PERSPECTIVE ON NATO EXPANSION : A Promise Best Not Kept : A U.S. commitment to defend Eastern Europe isn’t in our national interest; it’s not even credible as a deterrent.

The Republican “contract with America” contains a proposal for the expansion of NATO to include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary by 1999. The Baltic states and Ukraine would follow. This represents the most significant potential expansion of United States military commitments in 40 years. It is one promise by the new congressional majority that is best forgotten.

The central feature of the NATO treaty is Article V, which commits each signatory to regard an attack on any one state to be an attack on each state. It is an unequivocal pledge of war.

The success of NATO during the Cold War was a result of the credibility of the signatories. World Wars I and II demonstrated that the United States regarded the security of Western Europe as central to its own freedom and prosperity. It was not a difficult commitment for a potential adversary to understand. With $200 billion in transatlantic trade, there is no separating the economic futures of the United States and our allies. Similar political institutions gave the treaty meaning and military capabilities gave it credibility.

An arbitrary expansion of our NATO obligations to these Eastern European nations would not conform to the original treaty objectives. A future adversary would never believe that the United States would risk its own survival to extend the nuclear umbrella in defense of nations where it has little economic, political or security interests.

Conventional military assistance would be no more credible. The Balkans war has set the precedent with the United States’ refusal to become involved and our allies’ rejection of military force to defend interests on their own frontiers against a comparatively weak opponent.

This is not to suggest that the United States does not sympathize with the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. We welcome their freedom, and their success is in our national interest. We should give them substantial economic, trade and security assistance. But a commitment to wage war requires a vital national interest of a different dimension.

Central to the arguments against the “contract with America” pledge of NATO expansion are the contradictions that it represents. Republican promises of a strong national defense would be undermined by rapid NATO expansion. Great powers make impossible or insincere military commitments at great risk. A commitment of assistance to a small European state that is not fulfilled might lead an adversary to conclude that a genuine interest protected by the same pledge also will not be defended.

Underlying the policy debate is the question of capability. The ability of the United States to defend the current 15 NATO nations in a prolonged conflict with Russia was always arguable. Now Republicans contend that, having reduced our own forces by 25% and withdrawn 200,000 troops from Europe, the United States should rapidly expand our commitments to four additional nations and 73 million people. The credibility of their proposal is further compromised by their assurance that such an expansion can be achieved at no cost to the American taxpayer.

None of these potential allies offers any serious military ability to contribute to its own security. None is equipped with weapons or ordnance compatible with our own. Opposing Russian military forces, while diminished, include 72 divisions totaling 2.4 million men in adjoining regions. Their potential under some future authoritarian government commanding a nation of 150 million is obviously considerable.

Concern with the impracticability of broadening our military obligations is inevitably leading some to compromise. They propose that some nations join NATO while those more proximate to Russia be excluded. This represents the worst of all outcomes. NATO would still be left with responsibilities that it cannot fulfill, and the excluded states would implicitly fall into a new Russian sphere of influence. A new line would be drawn across Europe.

Missing from arguments for NATO expansion is an understanding that the central element in the maintenance of Eastern European security is the strengthening of Russian democracy. The ultimate maintenance of Eastern European sovereignty will be decided by the struggle for power within Russia. NATO expansion would strengthen Russian nationalist forces and, ironically, undermine the very Russian institutions and leaders that offer the principal opportunity to maintain Eastern European security.

The Clinton Administration’s “partnership for peace” offers a far more balanced approach. Joint training exercises in the Netherlands and Poland are an example of the alliance’s ability to increase capabilities. The promise of eventual NATO membership sends a signal of our interest without recklessly committing ourselves to a future conflict.

The Republican leadership is determined to restore electoral confidence in Congress by maintaining campaign promises. The American people should insist that swift expansion of NATO is a pledge that should not be kept.