From hungary-online-owner Tue May 16 12:18:33 1995 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id MAA18601 for hungary-online-out31415; Tue, 16 May 1995 12:18:33 -0700 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id MAA18592; Tue, 16 May 1995 12:18:23 -0700 Received: from jhorv@mars.iif.hu () via =-=-=-=-=-= for hol@hungary.yak.net (18590) Received: from mars.iif.hu (mars.iif.hu [192.84.225.92]) (fnord) by nando (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id MAA18571 for ; Tue, 16 May 1995 12:17:59 -0700 Received: by mars.iif.hu (5.67a8+/ULTRIX-1.01) id AA20443; Tue, 16 May 1995 21:17:03 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 21:17:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: John Horvath To: Hungary On-line Subject: (HOL) nato Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Charset: US X-Char-Esc: 0 Sender: owner-Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net NATO: North American Terrorist Organization? by John Horvath The question of expanding NATO to the countries of eastern Europe has at times cooled relations between east and west, namely between Russia and the US. Nevertheless, the countries of eastern Europe are still adamant about joining the military alliance. They regard NATO membership as a keystone in their post-Cold War development, second only to membership in the European Community. But expanding NATO to eastern Europe is bound to be disappointing to the former Warsaw Pact nations. In fact, the expansion of NATO in any direction is something that should not be welcomed in principle. NATO is a leftover from the Cold War years and should have been buried along with its rival, the Warsaw Pact. It was formed as a military alliance to counter (or to use a more polite expression, contain) the perceived communist threat. In a world no longer polarized between two superpowers, there is no need for such an alliance since the threat it was intended to repel no longer exists. Central to the arguments of eastern Europeans for joining NATO is that of security. It is believed NATO will provide security for nations fearful of a neo-expansionist Russia. More importantly, it is also felt that NATO can be an arbitrator of sorts in regional disputes, thereby protecting the nations of eastern Europe from one another. There is still an underlying fear in the region that the precedent being set in the former Yugoslavia will spark a chain reaction in places like Slovakia, Silesia, Transylvania, and beyond. Unfortunately, such a view of NATO and of what it can provide to the region is both unrealistic and unfounded. First and foremost, NATO does not entail security. Greece and Turkey are examples of two NATO nations openly hostile to one another. Indeed, the organization has been unable to prevent nor mediate effectively between the two. Even among the more powerful members of NATO, conflict has been known to exist. The Suez Crisis is a case in point in where NATO nations argued over objectives of national self-interest (in this case, it was Britain and France versus the US). In conjunction with this, western views toward the region are what makes eastern European expectations unrealistic. The reason why the turmoil in the Balkans has been able to unfold as it has is because of western indifference. As far as American foreign policy is concerned, eastern Europe is not important. Meanwhile, Eurocrats in Brussels admit that their worry is not over regional security-related issues -- but the refugees that civil conflicts and nationalist wars would send west. Although NATO is unable to fulfill the hopes for eastern European security, its expansion east nonetheless provides the West with a framework for the infringement of national sovereignty. The Gulf War exemplified how the national interests of a few overrode the foreign policy and security concerns of other countries. In this case, the US desire to secure oil resources justified using a member country (i.e. Turkey) for narrow military objectives. Even though intervention in the Gulf was initially sanctioned by the UN, it was mostly NATO resources and a predominantly American military that were involved -- in an area it had no right to be in. What the nations of eastern Europe must keep in mind is that everything NATO is proclaiming to do and represent is already provided under the auspices of the UN. However, the former is still deemed necessary because the developed nations have less direct power in the UN than in NATO. For this reason, NATO provides an outlet for the West when it feels a need to flex its military muscles. Therefore, eastern Europe should not seek an expansion of NATO in order to guarantee its security. Rather, the region should seek security through measures that can empower the UN. NATO has outlived its usefulness; the resources that are tied up in a relic of the past should be given over to an organization that was originally planned as a hope for the future. ############# # This message to Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net # was from John Horvath # # 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. #############