46th Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Budapest, Hungary

Citation

Ryser, J. (2001), "46th Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Budapest, Hungary", European Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2001.05413bab.009

46th Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Budapest, Hungary

46th Assembly of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Budapest, Hungary

Judith RyserJudith Ryser is a Journalist for CityScope Europe, London.

Keywords: Hungary, Politics, Eastern Europe

Why should small countries on the far shores of the Baltic get interested in the Atlantic? What has their world on the North-east of Europe in common with special relations between Western Europe and North America? Why is the whole of "Central" Europe queuing up and why would Albania and North African "Mediterranean Dialogue" countries want to join the club as well? Recent history may explain some of these aspirations. Still recovering from Soviet domination and the joke of the Warsaw Pact, the Baltic countries are desperate to protect their newly-found freedom. They see their salvation in NATO membership. Similarly, what are now called Central European countries, are very keen on pledging their responsibilities and resources to get into the fold of "democratic" Europe. Despite NATO's ambiguous role in the recent Balkan wars, every one of the fledgling new countries, landlocked or on the Mediterranean, wants to benefit from the security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as they perceive it, and Albania has a particularly good reason to emerge out of its long isolation. Finally, the North African countries on the Mediterranean have sought a rapprochement with the EU as they tend to feel closer to Europe than the African continent.

"Peace, security, stability and prosperity" appeal to all of them as a desirable and reachable goal. How to get there though? The 46th general Assembly of ATA (the Atlantic Treaty Association) held in the splendour of the Hungarian Parliament in November 2000 showed the way. Even Lord George Robertson of Port Ellen, the Secretary General of NATO found it worth his while to present his vision of a more peaceful world at this occasion. He reiterated his five principles which were to assist a flexible mechanism to include more member states in cooperation and security. Partnership has become the guiding principle since the cold war. It has to be broad and inclusive encompassing "neutral" countries as well; flexible with the help of PfP and EAPC to accommodate countries with different traditions and capacities; targeted accepting the need for special relationship with for example Russia and Ukraine; practical to accommodate crisis management such as in Bosnia and Kosovo; deepened to enable countries to become full NATO members. He added a sixth principle, now so hotly debated in the UK and possibly misunderstood – again by the British. For Robertson, to be fair, meant that Europe should carry more responsibilities on its own territory while using its transatlantic relationship for more global purposes, as only a partnership perceived as fair by both the Europeans and the North Americans will last.

But first a few words about ATA. In existence since 1954, ATA and its mission have evolved with the geo-political changes which swept through Europe and the world at large. It is an umbrella structure grouping national "transatlantic associations" and it acts as a link between civil societies, NATO's structures and national governments. Initially, national committees were set up in NATO member countries to promote the objectives of NATO and, in particular, to bring them closer to civil society. Their key role is to inform and to educate about the missions and responsibilities of NATO. It is also up to them to explain the complex relations with other groupings, such as the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) now dealing with pan-European defence issues and the WEU (Western European Union) focusing on defence in Western Europe, as well as the European Security and Defence Policy.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, many Central and Eastern European countries found themselves outside any formal structure guaranteeing them security and stability. ATA assisted them to create national Atlantic committees which would prepare the general public for NATO membership. They obviously were successful in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland which managed to join NATO. Nine other "candidates" are in waiting, and more countries have associate member status with ATA. For many, this was the path towards becoming members of ATA, NATO and sometimes the EU.

The European movement may well try to play the same role for reluctant members and "would-be" members of the EU and its various institutions, but it faces an uphill struggle compared with the enthusiasm displayed by every single member of ATA during the assembly. Perhaps the greatest achievement was the signal of rapprochement between Greece and Turkey, declared by their respective Foreign Ministers who had improved their bilateral relations over ten years with the help of ATA and NATO.

