Introduction
We can see a great influence of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) after its inception in the year 1949 in the global arena. As we know, it is considered as one of the most successful alliance in the history. However they are some shortcomings as well which made them to blame their counterparts. Some of the issues within this alliance seemed to increase the collapse of this alliance. But still this alliance is stronger and practicable despite of some disparities among the member nations (Czech News Agency, Prague), 14 June 2001.)
The enlargement of NATO became the main debate after the cold war especially in the East European politics and American foreign policies. NATO invited three East Central European countries; Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland where democracy and the market growth are tremendous to join in their ranks. Later these three counties joined in this great alliance after two years in the Anniversary Summit which happened in Washington and this decision to invite these countries to join NATO proved to be good for this alliance (Andrew A, 1999)
NATO states that expansion of this alliance is an ongoing process and they are in the process to integrate all Eastern European Countries in this great alliance. They had invited countries like Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia on those purposes to join in this great alliance in the Prague Summit which happened in the year 2002 (NATO, 2002). NATO is trying to make legislates to make these countries full time members. The prospect member countries are to be aware of the benefits and advantages they are going to get from it. NATO has some set rules and regulations as criteria for aspiring members to follow and satisfy. Thus NATO makes sure that these aspiring countries have some roles to play in the growth of NATO in future. Now they are planning to make Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia into this great alliance (James Christopher, 1982).
Should NATO enlarged?
My argument here is that NATO should be enlarged to create more competitiveness and growth among the nations and it will be good for the development of the region as well. However the first round of NATO enlargement was not satisfactory and it indirectly provoked Russia (Friis and Murphy 1999; Wallace 2000). Thus the first round of enlargement was not happened radically and effectively and it does not bring the expected results in the activities and performance of NATO in the region. NATO should have got particular fundamental reasons for offering full memberships to those four countries. In the initial stages, NATO promises of open door policy where those who are qualified to join the alliance are automatically allowed to become the full time members of this alliance. NATO felt to have some moral obligation on this (Friis and Murphy 1999). Then they started to have a status quo where they were intended to divide the post communist states and thus it would create tension among the non members and members. Another reason from including these four nations in the great alliance as an initiative to increase and improve security systems and it would improve their intervention in the Balkan region which considered to the trouble spot for NATO. Thus NATO considered it as the useful and effective strategic initiative to include these four nations as part of their first enlargement in the year 1999. Second enlargement of NATO was intended to increase their geographical contingency (King and Keohane, 1994).
On the other hand, second enlargement of NATO gave a little sense. As we know, there is much enthusiasm seen in the NATO circle when these three member countries joined. The inclusion of Czech Republic and Hungary in way was to expand their trading and business circle for free trades rather than security concerns as both these countries have nothing to do with European security (Frankel 1996b). These two counties had promised to have military reforms in NATO from their part before joining this great alliance. However they did not keep their words and NATO did not have any option to expel these member countries from great alliance as well. Thus it indicates the need for NATO to make sure that the aspiring member countries into this great alliance is fulfilling and meeting all the required criteria on time and on that way NATO can make sure that they are including the right partners in their operations and strategies. Therefore NATO does not have to rush to include Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in this great alliance as they are not a great threat to the security challenges of NATO (Schweller 1997).
Almost all East European countries are trying to join in NATO in order to have democratic consolidation in these parts of the world and by avoiding the future security threats from neighbouring countries. Therefore it is evident that whenever a new member comes into NATO, they may influence the policies of NATO as a whole. Thus NATO is trying to form a common policy for all nations who are part of this great alliance by making great adjustments in its policies and strategies. The first enlargement does not seem to be effective and productive for NATO as the three countries are not contributed in the military affairs of it and their poor performance in the meeting the military affairs of NATO. Thus they do not influence or interest in the defence, expenditure and the other issues of this great alliance as well. These three nations have little confidence in the domestic policies of NATO too (Christine Spolar, 1997).
