Nato

One of the most fiercely debated topics in United States foreign policy is whether or not to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe. There are many arguments on both sides of the argument, ranging from abolishing the alliance due to the exorbitant costs of maintenance, to expanding NATO to achieve security in a region that is historically violent. Although both sides have some valid arguments, the benefits of expanding NATO outweigh the negatives. Expanding NATO will achieve three very important goals: first, it will promote democracy in areas that are politically unstable; second, it will give the United States a foothold in a strategically vital region of the world; and lastly, it would provide for greater security in a region that is historically violent.




Critics of expanding the security alliance employ many arguments to further their cause. Owen Harries, writing in Foreign Affairs (v72, n4, Sep/Oct 1993: 41-53), argues that NATO should not be expanded. One of the main reasons, he writes, is that expanding NATO would be perceived as a threat by a currently wounded Moscow, and that in turn would have unintended consequences for the West (Harries 43). NATO was formed after the second World War for the sole purpose of containing Soviet (and by association, Russian) aggression. Historically, Russia has looked at NATO as an anti-Russian organization. Also, all of NATO’s current members are vastly different politically and historically than Russia. If NATO were to expand, Harries believes that "it could well provide a catalyst that would enable extreme chauvinistic elements in Russia to exploit frustrations, resentments, and wounded national pride in ways that would have unpleasant consequences both internally and internationally" !




(43).




Another argument that NATO opponents make is that the West cannot be trusted by the Eastern European countries that are clamoring to join NATO (Harries...