"NATO
seems, to
some, an
anachronistic
organization
that need not
be revived."

In fact, this success has led many to discuss admitting new countries to NATO even before the process of determining new goals for NATO is complete. In October, the Stanley Foundation convened a group of experts to look at the dangers and benefits of expansion and define US goals and options in the process.

"NATO seems, to some, an anachronistic organization that need not be revived. To others it seems a valuable mechanism to promote democracy, peace, and security in all of Europe," said the report issued following the conference. President Clinton, seeing value in NATO's continuing presence, has urged that NATO be expanded to the east. Since then, the organization has selected Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to be invited to join in the first round of expansion.

Expansion may also impact NATO by increasing the burden on the United States, especially if new members are not fully prepared. "More troops may be needed and different kinds of troops and equipment may be required to protect Poland. This all costs money and needs the support of the US public and Congress, which may not go along with added costs for an organization that has already served its purpose," according to the report.

Several participants said that the important issues of collective security and Article 5 need more debate in the United States, but US policymakers may have much to lose by encouraging such a discussion. "One participant," said the report, "stated that he could envision a US senator asking Secretary of State Madeleine Albright whether the United States has agreed to fight for Budapest. Other politicians may want to know why the United States has agreed to fight for Lisbon or Athens in the first place."

Other participants, however, said the German threat was overblown and noted that Germany has chosen not to take part in "out of area" NATO operations. A few participants went so far as to say, "the Germans would prefer to keep US troops in Germany for fear of becoming viewed as number one in Europe. According to one participant, the Germans themselves perceive the need for 'someone to watch over them and keep them in line.'"

Raising fears inside Russia may run counter to the US larger foreign policy goals. While attending the conference, former NATO Assistant-Secretary General Phillip Merril appeared on the foundation's weekly radio program Common Ground where he said, "Our job is to integrate Russia and China into the community of civilized nations and to deal with loose nukes and weapons of mass destruction, not only inside the former Soviet Union but in the hands of other countries. And advancing NATO eastward impedes that effort and does not enhance it."

Others at the conference thought that a good faith effort had been made to calm Russian fears. They pointed out that Russia does have some degree of integration with NATO through the Partnership for Peace program and the NATO-Russia Joint Permanent Council which is designed to keep Russia advised on NATO activities. "There is a conscious effort to try to bring Russia in as much as we possibly can to the West. And that has been accelerated by NATO enlargement," said Hans Binnendijk of the National Defense University, also appearing on Common Ground.

These supporters believe NATO has a role to play in advancing democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. But opponents, "...felt the costs were too high, the burdens too great, and the dangers too numerous to push for expansion as a means of projecting power. They insisted that NATO is not the right organization to use to build democracy in Europe.

Expansion costs will force the new members to spend money on military personnel and equipment instead of investing in economic development and infrastructure. According to the report, "One participant called expansion a bonanza for arms merchants. Another referred to expansion as a welfare program for defense contractors."

Proponents of enlargement argue that costs will be lower than anticipated. They add that enlargement is vital to preventing future conflicts—conflicts which would be even more costly for the United States.

"One conference participant," according to the report, "pointed out there might be little interest to join NATO as the burden of new membership increases. The desire to 'up the ante' may be too great for the newest members, and this could discourage potential members from seeking admittance.

Those in favor of expansion, however, said it should be viewed as an open-ended process. They pointed out dangers in not expanding. "Placing an artificial limit on expansion, particularly to the east, would have dire consequences for European security. Where will the nations who have been denied admittance in NATO turn for aid? Will they also seek out alliances with nations such as China?," said the report.

BACK TO COURIER ONLINE