THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, June 23, 1995 TAG: 9506230490
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JACK DORSEY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines
Critical of current approaches to NATO's proposed enlargement, U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn told alliance leaders here Thursday to go slower, or risk pushing Russia back into the nuclear threat business - that country's only future response now that its conventional military is in ruins.
``A rapid NATO enlargement will be widely misunderstood in Russia and will have a serious negative impact on political and economic reform in that country,'' said Nunn, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Nunn was a primary speaker before about 60 NATO leaders attending the first day of a two-day annual seminar, sponsored by Gen. John J. Sheehan, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic. The audience included Willy Claes of Belgium, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and various NATO ambassadors and military and civilian leaders.
Aware that his remarks could be seen as critical of the alliance's efforts to open its doors to ex-communist nations through its Partnership for Peace program, Nunn said they would at least stimulate debate.
``I do not pretend my view is the majority view anywhere,'' he said at a news conference after his address. ``I think basically I have views based upon my own analysis, my own thinking. I am sure there will be a lot of people who will disagree with this.''
In his address, Nunn said the problem with the current approach to expanding NATO beyond its 16 member nations is that there has never been a question that it will happen, only one of when and how.
``Somehow I have missed any logical explanation of why,'' he said. ``In America when the enlargement debate focuses on issues of NATO nuclear policy, NATO troop deployments and formal NATO military commitments . . . somebody had better be able to explain to the American people why, or at least why now?''
Today, it appears, different suggestions are being given to different people when it comes to the subject of enlarging NATO, Nunn said.
``To the Partnership for Peace countries, we are saying that you are all theoretically eligible and if you meet NATO's entrance criteria - as yet spelled out - you will move to the top of the list,'' he said.
``To the Russians, we are also saying that NATO enlargement is not threat-based and not aimed at you. In fact, you too can eventually become a member of NATO. That raises serious questions.''
He asked whether NATO will be able to convince the Eastern Europeans that they are being protected from their historical adversaries, while convincing the Russians that NATO's enlargement has nothing to do with Russia as a potential threat.
``Are we really going to be able to convince Ukraine and the Baltic countries that they are somehow more secure when NATO expands eastward but draws protective lines short of their borders and places them in what the Russians are bound to perceive as their `buffer zone?' '' he said.
``In short, are we trying to bridge the unbridgeable, to explain the unexplainable? Are we deluding others, or are we deluding ourselves?''
Nunn's solution is what he called a ``two-track approach'' to expanding NATO.
The first track would be evolutionary and would depend on political and economic developments within the European countries that aspire to full NATO membership.
``When a country becomes eligible for European Union membership, it will also be eligible to join the Western European Union and then be prepared for NATO membership, subject of course to NATO approval,'' he said.
That would be a natural process for connecting economic and security interests. ``Then we can honestly say to Russia that this process is not aimed at you,'' Nunn said.
The second track would be threat-based.
``It would be saying to the Russian people and everyone concerned that if there is a threat that develops in Russia . . . NATO will enlarge very rapidly,'' Nunn said.
``If we give that message clearly to the Russian people it will be a much more understood message than right now, when we are really saying in effect that we are going to expand NATO and enlarge NATO but that it has nothing to do with Russia, it has nothing to do with the threat.
``I don't think that is plausible to the Russians.'' ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
by CNB