Expansion of NATO
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Those who argue in favor of the expansion of NATO tend to emphasize certain non-military uses of the organization, in addition to their military arguments. According to their opponents, this undermines the expansionist position since, as they very justly point out, NATO is a military alliance first and foremost. But, those opposed to the enlargement of the alliance do not make a convincing military case against expansion. Instead, the strongest arguments against expansion are based on possible Russian reactions to the proposed change. Various points about Russian opposition are considered by both sides of the debate, but the chief effect of these arguments is to depict Russia as a nation capable of taking the kinds of action that justify expansion of NATO. Talbott, stating the Clinton administration's objectives in calling for NATO expansion, gives three basic reasons for the move: expansion of the military alliance into central Europe; giving prospective members a strong added incentive to strengthen democracy in their governments and liberalization of their economies; and to foster the peaceful resolution of disputes in and among these nations. The administration's position does not limit the expansion to the Visegard nations (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia), and Talbott's language repeatedly cites the nations of central Europe and the former USSR. But, opponents of the administration's position hold that there is a division between those who w
. . .
sed on the former USSR by the West, viewing it much as Germany viewed the Versailles treaty. All the other changes in post-Cold War Europe have had Russian approval, Mandelbaum says, and NATO expansion should not be any different. Hitler, of course, eventually had his say in many post-World War I security arrangements. But, just as "appeasement" is the wrong term to apply to Mandelbaum's arguments, so is he wrong to view NATO expansion in terms of a "dictated peace."
The present weakness of the Russian nation is Mandelbaum's main concern. On the one hand, he argues, Russia is so weak, at present, that expanding NATO may serve to undermine the future of Russian democracy. On the other, this weakness means that there is no pressing need to expand the alliance because Russia is too weak to cause problems, at the moment.
Horelick reiterates Mandelbaum's general argument. He does not, however, entirely exclude the possibility that expansion may be the best option. There is, he says, no balanced solution that will satisfy all the parties completely. The costs and benefits of expansion and non-expansion have to be weighed carefully. Horelick's main problem with the proposal is that it constitutes a misguided attempt to use N
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Mandelbaum NATO, Similarly Mandelbaum, Talbott Mandelbaum, Ukraine CIS, NATO Talbott, , NATO Arbatov's, Eastern European, Slovakia Talbott's, Union NATO, nato expansion, expansion nato, former ussr, visegard nations, central europe, expand nato, military alliance, weu membership, nations former ussr, russia weak, wish expand, expansion visegard nations, wish expand nato, nato non-military purposes,
Approximate Word count = 1424
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Expansion of NATO
|