General Odom, Steve Solarz, Others Urge Senate Support of NATO Expansion

In fact, NATO enlargement will reduce the likelihood of America and its troops being pulled into new conflicts. Peace and stability in Europe remain among our most vital interests, and NATO is our most important instrument for achieving those interests. By expanding the number of countries committed to the principles of the Alliance, we reduce rather than increase the likelihood of conflict requiring American intervention. The tragic experience of Munich and the events leading to World War II is evidence that a strong, clear commitment to principle is the best deterrence to actual conflict.

In fact, the accession of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary will bring into the Alliance three countries that have not only resolved all such disputes but that have developed positive relations with their neighbors. The last decade has been an era of remarkable reconciliation in Central Europe. Some ten civil-military agreements have been signed between Central European states reconciling historic ethnic and territorial differences and recognizing current borders. These include the 1992 treaty of friendship between Poland and Ukraine renouncing any territorial claims and the 1996 bilateral treaty between Hungary and Romania recognizing their borders as final. NATO membership will give further force to those commitments and will provide additional incentives for others to resolve such conflicts.

In fact, the opposite is true. As former Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev has noted, rejecting NATO expansion "would play into the hands of the enemies of democracy" in Russia. (Newsweek, Oct. 2, 1997). NATO expansion will clearly establish limits that will deter the temptation for any group in Russia to look towards foreign expansion as a palliative to the demanding domestic development. The reinforcement through NATO of stable, democratic regimes should diminish regional tensions, creating a more stable environment for Russia's own development. Failure to go forward now would only enhance the legitimacy of Russian nationalists who maintain an expansionist agenda.

In fact, the President and senior administration officials have on many occasions explained the ramifications of enlargement; the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held 12 hearings on the subject, and the Senate NATO Observer Group chaired by Senator Roth has convened 17 times to explore the military, financial, foreign policy and intelligence dimensions of NATO enlargement. Indeed, the engagement between Congress and the executive branch on this issue has been a model for the development and implementation of US foreign policy.