DATE=05/01/99 TYPE=ON THE LINE NUMBER=1-00735 TITLE=NATO AT FIFTY EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037 CONTENT= THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE ANNCR: ON THE LINE -- A DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES POLICIES AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES. THIS WEEK, "NATO AT FIFTY." HERE IS YOUR HOST, ROBERT REILLY. HOST: HELLO AND WELCOME TO ON THE LINE. LEADERS OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION -- NATO -- MET IN WASHINGTON TO COMMEMORATE THE ALLIANCE'S FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY. THEY ALSO WELCOMED THREE NEW MEMBERS, POLAND, THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND HUNGARY, AND ADDRESSED THE CONTINUING CRISIS IN KOSOVO. THE NATO OPERATION TO STOP THE WAR AGAINST THAT PROVINCE'S ETHNIC ALBANIANS IS NOW IN ITS SECOND MONTH -- WITH NO END IN SIGHT. JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF NATO AND THE KOSOVO SITUATION ARE THREE EXPERTS. ROBERT SIMMONS IS SENIOR ADVISOR FOR NATO AFFAIRS AT THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. AMOS PERLMUTTER IS PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AND EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC STUDIES. AND PETER RODMAN IS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AT THE NIXON CENTER. WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM. HOST: MR. SIMMONS, IN A WAY, THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO OVERSHADOWED, LET US SAY, WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ATTENTION ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO WITH THE THREE NEW MEMBERS. SO, LET'S START WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT. SIMMONS: WELL, THE THIRD PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS ALSO TO PROJECT THE ALLIANCE IN ITS ROLES INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, AND KOSOVO IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH THAT. SO IN THAT SENSE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FORWARD-LEANING LOOK, AND WHILE IT WAS CELEBRATION OF BOTH ENLARGEMENT AND THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY, IT ALSO HAD A CRITICAL ROLE IN PROJECTING THE ALLIANCE INTO THE FUTURE. AND KOSOVO IS A SYMBOL OF THE NEW MISSIONS OF THE ALLIANCE AND THE ALLIANCE'S WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ITS PARTNERS. AND IN THAT SENSE, IT COMPLEMENTED SOME OF THE GOALS THAT WE HAD FOR THE SUMMIT. HOST: WELL, AMOS PERLMUTTER, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE RECENT GATHERING AND OF WHAT CHANGES THIS ACTIVITY IN KOSOVO MAY BETOKEN FOR THE ALLIANCE'S FUTURE? PERLMUTTER: WELL, I'M A GREAT PATRIOT OF THE OLD NATO, THE CLASSIC NATO. AND IF KOSOVO IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT MODEL FOR WHAT NATO IS GOING TO DO, I SUPPOSE IT MAY BE THE END OF THE KIND OF NATO WE HAVE KNOWN. THE NEW NATO IS A LOT OF RHETORIC AND DISCUSSIONS ON SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS IN EUROPE, WHICH COVER NOT ONLY EUROPE BUT THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE, IGNORING SOME IMPORTANT COUNTRIES IN EUROPE, AS WELL. