KARACHI, Jan 20: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would do well to embrace Russia as a member as this would help bring stability to Europe.“Russia should be a Nato member. This is a logical continuation of Nato's enlargement. It would help with military and democratic reform in Russia. It would also be strategically important to Nato with regard to terrorism.”

Dr Farhan Hanif Siddiqi of the University of Karachi said this while speaking on 'Russia-Nato ties: impact on neighbouring countries' at a workshop here on Thursday. The event — titled 'New trends and challenges in trans-Atlantic relations: impact on world politics' — was organised by KU's Area Study Centre for Europe.

While advocating Russia's entry into Nato, Dr Siddiqi said there were also counter-arguments against the former superpower joining what was historically a western military alliance aligned against the Eastern Bloc. These include the fact that if Russia were to join, Nato would explode from within as it would be unable to work effectively. Another argument, which the scholar said was not very sound, was that Russia could not join on “civilisational grounds” as there were some quarters that believed Russia was not a part of the West.

Dr Siddiqi said Russia was a “defeated country” after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Lessons from history suggested that either a vanquished country is integrated into the comity of nations or else a country is “contained and condemned to oblivion”. He said the United States adopted a policy of both engaging and containing Russia after the fall of communism.

The scholar said that Russia had “an acute sense of insecurity” regarding its former satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. He observed that Russia and Nato enjoyed good cooperation in the war on terror with Russian leader Vladimir Putin linking the Chechen rebels with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.

However, the central and eastern European states felt “Mother Russia” was getting too aggressive and wanted a restoration of Soviet glory. “The CEE states think Russian policies are driven by emotions. The gas dispute with Ukraine in 2009 is cited as an example of this. The question of fuel supplies is very important”.

Journalist and writer Imtiaz Gul spoke on 'Nato's deepening engagement in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan'. He said that Sept 11 marked Nato's entry into the field of counter-terrorism. The military bloc viewed terrorism and weapons of mass destruction as two major threats, while considering religious extremism as a major source of terrorism.

Display of power

He said that the reason for the bloc flexing its military muscle after Sept 11 was the rationale that if you cannot project military prowess, no one will take you seriously. Mr Gul observed that nation-building was part of the anti-terrorism strategy, yet this was proving to be difficult in Afghanistan because of hostility of the Afghans towards the Americans. “Nato is just a cover for what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan”.

On the local front, he claimed that militants were trying to take refuge within the Tableeghi Jamaat, an overtly non-political religious group. “This is a very real threat”.

Mr Gul said that the bi-polar world was on its way back with the rise of China. “Nato's latest idea is to isolate China and perpetuate western dominance. Is Nato an anti-terror [set-up] or a neo-colonial tool to dominate developing nations for commercial purposes? Is it a tool to create buffers between developed nations and the developing world?”

Prof Dr Tanweer Khalid of KU discussed 'A comparative study of the security concepts of the EU and Nato and the contemporary international scenario'. She said security has diverse meanings and no single definition has been accepted. She said though the European Union formulated a Common Security and Defence Policy in 1999, “Europe lacked a strategic culture”. The scholar said that 2007's Treaty of Lisbon aimed at addressing a lack of cohesion and that construction of a strategic culture had begun.

Dr Khalid said that North America and Europe were linked for centuries; in the modern context the security and defence link was the most profound, as characterised by the doctrine of collective defence in Article Five of the Washington Treaty.

“Nato institutionalised the relationship between the US and Western Europe. The EU and Nato need to take a holistic approach towards security issues. More cooperation is required. Relations must receive a fresh impetus, especially after the era of George W. Bush. Both must avoid competition”.

Muhammad Shahid Iqbal spoke on the trans-Atlantic 'Rivalry in the realm of economy and trade'. He said America had shifted its economic focus from Europe to the Middle East and Central Asia. He said deals such as the reported $80 billion American defence agreement with Saudi Arabia “reflect the US economy's weakness” as it has been drained due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He added that there was mounting unemployment in the US.

Mr Iqbal said that there was a US-European rivalry over the natural resources of the developing world and that economics would dictate future world events. “There is an economic war between North America and the EU. Europe is investing in Africa while America is moving towards Asia”.

Retired Lt-Gen Moinuddin Haider chaired the event while ASCE director Prof Dr Naveed Ahmad Tahir delivered the introduction.