Enlargement in Central Europe (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (17 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Nov. 10, 1994 |
| Report Number |
94-879 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Paul E. Gallis, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
At the December 1994 NATO Ministerial meeting, the Clinton Administration will propose that
the
allies begin to draw criteria for possible new members. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary, and Slovenia are the likely initial candidates. Russia is not under consideration.
Proponents of NATO expansion, or "enlargement," believe that it could serve to stabilize
Central
European states seeking to build democracies and free-market economies; promote U.S. investment
and trade in the region; lend stability to the whole of Europe; and serve to contain Russia, should it
become increasingly unstable and assertive.
Opponents of NATO enlargement believe that Russia must first be engaged constructively.
They believe that expansion near Russia's borders, instead of bringing stability, would be seen as a
provocative act in Moscow. They also contend that incorporating an unstable Central Europe would
dilute NATO's political resolve and military capabilities, and that enormous costs would be required
to raise the level of Central Europe's defense posture.
Russia, having traditional interests in Europe, opposes any extension of the alliance near its
borders, a view held not only by nationalists but by centrist democrats and the Yeltsin government.
NATO is continuing to define a mission that moves away from collective defense and towards
more political objectives. Though few observers believe that Russia is a threat today, the North
Atlantic Treaty's Article V commitment to mutual defense will remain important until the appearance
of a stable, democratic Russia. Central European governments express different levels of desire to
enter the alliance, but all believe the Article V commitment to be central to their consideration of
eventual application for admittance.
Criteria for entry will be central to any debate. Those believing that NATO's political objectives
are the key to its future would require only that new members have functioning democracies and
market economies. Those stressing the need for NATO to maintain a capable collective defense
capacity contend that new members must also build strong militaries, an expensive undertaking that
could tax both current and future members.
Some Europeans believe that the European Union (EU), instead of NATO, should guide the
effort to bring stability to Europe. In this view, because the Cold War is over, political and not
military institutions should lead the effort to build security; and the European Union is more well-
placed to promote democracy and economic growth in the region, in part because it is not seen by
Moscow as a potential military threat.
