NATO's eastward expansion is thorny issue

NATO's eastward expansion is thorny issue

By Anak Agung Banyu Perwita

BANDUNG (JP): Among the Atlantic community and European
countries, the discussion on the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's eastward expansion has become very interesting.
The proponents of NATO expansion believe it is only a matter of
time. As U.S. President Bill Clinton said after the NATO Summit
in January 1994, "the question is no longer whether NATO will
take on new members, but when and how".

Although most Western analysts and policy makers believe NATO
should expand, there is still a debate over when and how this
should take place. NATO expansion will be a complex political and
military undertaking in which many crucial issues still lie
ahead.

But considering the new politico-military landscape in Europe,
there are at least three approaches on NATO expansion. The first
approach is "evolutionary expansion". This approach centers on
the fact that the main problems facing East and Central Europe
are economic and political. It also stresses that there are no
immediate military-security threats in the region.

In military terms, East and Central Europe's current situation
hardly seems to be jeopardizing the stability of Europe as a
whole. Therefore, the top political agenda for East and Central
European countries is their chance to "fully" integrate into the
European Union as the best means to address these problems.

In so doing, NATO expansion could not be based on a
mechanistic process or tied timetable. The East and Central
European countries still need at least ten years to further
develop their domestic capabilities in order to adapt to the
European Union. In other words, NATO expansion should proceed
gradually based upon the readiness of these countries.

The second approach is "promoting stability". This argues that
the politico-security situation in Eastern and Central Europe is
fragile. This situation, according to its proponents, will create
a security vacuum and threaten stability in Europe. Countries in
Eastern and Central Europe which have become independent states,
also fear an increase in Russia's military aggressiveness as a
result of domestic Russian development. Numerous ethnic
conflicts, especially in the former Soviet Union, make this
scenario realistic.

In this anarchic situation, East and Central Europe need a
strong security framework to develop a stable political system.
NATO must, therefore, provide the security guarantee necessary to
anchor countries to the West and stabilize Eastern and Central
Europe as a whole.

This approach argues that NATO cannot wait until the European
Union is ready to expand. It also stresses that NATO should move
quickly to expand its new memberships especially to Poland,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Concerned about
instability in the region, this action is needed to deter Russian
aggression in Eastern and Central Europe.

The final approach is the "strategic response". This focuses
primarily on the political situation in Russia. In this case,
NATO expansion should be closely related with the enlargement of
the European Union. Many analysts believe this approach would
reduce the risk of NATO expansion being perceived as a threat to
Russia. This approach argues that the decision on whether and
when to expand is based ultimately on strategic situations and
events in Russia.

For Russia, the most important requirement for NATO expansion
is the willingness of the U.S. and its Western alliance to extend
their assurance to support Russia's economic and political
development. Giving priority to Russia's interests will justify
NATO's expansion of membership. This means there will be no
eastward NATO enlargement without Russian consent. At the same
time, this is a crucial question of relations between the U.S.
and the Russia Federation. A miscalculated move by NATO toward
Russia would probably trigger a new problem.

Therefore, NATO and the European Union should fully support
economic and political development in Russia. This allows NATO to
adopt a "wait and see attitude" as it awaits the result of the
political struggle in Russia. The May 14 agreement struck in
Moscow between NATO and Russia representatives on forging a
peaceful new relationship is a positive sign. The text of the
agreement which covered military and political issues will have
to be approved by President Boris Yeltsin and the 16 NATO
countries before it is signed in Paris on May 27.

Even though it remains to be seen if NATO is a dominant
defense organization in the context of a multilayered European
security system, the NATO expansion debate is very complex
because it involves so many diverse and overlapping agendas. How
important is NATO expansion for the future security system of
Europe as a whole?

The significance of NATO expansion will be largely determined
by the interlocking relations between all European countries. In
order to choose the most plausible approach, NATO's decision on
how and when to accept new members must be carefully examined.

The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International
Relations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.