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR, I REMEMBER DURING THE NATO EXTENSION, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS WAS THAT THOSE COUNTRIES THAT WILL ENTER NATO WILL BE DEMOCRATIC AND ECONOMICLY VIABLE. I DON'T THINK THAT ALBANIA, WHICH FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, HAS BEEN DE FACTO EXTENDED INTO NATO, OR BULGARIA OR ROMANIA ARE GOING TO BE THERE. SO IN MY VIEW, IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT IT HAS BECOME A MINI-U-N AND THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND IS NO LONGER TRUE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WILL LAST FOR A LONG TIME. HOST: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT, PETER RODMAN? RODMAN: WELL, I THINK NATO IS A SUCCESS STORY. AND I SUPPORTED THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO, PARTICULARLY IN CENTRAL EUROPE. SO I THINK THE ALLIANCE WAS RIGHT TO CELEBRATE THE FACT THAT LONG AFTER ITS MAIN ORIGINAL PURPOSE IS GONE, I.E. THE SOVIET UNION, STILL IT'S AN ALLIANCE WHOSE VIGOR IS OBVIOUS AND THERE ARE COUNTRIES STILL BEGGING TO GET INTO IT. SO THAT'S A GOOD SIGN. BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED, LIKE AMOS, ABOUT KOSOVO. I MEAN, I HOPE IT'S NOT A PRECEDENT, BECAUSE I WORRY ABOUT VENTURING INTO DIFFERENT KINDS OF MILITARY MISSIONS. AND WE DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME. AND TO BE FAIR, WE DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THE KOSOVO INTERVENTION. IF IT GOES BADLY, I THINK IT'S A BAD OMEN FOR THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY FOR NATO IN THE FUTURE. HOST: WHAT ABOUT THE MORE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF NATO OPERATING OUT-OF-AREA? RODMAN: IT COULD MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. IT COULD MEAN IN THE PERSIAN GULF OR OTHER GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGES TO NATO, OR IT COULD MEAN THIS HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. AND I'M MORE NERVOUS ABOUT HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION, BECAUSE IT'S A MUCH MORE NEBULOUS KIND OF THING AND WE'RE ABOUT TO FIND OUT WHETHER WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT WELL. HOST: ALL RIGHT, MR. SIMMONS, DO YOU WANT TO REACT TO SOME OF WHAT MR. PERLMUTTER SAID? SIMMONS: SURE. LET ME SAY TWO THINGS. ONE IS LATER REAFFIRMED IN THE STRATEGIC CONCEPT -- THAT COLLECTIVE DEFENSE IS STILL THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE ALLIANCE. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THE ROOTS OF KOSOVO AND BEFORE THAT, BOSNIA, GO BACK TO THE LAST STRATEGIC CONCEPT IN 1991. ALREADY THEN, WE SAID THAT THE ALLIANCE HAS AS ITS ROLE PROMOTING STABILITY THROUGHOUT THE EURO-ATLANTIC AREA AT LARGE. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ADMITTING ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES TO MEMBERSHIP, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF EUROPE AS A WHOLE DOES HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE STABILITY AND SECURITY OF THE ALLIES. AND THUS NATO MUST PLAY A ROLE, MUST HAVE AN INTEREST. NOW IN DOING THAT, WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE THE RIGHT JUDGMENTS, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS CORRECTLY. AND I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I THINK THIS HAS BEEN AN EVOLUTION, NOT A REVOLUTION IN TERMS OF THE ALLIANCE RECOGNIZING THAT THE OLD SENSE OF OUT-OF-AREA, AT LEAST WITHIN THE EURO-ATLANTIC AREA, HAS REALLY ENDED. HOST: ALL RIGHT, I ALSO WANT TO BRING THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION INTO PLAY AND GET THE RESPONSE FROM ALL OF YOU. NATO HAD A FOUNDING CHARTER WITH RUSSIA AND IT WAS SEEN THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATO AND RUSSIA WAS GOING TO BE KEY, PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT TO ITS ENLARGEMENT AND TO THE ISSUES YOU JUST MENTIONED, STABILITY IN EUROPE. HOW IS THAT AFFECTED BY TWO THINGS: THE ENLARGEMENT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND THAT MAY TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE; AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN KOSOVO? . PERLMUTTER: LET ME ONLY JUST QUICKLY ANSWER WHAT WE'VE