Enlargement of NATO: Where’s the Debate?

The 16 NATO countries have set next July as the time for announcing which Eastern European countries will be invited to join what until now has been known as the Western Alliance. No surprises are expected when the envelopes are opened. Based on the political and economic progress they have made since being freed of Soviet domination, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are the leading candidates for admission--probably in 1999, NATO’s 50th anniversary--with Slovenia and possibly Romania potential future invitees. Russia continues to oppose any enlargement that will bring NATO closer to its borders. But at the same time Moscow has agreed to begin talking about developing its own special security relationship with NATO, about whose scope Russia and NATO may prove to have far different ideas.

When the NATO treaty was debated in the U.S. Senate in 1949, searching questions were raised about the organization’s aims, what it would cost and the nature of the U.S. commitment to its European allies. Remarkably, the prospect of NATO enlargement has so far produced no vigorous national debate, with Republicans for the most part joining the Clinton administration in favoring early expansion. Part of the reason, growing out of domestic ethnic politics, is the perception that certain Eastern European states ought to have U.S. security guarantees. There is also the sense that enlargement had better be undertaken before Russia again grows too powerful and, possibly, more antagonistic.

But the questions that were asked about NATO nearly a half-century ago continue to be relevant today. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization originated as a counterweight to the Soviet Union’s military control over Eastern Europe. Given the enormous political realignment that has taken place, what purpose is the alliance now expected to serve? How much will it cost the United States to raise the military standards of new Eastern European members and bring them into conformity with the rest of NATO? Most notably, what American strategic interests are served by extending U.S. security guarantees eastward?

Until now, the argument for enlarging NATO has consisted mainly of unchallenged generalities: It will encourage democratic development in former Warsaw Pact states, promote continental stability, assure the United States of an influential role in Europe. But these are goals, not givens. Americans have yet to hear the case for NATO enlargement argued in the practical and specific detail it deserves.