HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPentagon.asp?Page=\Pentagon\archive\200204\PEN20020418a.html Defense Experts Voice Support of NATO Expansion By Lawrence Morahan CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer April 18, 2002 Washington (CNSNews.com) - Speaking before members of a House Subcommittee on Europe, senior U.S. defense analysts Wednesday dismissed suggestions that NATO has become less relevant since the Sept. 11 attacks or that its role as a strategic defense organization could be diminished by the addition of new members. "I disagree with those who believe that in this post, post-Cold War and post-September 11 era, NATO may no longer be relevant to the overall security of the United States," said Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), chairman of the Committee on International Relations subcommittee on Europe. "NATO remains the foundation of American policy in Europe. NATO has proven to be a strong and viable alliance preserving the collective security in Europe for over 35 years," he said. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said NATO membership would speed the economic and political well-being of former Soviet states and provide a stronger foundation for democracy in Eastern Europe. NATO members Germany and Italy had not long renounced fascism when they were admitted to the alliance, she noted. In September, the NATO leadership will meet in Prague in the first time since the alliance's 50th anniversary in 1999, when it admitted Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland as new members. Top of the agenda in Prague will be a further expansion of the 19-member alliance as the leadership considers the applications of nine aspirants - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. In a message read at a summit of NATO candidate members in Bucharest, Romania, on March 25, President Bush gave a clear indication that he will back NATO expansion into Eastern Europe when the alliance meets in September. "In Prague, our nations will take a historic step toward removing the remaining divisions of Europe," Bush said. "We will move to adapt NATO structures and improve its capabilities so that our societies and our citizens are better protected against new threats, wherever they emerge." Barring the unexpected, it seems clear the alliance will take in five to seven new members - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and possibly Bulgaria and Romania, said Philip H. Gordon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. "Some observers argue that taking in such a large number of new allies will dilute the alliance and render it unusable in the future. "The truth, however, is that there is not a fundamental difference between an alliance at 19 and an alliance at 24 or 26 - NATO was never an alliance of equals and always depended on American leadership in the past as it will in the future," Gordon said in prepared remarks. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency, said NATO should expand by at least five countries. The Baltic states have been very successful in their political and economic transition programs, he said. Romania and Bulgaria could arguably be given a higher priority than the Baltic states, despite internal difficulties. Membership of these countries would promote stability in the Balkans, he said. New member countries also could enhance NATO's military capability, the analysts said. Probably the most important contribution that the candidate countries can make to NATO is their ability to provide airspace and quality infrastructure for supporting NATO deployment and training, said Thomas S. Szayna, a political scientist with RAND. The post-Sept. 11 security environment has elevated the importance of the sea and air bases in Bulgaria and Romania, he said. In the aftermath of Sept. 11 and the decision by the United States to fight the war on terrorism in limited coordination with the allies, some NATO members have voiced new concerns about perceived American unilateralism. For its part, the United States feels few allies, with the exception of Britain, have military forces sufficiently mobile, interoperable or trained for special operations required for the conflict in Afghanistan. The Bush administration also has sought to avoid the alliance's cumbersome decision-making process. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
