You are here: UK Essays » Essays » International Relations » Eastern Europe

Free Essays - International Relations Essays

Communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell one after another in rapid succession.

In the end of 1980s, Communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell one after another in rapid succession. There was a fervent call to “Return to Europe” and to European hold. All new regimes took unprecedented pain to look as far removed as possible from the earlier regimes. Most were desperate to join the European Union. People, adjusted to totally controlled, but well-oiled Communist machinery, looked at European Union as another, perhaps better alternative. The Communism-provided jobs had become non-existent and people were ready to migrate to other countries in search of jobs and a better luxurious life, which was unimaginable under Communism. This does not mean that Communism ruined their lives. They were happy and contented under Communism, as it provided all their necessities and immediate requirements. But greater freedom was not possible under a totalitarian rule.

Most of the countries wanted to join North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Central and Eastern European States have shown great inclination to become members of EU and NATO and this has become another way of “Returning to Europe”. CEE countries have started emulating democratic institutions of Western Europe paving the way for “dual enlargement”. They were blamed for ‘ordering from menu’ instead of creating their own, according to requirements. But the intriguing question that needs an answer remains: how successfully have these CEE countries emulated and adapted Western Europe market-oriented economy? Is it only for the sake of joining the main current, or a genuine transition? There had been scholarly interest in finding out how these changes have affected the international relations, internal conflicts of transition.

Both EU and NATO had to enlarge to accommodate the CEE members. They have made extensive demands of non-negotiable kind on all these countries who want to be members and according to these demands, these countries have to build certain democratic institutions of their own, make proper rules on Human Rights in par with old members. For old Communist guards, adhering to these decisions might not have been easy. Most of the governing bodies in these countries have merely changed the names, but have essentially remained the same. Attitudes and principles of years would not vanish in a decade, even though the progress towards democracy had been steady and impressive.

End of Cold War raised many fundamental questions in Europe. The European security had to be redesigned as equation has totally changed. Breakdown of Soviet empire had produced a vacuum of power. Fall of Communism had also created a number of weak nations in Europe and their security posed a threat. Only solution was these nations joining NATO and becoming part of European Security system. The traditional thinking had to be altered immediately if security set up had to undergo a metamorphosis. There was also a possible future threat from a probably revitalised Russia. At last the divisions in Europe have ended and NATO moved in to close the security gaps. Balkan peninsula, and former Yugoslavia were in highly vulnerable position. As early as July 1990, NATO heads of States had realised the urgency of a blanket security for Europe. NATO invited East European leaders and Soviet President Gorbachev to address summits and ponder over possibilities. All agreed that primary concern was security. In 1990, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe took place with far-reaching effect. By then diplomatic activity had improved in Europe, in anticipation of a more direct relationship with NATO and Central and Eastern groups and several of them needed complete membership of NATO. Institutions had to be nurtured in these states prior to their memberships either in NATO or EU. In the meantime, NATO became responsible for general peacekeeping in the area, while UN peacekeeping was already going on. There was the Russian threat looming large in the background. NATO had to negotiate special plans for a closer relationship with Russia. By 1996, there was a welcome breakthrough in Balkan area and NATO was responsible for it. Without NATO it would not have been easy to pacify the warring countries of Europe in days of deep instability.

In 1994 Brussels Summit, NATO enlargement was approved to promote a security community at Central and Eastern Europe while democracy is strengthened. But Russia was vehemently against such an enlargement. NATO tried to pacify Russia by theoretically keeping the door open for Russian entry. Poland continued to have problems with its armed forces while Czech and Hungarian militaries were not in favour of membership. Germans were unhappy with a possible entry of Russia. NATO today stands in the way of any expansionist regime in Europe. Any territorial aggression would be countered by NATO and this is obviously targeting Russia. US President Clinton attended the Budapest CSCE summit to announce US goals. Russia was never happy with any of the enlargements. Nations that were part of erstwhile USSR are in a muddled position. Some of them are definitely far removed from the standards and requirements set up by NATO for new members. Some of them see it as a definite snub against joining, and so it is. But most of the European states whose future hung on a thin thread between chaos, attack from neighbours and going back to Communist hegemony were given protection and those states, with expansionist agenda, especially with an authoritarian outlook, have been discouraged.

NATO enlargements are referred to as Pan-European Security System. The termination of Cold war, fall of Berlin wall and many other internal, external, and ideological changes in Europe have gone into it. New members are also worried about a possible dilution of NATO ideals that might lead into getting tyrannised by more powerful nations. This could jeopardise their cohesion. Recent behaviour of US is threatening them and they are uncomfortable with US interference. Diverse interests and ideologies have emerged from the ashes of old regimes. Another apprehension is seeping in of Communist ideology. At the same time, it is a rather loose alliance and member states might refuse to help one another. Terrorism has placed a question mark in the close proximity of Turkey. Trust has eroded in NATO. Political cohesion of all members should be maintained and respected. Recently NATO has reduced its overall personnel by 35%. New members had not been comfortable with NATO either, as their military capabilities are not worth mentioning. US interference in recent years was not palatable to many. Many members do not see Baltic States as important. Involvement in Nordic countries has not been much appreciated. “Estonia first” policy had not always been successful.

Its efficient conducting of multinational military operations had been appreciated and hence, NATO has to prioritise her activities in the same way. Convincing old members against new entrants and vice versa has to be the first priority. Hungary came under intense pressure from Russia and it is one of priorities that external pressures are not used over helpless and small regimes. Keeping America involved in Europe perhaps should take the last priority. A stronger and secure Europe had always been important for NATO.  

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Colin McInnes, NATO’s Changing Strategic Agenda, (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990).
2. Gregory Flynn, ed., NATO’s Northern Allies, (London: Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, 1985).
3. Gale A. Mattox and Arthur R. Rachwald, eds., Enlarging NATO, (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001).
4. Keith A. Dunn, In Defense of NATO, (London: Westview Press, 1990).
5. Massimo Salvadori, NATO, A Twentieth Century Community of Nations, (London: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc)
6. Sean Kay, NATO And the Future of European Security, (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1998).
7. Stanley R. Sloan, NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic Community, (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2003).
8. Hall Gardner, ed., NATO and the European Union, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: