ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, February 6, 1997 TAG: 9702060012
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHARLES F. ROBERTS
DURING THE confirmation hearings on Madeleine Albright for secretary of state, one of the issues brought up during the questioning, but receiving only limited discussion, was that of the proposed NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. I find this proposal deeply troubling.
While NATO's original charter never explicitly stated that its purpose was to prevent the Soviet Union's intimidating the free nations of Western Europe, there was no doubt that countering the Soviet threat was the sole reason for its creation and continued existence. Certainly, the Soviets knew that.
Now that the Soviet Union has vanished from the scene - for the time being, at least - I see no justification for contributing to Russia's growing paranoia by resurrecting a strategy reminiscent of the Cold War era. An expanded NATO will be a new alliance of military forces that has no clearly assigned mission.
Who will an expanded NATO develop battle plans to oppose? Who is to be identified as the principal adversary? A military organization cannot be effective without a strategy and a set of plans based on assumed conflict scenarios. The planners must have some idea of who the enemy will be, where operations will be carried out, and what is to be the overall objective. The proposal to construct an expanded alliance without any clearly stated purpose or mission raises many questions.
If I were a Russian, I believe my attitude would be strongly influenced from witnessing the creation of a strong military alliance that includes all my neighbors but me. And I would have to conclude that the alliance must somehow be directed against my country.
I am much concerned that our new secretary of state is heavily influenced by her roots in Eastern Europe. If true, that would create real problems for the development of a proper U.S. foreign policy for dealing with European problems.
If the ``new NATO'' is to protect and maintain peace for the entire continent of Europe, how can Russia be excluded? The whole proposition makes little sense to me.
The genesis and underlying logic for this proposal isn't being revealed or discussed with the American people. It certainly should be, since we will be picking up most of the costs of this expansion, and will be held responsible for its consequences. A move that expands NATO must be thoroughly aired.
Charles F. Roberts of Blacksburg is a retired chief meteorologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
LENGTH: Medium: 51 linesby CNB