HEARD. IF WE REPLACE HUMAN RIGHTS FOR SOVEREIGNTY AS THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, I SUPPOSE TOMORROW WE HAVE TO BOMB THE BASQUES IN SPAIN. HOST: BUT WHO SUGGESTED THAT NATO IS DOING THAT? PERLMUTTER: WELL, IF YOU READ [BRONISLAW] GEREMEK, FOR INSTANCE, THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF POLAND, ALL THE SPEECHES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TALK ABOUT A NEW UNIVERSE, A UNIVERSE OF HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS. I'M NOT AGAINST HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS, BUT WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE FOR THAT PURPOSE. BUT TO ANSWER THE RUSSIAN BUSINESS, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, IT LOOKS TO ME, IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE NATO NOT AS A MILITARY ORGANIZATION, BUT AS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF EUROPEAN STATES, WITH THE UNITED STATES IN IT. AND I'M AFRAID THE UNITED STATES WILL BE MARGINALIZED IN THAT RESPECT, THAT NOT EVERY ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT THAT SORT OF ACTIVITY. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO BAIL US OUT TODAY, AND THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS. INSTEAD OF BEING PART OF THE SYSTEM, WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE SYSTEM ANTE [BEFORE], WHERE YOU KNOW THE RUSSIANS WERE PART OF IT. THEY WERE PART OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE. NOW WE ARE BEGGING THEM TO GET US OUT OF THE KOSOVO IMBROGLIO [MESS]. I MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. HOST: BUT THEY HELPED IN BOSNIA. WHY WOULD YOU BE WORRIED ABOUT IT? PERLMUTTER: BECAUSE BOSNIA WAS A DIFFERENT STORY COMPLETELY. THE PARTIES IN BOSNIA AGREED. THEY AGREED. IT'S NOT PEACE-MAKING, IT'S PEACE-KEEPING. THEY AGREED FOR REASONS OF THEIR OWN. THE CROATS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, THE MUSLIMS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, AND THE SERBS GOT LESS WHAT THEY WANTED. BUT ALL OF THEM AGREED TO ACCEPT NATO AS A PEACE-KEEPING FORCE. BUT TODAY NATO IN KOSOVO IS A PEACE-MAKING FORCE. AND THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO BE INTERVENING. BESIDES, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO ENTER INTO WHAT THE K-L-A [KOSOVO LIBERATION ARMY] IS ABOUT, BUT IF YOU READ [CHRIS HEDGES'S] ARTICLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS, YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION. HOST: PETER RODMAN? RODMAN: WELL, YOU ASKED ABOUT RUSSIA. THERE REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. ONE IS NATO ENLARGEMENT IS SOMETHING THE RUSSIAN BODY POLITIC HAS GOTTEN USED TO. AND I THINK IT WAS ALWAYS A CONCERN OF THE ELITE, NOT OF THE AVERAGE RUSSIAN. IN CONTRAST TO THAT, I THINK AMERICAN MILITARY ACTION IN YUGOSLAVIA IS MUCH MORE SENSITIVE AND WE'RE PAYING SOME PRICE IN RUSSIAN PUBLIC OPINION FOR THAT. BUT I MEAN, IT'S UP TO US IF WE WANT TO PAY THAT PRICE OR NOT. THE SECOND ISSUE IS WHAT AMOS RAISES ABOUT BRINGING THE RUSSIANS INTO THE DIPLOMACY, AND MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INTO. I'M AFRAID THAT RUSSIA -- I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, THE CREDIBILITY OF NATO AND THE COHESION OF NATO AND THE SUCCESS OF NATO ARE NOT THE MAIN PRIORITIES OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY. SO WHAT THE RUSSIANS CAN DO FOR US IS HELP US FIND A FIG LEAF, I MEAN, SOME SETTLEMENT WHICH WILL NOT BE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF NATO'S ORIGINAL OBJECTIVES. HOST: HOWEVER RUSSIA AND OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH IT THROUGH NATO IS VERY IMPORTANT. MR. SIMMONS, WHAT