NATO Expansion: Are Americans Snoozing? : Monumental issue has stirred little U.S. debate so far

NATO has all but committed itself to enlarging its membership, and given Europe’s geography, the only direction expansion can take is to the east, to embrace at least some of those states that until recently belonged to the anti-NATO and Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Just when the selected countries would be invited to join the alliance remains unclear, for the good reason that NATO’s 16 members, no doubt with some apprehension, are still trying to work out the timetable and conditions for growth.

It’s of course no secret that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are at the head of the line of prospective new members, eager to link their future security with NATO’s mutual defense guarantees, including the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Nor is it any secret why. Each, especially Poland, worries about a revived threat from the colossus to the east, Russia, and all see military association with the West as the best insurance for their future security. On its part the Russian government, egged on by the growing strength of nationalism, looks with concern at NATO’s proposed expansion up to the very borders of the former Soviet Union and, mindful of a long history of invasions from the west, asks whether some dark anti-Russian plot might not be afoot. NATO almost daily reminds Moscow that it is a defensive alliance and intends to remain one. Moscow, unconvinced, continues to voice its alarm that NATO’s expansion would work to redivide Europe and isolate Russia.

HEAVY INVESTMENTS: Last week’s NATO meeting in Brussels saw presentation of a formal plan to broaden NATO membership, with the primary aim of building a new security order on a continent that rightfully fears the re-emergence of old national rivalries. Russia, an observer at the meeting, apparently came away with its suspicions intact. The new plan made clear that the enlargement of NATO would be neither cost- nor risk-free. Those that joined would be faced with a fairly heavy investment to integrate their military forces into the NATO structure. Those already in NATO would find their commitment to treaty-based collective security extended to an additional one, two, three or more states. What that means, to bring the issue close to home, is that the United States, by far NATO’s most powerful member, would become the chief guarantor of the security of still more states in a part of the world where ethnic tensions remain high.

AT CLINTON’S DOORSTEP: The NATO foreign ministers are scheduled to meet in December, perhaps to give the first certain signs of who might be tapped for an enlarged alliance and when. Meanwhile, oddly, this very weighty foreign policy issue with the added commitments it involves continues to be all but ignored in American political discussion. Congress, to be sure, seems generally if absent-mindedly to favor NATO’s growth. But there has yet to be any coherent debate over the strategic rationale for expansion or its political implications, certainly no assessment of how to win public support for the added burdens that would be involved.

As an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations noted earlier this year, it is up to the Clinton Administration “to articulate a much fuller vision of its plans, specifying how far eastward NATO is likely to extend; what NATO’s relationship will be with other security institutions; and what the American people should expect in terms of the costs, responsibilities and benefits of NATO expansion.”

It’s up to the Administration, in short, to make a persuasive case for enlarging the alliance, something it has yet to attempt. Until that case is made and bipartisan support for it is evident, the idea of expanding NATO remains something to be best approached with caution, if not with outright skepticism.