Letter: Nato is breaking Major's `informal' promise to the Russians
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Dr Dunrabin of St Edmund Hall, Oxford (letter, 24 February) mistakes the occasion and character of the West's undertaking not to advance Nato eastwards.
It was made during discussions about the reunification of Germany, by John Major as Foreign Secretary and James Baker as US Secretary of State. Unfortunately for the Russians it was made "informally", not written down or recorded in any subsequent aide-memoire, let alone treaty, and therefore neither the British nor the American government consider themselves bound by it.
I put down a question in the House of Lords about this, after Russian officials had begun complaining about it - including Mr Gorbachev in London last year - and the answer came from the Foreign Office that there was no "formal undertaking". There was no denial of the informal undertaking, of which the Russians have apparently produced a rather confused tape.
That the Russians should have thought an Englishman's - or an American's - word might still be his bond showed naivety and a lack of diplomatic professionalism. All the same, there is a sense of betrayal, and it is no wonder they are not too keen now on any simple "political charter" with Nato which might turn out no more binding than this other "political" undertaking.
Lord KENNET
House of Lords
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments