09 February 1998
(Discusses NATO enlargement at news briefing) (860) By Louise Fenner USIA Staff Writer Washington -- Chris Donnelly, special adviser to the secretary general of NATO on Central and East European affairs, gave a briefing on NATO enlargement February 9, stressing the importance of breaking away from "Cold War thinking" and instead looking "in terms of the future with our new partners in Eastern Europe, all of them, including Russia." Donnelly, the top civilian adviser to Secretary General Javier Solana, briefed reporters at the National Press Club. He cited the changes in NATO's role during the post-Cold War period, including a shrinking emphasis on collective defense and the growing significance of other goals: collaborating on a common cause -- such as in Bosnia -- and preventing conflict among member countries. Many Russians "see NATO focused against Russia. And it's not," Donnelly said. "I go to Russia more than any other country in Central Europe. I'm in constant discussion with Russians who ... have had 40-odd years of being told that NATO is an aggressive bloc, ostensibly aimed at them, and why should they trust it?" he said. "We have to do more to help Russia understand what the organization is, and we have to help Central European countries understand that, too, so that they can collaborate with us more, develop democratic institutions, reform the whole community, because that's their task." He said NATO is now in a "post-post-Cold War period" marked by four features: transatlantic relations and the development of the European Security and Defense Identity; engagement with Russia through the NATO-Russia Founding Act, collaboration in Bosnia, and other activities; the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, aimed at building up Eastern Europe's democratic institutions; and enlargement. But enlargement is all that the press focuses on, Donnelly observed. In Eastern Europe, Donnelly said, "I no longer hear that people fear security in terms of invasion. There's no credibility of any form of aggression on a major scale." Thus, NATO's importance to Central and Eastern Europe lies more and more in the support it can provide as these countries deal with today's security concerns, such as "organized crime, unsafe borders, illegal migration, smuggling and contraband, ethnic issues, the transformation of their societies from within." Additionally, "security provides for economic development. People invest in safe places. The transatlantic link provides for reassurance. Engaging Russia, as it transforms, provides a reassurance. And the possibility of becoming members is a tremendous incentive for reform and stabilization in Central European countries." Donnelly urged that "We must stop thinking of Russia as a defeated adversary. That's really a harmful approach. And that's behind a lot of the opposition to NATO, I find. People have not really broken away from that Cold War mentality." He added, "One thing I am sure of is that to try to keep the old NATO as the old organization in the Cold War, in cold storage, unchanged, is simply politically untenable, as well as being not sensible." Donnelly noted that along with NATO, Europe's security architecture includes organizations such as the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the United Nations. But he disagreed with critics who insist that Eastern European countries should join the EU first, noting that the requirements are very different and that security helps foster economic growth. Asked about costs of NATO enlargement, Donnelly said the original estimates were made "on the basis of Cold War thinking" and are "irrelevant, in real terms today." While Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic must modernize their security forces to join NATO, he said, defense transformation is an essential part of these countries' ongoing transformation to market economies. It would have to be done whether they joined NATO or not. On a question about the possible placement of nuclear weapons in new NATO member countries, Donnelly stressed that that would be "so completely in contrast with what's happening with NATO, in Europe, and the reduction of nuclear weapons and the withdrawal from Europe, that it's inconceivable that member nations should see a reason in the current circumstances to have nuclear weapons or standing troops in these countries." As for NATO's statement that it does not forsee the need to deploy nuclear weapons in the possible future, Donnelly said, "I don't see any chance of it changing. I don't see any chance of it changing in any timeframe. It's not something which is going to be there for a year or two and then reverse. The whole trend in NATO is the reduction of forces and the reduction and removal of nuclear weapons." One questioner expressed concern that if "barely" two-thirds of the U.S. Senate approved the accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, additional accessions in the future wouldn't get enough votes. Donnelly disagreed and pointed out that "we rarely get consensus in a democratic system. It is good that the enlargement and evolution of NATO is debated. It would be awful if nobody cared."