"By joining NATO, Poland became a member of a military alliance, which in an efficient way, provides for its security," says Polish Ambassador Przemyslaw Grudzinski. "Poland gained security and confidence, which are fundamental for further development. Without effective and credible security guarantees, the transition toward more prosperous and democratic order would have been much more complex and difficult."

During heated debates about NATO enlargement, cost-benefit analysis was widely used by politicians and experts. On one side they put arguments for enlargement and on the other side the arguments against it. The net result of these calculations led to the expansion of NATO. However, there are still voices, especially now in view of the next round of expansion, saying that the enlargement of NATO carries more damage than benefits. Of course, I disagree with these opinions. By joining NATO, Poland became a member of a military alliance, which in an efficient way, provides for its security. At the political level, I would like to point out just three benefits:

1. Poland gained security and confidence, which are fundamental for further development. Without effective and credible security guarantees, the transition toward more prosperous and democratic order would have been much more complex and difficult.

2. Thanks to its membership, Poland's position in the region is more constructive and stronger. Even before becoming a member of NATO, Poland tried to play such a role. One has to remember that Poland signed treaties of friendship with all its neighbors and actively participated in regional initiatives such as the Vishegrad Triangle (including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) and OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which proved that a commitment to values such as freedom, respect of human rights, and democracy are deeply rooted in Polish society. However, membership in NATO gave Poland access to financial, institutional, and political instruments that allow a more active and concrete promotion of these values.

3. As a member of NATO, Poland has an opportunity to actively participate in shaping the security framework in the Euro-Atlantic area. It is a very difficult and demanding learning process. It requires knowledge that other countries have been acquiring for 40-50 years. Not surprisingly, we have some problems in this area: there are problems to fulfill our military personnel quotas and there are problems in coordinating our efforts in order to pursue what appears to Poland as an important goal for the Alliance (Ukraine). Poland is striving to achieve greater cooperation between NATO and Ukraine. Our ultimate goal is to encourage Kiev's pro-western policy. However, Poland with its knowledge of Central and Eastern Europe as well as of Russia, with its long and after all not so bad experience of dealing with economic contingencies, social and political underdevelopment, and ethnic and religious minorities, is able to contribute to the better understanding of complex security challenges that the Alliance is now facing.

Let's move to the military level. I just want to briefly mention the following benefits:

First, membership in NATO required an introduction of civil and democratic control over the Armed Forces. As a result of a delicate process of transition, a civilian Ministry of Defense, responsible in front of parliament, was created. In general, more civilian employees entered the Ministry of Defense. General Staff was integrated into the Ministry and subordinated to a civilian minister. Term limits in commanding positions were introduced and Parliament gained control over the defense budget. These were fundamental steps in creating credible, apolitical military forces.

Already the prospect of joining NATO had forced the Polish army to adjust and modernize. This process gained more speed when Poland actually became a full member. The total number of Polish troops was cut from 400,000 to 165,000 at present, with the goal to reach the level of 150,000 troops by the end of 2003. The reduction in size is combined with a shift in the composition of the armed forces. The conscript service is cut from 24 months to 12 months and there is focus on hiring professional soldiers.

I believe, and tragic events of September 11 convinced me even more, that the enlarged NATO gained in credibility and strength. Let's suppose that NATO did not enlarge. Its main goal -- defense -- would be greatly undermined. First, NATO not only provides stability and security, but also promotes democracy and the rule of law. By enlarging the area of stability and democracy, NATO members simply improve their security environment. One of the most important arguments used by supporters of NATO enlargement was that there are no different levels of defense that basically you are or you are not protected. What they feared most was that countries in Central and Eastern Europe would be kept in a so-called gray zone. Today that seems extremely improbable, but I will argue that the way from a gray zone to a black hole is not very long. Nowadays the challenges to security derive from the failure of a state and its inability to deliver on its economic, political, social, and cultural pledges. Without the anchor of security and stability, and without a credible prospect to join the Western institutions, the transition toward a democratic state based on the rule of law could have ended up totally differently.

