From hungary-online-owner Wed Mar 15 22:07:06 1995 Return-Path: owner-Hungary-Online Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id WAA11220 for hungary-online-out31415; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:07:06 -0800 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id WAA11207; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:06:44 -0800 Received: from asandor@hopkins.dsnet.it () via =-=-=-=-=-= for hungary-online@hungary.yak.net (11204) Received: from gwarn.versant.com (gwarn.versant.com [192.70.173.14]) (fnord) by nando (8.6.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA11201 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:06:27 -0800 Received: from minghetti.dsnet.it (minghetti.dsnet.it [194.20.20.11]) by gwarn.versant.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA18008 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:51:16 -0800 Received: from hopkins.dsnet.it by minghetti.dsnet.it; (5.65/1.1.8.2/14Sep94-8.2MAM) id AA26575; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 06:50:31 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:43:52 +6000 From: Andrew Sandor Subject: (HOL) Re: Nato expansion To: Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net At the risk of ridicule, I'm sending along this little speech I had to=20 give not too long ago re: Nato expansion to our favorite central european= =20 countries. You may recall that I put out a call for opinions on the=20 topic. Please bear in mind that the point of this exercise was to argue=20 the positive case in a simplistic format - a ten minute speech for those=20 essentially unversed in the subject. Figyelmeztetnem kell, hogy elegge hosszu. Nem fogok megsertodni ha maguk= =20 kidobjak az egeszet. Tudom, hogy sok a baromsag benne, de nyertunk es ez a=20 fo! Hat nem? 1 Before we discuss the proposition before us, let=92s take a look at two possible scenarios. The first one, in which NATO chooses not to expand. I will call it =93Democracy Disappointed=94. =20 Allow me to set the scene. =20 All throughout the euphoric autumn of 1989 people turned out into the streets of Gdansk and Timisoara, Prague and Leipzig, Budapest and Sofia, to demand their freedom. Above all they wanted one thingto rejoin the West. =20 Yet the West rejects them. =20 For five years Central Europeans have watched their living conditions decline while ex-Communists and carpetbagging Western businessmen become instant millionaires. They had been patient thus far, but their patience has finally worn thin. =20 Unrestrained by the incentive to be good Europeans, Hungarians, Slovakians and Romanians all turn to more nationalistic politics. Anti-Hungarian ethnic cleansing in Romania and Slovakia is punctuated by occasional, brief border wars. In the meantime, Lech Walesa has proclaimed himself the heir of interwar dictator Joseph Pilsudski. Poland, he declares, needs less democracy and more leadership. =20 No, not apocalyptic, but a grim enough picture of terminal instability in the Eastern half of the continent. What if, at that crucial juncture, the West had instead decided to offer NATO membership =85 =20 Back to our storythis time with a different ending. =20 By January 1999 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have all been accepted as full members of NATO. The whole region benefits from the increased stability. =20 With democracy and security firmly in place, private investors begin pouring long-term capital into the region. With 135 million well-educated potential consumers, Central and Eastern Europe proves to be an important and growing economic partner for the West. =20 Today we stand at a crossroads. I put it to you. Which future would you chose? =20 Mr. Cooperman and Ms. Stefanova will have you believe that it is safer to take a wait-and-see attitude, in short, to do nothing. Immediate expansion of NATO carries with it too many dangers. =20 I suspect many of you out there are worried about the reaction of Russia. Well, for the moment, I ask you to suspend those doubts. My partner, Marcus, will address that issue in detail and present a workable plan for a genuine partnership with Russiaa plan that does not grant that country a veto over Western security affairs. =20 Let us now turn our attention to the proposition itself. =93The United States should invite Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia to become full members of NATO by January 1999.=94 =20 Four questions present themselves: =20 1. What are American interests in Central Europe? 2. Why is NATO the appropriate tool for achieving those interests? 3. Why these four countries? and finally, 4. Why the four year deadline? =20 First, what are American interests in Central and Eastern Europe? =20 America has a general interest in enlarging the community of democracies and market economies. =20 Democracies are less likely to go to war with each other or to sponsor terrorism. I ask you, would a democratic Bulgaria have sponsored the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II? =20 The expansion of market-based economies abroad not only helps expand American exports and create American jobs, it tends to fuel demands for political liberalization where full democracy is not yet in place. =20 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have all made significant progress on the road towards democracy and market economies. But one ingredient is missingsecurity. =20 Strategic investors won=92t invest their capital without. This long-term capital is the key to lasting growth in the region. Without real economic gains the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe will ultimately reject the bitter fruits of market capitalism and democracyand they will reject them sooner rather than later. =20 It is the importance of security which brings us to our second point. =20 Why NATO? =20 Only the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can