THE EXPANSION OF NATO
THE CONTINUED SUPPORT OF BOSNIA
From the Internet
Book, Eastern Europe
"Expand NATO, Continue in Bosnia - European Peace=American Peace,"
"Expansion of NATO: Stability for the World,"
Suzanne Kirakossian "Bosnia: We are Making a Difference," Suzanne
Kirakossian "Bosnia: Long Term Issues, Long Term Commitments,
Jennifer Coates "Bosnia: A Moral Obligation - To Uphold What
We Started," Kelly Haston "Lives Teeter on the Decisions on NATO and Bosnia,"
Michael Bobadilla
"Will We Meet our Humanitarian Responsibilities in Eastern Europe?"
"A Question of the Safety of Humanity, " Alexis Cheney
By Julia Chien, Foothill College
We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the birth of NATO. The decision is upon the Congress whether or not to extend membership to the three Eastern European countries, Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Weeks of testimony have allowed you to understand in depth the implications and the ramifications enlarging NATO will have on the international community as well as the United States. The desired results of expanding NATO have longer and lasting effects on the international community whereas the negative ramifications seem to be few and far between. At the same time, the peace in Bosnia must be maintained in order to restore Eastern European security and protect our interests. The importance of remaining assertive in the region will help create a stability in Europe.
One of the main issues that people opposed to NATO expansion are concerned with is the estimated costs. The estimated cost for the United States is said to be between 9 and 12 billion dollars. Only sixty percent of this amount, according to press releases, will be paid for by the NATO common budget. The rest will be paid for by the United States. This situation creates a large problem with the American public and may have serious implications such as decreased support for what is viable in the existence of NATO, and for American participation. The cost of expansion may also increase due to the fact that the perspective new members are struggling with economic reforms and in order to meet the requirements involving military build-up, they will need some financial assistance from the United States.
The second main issue concerns relations with Russia. As we well know, out of the Cold War came NATO. With the Cold War ending, U.S.-Russian relations have warmed. In the case of NATO expansion, some say there is the possibility of a hindrance of U.S.-Russian relations. Another concern is that with the expansion of NATO, dividing lines will be created in Eastern Europe itself. The three most democratic and economically stable Eastern European countries entering NATO (Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland) may cause tensions with the less advanced nations, still struggling with their economic reforms.
Supporters of expanding NATO insure us that admitting the three Eastern European countries will create global stability. With the expansion of NATO we are promoting within these Eastern European countries a "western" reform, including human rights, democracy, and market based economies. Europe will become more united with the expansion of NATO as well. Europe will also be able to preserve the integrity of the newly admitted member countries. The expansion of NATO also enlarges the security for the United States. These are just a few of the reasons why it is in our best interest to expand NATO.
The situation in Bosnia is an example of where we must secure our interests. In June of 1998 the mandate of the American military force to the current NATO-led stabilization force will come to an end. We must decide whether or not to extend the mission in Bosnia. There are several issues that are determining factors in complying with the end of the mandate. The cost of maintaining American troops within Bosnia, when neighboring Europe members could actively station there, without the severe cost that the United States is faced with, is one of the main issues. Another issue is the peculiar assumption that with the Dayton Peace Accords being implemented, the need for American troops is not necessary.
Although, we must consider the United States' interest in extending our mission in Bosnia, it is important to preserve the integrity of NATO and in promoting human rights, democracy, and a market based economy. With the situation in Bosnia waning, there is no certainty that war will not begin again. Extending the presence of American troops in Bosnia has lasting effects for the global community. We must insure that all efforts to stabilize the region will not be reversed.
I believe that the importance of keeping the military force of Americans in Bosnia will secure the interest of United States and insure the stability within the region. These troops should work with the expansion of NATO to support our interests in Bosnia. Our objectives should focus on stability, enhancing human life, achieving an independent democracy and free market economy. Concerning the cost of expanding NATO to the three Eastern European countries, I believe that there is a price that we must pay to preserve our interests and with the cost as a price worth paying for. The same must be said for Bosnia and we must keep our troops there to ensure future stability. Enlargement of NATO will make NATO stronger and America stronger.
Suzanne Kirakossian, Foothill College
Recently, we have heard many ideas and thoughts expressed on both sides
of two related issues, in the past three weeks. These are the very important
issues of NATO expansion and staying in or pulling out of Bosnia. Let me
summarize what I understand to be the testimony before the Congressional
Committees. Then I will make strong recommendations, based on the evidence,
of what best serves the interests of our country and in another sense, the
world - since we are all connected.
