Expanding NATO and Russian Security

Jonathan Clarke (Commentary, Nov. 25) of the Cato Institute makes an excellent case not to do anything that might reignite tensions between Russia and NATO. Looking back, it is easy to see that if some different directions (and attitudes) were taken at critical junctures in history, governments could have followed a more civilized policy for geopolitics in its broadest sense. Here are a few suggestions:

Eliminate the armed forces from all of the small Eastern European countries that wish to join this group. This would greatly reduce the threat both to and from Russia.

By helping Russia solve its security problems, we greatly enhance the security of its neighbors and therefore our own security. Russia is economically in shambles. The birth rate has fallen. Population is decreasing sharply. An armed force of one-quarter its present size could do wonders; bring all these soldiers and backup military manufacturing into the civilian work force.

Physical security for any country is interwoven with economic security. Without economic security there can be little physical security. In a dynamic world, those who perceive the evolvement of the world economy and can tie in with the growth industries can be expected to prosper, and form a solid base for further growth.

How could this apply to the Eastern European countries? What are the growth industries for the next century? Let me suggest the two largest: technology and tourism. By transferring the 3% to 6% of GNP that these Eastern European countries are spending on their armed forces into building infrastructure directed toward tourism and technology, the potential for outside investment of capital greatly increases.

Reducing the threat of instability through war, revolution or terrorism is a key factor for the economic development of a region.

DANIEL H. DEUTSCH

Pasadena

* Clarke sounds like Neville Chamberlain’s echo. Clarke implies that we do not know where cities like Vilnius are and therefore should not make any commitments regarding them. After Munich, Chamberlain described Czechoslovakia as a “faraway country about which we know nothing” and avoided any “unwanted commitments.” The result was a long and bloody war that eventually involved the U.S.

There is no evidence that traditional Russian imperialism disappeared with the Soviet Union. Russia may have a dysfunctional army now, but it would not take it long to create one strong enough to begin step-by-step annexing of countries in its “near abroad.” Not an expanded NATO, but a no-man’s land between Russia and the present NATO borders would tempt the Russian imperialists, perhaps irresistibly.

J. G. RELICH

Huntington Beach