Someday, years from now, it’s conceivable that war could break out between Russia and Poland. Or that the border of Hungary could be violated by Romania. Or that some country could pick a fight with the Czech Republic.
Americans would then be forced to ask themselves a hard question: Should we send our sons and daughters to die for one of these countries? Is the matter so vital to the world’s peace and security that American soldiers should be put in harm’s way? The debate would be very interesting.
Too late. The issue has already been pretty much settled. The U.S. Senate is virtually certain to vote this week to admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO, the Western military alliance founded to prevent the spread of Soviet communism. Once they are full members, the United States is obligated to treat an attack on any of them like an attack on Berlin, London or Chicago.
This is the biggest expansion of our security commitments since the creation of NATO. Yet in this country, it’s been treated as if it were no more consequential than adding a new member to the United Nations. “The public thinks it’s a good idea without giving it a lot of thought,” says pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
A bit more thought is in order. Admitting another country to the UN only means one more voice in the 185-member General Assembly. It confers no particular obligation on us. Adding new members to NATO is different. It means extending to other nations a permanent line of credit, payable in American blood and treasure. It means making their safety and territorial integrity a sworn national priority.
The assumption underlying this change is that we will never have to make good on the promise. By including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in the alliance, we will supposedly assure that no one will ever bother them. That could be true–just as it could be true that when your brother-in-law asks you to co-sign a loan, you’ll never have to spend a nickel. But it’s wise to consider the worst possibility as well as the best before putting yourself at risk.
NATO succeeded spectacularly in its original purpose. It protected Western Europe from Soviet aggression, eventually won the Cold War and made it possible for Eastern Europe to gain freedom and independence. The threat it was aimed against has vanished.
So who are we protecting these countries from? The only imaginable danger is Russia. But the Russians have learned that the price of dominating Eastern Europe is higher than they want to pay. When a wave of democracy began rolling over the globe a decade ago, they abandoned their empire without a shot being fired. Why would they go to war to conquer lands they didn’t lift a finger to keep?
It would take a huge tide of militarist, nationalist sentiment to turn Russia away from its new inward focus. Moving NATO eastward, however, is more likely to provoke that reversal than prevent it. The Russians left Eastern Europe asking only that we also stay out. Instead, they now see us parking an anti-Russian coalition right at their front gate. (Imagine our reaction if they were to renew their military alliance with Cuba.) Anti-American politicians in Russia rail endlessly against the addition of new members, and even the most pro-Western reformists oppose it.
Our policy is seen in Moscow as a blend of suspicion and contempt. We are treating the Russians as an abiding threat, but one so weak that we can do whatever we please, regardless of their objections. That’s their reward for making peace and dismantling communism.
The argument that the NATO umbrella is essential to consolidating democracy in these former communist nations amounts to an agreeable non sequitur. Ben Frankel, editor of the journal Security Studies, notes that Europe has several democracies that have never been in the alliance (including Switzerland, Austria and Sweden) and that some NATO countries have not been democracies. Greece had a military dictatorship from 1967 to 1974 but remained a member in good standing. Portugal, which joined in 1949, didn’t get around to holding elections until 1976.
Supporters claim the enlargement is needed to assure that Europe doesn’t revert to the continent-wide conflicts that sparked two world wars. But that’s an argument for NATO, not for a bigger NATO. It would remain a source of stability even if the alliance weren’t enlarged.
All of these considerations deserve to be examined in a national debate on the expansion of NATO. If only there were one.