offer these countries Article 5 protection. Article 5 binds each member to come to the defence of every other. Article 5 is the heart of the NATO system of collective defence. =20 These countries are frightened of Russia. They are sometimes frightened of each other. They are just plain frightened. As Vaclav Havel put it, =93the continuing security vacuum gnaws at the psyche of Central Europe=94. While objectively no immediate threat exists, their fear is an expression of the traumas suffered under fascism and communism. Subjective fear can be a powerful force. To these countries only Article 5, with its implicit and ultimate guarantee of American protection, can give them the security they so desperately need. =20 I have already outlined why the sense of security offered by NATO is important for creating the conditions of economic growth. But how can NATO membership consolidate democracy and manage the minority problem? =20 In 1989 democracy and market capitalism were hailed as cure-alls. The West, as much as the dissidents who came to power that Autumn, did much to foster this belief. =20 Reality has proved different. Now, after five years of declining living standards and rising lawlessness, democracy and capitalism are in grave danger of becoming synonomous with poverty and chaos. =20 By ennabling the embattled democrats to deliver on their promise of joining the West, NATO membership will help to consolidate democracy. =20 NATO membership will also lead to better relations among the countries concerned, leading to an overall improvement in the situation of the minorities, and thus lessening the likelihood of conflict. Within the NATO framework, America will have unique leverage to dampen any resurgent nationalism. =20 Even now, the carrot of NATO membership is encouraging Hungary to work hard to reach basic treaties with two of its neighbors - treaties which would guarantee borders while ensuring some respect for minority rights. =20 The prospect of NATO membership and the security of Article 5 protection is fostering trust between these countries making them better neighbors. If NATO membership is not forthcoming, this cooperation will likely break down. =20 Let me now take up the third point of my presentation. Why these four countries? What is so special about Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia that they should be chosen over such likely contenders as Slovenia, or perhaps Bulgaria? =20 There are at least two good reasons. =20 One, President Clinton promised these countries membership in NATO. That puts America=92s credibility on the line. =20 Two, these countries were first off the starting block and have already made considerable headway in enacting economic and political reforms, including instituting civilian control of the armed forces. =20 Why not the Baltics? or Romania? The truth of the matter is that an organization can only absorb a few new members at a time. Politics will forever remain the art of the possible and at this point in time only Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are realistic candidates. That does not, however, mean that we are shutting the door on the rest of Eastern Europe. =20 Which brings us to our fourth and final point. Why before the end of this decade? =20 Indeed, why? The reasons are primarily psychological. =20 First off, admitting these four countries demonstrates that the West does, after all, care about the fate of the East. It serves as incentive for the other countries of Eastern Europe to continue along the road to reform. They will be reassured that membership in the Western club is attainableand with time and effort they too may eventually join. =20 Again, why within the next four years? Well, both democracy and a commitment to the market may be slipping. The recent actions of Slovakia=92s Vladimir Meciar are evidence of backsliding with regards to democracy. =20 In addition, a just published survey by the USIA shows that in Hungary the percentage of those favoring privatization over state-ownership has fallen to just 31 percent. Hardly a sign of strengthening commitment to market processes. =20 But it is not too late. If we move now we may still shore up those who are genuinely committed to democracy and the free-market. There is precedent. When NATO admitted Spain in 1982 it sought to welcome that country into the community of democratic nations and to help it dismantle the legacy of dictatorship. =20 In the last several minutes I have attempted to show how it is in the American interest to promote democracy and market capitalism in Central Eastern Europe. Furthermore, I have shown how that can only be achieved by extending the NATO security umbrella. Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are the best candidates for joining NATO in this first step. And finally, I have shown why this enlargement must take place in the near future if it is to be effective at all. =20 Think back to the two scenarios I laid out at the beginning of my speech. What kind of Europe do we want? One that is half rich and secure =85 and half poor and unstablethe two sides separated by a new =93wall of indifference=94. I hope not. =20 Let me close with a quote from a speech Anthony Lake gave at SAIS Washington in September 1993. =20 =93We have the blessing of living in the world=92s most powerful and respected nation at a time when the world is embracing our ideals as never before. =20 We can let this moment slip away. =20 Or we can mobilize our nation in order to enlarge democracy, enlarge markets, and enlarge our future.=94 ############# # This message to Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net # was from Andrew Sandor # # To unsubscribe, # send "unsubscribe" to # An announcement-only subscription (less volume) is available # at # Send mail to for more information, # or to if you need human assistance. #############