(C) Copyright 1996,
Center for Defense Information.
All Rights Reserved.
Videotapes of this program are available for $22.50.
This program features comments from:
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER
MIRCEA DAN GEOANA
JOHN KORNBLUM
JERZY MILEWSKI
DANIEL NELSON
STASYS SAKALAUSKAS
ALEXEI SEMEYKO
ADM JOHN SHANAHAN, USN (Ret.)
With additional comments by:
WILLIAM PERRY, U.S. Secretary of Defense
Senator KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX)
Senator SAM NUNN (D-GA)
NATO: Flirting with Disaster?
NARRATOR: In 1949, the United States, Canada, and ten European nations joined together to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. Its purpose was clear: to shield a wartorn Western Europe against Soviet military aggression.
Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its security alliance, the Warsaw Pact, the now-16 member nations of NATO are looking to expand the alliance eastward.
ADM JOHN SHANAHAN (USN, Ret.): Why is it that we need to bring former members of the Warsaw Pact into the NATO alliance to keep it alive? That's not a good idea and it simply sends the wrong message to Russia and I think we probably are offering a certain amount of false hope to these wannabe NATO members.
NARRATOR: Many Central and Eastern European nations are anxious to join the NATO club. Some remember the Soviet tanks rolling into their cities and want to join NATO to protect them from history repeating itself. Others want to join NATO in order to link up with nations that can offer them trade and economic aid.
STASYS SAKALAUSKAS: In applying for NATO membership, Lithuania is reaching out for the security. And that is an absolutely essential precondition for the development and success of political and economic reforms in our country.
NARRATOR: Today, "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" examines plans to
enlarge the NATO alliance. Is expansion in the best interests of both European and American
security or is NATO flirting with disaster?
NEWSREEL Narrator: One-hundred and seventy-five thousand NATO troops made up of American, French and Belgian contingents conduct concentrated maneuvers in Western Germany. 'Exercise Monte Carlo' is designed to mount a swift counter-offensive in the event of a surprise attack from the East...
NARRATOR: During the Cold War, NATO conducted exercises like this one in Germany in 1953 and this one in 1982. They trained to repel a massive Soviet-led invasion of Western Europe. Today, NATO and its former rivals train together under the Partnership for Peace program. Activities range from training for peacekeeping missions, to detecting and disabling landmines, and evacuating and treating the wounded.
Launched in January 1994, the Partnership for Peace offers nations a way not only to cooperate with NATO, but also to prepare for NATO membership.
WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense (8 February 1995, before House National Security Committee): For those countries qualified to become NATO members and only those countries, the Partnership for Peace is a path to NATO membership.
NARRATOR: By January 1996, 26 nations had signed up for the Partnership for Peace.
Not all participants, however, are seeking membership in NATO. Still fewer will ever be asked to
join.
MIRCEA DAN GEOANA: Romania was the first country to join the Partnership for Peace program of NATO. This is, in fact, a political act we consider to be an expression of our willingness and desire to join NATO.
NARRATOR: Mircea Dan Geoana is the ambassador of Romania to the United States. Located in Southeastern Europe, Romania is an interesting mix of West and East.
Amb. GEOANA: So, in fact, Romania is in the same time a Western nation through its culture and its roots, at the same time an Eastern or Central Eastern European country through its religion and its location.
NARRATOR: Membership in NATO would offer Romania a sense of belonging to the rest of the Europe.
Amb. GEOANA: So, we're not, let's say fearing directly or feeling a direct threat to our security. We are, let's say facing the need of belonging to a system.
Mr. SAKALAUSKAS: Lithuania was the second country to sign the Partnership for Peace program and its our deep interest in joining the Partnership for Peace program. We see it as an interim step towards NATO membership.
NARRATOR: Stasys Sakalauskas is Counselor at the Embassy of Lithuania. While Lithuania became a country in 1918, its national identity dates back some 2000 years. In 1940, under Stalin, Lithuania was forcibly made a part of the Soviet Union and remained so until it reclaimed its independence in September 1991. With its capital a mere 175 miles from Russia, many Lithuanians see membership in NATO as an insurance policy against future occupations.