First, there is the issue of NATO expansion. Presently, the countries trying to become new members of this organization are Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Basically, the views defined for being against NATO expansion are the economic concerns and the possible weakening of the present alliance. Jonathan Dean, arms control adviser to the Union of Concerned Scientists, said "... expansion costs have been underestimated and the United States will likely have to bear the grunt." Michael Mandelbaum, who also seems to be in agreement with Dean, presented the fact that continuing expansion would "...overextend and greatly weaken the alliance." These are all concerns of mine also, however the other side presented strong evidence of the positive gain NATO will receive by admitting these three countries, and in the future, hopefully more countries will be able to participate.
The obvious gain in expanding NATO is the stability it can create in Europe,
if it is done in the correct way. From everything that has been exhibited,
these three countries are on their way to proving their worthiness of joining
NATO. They are successfully transforming form historically communist countries,
into active capitalistic countries. No one's saying they don't need a little
help, but with our assistance they will achieve thriving democracies. U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says, "Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic are well on their way to meeting the military and financial commitments
associated with NATO membership," proving their willingness to participate
in the majority of the costs, not waiting for the bigger powers to come to
their aid. I believe in the end, America will gain much more by admitting
these countries into NATO, than how much money and aid we give them
now.
As for the issue of staying in or pulling out of Bosnia, very serious and legitimate concerns were presented. For those in favor of pulling out, the main argument focuses on the claim that no possible solution is in sight. Many are concerned about putting our soldiers lives at risk, as am I, and the economic investment we are putting into this situation.
However, my belief is that our presence has made a difference, because there has been a vital cease-fire. The likelihood is if we leave, they will take up where they left off. So what is the solution? Obviously, there are some deep running historical disagreements, and hopefully while UN soldiers are there, a special forced meeting can be held by mediators, bringing together Serbian and Bosnian leaders, to come to a resolution. This will be difficult, but if both sides are somewhat satisfied, we may be assured the war will be over, and things will stabilized.
I would like to reemphasize my recommendations. I am for expansion of NATO, looking far ahead into the future at the possible stability it can obtain for our world. Some think expansion weakens, letting in the "volatile" countries. However, the symbol of strength NATO represents is likely to surpass differences that two countries may have with each other, so as not to jeopardize the union. If this is the way NATO works, theoretically one day, all countries will be able to join, and we will have achieved world peace. This is connected with the issue of staying in Bosnia, because when the southeastern European countries see, that central Europe was admitted into NATO, they might give up on their nationalistic quests of what territory is rightfully theirs, and start working towards improving their country's situation so one day they too may join NATO, and consequently the European Union. Until that day comes, and so we won't look back and regret leaving or having to return later at much higher costs, I believe we should stay in Bosnia and push for a resolution to be made.
Jennifer Coates, Foothill College
As a student of foreign relations, I have found the issues surrounding Bosnia and the possibility of the expansion of NATO to be difficult and complex ones. First , you are approaching the end of the eighteen-month mission. What you need to decide is what, if any, action should be taken when that mission expires in June. It is the belief of many that we need to keep our troops in Bosnia after the deadline. Others blatantly say "get out by June," and still others believe we need to stay and take a more active role in the peacemaking process.
We, as Americans and as powerful members of NATO have made a commitment to Bosnia. We need to fulfill that commitment in order to retain our own credibility as Americans, to assure the world that NATO is not a failure- especially when there is such talk of expansion, and to uphold European stability. Human lives are at stake in this region and we have the power to prevent mass death and destruction. There is much concern and reason to believe that if we leave the Dayton Accords will no longer be recognized. In other words, if we leave, they will fight and they will die. And if we leave, the European nations will leave as well. If that were the case, Bosnia would be a huge waste of time, effort and the 8 billion dollars of taxpayer money already invested. It could also lead to an even greater financial and military investment with a potentially far greater number of casualties. The point is that the problem has to be solved sooner or later. The question is whether or not we are will in to stand by and let the situation escalate into something that the mission was trying to avoid in the first place?
Progress has been made in the peacekeeping effort, but nothing permanent has come out yet. We need to see this commitment through, but in what capacity? My strong recommendation on this matter is to continue providing much needed political and economic support. I think that military support is imperative to the success of this mission but in a more limited capacity on our part and increased military support from other European nations. I would recommend cutting the current forces in Bosnia in half, and taking a more aggressive role in moving this peace process along. Many have maintained that the forces will be there forever if we do not take them out now, but if we are more aggressive- in a diplomatic manner, of course, then I think we could make some concrete progress.
We Americans need to realize that this process requires a great deal of patience. A state in turmoil cannot just turn itself around in a few years while dealing with issues that have been around for hundreds of years. I think we need to stay in a more limited capacity and really get the ball rolling.
