NATO's problems with enlargement have certainly been harder to overcome. There was the question of which countries should be taken in, and the harsh criticism of Russia, which expressed the view that NATO is a Cold War institution that should not come closer to the Russian border or should even be completely dismantled. When the next round of expansion might be discussed, the issue of Russian criticism and which countries should be chosen, will certainly emerge again. It is likely, that there will be greater problems to deal with these issues than last time.
One of the major effects of the enlargement that has already taken place or is about to happen is, or will be, the danger of over-burdening of institutional processes in all organizations. The biggest organization, the OSCE, had only very modest success with its European Security Charter adopted in November 1999 in Istanbul. It failed to get the involvement in domestic affairs on its task list. NATO officials have to cope with too many negotiations and meetings in different circles and are under constant time pressure. The Secretary General recently complained that he has to manage about 600 committees. Because both organizations are of inter-governmental nature, it is difficult to find ways to overcome the problem of internal blockage because of an overly extended and differentiated membership. The EU, however, is a different animal. It encompasses supra-national elements which might become strengthened. And indeed, the envisaged substantial enlargement of the European Union had led to much pressure to deepen the integration of the Union before enlargement takes place.
Operation 2: Reform of functions and roles:
All institutions have extended their role and functions throughout the last decade.
The OSCE has become the sleeping beauty of European security organizations. Aside from its important function as a framework for the Treaty on Conventional Disarmament in Europe, it failed, however:
・to develop a substantial role in peace-keeping and by this relieving the UN from this task in Europe (the Istanbul decisions of November last year ask for an examination of options of a case-by-case role in this area only);
・to gain a role in conflicts within borders, which is the major type of hostilities in current times. (Inclusion of this task was blocked by Russia because of the Chechnyan conflict).
Something which the OSCE is able to do is further refine its institutional structure (e.g. Rapid Expert Assistance and Cooperation Teams, establishment of an operational center for field operations, the further development of its capabilities to guide police operations) and by this it will remain a very useful but not very visible crisis prevention tool and an instrument to influence political and societal change throughout the area covered by its membership. This might change in a positive manner, in case Russia might one day accept a larger peacekeeping operation on the soil of the former USSR. In this case, the OSCE might be―aside from the UN―the only candidate for such an operation.
NATO has maintained its collective defense function, reorganized its command structure and set up a new strategic concept. In addition, the Alliance has developed a strong emphasis on cooperative security (as can be seen in EAPC, PfP, the NATO-Russia and NATO―Ukraine Council).
