3
NATO, which currently commands the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) remain
dependent on close cooperative ties with the region’s governments.
Disturbingly, this cooperation has coincided with continued and perhaps even heightened
political repression in the region, especially in Uzbekistan, where the government continues to
engage in serious human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary arrest, and severe restrictions
on freedom of speech and of the press.
5
For an alliance that, over the past fifteen years, has
committed itself to, not only defending, but also promoting the values enshrined in the preamble
to the original NATO Treaty (“democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law”), these trends
are just cause for concern. Indeed, since the end of the Cold War, NATO has embraced a new
concept of security—one that is ultimately grounded on liberal democratic values and a vision of
Europe “whole and free.”
6
While dialogue and partnership have played key roles in NATO’s
post-Cold War efforts to stabilize the European continent, NATO’s new conception of security
requires that these relationships be grounded on shared liberal democratic values. The fact that
the states of the Caucasus and Central Asia have thus far largely failed to democratize therefore
raises legitimate questions about the nature of the Partnership and, to some extent, the integrity of
NATO’s own identity as an alliance committed to extending its values throughout the Euro-
Atlantic area and beyond.
Despite these concerns, I argue that NATO has little choice but to engage the region
militarily and politically over the long term. In a post-September 11 world, it is now well
5
See, for example, the U.S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2003,
released February 25, 2004 (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/2783.htm)
6
For an in-depth discussion of NATO’s post-Cold War approach to security, see Rebecca R. Moore,
“NATO’s Mission for the New Millennium: A Value-Based Approach to Building Security,” Contemporary Security
Policy, 23, No. 1 (April 2002), pp. 1-34.
Convention