NATO's eastward expansion is thorny issue<\/p>\n
By Anak Agung Banyu Perwita<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Among the Atlantic community and European
\ncountries, the discussion on the North Atlantic Treaty
\nOrganization's eastward expansion has become very interesting.
\nThe proponents of NATO expansion believe it is only a matter of
\ntime. As U.S. President Bill Clinton said after the NATO Summit
\nin January 1994, \"the question is no longer whether NATO will
\ntake on new members, but when and how\".<\/p>\n
Although most Western analysts and policy makers believe NATO
\nshould expand, there is still a debate over when and how this
\nshould take place. NATO expansion will be a complex political and
\nmilitary undertaking in which many crucial issues still lie
\nahead.<\/p>\n
But considering the new politico-military landscape in Europe,
\nthere are at least three approaches on NATO expansion. The first
\napproach is \"evolutionary expansion\". This approach centers on
\nthe fact that the main problems facing East and Central Europe
\nare economic and political. It also stresses that there are no
\nimmediate military-security threats in the region.<\/p>\n
In military terms, East and Central Europe's current situation
\nhardly seems to be jeopardizing the stability of Europe as a
\nwhole. Therefore, the top political agenda for East and Central
\nEuropean countries is their chance to \"fully\" integrate into the
\nEuropean Union as the best means to address these problems.<\/p>\n
In so doing, NATO expansion could not be based on a
\nmechanistic process or tied timetable. The East and Central
\nEuropean countries still need at least ten years to further
\ndevelop their domestic capabilities in order to adapt to the
\nEuropean Union. In other words, NATO expansion should proceed
\ngradually based upon the readiness of these countries.<\/p>\n
The second approach is \"promoting stability\". This argues that
\nthe politico-security situation in Eastern and Central Europe is
\nfragile. This situation, according to its proponents, will create
\na security vacuum and threaten stability in Europe. Countries in
\nEastern and Central Europe which have become independent states,
\nalso fear an increase in Russia's military aggressiveness as a
\nresult of domestic Russian development. Numerous ethnic
\nconflicts, especially in the former Soviet Union, make this
\nscenario realistic.<\/p>\n
In this anarchic situation, East and Central Europe need a
\nstrong security framework to develop a stable political system.
\nNATO must, therefore, provide the security guarantee necessary to
\nanchor countries to the West and stabilize Eastern and Central
\nEurope as a whole.<\/p>\n
This approach argues that NATO cannot wait until the European
\nUnion is ready to expand. It also stresses that NATO should move
\nquickly to expand its new memberships especially to Poland,
\nHungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Concerned about
\ninstability in the region, this action is needed to deter Russian
\naggression in Eastern and Central Europe.<\/p>\n
The final approach is the \"strategic response\". This focuses
\nprimarily on the political situation in Russia. In this case,
\nNATO expansion should be closely related with the enlargement of
\nthe European Union. Many analysts believe this approach would
\nreduce the risk of NATO expansion being perceived as a threat to
\nRussia. This approach argues that the decision on whether and
\nwhen to expand is based ultimately on strategic situations and
\nevents in Russia.<\/p>\n
For Russia, the most important requirement for NATO expansion
\nis the willingness of the U.S. and its Western alliance to extend
\ntheir assurance to support Russia's economic and political
\ndevelopment. Giving priority to Russia's interests will justify
\nNATO's expansion of membership. This means there will be no
\neastward NATO enlargement without Russian consent. At the same
\ntime, this is a crucial question of relations between the U.S.
\nand the Russia Federation. A miscalculated move by NATO toward
\nRussia would probably trigger a new problem.<\/p>\n
Therefore, NATO and the European Union should fully support
\neconomic and political development in Russia. This allows NATO to
\nadopt a \"wait and see attitude\" as it awaits the result of the
\npolitical struggle in Russia. The May 14 agreement struck in
\nMoscow between NATO and Russia representatives on forging a
\npeaceful new relationship is a positive sign. The text of the
\nagreement which covered military and political issues will have
\nto be approved by President Boris Yeltsin and the 16 NATO
\ncountries before it is signed in Paris on May 27.<\/p>\n
Even though it remains to be seen if NATO is a dominant
\ndefense organization in the context of a multilayered European
\nsecurity system, the NATO expansion debate is very complex
\nbecause it involves so many diverse and overlapping agendas. How
\nimportant is NATO expansion for the future security system of
\nEurope as a whole?<\/p>\n
The significance of NATO expansion will be largely determined
\nby the interlocking relations between all European countries. In
\norder to choose the most plausible approach, NATO's decision on
\nhow and when to accept new members must be carefully examined.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International
\nRelations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/natos-eastward-expansion-is-thorny-issue-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}