DO YOU SAY? SIMMONS: IT CERTAINLY IS, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH PETER THAT I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, RUSSIA HAS COME TO ACCEPT ENLARGEMENT. AND WHILE THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT STILL PUBLICLY, THE WHOLE RUSSIA CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM IN THE PERMANENT JOINT COUNCIL HAS WORKED OUT TO BOTH SIDES' ADVANTAGE AND HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING US OVER THAT PART OF IT. NOW WE TURN TO KOSOVO, WHERE CLEARLY THEY HAVE PULLED OUT OF THESE CONSULTATIVE MECHANISMS BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCERN, WHICH IS MORE SHARP OVER KOSOVO. I THINK THE GOAL HERE IS, AND I THINK HERE ACTUALLY WE WOULD AGREE, THE GOAL IS TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO DRAW THE RUSSIANS BACK INTO THE PROCESS. I THINK BOSNIA IS AN IMPORTANT MODEL HERE, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE BOTH, BY HAVING THEM AT DAYTON AND BY HAVING THEM AS PART OF S-FOR [STABILIZATION FORCE], TO REENGAGE THEM AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE. THEY DON'T HAVE A VETO, THEY CAN'T STOP WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT THEY CAN PLAY A CONSULTATIVE ROLE. THE KEY WOULD BE TO FIND SOME WAY TO DO THAT IN KOSOVO. AND I THINK THAT'S THE OBJECT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW. PERLMUTTER: WHY DIDN'T YOU DO IT BEFORE? WHY DID WE HAVE TO BOMB SERBIA FOR FOUR WEEKS FOR SOMETHING WE COULD HAVE ACHIEVED BEFORE? IT WAS, I THINK, AN INEFFECTIVE AND INCOMPETENT DIPLOMACY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES. IF THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING TO BAIL US OUT, THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT BEFORE THE WAR. WHY DIDN'T WE DO THAT? WHY DID WE THREATEN [YUGOSLAV PRESIDENT SLOBODAN] MILOSEVIC ALL THE TIME WITHOUT TRYING TO BUILD UP A SYSTEM WITH THE RUSSIANS, WHEREBY WE CAN DO WHAT WE DO NOW, AFTER ALL THE DISASTER THAT IS TAKING PLACE IN KOSOVO? HOST: MR. SIMMONS? SIMMONS: BUT I WOULD ARGUE WE DID THAT IN OCTOBER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE ARRANGEMENT THAT WE WORKED OUT WITH RUSSIAN HELP IN OCTOBER, AND USING THE CONSULTATIVE MECHANISM OF THE PERMANENT JOINT COUNCIL, DID WORK OUT AND WE HAD A TRUCE FOR MUCH OF THE WINTER. THE YUGOSLAVS THEN WENT AND BETRAYED THAT AND RESUMED THEIR ACTIVITIES, WHICH THEY HAD PROMISED NOT TO DO IN OCTOBER. AND WE COULD NOT STAND BY AND LET THEM VIOLATE WHAT THEY HAD COMMITTED TO DO IN OCTOBER, AND THAT WAS WHY WE HAD TO TAKE THE STEP THAT WE DID. BUT IN FACT, WE HAD DONE THAT IN THE PAST AND WE HAD TAKEN THAT AS FAR AS WE COULD. BUT AS HE HAS SO OFTEN DONE IN SO MANY AREAS, MILOSEVIC DOESN'T ABIDE BY WHAT HE PROMISES. AND WE EVENTUALLY FELT THAT YOU HAD TO CARRY THE THREAT OUT WHICH WAS THE ESSENTIAL GUARANTEE OF MAKING HIM KEEP HIS PROMISES. HOST: DO YOU THINK THAT THERE'S ANY LIKELIHOOD, BECAUSE OF THE ANTAGONISM WITH RUSSIA THAT'S DEVELOPED OVER KOSOVO, THAT THE FURTHER ENLARGEMENT OF NATO MAY BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THIS, PETER RODMAN? RODMAN: WELL, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. I THINK THE KOSOVO CRISIS WILL BE OVER AT SOME POINT. I MEAN EVERYTHING COMES TO AN END, AND I THINK RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA WILL DEPEND ON OTHER ISSUES BETWEEN US AND RUSSIA. SO I THINK ONE CAN REPAIR WHATEVER DAMAGE THERE IS. AND I THINK NATO ENLARGEMENT GOES ON A SEPARATE QUESTION. IN THE NORTHEAST, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BALTIC STATES. IN THE SOUTHEAST, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE SOUTHEASTERN REGION. I