|
Europe and Russia have changed - changed for the better and changed for good. We still need NATO, for this is a dangerous world. But we need a NATO that has been adapted to meet the challenges of a world not as it has been, but as it will be. Russia and the United States have many differences. But to blame those differences on plans to revise NATO is like blaming every rainstorm on El Niño. It is simplistic and wrong. Admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO is a natural and logical response to the fall of the Berlin Wall and to the rebirth of freedom across Central and Eastern Europe. It is part of a much larger strategy to build a Europe that is at last undivided, democratic and at peace. This goal is manifestly in America's national interest. Twice in this century, our country had to send troops across the Atlantic to fight and die in wars that arose from European disputes. So after World War II, we built an alliance designed to prevent the conflicts of the future. That alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, helped transform the western half of Europe. For the first time, the security of old adversaries such as France and Germany came to depend on cooperation, not competition, with others. Western Europe's armies prepared to fight alongside their neighbors, not against them. Europe's eastern half, however, was locked out of this democratic community for as long as the Soviet empire existed. When that empire fell, we gained an opportunity to build a Europe whole and free - to do for Europe's east what we helped do for Europe's west after World War II. That opportunity presented NATO with a blunt choice. Would it exclude a whole group of qualified new democracies just because costs and they had been subjugated in the past? Or would it be open to those free countries that are willing and able to meet the responsibilities of membership? President Bill Clinton decided that it would make no sense for America to be allied with Europe's old democracies forever, but its new democracies never. So in 1994, NATO decided it would accept new members. And in 1997, it decided that among all the countries that wish to join, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are qualified now to be good allies. If the U.S. Senate agrees, they will join the alliance in 1999. The strategic rationale for this decision is straightforward. Admitting these three countries to NATO will make America safer, NATO stronger and Europe more peaceful and united. A larger NATO will make us safer by expanding the area of Europe where wars simply do not happen. By making it clear that we will fight, if necessary, to defend our new allies, we make it less likely that we will ever be called upon to do so. A larger NATO will also be a stronger NATO. Our prospective allies are passionately committed to the alliance. Experience has taught them to believe in a strong American role in Europe. They will add strategic depth to NATO, not to mention well over 200,000 troops. Their forces have already risked their lives alongside ours from the Gulf war to Bosnia. They strongly support our policy on Iraq, and they have pledged to stand with us should military action prove necessary. Finally, the very promise of a larger NATO has made Europe more stable by giving aspiring allies an incentive to solve their own problems. To align themselves with NATO, these countries have strengthened their democratic institutions, made sure soldiers take orders from civilians, and resolved virtually every old ethnic and border dispute in the region. This is the kind of progress that can ensure outside powers are never again dragged into conflict in Central and Eastern Europe. NATO enlargement means that we are extending solemn security commitments to our new allies. This is a serious step, and it is not without its serious critics. I can certainly understand the concern some people have expressed about Russia's opposition to a larger NATO. But Russia's objections have not prevented us from making progress in our relationship with that country. On the contrary, Russia now has a constructive relationship with NATO. Our troops are cooperating in Bosnia. And we are moving ahead with arms control: Russia is ahead of schedule in slicing apart nuclear weapons under the START I treaty. We have agreed on the outlines of a START III treaty that will slash our nuclear arsenals to 80 percent below their Cold War peak. Russia has joined us in banning nuclear testing and ratifying the treaty to outlaw chemical weapons. We do have real differences with Russia, including over Iran and Iraq. But those differences existed before we started to expand NATO, and they would not go away if enlargement stopped. Blaming every Russian policy we dislike on NATO is like blaming every rainstorm on El Niño - it is simplistic and wrong. We need to keep Russia's objections in perspective. They are the product of old misperceptions about NATO and old ways of thinking about its former satellites in Central Europe. Instead of changing our policies to accommodate Russia's outdated fears, we need to encourage Russia's more modern aspirations. We need to recognize that Europe has changed and that Russia has changed - changed for the better, changed for good. We still need NATO, for this is still a dangerous world. But we also need a NATO that has adapted to meet the challenges of the world not as it has been, but as it is and will be. Our alliance must be prudent enough to add members selectively. But it must also be smart enough to add those members that will add to our own security. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will. We should welcome them in, and hold the door open to others who may follow. Contact GRN for reprint information on this article. Return to Global Beat Home Page Nuclear Watch | East Asian Security | Economic & Monetary Union | NATO Expansion | Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation | U.S. Defense Policy | Publications | Events | |