Kelly Haston, Foothill College
Over the past weeks I have listened to and read the material from the hearings on the issue of US continued involvement in Bosnia. As you approach the time to vote on this issue, perhaps the thoughtful opinions of voting citizens might be helpful.
The issue of continued involvement in Bosnia is highly debated. Many are against staying past the upcoming deadline, saying that, "Bosnia is a tragedy, but not our tragedy...that we should wash our hands of the whole situation and walk away." Others say, "that Bosnia can never escape the conflicts of its past," implying that they are imprisoned by that past and nothing we do will help bring about peace, so why try? An argument "that only ethnic partition will produce the stability we want," and give us a means to leave, has also been put forward. But the main argument seem to be that the financial cost of securing peace in this small country is too high, and the risk to Western life is unacceptable.
There are many advocates of staying in Bosnia as well. The view, that not only is it morally wrong to allow further violence, but that we have a "security interest...And we certainly have a humanitarian interest in mitigating the violence," is strong. While the area may not threaten the immediate survival of the Western countries, it is in their interest to prevent, "the violence from spreading and from stimulating a broader European war." If that happened it would mean more money and involvement and could threaten the whole European structure.
Others point to the fact that while the Dayton accord did produce a truce, an uneasy peace at best, and that, "the gains are not irreversible." Bosnia is not yet, "self-sustaining and international pressure often is required to keep the parties cooperating." The importance of staying and implementing what we have started is paramount. To not stay would certainly mean the Dayton accord would ultimately fail, and this failure would throw doubt on NATO and the US's leading role. "It would undermine NATO's credibility at a critical moment," and it would "send the wrong signal (from Washington) to...NATO." Many believe that this would create, "grave consequences for... freedom-loving people around the world."
On the issue of continuing our presence in Bosnia, I believe that we have a moral obligation to uphold what we have started. The people of Bosnia look to us for help, help that for too long we withheld. We must now prove to the Bosnians, their neighbors and the world that we mean business and that we are in this for the long haul. To do anything else would be not only wrong, but extremely damaging to our credibility as a world leader. I believe that we can help lead these people towards a better, more democratic future.
Samuel Berger said, "this century, for all its bloodshed, has shown that hatred is not transmitted inexorably from one generation to another through iron laws of genetics or culture. Hatreds can be aroused by cynical leaders, as they were in Bosnia. But people can lift themselves out of hatred with hope of a better future." The West has an obligation to help, with our presence and support.
Michael Bobadilla, Foothill College
I would like to express my concerns over NATO and BOSNIA. May I begin with the issue of the expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is very important for all to note the impact admitting or declining these countries' entrance into NATO will have on the status of Russia in NATO. Will these countries be given full and complete membership, or will they, as has been mentioned for Russia itself, have membership but not the power of a veto?
Those in support of the expansion of NATO point to the great strategic opportunities of admitting these countries, the preservation of a stable democracy, and a bridge to the old eastern block countries. As the evidence suggests, Poland will have little problem fulfilling the armament requirements, and has already involved itself in several peace-keeping projects with its surrounding countries. Admitting these countries would give NATO firm ties to Eastern Europe, therefore hopefully giving some stability to that part of the world that has seen so much carnage throughout this century. Supporters would also like the Congressional Committees to see the importance of NATO forces along the eastern part of Europe, while ensuring another part of the world as a democracy.
I believe NATO to be the greatest and longest lasting peace-keeping
organization in history, and the preservation of this organization is of
great importance to the world. And to preserve NATO, we must, I repeat, MUST
accept these nations into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We must
take the first step in breaking down the misconceptions of the Cold War and
bring these nations into the 21st century as a part of the greatest
multi-national alliance this world has ever seen. Admit these countries -
with the hopes of one day breaking down lines on maps and the lines in the
minds both women and men, and creating a true global community.
The second issue is the June deadline in Bosnia. The heart of the debate centers on whether the lives of the people of Bosnia are worth the amount of American time and money we have already spent so far and would in the future.
Those who would like the United Nations to pull out of Bosnia point to a high cost. The men and women who appeared before you noted the millions that have been spent maintaining the peace keeping effort in Bosnia, and insist that nothing has been accomplished so far. These people also fear the probability of another long and drawn out military event like Vietnam occurring in Eastern Europe. They would like the American public to know that lives of the American military are not worth risking over this problem in Bosnia.
Their opponents would like the Congressional Committees to see our involvement
in Bosnia in a different light. They would like the American public to see
how the actions and involvement of the United Nations have saved the lives
of millions of Bosnians. They believe that our involvement has made a great
deal of difference in Eastern Europe, and that only our continued involvement
can keep the peace and loss of life at a minimum.
