Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

• NATO 2002
  
• NATO 2004
  
• NATO 2005
  
• NATO 2006
  
• NATO 2006, 2
  
• NATO 2008
  

NATO was created to respond to the threats coming from East after West Berlin was put under economic blockade for 15 months and the communists took power in Czechoslovakia in late 1940's. Only integrated western defense, only a political and military unity among the democratic countries in West Europe could have saved them, as they thought, from becoming next victims in the line of the Stalin's expansionism. Including West Germany into the alliance was a big insurance against new type of German militarism. Right now the Soviet Union doesn't exist for quite some time, Germany as quite remote from any idea of military domination over Europe, but NATO still exists and expands.

The political critics of the alliance see in its presence only a consequence of the American political domination over Europe. They would like to see NATO dissolved as the Warsaw Pact was closed some 14 years ago. What can the adherents of the NATO usefulness, and I surely count among them, say in its defense?

First, in cases like Kosovo or other potential hot spots on the European political map, the existence of NATO is essential for early warning and adequate prevention of hostilities. This doesn't mean that NATO will always be able to forecast and prevent any major hostility in the continent. It existence will make sure that any such conflict won't turn into power struggle between major European powers, and that instead of fighting among themselves they will seek an uniform solution.

Second, West Europe still doesn't have uniform foreign policy on each and every issue in the world. New conflicts and developments around the globe could force the European countries that now form NATO to take some position. Forming different configurations of countries in Europe could be perceived by the others within the continent as potential threat. Dismantling NATO won't dismantle the need for security in Europe, for protecting the interests of the countries included in the alliance. Instead of one organization we'll have to face 2-3 smaller ones.

Third, establishing 2-3 groups of countries in Europe will mean increased defense spending in each and every country. The smaller NATO countries surrounding Germany won't feel secure without additional protection. For them some kind of American presence will be needed in order to fill the gap. Without the United States all continental Europe from London to Warsaw will have to unite to balance Germany. Will the Germans feel secure with such sanitary cordons around them? Won't they try to break this artificial isolation by making again deal with Moscow? Russia will be more than happy to help and to enter again the European political scene by making one European country enemy to another, but what will be the benefit of that for the Europeans?

Forth, the enlargement will make the new members more interesting for the foreign investors. Their domestic and especially their foreign policy will become much more predictable, an important element in decision-making for every domestic and foreign investor. The trade between these new members and the NATO core will increase, as will increase the mutual trade between these countries. Being part of one team they won't represent any real security threat to any other within the team as was so often in the past. Thus the economic links between them won't be endangered in case of major international crisis.

Fifth, the new members need strong and clear signal that their fate is linked to that of the West. Remaining outside NATO could have meant for them that they were again left at the mercy of outsider powers, as was the case in 1945.

Sixth, right now there is no present external danger for many of the new NATO members. But how can't we be sure that this period of tranquility is something more than a temporary window of opportunity? The European history is full of examples of shorter or longer peaceful periods followed by disastrous wars. If some countries in Europe need special protection, it's easier to be found in East than in West Europe.

Thus we see that NATO is still a useful organization both as a military bulwark of the West and as a political forum for supranational coordination. Its role and importance didn't decrease significantly after the Cold War as to give a credit to the argument that it would be better for the Europeans to live without it. New security challenges, including the new terrorist threats, make this organization a fine tool for continental crisis management, although it's not 100% effective. Including in NATO 7 new members will mean enlarging the Western zone of security, will increase the investment attractiveness of Eastern Europe and will move it from the Western periphery toward its core.

--------------------

See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Europe.