Pros and Cons of enlarging NATO
As we know, three countries from Eastern central European countries such as Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland had made their entry into this great alliance in the year 1999. It is the fact these three countries were the members of NATO’s cold war nemesis. Therefore the expansion of NATO by including these three countries had great debate among the public. That is why the second expansion or the coming expansion is significant to evaluate the reasons behind that. Most of the great leaders of NATO are politicians and they have decided to expand NATO during their meetings in Washington and the President George W Bush signed the key policy matter to support the initiative to expand NATO in June 2002. In the same year at October, The House of Representative passed resolution “Big Bang” which was intended to the expansion of NATO in the following month’s Summit at Prague. Even though the decision to enlarge NATO was vital, the desirability of expansion was not debated. Many political experts, scholar and academics had delivered their opinions of the enlargement of NATO in the year 1990 itself (Nicholas Williams, 1997).
On the opinion of Strobe Takbott, NATO has decided to invite and cope up new member countries due to three reasons. One of the reasons is that there is a need for collective defence and this would improve transatlantic security. The second reason is that it is intended to improve and strengthen the democratic institutions and make sure their human rights in the countries that were the part of former Soviet Union and NATO is planning to give incentives to these member countries (Jeffrey Simon, 1995). Another reason is that it is their initiative to foster greater willingness in the member nations to their disputes if there is any peacefully and thus they can assist productively in the peacekeeping operations. Even the associates of Clinton supported the enlargement of NATO and some of the arguments for the enlargement of NATO are given below.
Cheap: The analysis suggests that NATO enlargement is a kind of bargain. The member countries have to pay almost 150 million to 200 million dollar every year to United Nations and it is considered to be the direct investment to protect democracy. The price for enlargement of NATO is “moderate and affordable” according to the Congressional Budget Office of US. Some of the military think tanks of NATO believe that the expansion could bring maximum of 2 billion dollars within the time frame of ten years. This number seems to be less than the modest estimate made by CBO for military operations (William Drozdiak, 1997).
Fostering Democracy: One of the other arguments which support the enlargement of NATO is that of fostering democracy. By enlarging, NATO can ensure democracy and free trade among these nations and thus it would bring prosperity, security and peace in the region. According to Clinton, if more countries are becoming the part of NATO, the economic progress seen in Western Europe can be done in Eastern Europe as well. It would be better for the member countries to strengthen democracy by leaving the future threats away and it can make the nations more prosperity and peace. If the enlargement is not happening, then it would create two types of Europe; Western Europe with self confident and security and Eastern Europe with instability and insecurity. However this argument is not effective to address the issues like military power and political aspirations of member countries. Clinton and his associates tried to persuade the Congress the need for the expansion of NATO and they argued that it was necessary to ensure democracy and free markets in Eastern Europe. The best argument against this is that why cannot form an effective European Union instead of NATO expansion to achieve these objectives (Richard L. Kugler, 1997).
Benefits for NATO and US: It is great fact the later enlargement of NATO does not increase their military strength. But the addition to NATO seems to provide crucial forwarding basing strategic options. Enlargement of NATO is effective and benefitted in way if we are looking at the volatility of Balkans. The expansion of NATO is really beneficial for United States to have a firm hold in the Europe especially in the middle of Germany and Russia and thereby it is good to have the security of Eastern Europe. Supporters further argue that expansion of NATO with qualified member would definitely increase the power of this great alliance and it would be positive in its progressive way as well. This in a way increases the efficiency of NATO to face the regional aggressors. The expansion of NATO is good for NATO as well and they emerged as only international organisation for Europe and United State uses it as a great opportunity to pursue its interests in this region (Janusz Bugajski, 1999).
Security for Easter Europe: As we know, the eastern European countries felt a security vacuum after its separation from former Soviet Union. After the dissolution of Warsaw Pact and the collapse of Soviet Russia, the eastern European Countries understood that they did not have the power to defend themselves. There was no air defences for countries like Hungary. They tried to have the corporation among regional organisation, but these organisations have only minimal resources to defend. After cold war, most of the eastern European countries had security threats in which they were not prepared to meet those threats. We can see these kinds of threats in the form of wars in former Yugoslavia. These factors forced many countries to join in NATO. We can see some internal confliction and problems such as money laundering and illegal drug and migration and man trafficking in eastern European Countries as well. Therefore it is good for the country to make sure that the neighbouring countries. Expansion of NATO would help to resist the influence of Russia and Germany in those regions (Zoltan Barany, 1998).
The Defence Of NATO –Is It Shrinking?
