NATO's enlargement from 19 to 26 states this week in Prague underlines the alliance's continuing military and political role in Europe after the end of the Cold War. Its influence extends well beyond this membership base through the Partnership for Peace organisation and the Euro-American Partnership Council, at which 46 states, including Ireland and other neutral states, were represented yesterday.
The decision this week to create a NATO rapid reaction force which would be available to intervene in conflicts outside Europe is a new departure for the alliance, in keeping with the summit's joint statement on Iraq and a commitment to tackle international terrorism.
President Bush's meeting with President Putin yesterday immediately after the summit ended is a sharp reminder of how much has changed in Europe since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. After the Soviet Union broke up all its successor states - including Russia - have been preoccupied with their security. For the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania NATO membership became a symbol and guarantee of their independence from a huge, powerful neighbour which has traditionally shown scant regard for their rights. In similar fashion the other former communist states accepted into the NATO this week - Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia - believe it is essential bulwark against any reassertion of Russian power.
They have all gone through a profound transformation to become parliamentary democracies and market economies. The European Union has contributed more than NATO to this process; but it is a mistake to draw too sharp a distinction between the two, given their mutual insistence on setting similar conditions for membership. President Putin has been willing to go along with NATO's expansion on the basis that the alliance itself has been transformed from a strictly military into a much more political organisation with which it suits his country to co-operate. He has used this co-operation as a lever with which to develop a more constructive relationship with the United States across the span of political, security and military concerns, including a joint attitude towards terrorism.
Nevertheless Mr Putin warned Mr Bush that he should not to go it alone on Iraq, but work with the United Nations. That message echoed similar ones from European NATO members at the Prague summit, where there was no commitment to join a US-led coalition of the willing. NATO's future development will depend greatly on how US policy evolves in coming months and years. If the Bush administration does decide to go it alone on Iraq a crisis of confidence is likely to develop with European members of NATO more exposed to destabilisation in the Middle East and as vulnerable to terrorist attacks in retaliation. Such uncertainty belies the harmonious signals emanating from the Prague summit.