Mr. SAKALAUSKAS: We have very bad memories about the occupation period, which in -- practically we were divided from Europe and we were not able to be embraced by the development of democracy in Europe. We wouldn't like to have that once again.
JERZY MILEWSKI: There is no external threats and our concern is just only to stabilize this situation of no threats.
NARRATOR: Dr. Jerzy Milewski is the security advisor to the president of Poland.
Dr. MILEWSKI: Poland is very much in favor of expanding NATO eastward to cover
the entire continent of Europe with this organization, which proved to be very effective for the last
-- more than 40 years in stabilizing the situation in the Western half of Europe. Now we would
like to see the same role played by this organization on the entire continent.
NARRATOR: Of all potential NATO members, no nation has lobbied harder than Poland.
Dr. MILEWSKI: This is a unique historical opportunity just to do something very positive with Europe and the United States is expected to play a leading role. After all, you are -- most of you are of European origin.
NARRATOR: The competition to see who will be first to join the NATO alliance may be fierce.
DANIEL NELSON: The one country that seems to be on almost everyone's list in front of the line is the Czech Republic. And what are the characteristics of the Czech Republic, other than it's a beautiful country to visit with wonderful bridges and wonderful old towns, and so on? And the answer is that it's a country that no one threatens. There's no threat to the Czech Republic except too many tourists on the Charles Bridge that might sink it.
NARRATOR: Dr. Daniel Nelson is president of Global Concepts, Inc. and professor of international studies at Old Dominion University.
Dr. NELSON: If a Partnership for Peace means that the people that -- through it go to the front of the line who look, sound and act like us most, then NATO membership will be nothing more than a kind of gold stamp of approval. It will have nothing to do with providing security, which doesn't seem to me to be much like what NATO ought to be.
Rep. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX) (10 October '95, Senate floor speech): Ironically, those countries with the most valid concerns in this regard, the Balkan nations and the Ukraine, are because of their proximity to Russia the least likely to gain NATO membership in the short run. The peoples of these countries are unlikely to feel more secure if NATO expands eastward but stops short of their borders. In effect, placing them in a buffer zone between an enlarged NATO and a more paranoid Russia.
Mr. SAKALAUSKAS: Lithuania is doing everything possible to have and maintain good relationship with Russia. At the same time, we have serious security concerns because of potential instability in Russia and persistent statements from Russia that it might intervene militarily in the Baltics.
ALEXEI SEMEYKO: Enlargement of NATO comes not as a participation of, say Central and Eastern European countries in some kind of a gentleman's club.
NARRATOR: Alexei Semeyko is Counselor for European Affairs at the Russian Embassy.
Mr. SEMEYKO: The expansion of NATO comes with possible stationing of nuclear weapons in Central and Eastern Europe. It comes with possible stationing of foreign troops in Central and Eastern European countries. It comes with the possibility of increased military exercises close to the Russian territory.
NARRATOR: Deploying nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe would be analogous to the 1962 deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. At no time during the Cold War did a nuclear war seem more imminent.
ADM JOHN SHANAHAN (USN, Ret.): We should be careful that Russia, the Ukraine, Georgia and the other independent states of the former Soviet Union, that their views are considered.
NARRATOR: Retired Vice Admiral John Shanahan is director of the Center for Defense Information. Admiral Shanahan served as the defense adviser to the US mission at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
ADM SHANAHAN: For us to arbitrarily expand NATO's boundaries, if you will, up
against their borders, expand the US nuclear umbrella up against the same borders, we should be
looking at what impact that has on Russia through Russian eyes, not through American eyes, to
see how you would feel if you were in Russia today and you saw this press forward of an
organization that was your sworn enemy for over 45 years.
NARRATOR: Expansion of the NATO alliance may also undermine democratic forces in Russia.
Senator SAM NUNN (D-GA) (10 October '95, Senate floor speech): This expansion of NATO will give the nationalists -- the extremists, the demagogues, those who want to restructure and rebuild the empire and threaten their neighbors -- will give them an argument to be made with the Russian population that has been hearing that NATO was an enemy for the last 40, 45 years.
