After World War II ended, the threat of
communism captured the attention of both North America and Western Europe.
A military operations group –called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO)– was formed to shield Western Europe from the communistic Eastern
Europe. NATO benefited for its members in four ways: it provided
the defenses of all members in case an ally was attacked; it kept a spot
for the U.S. in Europe; it helped each war-stricken European country recover
from W.W.II; and it helped contain the Soviet Union – and communism (Ullman
et al. 67).
As Western Europe has recovered from a
50-year-old war and as communism is no longer a threat to the world, NATOs
role is now changing slightly, bringing a need for new capabilities on
the part of NATO together with a need for enlargement. While NATO
is changing its role to the world, it should also be flexible enough to
change its members. The U.S. should support NATO expansion into Central
Europe. By preventing future conflicts in Europe and by increasing
the communication lines when addressing security problems, the enlargement
of NATO would make America safer . Enlargement would put both democracy
and stability in Central Europe in place with burgeoning economics that
often follow the establishment of democracies. NATOs military would
also be strengthened significantly.
Since both world wars took place in Europe
and many American soldiers died, the United States must prevent future
conflicts in Europe. As both of the Bosnian and Kosovar conflicts
have proven, Europe is not completely danger-free (“The Enlargement…”).
An enlarged NATO would help bring more countries into security planning.
Having more countries knowledgeable about the ideas of terrorism, weapons
proliferation, and ethnic cleansing, might lead to stable alliance deals
For instance, ten major agreements among
Central European nations during this decade settled border and ethnic disputes.
What is more, most of these disputes occurred to get the attention of NATOs
board (“The Enlargement…”). Romania began to provided protection
for ethnic minorities. Poland deepened the civilian control of the
military (“Why NATO…”). NATO addressed each situation. These
actions have not gone unnoticed by the U.S. either. By settling disputes
now, the United States will avoid future European conflicts while obtaining
security and satisfying other economic interests.
NATOs proficiency in solving conflicts
has something to do with its structuring. To become a member of NATO, nations
have to meet certain expectations. Part of NATOs success has to
do with its selectivity. Even though many nations applied to NATO
and only three were accepted, the nations who applied are trying to meet
the expectations in order to be allowed in. An important facet of
NATOs success has to do with its expectations. One such expectation
is the need for a stable democratic system of government (Ullman et al.
71). All twelve countries wishing to be part of NATO have been
striving to gain stable governments and economies. If all the nations
can achieve this, and thus are allowed into NATO, the result would be a
not only larger and more efficient NATO, but a more stable and democratic
Another facet of NATO that both the U.S.
and other NATO nations find appealing is the security provided by a stronger
military. Obviously, enlarging NATO would add more troops to the
alliance, making NATO a more efficient organization. Fore example,
Poland has already been working alongside NATOs troops in Bosnia, giving
them the experience needed to work efficiently in the NATO military.
Poland also has the largest and most capable military in Eastern Europe
(“Secretary Cohen Speech”). Hungary, too, has worked with over 95,000
U.S. military personnel through the Hungarian air bas at Taszar.
The Czech Republic sent a 200-man decontamination unit to Desert Storm
to help U.S. troops. These three nations alone will add almost 300,000
soldiers, sailors and airmen to the alliance (“Sec. Cohen Speech”).
Some people might think of extending the military capability of NATO as
an exercise double. The truth is the only recent peace in the contemporary
world has been the work of military forces (such as NATO) in the form of
For NATO to choose not to enlarge means
a failure to live up to its potential. The alliance has the ability
to be a positive superpower to the world. As far back as the 30s,
philosophers of the world began to feel the need for such an organization.
Pierre Teille du Jardin wrote of one world kept in peace by a strong international
force. By 1040 the leaders of the world brought that dream to reality
and NATO became real. A strong international agency, such as NATO,
can bring about stability throughout all of Europe, leading to stability
throughout the world, and only through enlargement can this stability occur