MEAN, I'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT MAYBE NATO SHOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN EXPANDING IN THE SOUTHEAST, IF NATO HAS DISCOVERED THAT IT HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN THE STABILITY OF THE REGION. I'M NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSING THAT, BUT IF NATO HAS DECIDED SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE IS A VITAL INTEREST, THEN THAT COULD BE AN ARGUMENT FOR ROMANIA, BULGARIA, LOOKING FOR NEW PARTNERS THERE. AT LEAST I'M SAYING THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN MADE. HOST: ALL RIGHT, LET ME GET MR. SIMMONS TO TELL US. AS A RESULT OF THE SUMMIT, WHAT SENSE DID YOU GET OF THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF NATO ENLARGEMENT? SIMMONS: LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. THERE WAS A THIRD INITIATIVE AT THE SUMMIT, WHICH WAS TO GET NATO MORE ENGAGED POLITICALLY IN SECURITY TERMS IN THE WHOLE OF SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE, TAKING UP EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. AND THAT WAS REALLY A THIRD IMPORTANT PART OF THE PACKAGE WAS PUT TOGETHER. MOVE AHEAD ON KOSOVO, THE VISION OF THE ALLIANCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COUNTRIES OF SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE -- THE QUESTION OF ENLARGEMENT ASIDE, BECAUSE WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTRIES MUST MEET THE BASIC CRITERIA OF ENLARGEMENT. AND WE HOPE WE CAN ENGAGE THEM WHILE MAINTAINING THE KEY CRITERIA FOR ENLARGEMENT, BUT STILL DO SOMETHING FOR THE SOUTHEAST OF EUROPE, ARGUABLY AS ENLARGEMENT HAS DONE FOR NORTH CENTRAL EUROPE. AND SO THERE IS VERY MUCH THAT COMMITMENT TO TRY TO TAKE UP SOME OF THE PROBLEMS IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE IN THE WAY IN WHICH PETER DESCRIBED. HOST: BUT ALSO NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT IN WHICH DIRECTION THAT ENLARGEMENT MAY GO. SIMMONS: WELL, THAT IS HARD TO SAY BECAUSE WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD LOOK AGAIN AT THE ENLARGEMENT QUESTION BEFORE 2002. I THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, HOW WELL THE COUNTRIES DO AT KEEPING ON THE ROAD. HOST: AND THE ROAD INCLUDES? SIMMONS: AND THE ROAD INCLUDES POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFORM, THE ABILITY TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ALLIANCE. ALL OF THE CONDITIONS WE SET OUT AND APPLIED TO THE THREE COUNTRIES THAT WE LET IN. I DON'T THINK, AND HERE I THINK WE WOULD AGREE, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LET THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO CHANGE THOSE BASIC STANDARDS. I THINK WE HAVE TO HOLD TO THE CRITERIA WE SET IN THE 1995 STUDY ON ENLARGEMENT AND MAINTAIN THOSE AS A CONDITION FOR ANY COUNTRY JOINING THE ALLIANCE BECAUSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ALLIANCE DEPENDS ON THAT. HOST: AMOS PERLMUTTER? PERLMUTTER: I HAVE A FEELING THAT WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES TO BELIEVE THAT NATO ENLARGEMENT WILL GO ON AFTER KOSOVO. I MEAN, KOSOVO IS NOT GOING TO BE OVER. PETER IS SAYING SOMETIME IT WILL BE OVER, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THE K-L-A WILL TAKE OVER KOSOVO. THERE WILL BE A CONTINUING WAR BETWEEN THE SERBS AND THE K-L-A, AND NATO INVOLVED IN IT. IT WILL ACTUALLY IMPEDE THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO BECAUSE IT WILL DEMONSTRATE HOW DIFFICULT THE METHODS ARE WHEN IT COMES TO THE STABILIZATION OF SOUTHEAST EUROPE. AND THE K-L-A HAS AN INTENTION OF [MAKING] A GREATER ALBANIA. SO I THINK THAT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT NATO EXTENSION SHOULD GO INTO THE SOUTHEAST WILL FIND OUT THAT THIS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE BECAUSE OF KOSOVO. