PERSPECTIVES ON OPENING NATO MEMBERSHIP : Yes: Don’t Abandon Eastern Europe--Again : The bonds of security, economics and political interests tie East and West, but the communist specter still lurks.

On Feb. 11, 1945, my wife and I listened in London to the evening news as the signing of the Yalta agreement was announced. It solidified the wartime cooperation between three victorious major powers; they granted themselves the authority to carve out the new frontiers of Europe. Smaller and weaker allies, irrespective of their contributions to the joint war efforts, were sacrificed on the altar of big-powers unity.

At that moment, we decided to change our status from soldiers to political exiles. There was no way that we could return to our native Poland and face a foreign-imposed regime. Yet that decision was challenged by the political mood of the period. The government would be wise, pontificated the venerable Times of London, “to curb hostile voices of disgruntled Poles attacking their newly formed government.” Three years later, when we went to the American consulate to collect our immigration visas, the consul inquired why we were not returning home. “Poland is free,” he said, “it has a newly established government recognized by the Allies. You would risk nothing returning.” And both Washington and London justified their policy as the only one acceptable to Moscow. It would be foolish to irritate the Soviet Union.

Is history repeating itself?

We are witnessing a widespread discussion about the future of NATO and the split in the ranks of the State Department policy-makers. Apparently, stronger personalities and stronger presidential ties prevailed. Instead of responding to Eastern European calls for admission to the Western security umbrella, a watered-down formula called “Partnership for Peace” was offered. It would be foolish to irritate Russia and President Boris N. Yeltsin, the current darling of the American foreign-policy Establishment.

Is history repeating itself? Probably, but circumstances are dramatically different. Half a century ago, the big powers’ decisions rested on the premises that the two halves of the continent--Eastern and Western--could remain separated and equal. Today, another element enters into equation: global interdependence, which neither Eastern Europe nor America can neglect. It manifests itself in security, economic, fiscal and political ties. Since 1989--the year that Solidarity assumed power in Poland--a number of solid bridges have been erected between East and West.

Democratic governments, free elections and market-driven economies became new political realities. Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel are both products of that reality. They received accolades (including a Nobel Peace Prize for Walesa), political encouragement and fiscal assistance. The aid channeled through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund put the prestige of these two institutions and their judgment on the line.

It is the economic growth that is being counted upon by numerous American and multinational corporations. They keep testing the newly opening markets as well as manufacturing facilities.Modern technologies, be they in telecommunication, transportation or merchandising, are being absorbed eagerly by Eastern Europeans. The United States, for years suffering from negative trade balances, may be looking toward these new markets to alleviate that problem.

Thus interdependence has taken root, yet it appears to have been negated by the Clinton Administration. The issue of NATO membership has been interpreted solely from the Eastern European perspective, neglecting potential benefits and pitfalls for both sides. The pitfalls are in evidence in today’s Poland. Recent elections--free by any standard--produced victory for former communists. While there is little doubt that harsh economic conditions played a role, a sense of abandonment by the West played an equally important role.

Poland, denigrated to satellite status during the last 50 years, yearns to be readmitted to the Western family of nations as a full partner rather than an associate. The current discussion related to NATO, bypassing the reality of existing interdependence, made Poles feel pressured once again to look eastward. The protest vote, bringing to a democratic Poland a communist prime minister, should be a warning to all those who five years ago celebrated the change.

For the United States, there was another warning recently from Moscow: Parliamentary elections catapulted into prominence a demagogue calling openly for restoration of a defunct Russian empire. Should this be translated into action, a strong rebuff by the Czech Republic or Poland would trigger global repercussions--another indication of interdependence in the security area.

An anonymous State Department official was quoted as suggesting that Eastern Europeans should accept the partnership idea; otherwise, he implied, America will just go elsewhere. I suddenly saw once again the surprised face of the American consul in 1945 encouraging me not to emigrate to the States but to return home. Is it possible that he is still around, devising the new policy?