NARRATOR: Just as the Soviet Union was seen as an expansionist power during the Cold War, expanding NATO to counter a future Russian threat could be provocative to Russia. Some fear that this may cause Russia to abandon its good intentions toward the West and react in a threatening manner.
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: You know, I can understand -- the same argument I suspect was made by Neville Chamberlain when he signed the documents at Munich: I don't want to be provocative. And if we're just nice to Hitler, why this will all become -- this will all go away.
NARRATOR: Lawrence Eagleburger was the secretary of state under President Bush.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: I'm not saying we ought to be sitting in at Western Europe thumbing our noses at the Russians, but I am saying we ought to be there with an understanding that until we have a far better view of where Russia will be in five, or ten, or fifteen years, it is the better part of valor to stay where we are, I think.
Mr. SEMEYKO: We're also worried by this fact. That Russia is somehow being demonized, being ostracized, and being presented as a danger to European security. It is not.
The facts are simple: Russia has withdrawn its troops from European countries. Russia has dramatically decreased its military spending. Russia continues to cut down its troop levels. Russia complies with the treaty on conventional forces in Europe.
NARRATOR: As a result of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, or CFE, Treaty and the demise of the Warsaw Pact, the conventional balance in Europe has dramatically shifted. NATO forces now outnumber Russia's three to one. Adding new members to NATO will only increase the inequity and with it, fears Senator Sam Nunn, Russia's reliance on its nuclear arsenal.
Senator NUNN (10 October '95, Senate floor speech): I recall very well when the United States and our allies felt we were overwhelmed with conventional forces by the former Soviet Union. How did we respond? We responded by building up tactical nuclear forces.
NEWSREEL of Atomic Cannon: In the headlines is the Army's 'Amazon Annie,' the giant mobile cannon that fires both conventional high explosives and atomic artillery shells. A battalion of the terrifyingly potent weapons will be shipped to Europe in support of NATO forces.
And there it is, the familiar sinister contours of the atomic cloud.
Senator NUNN (same speech): I myself am not confident, Mr. President, that that would not be their response, as it was ours years ago. The security of NATO, Russia's neighbors, and the countries of Eastern Europe will not be enhanced if the Russian military finger moves closer to the nuclear trigger.
NARRATOR: Preoccupation with NATO enlargement may also endanger other security
priorities, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, commonly known as START I and II.
These important treaties will, if fully implemented, eliminate two-thirds of the long-range nuclear
weapons on the planet, including the most threatening of Russia's intercontinental ballistic
missiles, the SS-18.
NATO enlargement will also hit both potential and current NATO nations where it hurts -- in the wallet.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: The costs of bringing those military institutions in Poland, or wherever, up to NATO standards are going to be horrendous, and certainly the countries themselves are not going to be able to provide the money to do it. So, it's going to be a real drain on Western treasuries.
NARRATOR: Both Poland and the Czech Republic are looking to buy US F-16 fighter
planes. For these countries, F-16s are not only state-of-the-art aircraft, they are points toward
eventual membership in NATO. However, Poland could buy only one of the 100 F-16s it desires
with the money allocated in its defense budget for importing military equipment. If Poland is to
acquire F-16s, the cost will be borne by the American taxpayers in the form of loans and grants.
But NATO expansion could cost Americans more than money. It could cost American lives.
WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense (8 February '95 before House National Security Committee): When a member joins NATO, all of the other countries, including the US, are committing to come to the defense of that country if it comes under attack. We are committing our military forces to go over there and fight if that country gets into any kind of a military conflict.
NARRATOR: Although the Washington Treaty which established NATO requires the United States to come to the aid of Western Europe, a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that a mere 54 percent of the American public surveyed favored using US troops if Russia invaded Western Europe. Should NATO expand, we would be required to come to the aid of new members as well. However, only 32 percent of the public favored sending troops to aid Poland in case of attack and a mere 20 percent supported defending Ukraine.
What should the United States' role be in Europe? Should it be Europe's defender or should it back off and let the Europeans do more for their own defense?