Concerning the June deadline in Bosnia, I would like to state how my heart is torn on this subject. The possible death of millions of Bosnians weighs heavy on my mind, but so do the lives of young Americans who may die also. Has our presence in Bosnia made a difference? The answer is a resounding `YES!' Would our continued presence be as important? I believe the answer to be less definitive. Imagine, if you could, the message that would be sent to the rest of the world if we were to pull out of Bosnia? What would that say about the most powerful nation in the world? In our recent history, we have made many moves to make a statement to the rest of the world. I can think of no greater way to make a statement to the world than by staying in Bosnia; saying "YES!," the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, and not afraid to stand up for what is right and just, ready to be a true world leader.
Our continued presence will ward off Serbia's insane drive to achieve "pure blood" in its borders. But our current efforts are a bandage, not a cure to the problem. Give a hungry man a fish, ladies and gentleman, you feed him for a day. But what about every other day, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee? We must teach that man how to fish! Much like the hungry man, we must attempt more than a temporary solution, and therefore I believe that we should not only continue our peace keeping efforts in Bosnia, but step them up, take our presence to a higher more authoritative level in Bosnia.
Once again, I would like to your consideration and for the hearings you have held. I do not have to remind you just how important your vote matters in this ordeal, and that however you choose to vote, that the lives of millions of Bosnians as well as thousands of American soldiers, teeter on the decision.
Caroline Johnson, Foothill College
Having listened to the hearings and read the accounts of all sides on the two issues: the expansion of NATO and the position of the U.S. in terms of Bosnia in June, the Congress is now forced to come to a decision.
Most have said that by adding to our alliance, we will simultaneously expand our influence, making NATO larger and relevant to all who strive or exist in democracy. It was one of the original goals of NATO when it was first established. Bringing Romania, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the NATO sphere will be a step towards the elimination of the segregation of Eastern European countries that have risen from the chains of Soviet rule. These countries are striving to reach our level of standard democracy but need our help doing so. We as Americans cannot conceive of the process concerning the extermination of one form of government and the development of another that is completely different. It is a long, fragile process. Yet these countries have displayed persistent dedication and willingness to do so, to lift up out of the dust of communism into democracy. Many agree that such efforts should not be ignored, that we should not shy away when they need our assistance. Others have argued that in allowing NATO to assist these countries, we will lose more money, that the expansion into these lands will stretch far beyond our budget.
I think this situation calls for a more precise conclusion as to what the intentions of NATO truly are. Is it to form an elite, yet dormant in expansion, alliance that disregards those who aspire for true democracy and all that accompanies it? Or is it to form a strong, worldly alliance of democratic power? Perhaps it is somewhere in-between. However, I believe that the intention of NATO is not to disregard those democratic nations who seek our help.
The second issue is whether or not we intend to stay in Bosnia beyond June or if we plan to abandon it. I have heard many say that it was a mistake to initially get so deeply involved in Bosnia. According to some, if we had approached the arms embargo in another manner, we would never be in this choice-less position. Let me point out that we are not discussing what should/should not have been done, but rather what must be done. Predicting a date of withdrawal from a war torn country is practically impossible in my view, as we are always relatively unknowledgeable of how things will develop.
Yes, we have assisted in holding off (I refuse to utilize the word "stop") the genocide and other brutal crimes in Bosnia, and we have also supposedly put a hold on the war in general. However, we have merely paused what is going on in Bosnia and come far from establishing an end to it. I understand that our involvement has posed an economic strain upon the American people. However, we are now at the point where if we withdraw in June, the "play" button will be pushed and the insanity in the Balkans will continue. We have already gotten deeply involved and will appear as a nation of cowards if we do abandon Bosnia.
If the war is restarted, it leaves not only Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia in danger, but also jeopardizes the rest of Europe. Where there is one cancerous tumor in the body, it is bound to spread throughout. And I question those who oppose the staying in Bosnia: what will damage us more both in terms of economy and soldiers, the peace keeping in Bosnia or the evolvement of World War III? Another important issue brought up is the endangerment of our U.S. soldiers. This presents me with another question: what then does it mean to be involved in a military force? Perhaps this is something else we need to seriously examine. I need to point out one thing more thing - the lives of many innocent people lie in our hands. Is it fair to give and sustain help and hope for a given amount of time and then at the relative drop of a hat, forsake them? This dilemma is not as much a political issue as it is a humanitarian one. We have our responsibilities. I question whether or not we can or intend to stand by them.
