.. 2:::.:~.-:: ~: ...... ;:~'?i:i, -4×.... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: INSTITUTEFOR NATIONAL STRATEalCSTUDIES A popular Government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. JAMES MADISON to W. T. BARRY August 4, 1822 NATO EXPANSION and ALTERNATIVE FUTURE SECURITY ALIGNMENTS JAMES W. MORRISON McNair Paper 40 April 1995 INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY Washington, DC NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY [] President: Lieutenant General Ervin J. Rokke [] Vice President: Ambassador William G. Walker INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES [] Director: Hans A. Binnendijk Publications Directorate & NDU Press [] Fort Lesley J. McNair [] Washington, D.C. 20319--6000 [] Phone: (202) 475-1913 UI Fax: (202) 475-1012 [] Director: Frederick Kiley [] Chief, Publications Branch: George C. Maerz [] Editors: Jonathan W. Pierce, Mary A. Sommerville [] Editor for this volume: Mary A. Sommerville [] Secretary: Laura Hall [] Circulation Manager: Myma Morgan INSS publishes McNair Papers to provoke thought and inform discussion on issues of U.S. national s~rity in the post--Cold War era. These monographs present current topics related to national security strategy and policy, defense resource management, international affairs, civil-military relations, military technology, and joint, combined, and coalition operations. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations, expressed or implied, are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. Government agency. Cleared for public release," distribution unlimited. Portions of this publication may be quoted or reprinted without further permission, with credit to the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, DC. A courtesy copy of reviews and tearsheets would be appreciated. For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISSN Contents SUMMARY ............................. v . PRESENT SITUATION AND TRENDS IN SECURITY INSTITUTIONS ............ 1 Introduction ......................... 1 North Atlantic Treaty Organization ......... 3 European Union and Western European Union .................... 6 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ................ 8 Commonwealth of Independent States ..... 11 Other Regional and Sub-regional Groups ... 12 . NATO EXPANSION QUESTIONS ........ 21 Recent History ....................... 21 Precedents ......................... 26 Should NATO Expand Its Membership? ..... 28 Should Additional Criteria for Membership Be Specified? ........... 43 Full or Partial Membership? ............. 48 Which States Should Be Considered for Membership? .......... 49 Timing ............................. 62 Sequencing ......................... 65 Dividing Lines in Europe ................ 66 Partnership for Peace As A Mandatory Route .................. 67 Readiness of Western Parliaments and Publics ....................... 68 Impact of Enlargement on NATO Effectiveness ..................... 76 The Future of North Atlantic Cooperation Council and Partnership for Peace ..... 78 Views Expressed in Different Countries ..... 80 iii 3. ALTERNATIVE SECURITY ALIGNMENTS ...................... 117 Alternative Alignments Involving NATO Expansion ................. 118 Alternative Alignments Not Involving NATO Expansion ...................... 121 . RECOMMENDATIONS FOR U.S. AND NATO POLICY ..................... 125 Security Alignments .................. 125 NATO Expansion .................... 127 APPENDIXES ........................ 131 A. Evolution of Select European Security Institutions Since World War II ........ 131 B. A Growing Institutional Political and Security Network ........................ 133 C. Partnership for Peace Invitation and Framework Document .............. 137 D. Chairman's Summary of Meeting of North Atlantic Cooperation Council Meeting, 2 December 1995, and Work Plan for Dialogue, Partnership and Cooperation 1994/1995 (for NACC and PFP) .................. 143 E. NATO Participation Act of 1994 ....... 149 F. Bill Under Consideration in U.S. Congress m "NATO Revitalization and Expansion Act of 1995" . ............ 155 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........... 169 ABOUT THE AUTHOR ............... 173 iv SUMMARY • NATO expansion is a key issue both within NATO and in the context of altemative future security alignments in Europe involving NATO, the European Union (EU) and Westem European Union (WEU), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). • States in Central and Eastem Europe are seeking membership in NATO. NATO has responded with outreach programs, most recently the Partnership for Peace (PFP) Program. NATO leaders have said they expect and welcome NATO expansion as an evolutionary process in which PFP will play an important role. In the public debate, officials and scholars have made many arguments in favor of expansion, against it, and to defer it. • There appears to be general support in Congress, the American and European publics, and the executive branches in NATO states for inviting Central and Eastern European states, particularly the four Visegrad states of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, to join NATO, but no decisions have been made nor dates established. Russian officials have been ambivalent but often object to expansion of NATO to include Central and Eastem European states but not Russia. • NATO is conducting a study to address how NATO might expand and what the implications would be. Among the issues that may be raised are: whether additional criteria for member-ship should be specified which states should be invited when and possibly in what sequence, if any, they should be invited how to avoid dividing lines in Europe the impact of enlargement on NATO effectiveness continuation of outreach programs with states not invited the relationship between NATO and Russia. • Of six illustrative alternative future security alignments in Europe (three involving NATO expansion and three not), the first-NATO expansion to include Central and Eastem European states, adding from 1-11 new members, while continuing outreach V pro-grams with non-members and establishing a unique relationship with Russia and perhaps Ukraine-may be the most supportable. SITUATION AND TRENDS IN INSTITUTIONS There is an increasing web of cross membership and interrelationships among many of the security institutions related to Europe. With the revolutionary changes in Central and Eastem Europe beginning in 1989, many states in the area began pressing for membership in NATO and the ELI. NATO has responded by establishing the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in 1991 and the PFP in 1994. Ill establishing PFP, NATO leaders announced that they expected and welcomed NATO expansion as an evolutionary process in which PFP would play an important role. NATO is now conducting a study to address how NATO might expand and what the implications would be. The EU and WEU have intensified and expanded cooperation in Western Europe and have also developed outreach programs to the East, which have lead to associate status for many Central and Eastern European states and may lead to full membership for some. OSCE is becoming increasingly active and institutionalized in human rights activities, helping to prevent or resolve disputes, and promoting security. The CIS is promoting cooperation among its 12 members. NATO EXPANSIONmKEY ISSUES Should NATO Expand? • Arguments in favor: NATO expansion could: be responsive to requests for NATO membership made by reform leaders in Central and Eastem Europe. enhance security from the West's perspective, by improving stability in Central and Eastem European and avoid-ing a security vacuum, nationalization of defenses, vi and an East-West clash. - enhance security from the perspective of Central and Eastem European states, by providing security assurances against what they see as the greatest threat or challenge-instability in and possible challenges from Russia and others in the CIS. - provide stability and assistance so Central and Easter European states can consoli-date domestic reform, improve relations in Central and Eastern European, and integrate with the West. - help keep NATO vibrant and alive. - take advantage now of the situation in Russia and expand NATO before that situation possibly worsens. - not let NATO expansion be seen as subject to Russian veto. Arguments against NATO expansion: - there is now no threat to Central and Eastem European necessitating expansion. - Extending membership to some states but not states such as Russia and others in CIS and even some in Central and Eastem Europe could mean drawing new dividing lines in Europe between the West and Russia and even within Central and Eastern Europe which could: undercut reformers in states not invited; set back the goal of a united Europe; and lead to tensions, bloc formations, and possibly confrontations. - NATO should not be extending security commitments, particularly when NATO states are reducing resources for defense. - Expansion could ruin NATO, in terms of: losing focus, cohesion, and ability to reach consensus; jeopardizing relations between allies in favor of and against expansion;