Do We Need New Allies?
Yes, to Enhance Everyone's Security
By Javier Solana
Next week the U.S. Senate is expected to decide on opening doors of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland. By approving these new members, the Senate will close the
book on Europe's unnatural Cold War division. NATO will erase the geographical
line it spent almost 50 years defending - the line that for nearly half
a century divided Europe into East and West. Three countries whose history
has been marked by turmoil and tragedy will finally be able to enjoy the
same security and stability as the present 16 NATO allies.
Moreover the enlargement of NATO will send a clear signal that no European
democracy will be forever excluded because of geography or history. All
free nations that are willing and able to meet the responsibilities of
membership and to contribute to NATO's collective security will be eligible
to join the alliance in the future. Enlargement is above all an investment
in a stable, united Europe and a vibrant trans-Atlantic community.
Of course NATO is a defense alliance, not a charitable organization.
Enlargement can be justified only if it advances the strategic interests
of the alliance. In this connection, I would like to emphasize four points:
First, a larger NATO will mean a stronger NATO. By committing their
forces as well as financial resources to the alliance, the three new members
will expand our political and military clout. Already in Bosnia as part
of NATO's peace support mission they will provide more than 200,000 troops
to an enlarged alliance. They are fully committed to NATO and have pledged
to increase their defense budgets in order to bring their military forces
up to NATO standards. All three are now mature, capable democracies willing
to assume the burdens as well as benefits of NATO membership. They are
already behaving like loyal allies.
Second, an enlarged NATO will not lead to new dividing lines in Europe.
NATO's enlargement is part of an ever-expanding network of cooperative
security relationships that today stretch across the Euro-Atlantic area.
We have created a Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and reinforces the
Partnership for Peace, offering all 27 of our partners across the Euro-Atlantic
area - from neutral Switzerland to faraway Uzbekistan - many new opportunities
to act side by side with NATO.
The alliance's decision to open doors has led many countries in Central
and Eastern Europe to accelerate their political, economic and military
reforms, to bury old enmities and to reject the destructive nationalism
of the past. This is why proposals for a mandated pause in the process
of NATO enlargement are misguided. Such a pause would deal a bitter blow
to the incentives that countries in this region have to cooperate with
their neighbours and with NATO. It would be viewed as a vote of no confidence
in their reform efforts.
Third, a larger NATO is compatible with a stronger relationship with
Russia. With the NATO-Russia Founding Act, we have created the right mechanisms
for political consultation with Moscow on a wide range of issues. We have
agreed to an ambitious work program with Russia for 1998. Military cooperation
is also gaining momentum. Russia will soon be more active in the Partnership
for Peace. We are extending our interaction beyond our successful operation
in Bosnia.
Russia opposes NATO enlargement, but there is no evidence that our differences
on this issue is preventing us from reinforcing our practical cooperation
in areas where our interests coincide. And I am convinced that in the
fullness of time Russia will come to see that an enlarged NATO is not
threat but an indispensable partner to Russia's own security.
Finally, the costs of an enlarged NATO are affordable. NATO's major
military commanders and their staffs recently concluded a study on costs
based on the most objective and thorough analysis to date of the military
situation in the three member countries. The study found that the costs
will be modest - only $1.5 billion over 10 years for NATO commonly funded
programs. They will be shared fairly by all add up to only 0,02% of Allied
defense budgets.
For the U.S. Senate to vote against NATO's enlargement would be to squander
a unique historical opportunity. A vote against would not only be a rejection
of the desire of three Central European democracies to join the trans-Atlantic
community, to which they have always aspired. It would also be a vote
of no confidence in the future of NATO and a repudiation of NATO and a
repudiation of the community of destiny between Europe and North America
that NATO represents. In view of the momentous issues at stake, I hope
that the Senate's vote will be not only positive but decisive.
Our next milestone will be the NATO Summit in Washington in April 199,
which will mark NATO's 50th anniversary. This will not only be a celebration
of the alliance's past achievements. It will also be an occasion to look
ahead to a better, stronger NATO ready for the new security challenges
of the 21st century. At this summit we will complete the accession of
our first new members. We will also adopt a new strategic concept defining
a new balance between NATO's traditional and new missions. We will move
closer toward a rebalanced trans-Atlantic relationship in which Europe
and North America share their security responsibilities more equally.
In short, we will prepare a better NATO, which will serve the security
interests of its members in the 21st century as effectively as it has
over the past 50 years.
Mr. Solana is secretary general of NATO.
|
