The Baltics And Nato Expansion

Parameters, Autumn, 2001

To the Editor:

Colonel Kent R. Meyer's article, "US Support for Baltic Membership in NATO: What Ends, What Risks?" (Parameters, Winter 2000-01) makes an erroneous conclusion based on inaccuracies and misplaced priorities. Current data in the context of US priorities clearly shows that Baltic NATO membership serves US interests.

The author states that NATO movement into the Baltics will create an "irreconcilably suspicious and hostile atmosphere between Russia and the West--one that could result in a return to Cold War postures and policies." This was said of German reunification, 1999 NATO expansion, and the Kosovo air campaign, all subsequently reconciled with Russia.

The US-Baltic Charter supported Baltic NATO membership, a goal which Colonel Meyer claims is misplaced and fails to advance the goals of the Baltic Action Plan. The Baltic Action Plan seeks to integrate the Baltics into Euro-Atlantic institutions, to encourage good relations with Russia, and to demonstrate US commitment to the Baltics. Baltic NATO membership advances these goals. Beyond the integration and US commitment, NATO membership can also promote good relations with Russia. A Russian definition of Baltic "good relations" usually has meant strong Russian influence, leading to eventual dominion. A US definition of "good relations" includes respect for Baltic sovereignty. Recent Russian actions, including reversion to Soviet symbols, solidarity with expatriate Russian-speakers, and crackdowns on a free press, suggest a return to some of the previous era's thinking and an ambiguous attitude toward Baltic sovereignty. Russian President Putin's overtures to "nations of concern," his support for ESDP, and re cent revelations of Russian espionage show an undiminished affinity for realpolitik. When presented a hard line, Russia has respected it. Presented uncertainty, Russia has sought to take advantage. If the United States seeks good relations with Russia, then the United States should eliminate uncertainty about the Baltics as members of Euro-Atlantic structures.

Colonel Meyer cites unresolved borders as a "Baltic failure to meet NATO admission guidelines." He admits that the Balts have made every border concession to Russia, including ratifying Russia's version of it, and that the border remains an issue only for Russia to interfere with Baltic NATO aspirations. How is Russian intransigence a "Baltic failure"? Why penalize the Balts for their concessions while rewarding Russia's blackmail?

The author cites an absence of Baltic military capability as another NATO obstacle. He states that Western governments have been unwilling to provide antiaircraft and antitank weapons, and that the peacekeeping role of the combined Nordic-Baltic Battalion (BALTBAT) precludes a defensive mission for this unit. These conditions exist primarily because of an aversion to an "irreconcilably hostile atmosphere between Russia and the West--one that could result in a return to Cold War postures and policies." BALTBAT is a peacekeeping unit because Western governments which sought to placate Russian concerns sponsored it. Western governments shied away from providing weaponry to the Baltics largely to avoid offending Russia.

The author cites 1998 worst-case economic figures as an obstacle to NATO membership. Current numbers show that all three Baltic states recently recovered many of their economic gains. Estonian growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2000 was six percent, and six percent is forecast for 2001. Estonia allocated 1.76 percent of GDP to defense in 2001, roughly equal to the percentage allocated by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium, all pillars of NATO. Moreover, Estonia is currently on track to spend 2.0 percent in 2002, an increase that none of those countries is expected to match.

The author's assertion of the Baltics as a buffer has tragic precedents in modern memory. It should be firmly rejected by the United States with more resolve than an internal State Department realignment. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact assigned the Baltics to Russia, a status that transitioned to occupation, deportations, and executions. Relegating the Baltics to Russia ratifies an agreement made by Nazi and Soviet governments. Leaving the Baltics uncertain makes them negotiable bargaining chips, to be surrendered when US-Russian relations face the inevitable future challenge.

Colonel Meyer declares that while European stability is a US vital interest, not all of Europe is significant, and few Americans consider the Baltics sufficiently significant to defend. When NATO intervened in Kosovo, it did so to protect a stateless Muslim minority on Europe's fringes represented by the Kosovo Liberation Army. If the United States fought for Kosovo, should we expect less for the former "captive nations," European democracies with US-based ethnic support, whose US-recognized sovereignty continued uninterrupted for 50 years of occupation? If the United States intervenes anywhere, it should be for national interest and moral obligation. It is reasonable to expect US involvement in the event of a crisis in the Baltics, because both of these conditions are satisfied.