NATO’s December signing of protocols of accession with the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland is a significant step in the process of enlarging NATO’s zone of stability in Europe. It will reduce the likelihood that American troops and resources will be required in European conflicts, if my experience in Poland is an indicator.
As U.S. ambassador to Poland for the past four years, I was blessed to have been shown to a front-row seat at one of the most significant and rapid political/economic transformations in history. Eight years ago, Poland was a basket case of authoritarian socialism. Today it is a solid democracy, with a vibrant free-enterprise economy.
While Poland’s economy was experiencing broad-based, tigerlike growth, its democracy was maturing rapidly. In 1993 a post-Communist, social democratic party emerged victorious from the parliamentary election and proved quite capable of running government competently for four years. The September 1997 election re-enfranchised the Center and the Right, and the newly-formed government will be in the hands of seasoned professionals and politicians, led by the post-Solidarity AWS coalition.
In my experience, whenever this new democracy confronted a major issue–such as accusations of espionage against the prime minister or a vote of no confidence in the minister of Defense by the country’s top generals–Poland always found resolution through democratic means.
Virtually all Poles want Poland to be firmly cemented into western structures, with their first priority being membership in NATO. This overwhelming desire is borne of a 1,000-year history of invasion, partition and occupation.
It is easy to understand why the Poles want to join NATO. But what’s in it for Americans?
I believe there are three key reasons why NATO enlargement is very much in our national interest.
First, expanding NATO’s zone of peace and stability will reduce the likelihood that Americans will be required to fight in Europe. One need only contrast the 50 years of almost continuous conflict, including two world wars, prior to NATO’s existence, and the 50 years of stability within its territory since NATO has been in place. Just imagine how much more dangerous the tensions between Greece and Turkey would be, if their generals didn’t sit across the hall from each other at NATO headquarters. This inherent stability within NATO’s borders is perhaps its greatest contribution and will be vital to reducing the potential for conflict further to the east.
Second, the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians have shown repeatedly that they will be strong allies, largely sharing our point of view. Poland, for example, has made a major effort to export stability by developing good relations with all of its seven neighbors. It has created joint military battalions with the Ukrainians and the Lithuanians, provides non-lethal military assistance to Lithuania and works hard on good bilateral relations with Russia.
And, third, enlargement can reduce the number of U.S. soldiers and other resources we might otherwise have to commit to a conflict in Europe because Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will provide significant forces to NATO. Poland alone is aiming at achieving a NATO interoperable military force of some 120,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen ready to be plugged in to any NATO action. I estimate that, within five years, 30,000 to 50,000 of them will be ready. That is one-third to one-half of the troops the U.S. has stationed in Europe. I have seen these troops train and, judging by their discipline and the dedication and motivation of their officers and political leadership, I have no doubt the Poles will achieve these goals.
Thus, my answer to those who ask why our boys should defend Gdansk, is, to paraphrase Secretary Madeleine K. Albright, that Polish boys will be improving the security of G-Denver and G-Dallas, by strengthening the alliance and working to prevent conflicts that could draw in American troops.