By Alexis Cheney, Foothill College
Before Congress are two key issues which will have a serious impact on the lives of the American people--the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, and the fate of United Nations troops in Bosnia. As it is quite difficult to reach any conscious, moral decision without careful consideration of all parties involved and the possible consequences, it is necessary to review all points of each situation. While both issues raise imminent questions of financing and the impact on the American taxpayer, it is important to consider the key issue - the safety of humanity.
In 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was formed with the mission of defending Western Europe from their more aggressive Eastern counterparts. That was 1949. This is 1997. Today Western Europe has succeeded in rising to a prominent status in the eyes of the world community through a combination of resources, strength, and well-being. Where the Soviet Union once posed a threat to that very same well-being, the USSR has since deteriorated. The Warsaw Pact which once bound the nations of Eastern Europe together with the Soviet Union has since been nullified.
The cost of the expansion of NATO hits closer to home with the American people. In a February 1997 report by the Clinton administration, costs are estimated at $35 billion over the next decade. There are, however, some estimates which reach a bit higher. According to the Congressional budget office report issued in March 1996, costs are estimated between $61 and $125 billion, while an April 1996 RAND report estimates costs of $14 to $100 billion.
These costs are brought about as these potential new members are forced to rejuvenate their armed forces. This modernization of forces is necessary to secure the inter-operability of all NATO forces in the event of a conflict. As these nations are continuing to stabilize and boost their economies, it seems unlikely that they will be able to afford the purchase of new weapons. This lack of funds will likely force these nations to rely upon loans and credit from the weapon-producing nations. The economic dependence of these nations will in large part be the responsibility of the American taxpayers.
According to the NATO charter, the United States has pledged defense to any member nation. It may be imprudent to commit the nation's treasury or the lives of Americans permanently to the defense of other nations given the lack of public support from American citizens. The absence of a definable enemy also brings citizens to question the amount of tax money which is spent on the defense of the United States. Consequently, some of these pledges may not be simple for the United States to maintain.
Of course, there are those who believe that the growth of the alliance is the precise policy for the United States to seek. According to officials of the Clinton administration, the overall cost is likely to be less than that of the Pentagon. This decrease in costs is due to the improvements in the military infrastructures of the nations in question. The total estimated cost over the next decade as presented by the Defense Department would be between $27 and $35 billion. Of those estimated costs, the United States is likely to contribute between $1.5 and $2 billion to the organization. As for Russia, a new NATO-Russia Joint Council has been established to make the expansion of NATO an easier transition for Russia. This council, however, will have no unjust influence over the decisions of NATO.
As the June 1998 withdrawal date of United Nations troops in Bosnia draws closer, there is great uncertainty. A decision needs to be reached regarding the future of these troops, and the concerns of all must be addressed. While some believe that the peoples of the former Yugoslavia should be left alone to wage their own battles, others feel the presence of United Nations troops in Bosnia will prevent any ideas of a repeated confrontation.
For those who believe in maintaining a presence in Bosnia, there are three key issues. Following the signing of the Dayton Accord, the peacekeeping forces have been able to stop the massive killings and ethnic cleansings which were so "popular" during the conflict. As Bosnia makes it way towards an endurable peace, these peacekeepers are critical. The fragility and maintenance of the peace in Bosnia hinges greatly upon the presence of United Nations troops.
There are those, of course, who bring to the foreground the financial responsibilities that come with the occupation. The cost of the occupation of Bosnia is now estimated at $7.4 billion. Lawmakers are also concerned with the possible open-endedness of the peace-keeping mission.
While these issues are key to the stability and backbone of the American people, it is difficult to reach a definitive solution. It seems to me that the expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic would be an intelligent and tactical action for the United States. With the addition of these three nations to the already 16-nation strong organization comes an increase in manpower and strength. The issue of Russia should be addressed and maintained through the newly implemented NATO-Russia Joint Council.
The question of the troops in Bosnia raises the hair on the back of my neck. As I continue to read of the atrocities committed by all parties in Bosnia's internal struggle, I become more and more convinced of the need for a peacekeeping mission. While I believe that the agreed-upon June 1998 withdrawal should be pushed back, it should be done so through the implementation of provisions. These provisions would allow for United Nations troops to remain in Bosnia for a specified time, and perhaps withdraw gradually over time. An abrupt withdrawal of all troops would only allow leaders such as Milosevic to revert to pre-occupation ways. The methods of ethnic cleansings are likely begin quite rapidly should the troops be allowed to leave in June. Therefore, a new accord must be designed with leaders of all factions present and in agreement. Through this new accord it is hopeful that the removal of troops will someday be possible.
December 1997
Eastern Europe