I am writing this at NATO headquarters where foreign ministers are debating NATO-Russia relations as well as Afghanistan and other issues. The invasion of Georgia is raw. That rawness affects the important discussion of how the NATO aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia are taken forward.
NATO makes a speciality of the 'narcissism of small differences' as I said in my contribution this afternoon. But the differences over tactics should not obscure unanimity that NATO needs to support the capacity-building needs of potential members. Nor that there is agreement across NATO that hard headed engagement with Russia is necessary. But as one of the ministers said, "engagement is an activity not a policy". The engagement is for a purpose - and that purpose must be stability in the relations between Russia and countries on its border (and the EU).
NATO membership is a long-term prospect by any stretch; NATO's membership criteria are standards-based and those standards will be upheld. But it is right to implement the conclusions agreed by heads at Bucharest in April. That is what we are doing.
Posted at 12:29 03 December 2008 by David Miliband | Comments[0]
- Share this with:
-
-
-
-
-