Clinton Calls for Expanding NATO by ’99

In a campaign speech devoted almost entirely to foreign affairs, President Clinton said Tuesday that it is the United States’ responsibility to guard the newfound freedom of Central and Eastern Europe and called for extending NATO membership to at least some nations in that region by 1999.

His comments came in the context of a broad-ranging address in which he linked peace and stability abroad with prosperity and jobs at home. The president said it is in the United States’ best interests, and an essential element of its historic duty, to remain “actively engaged” in world affairs.

“We cannot and should not try to be the world’s policeman, but where our interests and values are clearly at stake and where we can make a difference, we must act and lead,” Clinton said, referring to the United States as “the world’s indispensable nation.”

Clinton made passing references to his administration’s role in defusing crises in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, North Korea and Mexico and spoke about efforts to reduce terrorism and expand trade. But the weight of his remarks was clearly directed at the future of the U.S.-European relationship and the continuing importance of the U.S. defense commitment in Europe.

“Today, I want to state America’s goal: By 1999, NATO’s 50th anniversary and 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the first group of countries we invite to join should be full-fledged members of NATO,” he said.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization--the United States, Canada and 14 West European countries--committed itself last year to take in new members before the turn of the century. This was the first time Clinton has mentioned a 1999 deadline.

The specific nations that might be part of the initial group of new members have never been listed publicly. Clinton avoided any such reference in his speech Tuesday.

But it is widely expected that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be among them. The names of the countries included in the first wave are expected to be announced at a NATO summit tentatively scheduled for late spring or early summer.

Campaigning in Frankenmuth, Mich., Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole accused Clinton of foot-dragging on NATO expansion and declared: “The time to begin expansion for Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic is now.”

Although extending NATO membership to nations that until recently were part of the Soviet empire would carry many undisputed advantages, there would also be considerable costs, both monetary and political. A heated debate on expansion has been occurring largely outside the public eye, and security experts on both sides of the Atlantic remain deeply divided on the issue.

Advocates insist that alliance membership and the collective security guarantees it entails would give Europe’s new democracies the confidence they need to flourish, would tighten their cooperation with the armed forces of existing NATO members and would strengthen the alliance with new blood.

The criteria for NATO membership, such as civilian control over the military and the existence of democratic government, are themselves incentives that have contributed to regional stability, these observers argue.

But opponents see expansion as an ill-considered, half-baked idea that would extend the territory covered by the United States’ promise to defend Europe from attack, if necessary by using nuclear weapons, deeper into the Continent. By admitting some post-Communist democracies and leaving out others, expansion could destabilize the region, they contend. Further, they say, a flurry of nations joining an organization that already has 16 members and can act only by consensus could paralyze it.

What really worries opponents, though, is that enlargement could endanger U.S. relations with Moscow, which still tends to see NATO as its enemy.

Senior officials in the Clinton administration and at NATO headquarters in Brussels say they are aware of potential problems and are working to counter them. One White House official indicated earlier this week that NATO enlargement would probably come within the framework of a “super-summit” that would also include a NATO-Russia treaty or declaration.

In his speech, Clinton appealed to Kremlin leaders “to look again” at NATO. Russians now have a great opportunity, he said, “to define themselves in terms of the future, not the past, to forge a new relationship with NATO as enlargement moves forward.”

While acknowledging that enlarging the alliance would “not be free of costs,” he warned of graver dangers from inaction, saying: “Mark my words, if we fail to seize this historic opportunity to build a new NATO in a new Europe, if we allow the Iron Curtain to be replaced by a veil of indifference, we will pay a much higher price later on down the road.”

Clinton built his case for expanding the nation’s oldest, most successful military alliance by evoking the memory of generations of Americans who fought in two world wars in Europe, helped build the peace there with the Marshall Plan and the Atlantic alliance and helped win the freedom of millions in Central and Eastern Europe with the end of the Cold War.

“But now that that freedom has been won, it is this generation’s responsibility to ensure that it will not be lost again, not ever,” he said.

Marshall reported from Washington and Peterson from Detroit. Times staff writer Elizabeth Shogren in Frankenmuth, Mich., contributed to this report.