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.