When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization convenes in Prague
next month, the United States is expected to throw its considerable
political weight behind seven countries seeking membership in the
alliance.
Although the formal papers endorsing those countries’ membership
are classified, comments by officials from the Defense and State
Departments suggest that the United States will support a “big
bang” expansion of the alliance. Invitations are likely to
be extended to the former Eastern-bloc nations of Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
U.S. support for such rapid enlargement would have been unlikely
before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, experts said. Observers note
that, in 1997, when the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary became
the first of the former Eastern-bloc countries to be invited to
join the alliance, the standards for admission to NATO were more
stringent and the process less transparent.
Shortly before September 11, the United States was not expected
to support more than three countries for membership, said Jennifer
Moroney, a research analyst at DFI International. But the dynamics
have changed, and over the past year, each of the seven aspirants
who met minimum requirements in NATO’s membership action plan
(MAP) also set themselves apart by providing various types of support
in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.
In the new security environment, the aspirants’ willingness
to side with the United States in the war on terrorism, to contribute
niche emergency-response capabilities and to share information for
counter-terrorism, have set the countries apart as allies of the
United States.
The changes in the security environment seem to have diminished
the relevance of the Defense Capabilities Initiative, a 1999 agreement
by NATO members to boost investments in precision-guided munitions,
aircraft, missile defense, chemical-biological defense, strategic/operational
lift and mobility, C4I and suppression of enemy air defenses.
Interoperability among NATO forces also was a cornerstone element
of the DCI, which stipulated that future aspirants should buy defense
systems that are compatible with other alliance members.
The priorities set by the DCI shifted after 9/11. Although NATO
moved quickly to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which
states that an attack on one member country is treated as an attack
on all, the United States ignored NATO’s offer to lead the
war-planning efforts. Instead, the United States organized and began
executing since last October its own “global war on terrorism,”
gathering its own coalition of allies, which now number 68.
The move made it possible for smaller countries, such as the NATO
aspirants, to present their niche capabilities to the United States,
for use in the war on terrorism. Their help was accepted in many
cases. U.S. forces worked, for example, with Estonia’s explosive-detection
dog teams and Bulgaria’s nuclear, biological and chemical-decontamination
units in Afghanistan.
These actions tipped the scales toward the aspirants in the membership
process, said Moroney. The war on terrorism essentially redefined
the concept of NATO membership, she said. It is now “in the
best interests of the allies to capitalize on the assets best suited
to support counter-terrorism activities.”
The decision by the United States to work directly with the new
democracies of the former Eastern-bloc, rather than to focus on
improving large-scale defense capabilities, have elevated their
status within NATO, changing the focus of the alliance from being
capabilities-based to politically-based.
“No one expects much militarily from the current batch of
candidates,” said Thomas Szayna, of Rand Corp., a think-tank
based in Santa Monica, Calif. “The point is to lock in the
reform processes. The political motivations predominate,”
he said.
Earlier this year, U.S. President George W. Bush communicated his
desire for a robust enlargement of the alliance. “In Prague,
our nations will take an historic step toward removing the remaining
divisions of Europe. We will move to adapt NATO’s structures
and improve its capabilities, so that our societies and our citizens
are better protected against new threats, wherever they emerge,”
he said.
But experts warned of the potential for pitfalls if the aspirants
don’t pull their weight once they are invited to join the
alliance. The U.S. should encourage the aspirants to adhere to explicit
parameters for defense investment, and through the ratification
process in the Senate, hold them to specific goals, said Sean Kay,
a fellow at the Eisenhower Institute, in Washington, D.C.
“If we don’t hold these seven countries to serious
pre-September 11 criteria and indeed add post-September 11 criteria,
these countries are going to seriously dilute the defense capabilities
of NATO,” said Kay.
Enlargement Issues
Ian Brzezinski, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European
and NATO affairs, told the House International Relations Committee
that NATO enlargement will help Europe become more effective in
dealing with global challenges, and will help to stabilize relations
between the West and Russia. Brzezinski reports to Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
In preparation for the summit in Prague, Brzezinski led bilateral
working groups with the ministries of defense for Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Slovenia and Slovakia. His deputy led similar groups
with Bulgaria and Romania.
“Each aspirant brings a different set of challenges, which
require different approaches to defense reform,” said Brzezinski.
Brzezinski said that most of the work by the candidates involved
changes in national strategy documents; improvements in command,
control and communications; infrastructure for host nation support;
training; logistical support; personnel reform and information security.
“We should not overlook the fact that each of the aspirants
has made very real contributions to NATO operations in the Balkans
and to the war on terrorism,” Brzezinski said. These nations,
he added, offered the United States air-space rights for the war
on terrorism, and most contributed niche military capabilities.
He cited several examples, including Bulgaria, which provided a
base for U.S. KC-135 tanker aircraft and sent a 40-person nuclear,
biological chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan.
Romania contributed a military police platoon and a C-130 aircraft
for the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, in addition
to deploying a 405-person infantry platoon. Slovakia sent an engineering
unit and the three Baltic states are trying to augment a Danish
airfield support contingent in Manas.
“Through such concrete action, the NATO aspirants have conducted
themselves as de facto allies,” Brzezinski said. “Not
only have they demonstrated the military capability to add positively
to NATO operations, they have demonstrated the political will to
accept the risks and responsibilities of NATO missions.”
Assessing Capabilities
In charge of assessing the capabilities of the aspirants was Gen.
Joseph Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Ralston testified
to the House International Relations Committee that the U.S. European
Command studied each aspirant’s military posture. He said
that resource management, force structure, personnel management
and English-language capability were among the criteria for NATO
membership.
Ralston reported that some countries have been required to restructure
their military forces and bureaucracies. Personnel restructuring,
he said, included “knowing what specialists you have and need,
a balanced rank structure and effective non-commissioned officer
corps, [improved] quality of life and professional education.”
The European Command, said Ralston, also assessed the aspirants’
defense capabilities. “The bottom line is: Can they deploy
a reasonably sized force, sustain it, communicate with it, protect
it and fight effectively with it?” Ralston said. Other assessments
addressed these nations’ ability to fight in varying conditions,
to engage effectively and to take on losses. However, one of the
most important assessments involved the aspirants’ “consultation,
command and control capability,” which he said is “a
NATO term synonymous with the U.S. term command, control, communications
and computers [C4].” Ralston noted that the aspirants have
all invested heavily in this area.
Ralston said the studies provided by his office “will be
combined with other inputs from a number of other organizations
both inside and outside of the Defense Department to determine the
president’s recommendation,” he said.
Political Considerations
The State Department also is playing a role in the recommendation
process, said Robert Bradtke, deputy assistant secretary of state
for European and Eurasian affairs. The State Department is studying
the social and political readiness of the aspirants to join the
alliance. Bradtke said the countries are “working hard to
consolidate democracy and the rule of law, to strengthen judicial
systems, to promote good relations with neighboring countries, to
improve the treatment of minorities, and to privatize state enterprises.”
Improvement is still needed in the areas of fighting corruption,
the treatment of minorities and of the political opposition, property
restitution and public education with regard to the Holocaust and
public support for NATO, Bradtke said.