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT KOSOVO IS A SUCCESS. IN FACT, GENERAL WESLEY CLARK DID NOT SAY WE WON TODAY. THEY DIDN'T LOSE, WE DIDN'T WIN. SO IN THE END, IF A RUSSIAN NEGOTIATION IS TAKING PLACE, THEN THE SERBS WILL HAVE A ROLE IN KOSOVO, THE K-L-A WILL HAVE A ROLE IN KOSOVO, AND THAT WILL CONTINUE THEIR INTERNECINE FRATRICIDAL STRUGGLE THAT WILL IMPAIR THE GROWTH OF NATO. HOST: PETER RODMAN? RODMAN: WELL, IT MAY BE, IF WE FAIL IN KOSOVO, I THINK IT DISCREDITS NATO IN A GENERAL WAY. IT DEFLATES NATO. IT MAY AFFECT WHETHER COUNTRIES WANT TO JOIN OR WHETHER NATO IS ABLE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE SAME ENERGY THAT WE HAVE JUST BEEN CELEBRATING IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. HOST: THERE ARE SOME CRITICS WHO SAY NATO HAS JUST ENLARGED, THESE THREE NEW COUNTRIES HAVE JOINED, BUT SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT MILITARY POWERS WITHIN NATO, GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND GERMANY, HAVE ENGAGED IN SERIOUS DISARMAMENT. THEIR MILITARY FORCES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN THEY WERE EIGHT YEARS AGO. THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF THE UNITED STATES. NATO SHOULD NOT NOW GO ABOUT EXPANDING SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES WHEN IT HAS DIMINISHED CAPABILITIES TO MEET THEM. COULD YOU REACT TO THAT, MR. SIMMONS? SIMMONS: WELL, ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SUMMIT WAS WHAT WE CALL THE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES INITIATIVE. WHAT IT DID WAS SAY, LOOK, THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED. WE HAD, DURING MUCH OF THE COLD WAR, A STATIC DEFENSE ON THE INNER GERMAN BORDER. AND WE HAD THE LARGE NUMBER OF TROOPS THAT WERE NECESSARY TO CARRY THAT OUT. THE MISSIONS OF THE ALLIANCE, THE NEW MISSIONS, BUT ALSO THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEFENSE ARE LIKELY TO REQUIRE MORE MOBILITY, MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN THE STATIC DEFENSE WE HAD AT THE TIME. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF SIZE. I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF THE KIND OF CAPABILITIES TO PROJECT FORCES MUCH FARTHER THAN THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE PROJECTED DURING THE COLD WAR, AND TO DO SO AND TO MAINTAIN THE KIND OF COMMUNICATIONS AND FLEXIBILITY THAT THE NEW KINDS OF SITUATIONS REQUIRE. WE AFFIRMED THAT IN THE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES INITIATIVE AND IN THE STRATEGIC CONCEPT. AND NOW IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE ALLIES, AS THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE, CARRY THAT OUT IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE PLANS TO IMPLEMENT IT. BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST BEING REALISTIC IN TERMS OF THE CHANGE OF THE THREAT. HOST: SO THAT MEANS MILITARY MODERNIZATION FOR OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES? SIMMONS: EXACTLY. HOST: I'M AFRAID THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE THIS WEEK. I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR GUESTS -- ROBERT SIMMONS, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR NATO AFFAIRS AT THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT; AMOS PERLMUTTER FROM AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; AND PETER RODMAN FROM THE NIXON CENTER -- FOR JOINING ME TO DISCUSS NATO AT FIFTY. THIS IS ROBERT REILLY FOR ON THE LINE. 30-Apr-99 11:04 AM EDT (1504 UTC) NNNN Source: Voice of America .