Which nations have been most impacted by the 2008 NATO expansion and why?

Using this
group of nations, provide a detailed assessment of the concerns and end-goals that affect
the various governments' pronouncements and actions. What prompts a divergent
understanding of outcome of the 2008 NATO Leaders Meeting in Bucharest?
End of Cold War brought sigh of the relief through-out world. New relationships between
the Russia & U.S., particularly, given the assurance that nuclear threats to the civilization had
diminished vastly. The democracy had been won & Russia could be accepted as the part of West.
There could be no 3
rd
World War for following 1
st
& 2
nd
. Now such hopes have been ebbing.
More in West dont realize this still, but there is change in the Russia, the change which has
largely inspired by the attitudes. NATO expansion is main reason for such change. NATOs
expansion, due to reaction in country, has been killing the partnerships (NATO Expansion, Not
Defined).
At April 2 - 4, 2008 the NATO summit in the Bucharest, Romania principal issue had
been consideration of candidacies for the memberships of Croatia, Albania as well as
Macedonia. Allies agreed for extending the invitations to Croatia & Albania. However alliance
had determined that the Macedonia met qualification for the NATOs membership, Greece had
blocked invitation because of enduring disputes over the name of Macedonia. After the formal
accessions talk, on 9 July, 2008 foreign minister of Croatia as well as Albania & permanent
representatives of twenty six NATO allies had signed the accession protocol amending North
Atlantics Treaty for permitting the membership of Albania as well as Croatia in NATO. For
taking the effect, protocol had for being ratified, firstly by the current NATOs members, then by
the Croatia & Albania. On 1 April, 2009 two countries became formally twenty seventh &
twenty eighth member of Alliance when Ambassadors of 2 nations deposited ratified instrument
of the accession at States Department. On 4 April, 2009 Croatia & Albania had been welcomed
to NATOs table at the ceremony held at NATO summit in the France, Strasbourg. Both the
nations are the small states with the correspondingly smalls militaries & the inclusion in the
NATO may not be considered the militarily strategic. Thought, this is possible that the
membership might play political role in helping for stabilizing the south-eastern Europe.
Over past fifteen years, the Congress has been passed the legislation indicating the
supports for NATOs enlargement, as long as the candidate states to meet the qualifications for
the alliance membership. On 9 April, 2007, the former President Bush had signed in to the law
NATO Freedoms Consolidations Act of the year 2007, expressing the support for subsequent
NATOs enlargement. On 10 September, 2008 Senates Foreign Relation Committee held hearing
on accession of the Croatia as well as Albania as the prelude to the Senate ratification. For the
states for being admitted, Senate should pass resolutions of ratifications by two third majorities
for amending founding treaty of NATO & committing U.S. for defending the new geographic
spaces. On 25 September, 2008 Senate by the division vote Treaty Number 110-20 ratified
accessions protocol. Potential costs of the enlargement had the factor in debate over the NATOs
enlargement in mid and late 1990. Though, costs of current round had been expected for being
minimal.
The other issue had debated at Bucharests summit was future enlargement of NATO &
question for offering the MAP (Membership Action Plan) to the Ukraine & Georgia.
Membership Action Plan has been viewed generally by the allies & aspiring the alliance member
as the way station for membership. Though, this isnt invitation for joining the NATO & this
doesnt guarantee formally the future membership. Former Bushs Administration had supported
for granting MAPs to the Ukraine as well as Georgia. Both Senate & House had passed the
resolution in one hundred tenth Congress urging the NATO for entering in to the MAPs with
Ukraine and Georgia. Though, despite the strong United States support, allies had decided after
the much debate not for offering the MAPs to Ukraine & Georgia at the Bucharest. The
opponents had cited the internal separatist conflict in the Georgia, public oppositions to the
membership in strong objection of Ukraine & Russia to two countries membership as the factor
influencing the opposition. Allies had pledged that the Ukraine and Georgia could become
eventually NATO member but didnt specify when it could happen. August 2008 conflicts
between the Russia and Georgia seemed to place membership prospect of the Georgia as well as
Ukraine aside for immediate future.


References
NATO Expansion. (Not Defined). Retrieved January 6th, 2011, from http://www.cato.org:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-43.html