98232. "Mr. NATO" Explains Enlargement

By Linda D. Kozaryn

American Forces Press Service



	BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic. 

NATO members? Why should the United States pledge to defend these 

countries? What's in it for us?

	Peace and stability, according to Clarence Juhl, deputy 

defense adviser to the U.S. Mission at NATO. And Juhl should 

know. Among his American colleagues here at NATO headquarters 

he's known as "Mr. NATO."

	Juhl has focused on the Atlantic security alliance during 

most of his 36-year federal career. A retired U.S. Navy commander 

and former P-3 pilot, Juhl spent nearly half his 24 years in the 

military at NATO's Supreme Allied Command Atlantic and Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. 

	"After the Berlin Wall fell," Juhl recalled, "people thought 

NATO would be relegated to the dustbins of history. The Cold War 

was over; the big threat was gone." It was a new world and NATO 

now had to adapt its strategic concept, he said. 

	Standing combat defense forces were no longer needed along 

the Fulda Gap in Germany. The inter-German border was gone. But 

there were still threats to peace stemming from instability, 

uncertainty and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 

Juhl said. Therefore, the alliance still needed to maintain some 

form of collective defense. 

	NATO authorities developed a new reinforcing strategy based 

on the ability to immediately deploy forces when and where 

necessary. This ensures a credible collective defense capability 

within the context of the new security concerns without the 

expense of maintaining standing forces, Juhl said.

	"National forces are identified for NATO, but they're not 

assigned operationally to NATO until they're needed," he 

explained. "The nations control these forces, deciding how and 

when they're going to be used. They train and exercise together 

and that gives the overall capability when you want to bring them 

together."

	A new problem also surfaced for NATO following the Soviet 

empire's collapse, Juhl noted. Newly independent states were 

emerging in the East. How would they relate to the West?

	As NATO officials considered this question, they looked to 

the past and the future, Juhl said. They knew NATO had anchored 

peace in Europe for nearly 50 years; they also realized there was 

more to the equation than just a group of countries pledging to 

defend one another. 

	NATO is based on the concept "the whole is greater than the 

sum of its parts," Juhl explained. Nations standing together are 

obviously stronger than one nation standing alone. 

	"The alliance was built to preclude a Soviet buildup that 

looked like it might overrun Western Europe," Juhl said. "It also 

brought the nations of Western Europe together in a way that 

precluded the need for them to build large national military 

forces as they did before World War II. Because NATO nations 

contribute to a common defense, each is spared the expense of 

building the much larger force structure needed if they were 

solely responsible for their own military defense."

	NATO also has served as a vehicle for members to resolve 

border disputes and other regional problems through peaceful 

consultation rather than military conflict, Juhl said.

	"The nations of Western Europe no longer had any reason to 

go to war against each other," he said. "They each had 

transparency in their defense planning and their national defense 

establishments contributed to the collective defense."

	NATO authorities concluded that drawing together the newly 

emerging states could do the same in Central and Eastern Europe. 

Extending NATO's reach could help ensure peace well into the 21st 

century, Juhl said.

	"The question then became, how do you export that kind of 

stability?" he said. "The only way you can do it is to make sure 

these nations don't have to worry about their own security. If 

they don't have to spend money -- money they don't have -- on 

military forces, then economic and political dimensions can start 

to flourish." 

	NATO first set up the North Atlantic Cooperation Council so 

the new states could seek NATO's advice and counsel. Then in 

1994, NATO created a program so non-NATO countries could become 

NATO partners and eventually seek membership.

	"Partnership for Peace is a process," Juhl said. "It's a way 

for nations to come as close to the alliance as they wish. They 

can participate in NATO missions. They can discuss the kinds of 

forces they need and other ways to cooperate with the alliance in 

very meaningful ways." 

	Today, 27 nations are full-fledged partners. Their forces 

train with NATO forces. The real value in the program was found 

in simply setting up the training and, more importantly, in the 

one-on-one contact among the troops.

	"Even if you're just trying to get two platoons together, 

you'll have probably 100 contacts at different levels to figure 

out where and how you're going to do it," he said. "Even if they 

just get together and walk around in the woods for a little 

while, the fact is, you've done a whole lot of coordinating 

that's helpful in this process."

