"Should we be considering dramatically expanding what is fundamentally a military alliance at the same time we are trying to define NATO's future mission and address critical shortfalls in current NATO member's military capabilities and spending? Should NATO not get its own house in order before considering further expansion," asks Senator John Warner, a Virginia Republican and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? This article is adapted from remarks by Senator Warner at a committee hearing February 28 on the future of NATO.

The broad issue before us ... is the future of NATO -- in my view, the most valuable security alliance in the history of the United States, if not the world. In light of the events of the past several years, and particularly events since September 11, NATO is now confronted with some fundamental questions about its future:

• What is the future role and mission of NATO in a world where threats to NATO members are now primarily non-state global threats, such as global terrorist organizations?
• Is NATO equipping to meet the asymmetric threat?
• Will NATO be able to operate as an effective military alliance if NATO's European members continue not making the critical investments in defense that the United States is making?
• Are the other 18 nations in NATO concerned with the technological gap between the United States and their nations and do they plan to address this problem?
• Is bigger better -- what are the compelling reasons to expand?

Let me quote from NATO Secretary General Robertson's recent speech on NATO's future at the recent Wehrkunde Conference in Munich:

"The United States must have partners who can contribute their fair share to operations which benefit the entire Euro-Atlantic community ... But the reality is ... hardly any European country can deploy useable and effective forces in significant numbers outside their borders, and sustain them for months or even years as we all need to do today. For all Europe's rhetoric, and annual investment of over $140 billion [$140,000 million] by NATO's European members, we still need U.S. help to move, command, and provision a major operation. American critics of Europe's military incapability are right. So, if we are to ensure that the United States moves neither towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities."

Against this backdrop of questions on NATO's future is the issue of the further enlargement of NATO -- which will be a main focus of the Prague Summit in November. Currently, nine nations are under consideration for NATO membership. My question is this: should we be considering dramatically expanding what is fundamentally a military alliance at the same time we are trying to define NATO's future mission and address critical shortfalls in current NATO member's military capabilities and spending? Should NATO not get its own house in order before considering further expansion? My concerns with NATO expansion have not changed substantially since the full Senate last debated this issue in 1998. If anything, the problems revealed by the Kosovo operation in 1999 have increased my apprehension about future rounds of NATO enlargement.

I start from the basic premise that NATO is first and foremost a military alliance. That is why NATO was founded; that is why it continues today. Nations should be invited to join NATO only if there is a compelling military rationale for additional members, and only if those additional members will make a positive military contribution to the Alliance. In my view, that case has yet to be made for the nine nations currently seeking NATO membership.

We must always keep in mind that any country joining NATO will be extended the protection of Article 5 of the NATO Charter which states, "An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." That article was invoked for the first time following the attacks on the United States on September 11.

This security guarantee is the most solemn commitment any nation can make. Are the American people willing to risk U.S. military troops and expend taxpayers' dollars to defend the nine additional nations seeking NATO membership? This will be a hard sell, given the declining defense budgets of our current NATO allies and the meager military contributions that could be made by the nine aspirant countries.

If NATO expands beyond its current 19 members, some fear that the Alliance may become increasingly inefficient and indecisive -- a mini-United Nations for Europe. We witnessed some of the problems involved in operating by consensus during the Kosovo air operation. So the question is, will the addition of up to nine new member states -- for a total of 28 nations -- make that problem potentially unmanageable from a military perspective?

NATO is an alliance that has worked well for over 50 years, beyond the expectations of its founding fathers. Before we make a decision to enlarge the Alliance further, we need to carefully review and study all possible ramifications of expansion. We begin that process today.

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