ADM SHANAHAN: There is a role for the United States in Europe today. It's not a military role, it is more in the sense of a power role where we can exercise our economic, our political, and our diplomatic leverage, as well as military leverage. But it doesn't mean that we have to keep 140,000 American troops deployed in Europe in order to exercise a military influence.
NARRATOR: Deploying American troops in Europe costs the United States $10 billion annually.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: It all goes back to the question of making a firm decision on what you think NATO ought to do. And for those wusses who would prefer to see us all come home, that is these new -- well, a neo-isolationist is a neo-isolationist. But anyway, these people who think that way I think are terribly wrong and we've had 90 years in this century to prove their wrong.
Dr. MILEWSKI: My country's very much in favor of the continuous presence of US in Europe, political-military presence, and this is crucial for the stability of Europe.
ADM SHANAHAN: With the technology that we have today, US forces can move anywhere in the world from continental bases overnight. And therefore, it gives us a chance to exercise the option of becoming involved or not becoming involved as our interests dictate.
JACQUES CHIRAC, President of France (Before Joint Session of Congress, 1 February '96): The political commitment of the United States in Europe and its military presence on European soil are still an essential element of the stability and the security of the continent, but also of the world."
ADM SHANAHAN: NATO is the vehicle through which the United States exercises its leadership in Europe. There are others who believe, however, that NATO is a vehicle which allows the Europeans to sort of sit on their hands, stand on the sidelines and 'let George do it.' And in this particular case, "George" happens to be the United States. As a result, the diplomatic muscle that the European allies have has been allowed to atrophy. As a result, the United States has to step in.
NARRATOR: Concern about the United States carrying more than its fair share of the burden of Europe's security, both diplomatically and financially, is nothing new.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: It's been a constant theme and most frustrated Americans ask it. And they are often the same frustrated Americans who everytime the Europeans try to do something on their own, we react badly and say, 'Oh, my God, they're trying to drive us out of Europe.'
NARRATOR: The Clinton administration favors building up various European-based organizations.
JOHN KORNBLUM: Our policy is to have an enlarged NATO contribute to the construction of a broader security structure.
NARRATOR: Ambassador John Kornblum is principal deputy secretary of state for European and Canadian Affairs.
Amb. KORNBLUM: This isn't a one-shot strategy. It's often portrayed that way, I suppose because NATO is an exciting and perhaps somewhat adventurous kind of operation. But the fact is that our strategy is to build a very tight network of relationships with Russia, with other European countries to make sure that as NATO does enlarge, it will be enlarging as part of a broader process and not as a single isolated act. Which perhaps could lead to a sense of insecurity and maybe even a sense of threat, but that's absolutely not what we have in mind.
NARRATOR: But NATO is still the organization of choice for the United States.
Amb. KORNBLUM: The fact is that NATO is the foundation of the security we have in Europe and the way that NATO has stepped up to the challenge of IFOR -- of Bosnia, the way IFOR was developed with cooperation, the fact that we worked out the participation of Russia, of many Central European countries who are participants in Partnership for Peace is an immense testimony to the resilience and the usefulness of NATO.
President BILL CLINTON (Press conference, 1 February '96 with French President Jacques Chirac): In Bosnia, all of us can see NATO's critical role in ending a terrible war, in helping peace to take hold, in restoring stability to the heart of Europe."
Dr. NELSON: But why did it devolve to NATO? There was no other resource on which we could call at this late date in the game. What we lack right now is a capacity to preclude conflict. All NATO can do -- and it has done it effectively, if you want to say that -- in Bosnia is to bomb, and then to send in occupation troops to ensure a peace.
NARRATOR: While NATO provides for the "common defense," a "collective security"
organization is needed to abate threats, prevent conflicts before they start and, in a case like
Bosnia, help ensure that the peace holds even after the military forces leave.
Dr. NELSON: The Bosnian example should tell us not that we needed NATO so much as we needed another organization, a strong, well-developed institutionalized one that we must construct for the 21st Century.
NARRATOR: Some have suggested that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, be strengthened to take on this "collective security" role. Formed in 1975, the OSCE has all the building blocks necessary. Its basic mission fits the bill.