	Another benefit is the human relations element. "Maybe the 

first set of exercises were nothing more than a bunch of guys 

sitting around a campfire drinking coffee," Juhl admitted. "But 

you can't beat two soldiers getting to know each other. It's very 

important for them to find out we're not the bad guys they 

thought we were, and for us to find out they're perhaps a lot 

better than we thought they were."

	Partnership for Peace is also the first step on the road to 

NATO membership. Partners work toward meeting such NATO 

membership criteria as peacefully resolving any territorial or 

ethnic minority problems. "They are required to become good 

neighbors," Juhl said. "After all, we're talking about 

partnership here, not controversy; stability, not instability."

	In July, NATO authorities decided three of the 12 partner 

nations requesting membership were ready to join the alliance: 

the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The next step in the 

process is for the three invitees and the 16 current NATO members 

to ratify the protocols of accession. NATO authorities hope this 

will happen by April 1999, the 50th anniversary of the alliance. 

In the meantime, member nations are debating the effects and cost 

of enlargement.

	Juhl said, one main question is what impact new members will 

have on NATO's collective defense capabilities. 

	"The real answer is that it's additive," he said. "Let's 

face it, the Poles have a very large country. They have a good 

military and a good military tradition. They may have to do some 

downsizing, some shaping, but they'll bring a major contribution 

to the alliance. The Hungarians and the Czechs will, too."

	New members must be prepared to defend the old. Under NATO's 

Article V, an attack on one member is an attack on all. "The big 

question we had for a lot of the countries was, 'Are you prepared 

to go with us to defend Portugal?'" Juhl said. "It's not like 

putting a sign in your backyard saying, 'Don't mess with me, I've 

got powerful friends.' New members must contribute, not just 

consume security."

	The cost of enlargement is another major area of concern. 

"Initially, there were some very large numbers floating around 

that led to some confusion," Juhl said. It will cost the Czech 

Republic, Hungary and Poland less to join the alliance than it 

would to develop their own individual defenses, Juhl said. "By 

joining the alliance, they'll build an NCO corps; they'll resize 

their forces so they don't have a top-heavy officer structure. 

They'll have a much more efficient military structure. They'll be 

able to contribute more effectively to common defense with a much 

smaller structure that should be less costly."

	NATO does not build airfields, barracks or other facilities 

for national forces' use. NATO does provide the facilities it 

needs to ensure it can mount an adequate and credible reinforcing 

operation if required. NATO's infrastructure budget, commonly 

funded by member nations, is intended to ensure member nations' 

airfields, communications, air traffic control and other key 

systems are compatible. 

	NATO authorities have estimated they will need about $1.5 

billion over 10 years to upgrade invitees' existing facilities, 

Juhl said. While that amount might sound considerable, he said,  

NATO's annual budget already includes $800 million a year for 

such common-cost projects, which are requested and planned 18 

months to two years out. 

	Juhl said no discussion of NATO enlargement would be 

complete without mentioning Russia, which has opposed NATO's 

eastward expansion from the outset. They seem to be coming to 

terms with it, he said. Russia still needs to accept that NATO is 

a collective defense structure that creates stability, however, 

he said. 

	"The Bosnia experience and the fact that Russian forces are 

part of that in a very positive way is an indication of how 

things could be in the future when our interests coincide," he 

speculated.

	Bosnia -- NATO's first military mission -- proved the 

alliance can come together and act, Juhl said. It proved NATO has 

a command structure that works, and it put NATO's reinforcing 

strategy into action -- "You can move forces and sustain them," 

he said. It also proved the idea of partnership -- "You can form 

right-sized military forces to work certain contingency issues 

and be successful." While NATO's Article V collective defense 

pledge remains the heart of the alliance, the peacekeeping 

mission in Bosnia demonstrates NATO can tackle other 

contingencies effectively, he remarked.

	All in all, Juhl said, his long experience with NATO, 

witnessing the changing Atlantic security architecture, has been 

rewarding. 

	"It still blows my mind when I go down the hall and see all 

the partners. It fascinates me to no end that this has all come 

together this way. I spent hours and hours chasing Soviet 

submarines in the Atlantic Ocean," Juhl said. "I enjoyed my time 

flying airplanes, and all that was exciting, but I think we're a 

generation that really is standing on a threshold of opportunity 

to shape a very positive future. To be a small part of that, to 

have observed it, and to have had some experience with it -- I 

pinch myself every day."



##END##