How Far Does NATO Need to Go?

As the NATO summit in Bucharest approaches, the United States would like to include Macedonia, Albania, and Croatia in the alliance and extend "membership action plans" (MAPs) to Georgia and Ukraine. Why? Sure, the United States would like to consolidate gains in territory previously considered to be within Russia's sphere of influence, and expanding further east gets NATO closer to various trouble spots, such as the Middle East. However, the consequences of expansion simply outweigh the benefits.

First, expanding eastward (especially into the former Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine) would spur the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. Western assertiveness (including U.S. insistence on expanding strategic ballistic missile defense into Eastern Europe) has already caused Russia to suspend participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, nix START II, restart provocative military actions (such as bomber flights over allied airspace and naval vessels), and threaten to pull out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty. Sure, Russia is relatively weak now and has only limited means of striking back at the West, but this situation will not last forever. As oil prices buoy the Russian economy and military and the government consolidates control within the country, Russian strength will only grow. The United States needs to take a long-term view of its relationship with Russia and plant the seeds of a cooperative, not confrontational, relationship now. This is not to say that we should let Russia hold our foreign policy hostage, but we need to understand Russia's interests and attitude and be able to anticipate its likely responses to our actions.

Second, adding these states as NATO members would debase the alliance's membership criteria. While all of these countries have made some military improvements, their defense capabilities are still nowhere near NATO standards. Furthermore, while they have implemented some democratic reforms, their fledgling democracies are still not out of the woods yet. (Ukraine's Orange Revolution occurred only a few years ago, and just this past winter Georgia's president imposed a state of emergency amid widespread popular protests against his rule.)

Third, we gain little, if anything, from adding these states to the alliance. We might gain basing rights, but there is little reason to put forces into Ukraine (unless we are already planning for a soured relationship with Russia), and while Georgia might serve as a jumping-off point for military action against Iran, there is little need for that as long as we maintain our other bases in the region (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.), which seems likely for the foreseeable future. We might consider NATO's previous expansion: in 2004, NATO added seven Eastern European states (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania) to the alliance; has the addition of those states contributed any significant improvement to our security?

Fourth, adding new states brings new obligations for alliance members. Do we really want to be involved in planning for the defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression? What if the secessionist conflicts in Georgia (in Abkhazia and South Ossetia) flare up? Or if Russia recognizes those regions as independent states (as it has threatened to do) and then increases its force levels there, on what the United States considers the sovereign territory of a NATO ally? Although Estonia did not invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty when Russia launched a cyberattack against it last year, the feeble response called the alliance's ability to defend even its current members into question.

Fifth, how far does NATO really need to go? The alliance began as an organization of North Atlantic states; does it really need to extend its reach so far afield? If you believe that its primary mission ought to remain collective self-defense, then the answer is clearly no. If you support the alliance's push to take on new missions in the post-Cold War world, then perhaps. However, its record is, at best, spotty so far, as its operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan have demonstrated.

For these reasons, NATO should not extend membership invitations to Macedonia, Albania, and Croatia. It is true that NATO only wants to extend MAPs to Georgia and Ukraine and that it might be able to resolve some of these issues before considering membership for those states. However, even extending MAPs has consequences, especially for the West's relationship with Russia. Therefore, the best course of action is for NATO to forego any moves toward expansion and instead deal with its existing issues, such as Afghanistan and Eastern European missile defenses. Doing otherwise would only worsen the alliance's security situation.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Hawks and Doves blog! This is my place to rant about international security issues and hopefully for you to rant a bit as well. Enjoy!