The "Russian question" got a less satisfactory treatment though. While all the aspiring countries for ATA, NATO and sometimes EU were given a plenary platform to declare their intentions, including countries from ex-Yugoslavia and those who claim neutrality, the Russians had a say only at the political committee. Surprisingly, they were both outspoken and self-critical. They considered that NATO and EU are not mentioned in their foreign policy because of ideological self-isolation. This led to a lesser influence on what could become Greater Europe one day. Exclusion of Russia from EU enlargement constitutes a problem. Thus the Russian Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation could play a conciliatory role. A compromise for pan-European security would have to involve the UN and its use of European and NATO resources. The new leadership may be able to deal more diplomatically with the red line doctrine and Russian-American relations. Russia's stance could become more pragmatic with proven success of EU and NATO enlargement. However, that would depend on NATO's response to Russian concerns.

Conversely, the American view was that the USA had bailed out the EU repeatedly in European conflicts and other security issues. As EU's collective GDP was superior to that of the US the Europeans had to face their defence obligations and to clarify what their geo-political ambitions really were, also as regards the process of amalgamation in Europe. The USA was disseminating its brand of internationalism until the cold war was over. Now more self-centred, it would start to focus increasingly on areas of global geo-political interest for itself, such as the Middle East and Asia. Russia only remains a consideration as long as it remains unattached. If the Europeans came off the fence and agreed to integrate Russia into European democratic processes the USA could disengage itself even more. The second wave of NATO enlargement may jeopardise this as it may be conceived as a provocation and alienate Russia. Hungary is too close to Russia to take such an aloof attitude and is keen to entertain a dialogue, assisting Russia to enter the world economy. Russia itself considers its relation with NATO and NATO's own expansion policies as a broader issue than the EU and the West, as it touches upon Russia's relation with other international organisations.

An open door policy towards NATO needs to be slow as public opinion is not ready for drastic change. A less ideological vision with economic interests in the foreground could lead to a notion of an Eurasian community which would have new relations with North America. Russia is hanging in the Council of Europe despite Chechnya and it remains active in OCSE which it considers the main pan-European security umbrella. These are the paths to lead to a more realistic approach towards a better relationship between Russia and NATO and the EU. Less contradictory relations between Russia, the UN and the USA can only evolve if Russia reverts to a political system ruled by law and improves its market economy. However, this requires NATO and the EU to act so that Russia could buy time for its reforms and develop shared values across Europe.

Overall, the political committee showed remarkable maturity and genuine interest in progress towards a long-term solution for a peaceful Europe. The military and the economic committees were also consensus-building. Surprisingly, the education committee which constitutes the core activity of ATA showed deep divisions, ideological as well as moral and technical ones. They ranged from punitive to ultra-liberal options, neither of which would make a constructive contribution to a better understanding between culturally diverse nations which also differ greatly in their economic prospects. Building a common cause with common values would require a far broader understanding of current and historic problems which continue to divide Europe and create potential risks of conflict. At least, these dangers were recognised and taken seriously at the plenary session.

Now the reins of ATA have passed to Alan Lee Williams. He was elected as the new chair of ATA at this Assembly. He is an old hand at NATO and other international relations as he has been heading the Atlantic Council of the UK for some time. It can be expected that he will refrain from the type of language used by the US ambassador in his speech which seemed to be caught in a regretful time warp. In its eagerness to prepare a safer and better world for the future, ATA has created a Youth section to groom the future leaders of a more peaceful world. They were genuinely shocked to hear about the "iron curtain", the "evil empire" and other cold war language. Many of them, including Americans, had reached adulthood after the cold war and others came from recently war-torn countries who were far more interested in ATA's flexible approach to the future, incorporating new full and associate members and accommodating countries like Bosnia-Herzegovina as observers. For them this represents the spirit of fruitful cooperation. Now here is a thought. Judging from the convivial atmosphere and passionate debates where people were also prepared to listen and adjust their positions, it may be possible that ATA and subsequently NATO may be able to build tomorrow's Europe more quickly, fairly and inclusively than the conflict-ridden European Union.