Second, democracies do not carry out aggressive foreign policies, and as such NATO provides just political, financial, and military means to deal with the security challenges of its members. What is unique about NATO and what makes it so attractive is that the common commitment of its members, combined with the level of military cooperation, provides a credible deterrent for any rational actor who would ever consider imposing its power on one of the NATO members. When enlargement occurred, nobody suspected that NATO members would have to act in defense of the United States. Poland, together with other members of the Alliance, invoked Article 5 [stating that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all], but also acted promptly on a regional scale by organizing in Warsaw an international conference on combating terrorism.

A military alliance has to be efficient. There was a fear that enlargement would over-extend NATO and dilute its military capabilities. This fear was combined with worries about America's lesser and lesser interest and involvement in European affairs. These worries were justified since they were derived from a fear of destroying an institution that has served transatlantic interests so long and so well. However, I want to stress that the effectiveness of a military alliance depends on shared interests of its members and on military capabilities. Regarding politics, first I just want to repeat that despite the perception of growing divergences in interests among members of NATO, what makes the transatlantic relationship so strong and special is a deeply rooted commitment to the same fundamental values, including freedom, democracy and respect of human rights. We can discuss the difficulties in implementing these values in Central and Eastern European societies with the legacy of the previous regime, but nobody can question the commitment of Poles, Czechs or Hungarians to these values. Sometimes attitudes of new members can appear a bit childish and immature. However, their enthusiasm and their strong belief in the future of NATO can be helpful in overcoming the tide of NATO-skepticism and therefore strengthen the Alliance.

Third, there was a widespread fear that with 19 members the decision-making process would be even more complex, undermining, therefore, the effectiveness of NATO. However, based on three years experience, it does not seem that the additional members have had such a negative impact on the decision-making process. The time needed to reach a consensus is no longer than before the enlargement. Moreover, enlargement gave an impulse to discuss the modalities and necessary changes in the decision-making process. If NATO wants to live up to its promise of an open door policy and remain an effective alliance, it has to address this issue.

Effectiveness depends also on military capabilities. Contrary to the political field, the military gap between the U.S. and the European members of NATO is a real one. This gap existed before the enlargement of NATO and is still there. It requires a refocus and an increase in military spending from all European members of NATO. I can only add that Poland recognizes this challenge and is considering, among other things, the purchase of a multi-role fighter. It will guarantee Poland a high level of interoperability with the U.S. Army and with NATO, which will allow Poland to support and fully participate in missions that the Alliance decides to undertake -- both to guarantee security of its members and to enhance security and stability in other areas of the world.

In the ongoing debate about the future of relations between NATO and European Security and Defense Policy, the Polish position is particularly delicate and difficult. Sometimes accused of betraying an organization of which it is not yet a member, Poland simply refuses to make a choice between NATO and the European Union. Poland supports the development of the European defense identity and considers it a necessary step to enable Europe to play a more decisive and responsible role in shaping international order. However, Poland believes that such a development can and should take place within the NATO framework. This strong belief derives from a conviction that there are vital common transatlantic security interests, as well as shared basic values, that unite the two sides of Atlantic.

And last but not least -- relations with Russia. The enlargement of NATO did not particularly enhance the democratization process in Russia. But if we agree on this, so we have to agree that the same enlargement could not and did not undermine the security of Russia. Yet, the enlargement enhanced the security of the former Warsaw Pact members. Through mutual cooperation and the democratic institutional framework, these countries' ability to protect and realize their own interests has increased. I will argue that thanks to enlargement, Poland and Russia are partners and, therefore, the relations between them are good. Russia is a great state; just because of its size and potential, it can shape international order either in a positive or in a negative way. Poland supports practical and concrete forms of cooperation between NATO and Russia that are geared towards promoting stability, security, and respect for basic common values. At the same time, such cooperation cannot undermine the effectiveness and cohesiveness of NATO, which is a guarantee of Polish vital interests.

_____

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Government.

Back to top | Contents, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, March 2002 | IIP E-Journals | IIP Home