New NATO may not be so relevant

Bill Clinton has pushed NATO expansion because he wants it to be the centerpiece of his second presidential term. He wants the history books to record him as the U.S. president who brought security to central Europe while bringing Russia into the fold in a U.S.-designed security framework for Europe.

But expansion only so far, so fast. Clinton rejected -- at least for the present -- the desire of more than half of NATO's 16 members to also include Rumania and Slovenia. The three former Warsaw Pact members to be included are ostensibly further advanced in democratic reforms and economic restructuring.

Yet following the Foundation Act in May -- which extended a measure of military cooperation from NATO to Russia -- the expansion exercise seems somewhat irrelevant. Russia is still adamantly opposed to it on the ground that it poses a threat to former Soviet States. But this is denied equally adamantly in Washington and in western European capitals. So the questions remain. If NATO is a military alliance, what is the rationale for its continued existence in the absence of a consolidated military threat? If NATO is not a military pact designed to defeat the Soviets, then what is its purpose?

If there is to be a benefit from NATO's expansion, it must be in that developing links between former enemies the potential for misunderstandings is reduced. Yet NATO as a military vehicle is equally important because it presents a symbol to the rest of the world that key military nations, such as the U.S., Britain and France, are united in a common cause. Expansion to include countries which do not have the capability of contributing to that cause -- if indeed they understand it -- will not add value to NATO as we know it. It is an entirely different animal. But even so, we should acknowledge that, like ANZUS, the NATO alliance should not be dismantled in the absence of perceived military threat. We wish it long life.

-- The Australian