The leaders of NATO are giving a translucent idea of what they are doing in the alliance. The Atlantic alliance is over and replacing it the NATO alliance lead by Clinton is creating a horrific scene. They have no particular enemy, and is progressing with a deteriorating military capability. Unfortunately they have an expanding geographical responsibilities, and the alliance themselves cannot protect their members. They have now been reduced to a group of political clowns with no particular enemy and have an endless list of new members who may never be allowed to join. This irony was generated by the NATO itself, since they had no clear understanding of what they are trying to do in other countries. This is also a reflection of activities that NATO wanted to do against Russia in order to compensate for the self esteem of the American leaders in power (William Drozdiak, 1997).
The main reason for this situation is that the unstable policies of Clinton administration is refusing to admit the real sentiments. However it is very strange that the research is treated like a discussion over the American intervention over a shoot out. The Clinton administration really wants to take up new military commitments since they have no other option left ahead of them. But on the contrary the pentagon keeps an enigmatic silence the political bosses are not interested and there is no public support. Consequently all this may change when the NATO expenditure reports are publicised. But even the estimates seem to be in dispute, since they have contradictory ideas about the ultimate force to be used. The final statement to be made about the whole saga is that the members of the NATO expect the United States to pay the war expense (Michael R. Gordon, 1997).
Conclusion
To conclude this report we can see from the pros discussed above that the increase in the member states of NATO will be beneficial not only for the incoming new member states but also for the existing ones and also for the region in general. With the enlargement in NATO there will be greater stability in the region, new members will benefit from democratic reforms to their governments which in-turn will bring financial and other benefits for the general population. With increase in members there will be a better balance of power between Europe and Russia.
Newer members benefit from NATO’s strong military backing and hence increase in security for them from both internal and external threats that may arise. NATO also offers support and cooperation for its members ensuring a Europe whole and free, united in peace, democracy and common values. With NATO’s peace keeping forces present worldwide there will be more cooperation from countries who were previously problematic for the NATO alliance but would now be contributing to the NATO armed forces promoting peace and stability around the affected places in the world.
With better free trade and economic policies there will be a rapid improvement for struggling economies and a steady development of key infrastructures within a country from better roads and highways, public services, development in fields like education and growth and development of the population.
Countries within Western Europe who have suffered from uncontrolled immigration and illegal human trafficking from these proposed states will see a decline in crime and better and more constructive migration policies which will develop the economies of these states and support the economy of established states. It will also provide a proper channel of travel and immigration for purposes of employment and settlement of the people of these newer countries improving their infrastructures and become a great deterrent for criminal elements prevalent in these neglected and downtrodden parts.
Eastern European countries with poor human rights records and weak democratic institutions will have further incentives to strengthen themselves due to the prospect of joining NATO. Also with the joining old disputes which have festered for ages could be discussed and possibly resolved. At the very least it will encourage new talks and further dialogue which up till now was difficult and impossible to achieve. The historically volatile regions surrounding Russia will also gain stability thus helping Russia as well and help them focus their resources and energies elsewhere.
The enlargement also ensures the fostering of democracy in the region which will result in international peace and will provide an opportunity for prosperity and development for Eastern Europe. The west and east will be stable and eliminate any rivalry and divisions between the two halves of Europe. Democracy results in free markets which provide a base for increase security, prosperity and international peace as once said by the former President of The United States of America Bill Clinton.
References
Wallace J (2009) Why NATO Endures (1st edition) New York Cambridge
Ted Gallen Carpenter and Barbara Conry (1998) NATO Enlargement Illusions and Reality (1st edition) Washington Cato
Zoltan Barany (2003) The Future of NATO Expansion Four Case Studies (1st edition) United Kingdom Cambridge University Press
Peter Duignan (2000) NATTO Its Past, Present and Future (1st edition) United States of America Hoover Institution Press
Pros and Cons of NATO Expansion (Accessed on 03-05-2010) http://pweb.jps.net/~gangale/opsa/ir/NATO_Expansion.htm
Disadvantages of NATTO (Accessed on 06-05-2010) http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/archive/SPC97D.pdf
Future of NATTO Expansion (Accessed on 07-05-2010) http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam033/2002035086.pdf
NATO (Accessed on 08-05-2010) http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
UK NATTO (Accessed on 09-05-2010) http://uknato.fco.gov.uk/en/uk-in-nato/nato-partners/nato-enlargement
NATTO Enlargment (Accessed on 09-05-2010) http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21055.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment