On May 27, 1997, Russia and NATO believed they had turned the page on the Cold War with the Founding Act, a cooperation agreement aimed at establishing “a lasting and inclusive peace.” As the fighting rages in Ukraine, we look back to a time when the Atlantic Alliance and Moscow no longer saw each other as enemies.
On May 27, 1997, Russia and NATO believed they had turned the page on the Cold War with the Founding Act, a cooperation agreement aimed at establishing “a lasting and inclusive peace.” As the fighting rages in Ukraine, we look back to a time when the Atlantic Alliance and Moscow no longer saw each other as enemies.
The date was supposed to mark the beginning of a new era for the West and Russia after half a century of conflictive relations: on May 27, 1997, French President Jacques Chirac brought together his American and Russian counterparts, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, in Paris to sign the Founding Act of Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO.
Although it does not have the legal force of a treaty, this Founding Act, ratified after several years of negotiations at the highest level, created a new security architecture in Europe. From then on, the two parties no longer considered themselves adversaries but partners.
The document, 24 pages, provided for greater collaboration with Moscow in the fight against terrorism, peacekeeping, disarmament and economic relations. It is also accompanied by the creation of a joint NATO-Russia permanent Council.
According to the Founding Act, this cooperation must be based on “the principles of human rights and civil liberties”. The signatory countries also agree not to “resort to the threat or use of force” against each other or against any other state.
“It was a different time and a period full of hope for the evolution of Russia”, then in full democratic transition, said researcher Nicolas Tenzer, director of the publication ‘Desk Russian‘ on France 24, recalling that “the Founding Act had been preceded by a Partnership for Peace in 1994”.
Paving the way for enlargement
After the disappearance of the USSR in 1991, NATO wonders about its new missions. The requests for accession from the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, mired in a security vacuum with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact – the military alliance that united Eastern Europe with the Soviet Union during the Cold War – gave a new legitimacy to the US-led organization.
In this context, the Founding Act appears as a “necessary instrument for (NATO’s) expansion into Moscow’s former sphere of influence,” writes researcher Amélie Zima, in a article published in the ‘Journal of East-West Comparative Studies’.
The objective of the Founding Act, which formalized relations between NATO and Russia, was therefore to clear the way for a first enlargement with the requests for membership of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. These three countries would enter NATO two years later.
To prevent Russia from feeling isolated or even threatened by the politico-military organization created in 1947 to protect itself from a Soviet attack, NATO offered guarantees to Moscow in the Founding Act: in particular, it undertook not to deploy nuclear weapons, including storage sites, on the territory of future member countries and not to reinforce its permanent troops there.
Despite these precautions, Boris Yeltsin faced strong opposition from part of public opinion and the political world, who accused him of participating in the humiliation of the former Soviet Union by bowing to Western demands.
The Russian president was convinced that this rapprochement with NATO was beneficial for his country.
Considered a “betrayal” by Vladimir Putin, enlargement to the countries of the former Soviet bloc remains one of the main points of contention between Moscow and NATO.
The Founding Act “suffered” the Putin years
The historic Founding Act gave a new impetus to relations between Russia and NATO. However, a first crisis occurred in 1999 with the Western military operation in Kosovo, to which Moscow, a member of the UN Security Council, was hostile. However, this strong opposition did not give rise to lasting tensions and a rapprochement began at the beginning of the century.
This period of detente owes much to the rapprochement between Russia and the United States at the beginning of Vladimir Putin’s first presidency.
“After the 9/11 attacks, the goal was the fight against terrorism. At that time, Putin wanted Russia to play a bigger role,” explains Bruno Daroux, international columnist for France 24.
Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, sees in these attacks an opportunity to get closer to the West, but also to silence criticism of the war in Chechnya, presented as an “anti-terrorist operation”.
In this favorable context, a NATO-Russia Council was created in 2002 that allowed Moscow to sit on an equal footing with each of the Alliance members. But then the meetings broke down in 2008, at the time of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
Since then, relations have continued to deteriorate, making the Founding Act seem like a relic of a bygone era. “Massive war crimes have been committed in Syria, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of part of Donbass”, recalls Nicolas Tenzer, according to whom this association “has suffered with the years of Putin and an increasingly offensive regime “.
How did Ukraine become a field of war?
Between 2016 and 2019, the Council met only five times, most recently in January, a month before the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At that moment, the two sides realized the extent of their differences.
Although the channels of communication between Moscow and the Alliance remain open, since the NATO-Russia Council has never been suspended, the two former rivals have become adversaries again.
Should we therefore cut ties with Vladimir Putin and Russia? The issue has agitated Western countries since the beginning of the invasion. “There are again very strong tensions with Russia, but at some point, and this is what is creating divisions among Europeans, a way out of the crisis will have to be negotiated,” said Bruno Daroux.
“Of course we have to have long-term relations with Russia,” Nicolas Tenzer said. “But with the Putin regime, which is responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes, this is not possible at all.
*Adapted from its original French version
#Founding #Act #signed #years #NATO #Russia