Amb. KORNBLUM: The goal of the OSCE is to deal with crises before they get into the newspapers and to help make sure that they are dealt with in peaceful, democratic and diplomatic means rather than becoming shooting affairs.
NARRATOR: Plus, the OSCE includes all of the nations concerned on equal footing.
Amb. KORNBLUM: Every country, literally, as we used to say, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, including all of the Central Asian republics, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, everybody is included. So, it is the one broad, all-inclusive club.
NARRATOR: But can the OSCE get the job done?
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: The OSCE is a large, ungainly debating society. It has no real authority to manage military units or anything of that sort. It is sort of like Stalin's question about the Pope: How many divisions does it have? And it doesn't have any.
NARRATOR: The OSCE may have started as a "debating society," but according to Ambassador Kornblum, it's fast becoming a force in stopping wars before they make the headlines.
Amb. KORNBLUM: It also has developed probably more rapidly than any other organization in the world the whole discipline of early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management. There are at this moment about 12 OSCE missions around the OSCE area. We very rarely hear about them, but they're in places such as Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova, Macedonia.
NARRATOR: If we really want to pursue peacemaking, peacekeeping and the like, Lawrence Eagleburger believes that we should give the job to NATO because it works.
Mr. EAGLEBURGER: You better start with at least organizing it around people and institutions that know how to handle these sorts of things.
NARRATOR: Should NATO adapt its missions and expand its membership? Admiral
Shanahan believes that NATO has fulfilled its mission of protecting Western Europe from a Soviet
attack and should declare victory and go home.
ADM SHANAHAN: I do not see, in my judgment, a role for NATO in the post-Cold War world.
NARRATOR: But just because NATO's mission has been accomplished doesn't mean that it will close shop anytime soon.
ADM SHANAHAN: You've got this huge bureaucracy in place in Brussels. You know what happens. I mean, whether it's domestic or international, when you create an agency or a bureaucracy to do a certain job, and when you get the job done, you can't get rid of the agency or the bureaucracy. It hangs on forever and ever. We see that here in our own government in Washington and you see it in international kinds of associations. You just can't seem to collect the courage to say, okay, you've done a job, disband.
NARRATOR: But others believe that NATO still has a lot to offer.
Mr. GEOANA: Of course, the alliance was created as a reaction to the Soviet threat, that's in evidence. But I think that the alliance during the whole Cold War and now after the Cold War is not only a purely military defense institution. This is a groupment of states sharing in common the burdens and the advantages of having a security framework.
Dr. NELSON: So, I think there's a misreading about what NATO can provide and what NATO as an alliance for common defense has a capacity to offer. And in that sense, I don't think NATO expansion, enlargement is going to do the trick.
NARRATOR: But the nations which want to join NATO see it differently.
Mr. SAKALAUSKAS: NATO should preserve and assist to the further development and democracy in Central Europe and should expand.
Mr. GEOANA: From the philosophical point of view, I think everything is more or less clear. We have the desire and the willingness of NATO to expand itself. We have the willingness and the desire of Central European countries to join NATO.
NARRATOR: Will NATO enlargement improve the security of both Europe and the United States?
Will it undermine democratic forces in Russia and negatively impact US-Russian
relations?
Will expansion hinder the development of collective security organizations, such as the OSCE?
Is the United States willing to take on the responsibility of fighting for nations which most Americans can't find on a map?
The debate over the future of NATO and NATO expansion is only beginning.
ADM SHANAHAN: Fortunately, everytime a new guy comes into NATO, it requires a
modification to the treaty, which must be passed by two-thirds of the United States Senate. And
so, I would hope that as that happens, there will be an informed debate, so that the American
people can make their views known.
CONDITION OF USE: Credit AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR
(Center For Defense Information)
Copyright 1996. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Video resources on NATO available from
the Center for
Defense Information:
Click here for a complete catalog of our videos.
Related sites:
- European Affairs and NATO
- British American Security Information Council
- NATO's Official Homepage
- Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Home/
Top of the Page/
CDI on TV