Pact Gives Russia a New Role in NATO

NATO took another important step closer to Russia on Tuesday with an agreement that will give the West’s former Cold War foe a new consultative role and greater influence within the alliance.

Ministers from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia completed final details of a deal that will bring the two sides together to work on such issues as counter-terrorism, arms control, regional crises and natural catastrophes.

The agreement was another sign of Russia’s accelerating efforts under President Vladimir V. Putin to move closer to Europe and the United States. It comes a day after U.S. and Russian officials announced agreement on an arms control treaty that aims to reduce the countries’ stockpiles of deployed nuclear warheads by two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 each, over the next 10 years.

The new NATO arrangement marks “the funeral of the Cold War” and allows Russia “to come out of the cold as a partner, ally and friend of NATO,” said British Foreign Minister Jack Straw.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the two sides have struggled in recent years to work out a relationship that bridges their often-conflicting interests.

Five years ago, the alliance and Russia set up an organization called the Permanent Joint Council that was to seek solutions to issues of mutual concern. But the council suffered a body blow in 1999 when NATO embarked on a war against Yugoslavia, a longtime Russian ally.

Frictions have continued in the council since then, and the Russians have accused all NATO members of ganging up on it as “19 against one.”

In the new structure, Russia is supposed to have the status of an equal member, at least on the handful of agreed-on issues. NATO is supposed to include Russia throughout its deliberations, rather than presenting it with unchangeable policies at the end of a review.

Several safeguards have been put in place to keep Russia from having too much influence. Moscow has no standing, for example, to try to influence the expansion of NATO that is now on the table. The revamped council would be limited to a relatively small number of issues, at least to start. In addition, any member who objects to a line of discussion can call it to a halt.

The move is another reflection of the Russian leader’s new attitude toward the West. Putin believes that his country’s future lies in stronger integration with the Western economic powerhouses.

The Russian president has noticeably strengthened his nation’s ties with the United States and its European allies since Sept. 11, which reminded the two sides of the common terrorist threat.

The attacks were “an extraordinary catalyst--that for the first time since 1945 focused attention on what we have in common,” NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said in a speech last month. It led “not to a temporary thaw but to a real sea change in attitudes by both sides.”

The new agreement was a “pragmatic recognition that genuine cooperation on terrorism and, I hope, a range of other issues is to our mutual benefit,” Robertson said.

Tuesday’s deal was reached near the wooden Icelandic guest house where President Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, held talks in 1986 that eventually helped lead to the end of the Cold War. The new agreement will be signed at a meeting May 28 in Rome.

At a morning session, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell declared that the alliance needed to begin immediately “to put meat on the bones” of the agreement. “We need work of substance,” he said, according to another U.S. official.

The new agenda calls for the two sides to begin with a series of projects. They will:

* Conduct a joint assessment of security threats, including the danger of attacks by civilian aircraft.

* Seek to increase military contacts and conduct joint training, senior U.S. officials said. The two sides might set up a joint training center, officials said.

* Pool ideas on short-range missile defense and planning for civil emergencies, including attack from chemical and biological weapons.

Although officials were optimistic about the new organization, they acknowledged that there are no guarantees that the arrangement will succeed.

“If there is no political will, this will be a sterile body,” Robertson said.

Some analysts said the council’s work could be threatened by differing points of view on various issues, such as what to do about the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or Western concern about Russia’s international arms sales.

“The change in the way you take decisions could be more cosmetic than substantive,” said Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now a consultant at Rand Corp. But he said the greatest significance is that the two sides have decided not to be put off by the failure of the last effort.

“If you manage to push Russia from the undecided category to becoming a country that will play a cooperative role, then you’ve brought something historic,” Hunter said.

Although the Russians often have viewed NATO as a threat to their interests, “now they’ve realized that they have more to gain by not standing in the way,” said Sean Kay, a former U.S. defense official who worked on the first round of NATO expansion. “Russia’s goal is to get as much influence with European institutions as possible, and here they’re getting that.”

Some analysts worry that although Putin is clearly in favor of the new arrangement, it could still be stalled by Russians farther down in the bureaucracy who see it as a threat to their national security.

Much of Tuesday’s meeting was occupied with setting the rules for new members to qualify to join the alliance and with discussing how smaller countries with relatively weak militaries can contribute more to the alliance. NATO is expected to add seven members at a meeting in Prague, the Czech capital, in the fall.

The meeting also brought signals that United States and some other NATO members increasingly believe that because of the threat of terrorism the alliance must be prepared to take action outside its home turf.

Such suggestions have always been controversial within the alliance, and as recently as 1999 the membership shot down such moves.

“The kinds of challenges NATO may be facing in the future won’t always be located in Central Europe, and NATO has to have the ability to move to other places,” Powell told reporters.

Another U.S. official, who requested anonymity, insisted that “Sept. 11 ended the ‘out-of-area’ debate. NATO needs to be prepared to go wherever the threat comes from.”

Robertson also contended that the alliance can no longer limit its activities to any geographical area.

The final communique of the meeting said NATO must be able to field forces that can move swiftly to wherever they are needed.