just at the level of a signalled intention prior to Prague, would sway votes in its favour. As a candidate, this country has important reservations to overcome about its candidacy, including that some NATO members believe corruption in Bulgaria continues to be at levels unacceptably high for it to get an invitation.
But at the same time, there will have to be a serious “guns vs butter” debate before this country commits itself to the undoubtedly expensive items named in the US recommended shopping list.
Civil society in Bulgaria has made it clear in recent months that there are pressing arguments for ensuring that social spending is adequate, and it must be accepted that quality of life in this country is at risk unless this imperative is taken seriously.
Equally, it may be argued that high social spending in a country outside the security of an alliance of armed defenders will serve only to create a fool’s paradise.
In the end, a less than happy compromise may have to be struck, and it may be this will mean spending on defence for the sake of buying a place in a world where terrorists do not reign.
