| 
Experts
and Links
|
|
|
-
- The Great NATO Debate
- These articles were originally published on MSNBC.com and produced
as a joint project between the Center for War, Peace, and the News Media
of New York University, and MSNBC on the Internet. The project is titled,
NATO Expansion: Bigger
Alliance, Bigger Problems?
-
 The Clinton Administration's push for Senate ratification
of NATO expansion resumes on April 20. The Global Beat has teamed up with
MSNBC to bring you full background and real-time coverage. Check out NATO Expansion: Bigger Alliance,
Bigger Problems?
-
- Expanding
NATO Natural, Logical
- 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. By Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, March 3, 1998
-
- It's
a Bad Idea; Vote Against It
- The Senate should reject the proposal, but should at the same time
authorize the president to extend security guarantees to the candidate
countries and express a willingness to vote in favor of NATO membership
for them if they ever face a plausible external threat. By Jack F. Matlock,
Jr., former U.S. ambassador to the USSR, March 3, 1998
-
- Bad
for Russia, Bad for the World
- NATO expansion will plant a permanent seed of mistrust between the
United States and Russia, worsen existing differences on everything from
nuclear-arms control to policies in Iraq and Iran, and push Moscow into
alliances with China, India and rogue regimes. By Alexei Arbatov, deputy
chair of the Defense Committee of the Russian Parliament, March 3, 1998
-
- NATO
Expands, Horizons Contract
- The effort to expand NATO is short-term, opportunistic thinking, and
is very dangerous. Rather than making nuclear armed Russia the centerpiece
of its European security policy, Washington has opted instead to erect
a new wall providing false security for some while strengthening the darkest
elements of vanquished Soviet society. By Michael Moran, international
editor of MSNBC, March 3, 1998
-
- NATO
Expansion Not a Done Deal
- Unless other pieces of the puzzle also fit, a greatly enlarged NATO
could conceivably collapse under its own weight, whether it be because
of cost or just simply too much bloat to be an effective military alliance
united against no common foe. By James Hill, March 3, 1998
-
- Why
Not Include Everyone in NATO?
- The most alarming aspect of the current NATO expansion project is its
nearly unbounded reach, which could bring up to 30 new members into the
alliance, accompa-nied by an unprecedented expansion of United States security
commitments. However, a better conceived U.S. policy could convert this
drawback of multiplicity into a powerful asset. By Jonathan Dean, March
3, 1998
-
- Conflicts
and Regional Flashpoints in Europe and the Former Soviet Union: A Current
Survey
- NATO today wrestles with questions about its proper place in the larger
network of regional and international security institutions, including
NATO, the European Union (EU), the Western European Union (WEU), and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United
Nations (UN). Written to
accompany conflicts map. By Louis R. Golino, Senior Information
Specialist with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library
of Congress
- March 3, 1998
-
- Contact GRN for reprint information
on these articles.
-
Return to The
Great NATO Debate
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 |
Experts Directory
| Links Directory
|
About the GRN
| |