Groucho Marx famously remarked that "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept me as a member." It is too bad that the seven East European countries recently invited to join NATO don't share his sentiment. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (got all that?) were formally given the nod at a summit in Prague, and as much as I hate to be the naysayer, this is not the momentous and historic occasion it was hyped up to be.
As the premier Western military alliance, NATO's mission is to enhance security in the North Atlantic area. It has always been, and should always be, a military alliance, not some exclusive political club. Most of the new entrants, on the other hand, view membership not as an end unto itself but as the stepping stone to the biggest prize of all--invitation to join the European Union.
As far as multinational organizations go, NATO has never been particularly selective. But membership is viewed as a status symbol in Eastern Europe, and while such sentiment among prestige-hungry countries like Bulgaria may be excused, the current allies have deliberately encouraged it by claiming that expansion achieves "our common goal of a Europe whole and free, united in peace and by common values." One Lithuanian newspaper even boasted that "the clock of history in Lithuania has started showing real Western civilization time."
For the invitees, joining NATO is analogous to resume-padding on a grand scale. The Prague summit declaration is a diploma that they can hang on the wall of the presidential palace to announce to the world that they have finally debuted on the international stage.
But that's not all it is--it also holds out a promise of substantial financial assistance for restructuring their antiquated, Soviet-era armed forces. Unlike a diploma, this costs money, and guess who gets to write the check? Yes, American and other allied taxpayers will foot the bill, to the tune of $25 billion, and there are better ways for our government to spend this money. Moreover, these seven countries would benefit far more from economic development aid than a new air force.
I have nothing against the new members, but they will add virtually nothing of value to the alliance. The contribution of Bulgaria or Latvia to NATO's defensive posture will be roughly equal to that of Luxembourg--which means zero--except that Luxembourg does not require funding from the other allies in order to make that contribution. This sets a dangerous precedent, for as NATO itself proudly states, it is still not done with the expansion program. If it admits Romania, why not Ukraine? Or Albania? Or Moldova? With each foothold in the former Soviet bloc, it gets more and more difficult to integrate the new allied militaries into the existing command structure.
An unwieldy alliance can sometimes be worse than no alliance at all. While no one disputes that these countries now share the basic democratic values of the founding members, the fact of the matter is that an alliance of 26 partners will be highly incongruous. In a sense, it already is, hence the lack of substantive NATO decisions. The alliance's governing councils are driven by consensus, which is tough to achieve with 19 members, not to mention 26 (and probably more in the near future). There will be too many competing national interests at work, so some members may well prevent the alliance from adopting a common strategy to face the challenges of the future. But enough about Franceâ_|.
NATO should not be a part of the grand European unification project, nor should it be about democracy, human rights or economic development. These are worthy goals, but we already have the Council of Europe, EU and OSCE.
If the alliance is to remain effective, international security has to be its principal objective, with everything else a distinctly secondary consideration. Rather than inflating its sense of self-importance by dabbling in politics, the alliance needs to focus on its core competency, which is the prevention of conflict (if possible) and winning wars (if necessary).
Some changes that came out of the Prague summit were quite encouraging. The new rapid reaction forces, a network of highly mobile units around Europe, will soon become a reality. Whether responding to terrorist attacks, natural disasters or humanitarian catastrophes around the world, they will prove to be an important component of the new, leaner operational framework.
NATO also has decided to enhance its capabilities for fighting terrorism. Earlier this year, I sharply criticized it for failing to follow through on its invocation of Article Five following Sept. 11. It now seems that it is determined to do more than I've given it credit for, but its actions in the near future will speak louder than words.
The bottom line is that NATO clearly wants to remain relevant in the post-Cold War world. This is entirely feasible, but the alliance is using the wrong means to accomplish this end. History is replete with examples of international organizations--such as the Commonwealth--that grew too quickly for their own good, resulting in utter obsolescence. This does not mean that NATO shouldn't expand eastward, but its potential members must show that they want to make an active contribution to collective security in Europe rather than merely make a bold political statement.
The world already has too many organizations that have degenerated into debating societies. We can only hope that NATO will not become one of them.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.