The US is angling to enlarge NATO with the addition of Albania and Croatia. It is just crazy to bloat NATO with minor countries that can only increase our chances of becoming caught up in some international crisis. This is the very kind of entangling alliance that started WWI (in another Balkan tinderbox) and that the founders of this country warned about.
From the time of Thomas Paine and Washington's Farewell Address ("steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world") until WWII, we avoided binding ourselves to the fate of other countries. Now we are trying to anchor ourselves to inconsequential countries from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans (Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, Croatia and others). This short-sighted policy is fraught with danger.
***
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States is taking another step toward getting formerly communist Albania and Croatia folded into the NATO alliance.
President Bush planned to meet Friday with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and sign so-called accession protocols paving the way for the two Balkan countries' final membership in the military alliance..
The White House invited to the signing ceremony about 160 lawmakers, members of the diplomatic corps, the U.S. ambassadors to Albania and Croatia, and members of Albanian-American and Croatian-American groups.
NATO leaders agreed at a summit earlier this year in Romania to invite Albania and Croatia into the alliance. However, the alliance rebuffed U.S. attempts to begin the process of inviting Ukraine and Georgia, both former Soviet republics, to join. Despite strong U.S. backing to bring them in, Germany, France and some other alliance members opposed the move, fearing it would provoke Russia.
Albania and Croatia will be eligible to join NATO when all 26 allies have ratified the accession protocols. Slovakia and Hungary have ratified them to date. NATO officials hope Albania and Croatia will be able to participate as full members at next year's summit.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_NATO_EXPANSION?SITE=AP&SECTI...
There are other factors involved in this.
A NATO base means money. These countries have struggling economies.
NATO will always maintain a presence in Eastern Europe. By shifting our NATO forces we can stabilize their economies and a stable economy generally means a stable peace.
Additionally your comments on NATO's expansion hold no water because we sent NATO forces to both countries in 96-97 and that was way before we ever discussed them entering NATO. Under my arguement I believe I can make a better case that NATO forces will face less of a chance of hostilities if they were NATO countries.
MikeyA
I don't think helping struggling economies is a good argument for NATO entry. A lot of financial and trade incentives are available to help struggling economies. But NATO is primarily a military alliance that promises to support member countries by military might in any difficulties. Therein lies the problem.
We are linking ourselves militarily to small countries that have centuries of scores to settle with their neighbors. Some have irredentist dreams of enlarging their territories to the point of some former glory. The Balkans are a good example of this, especially with large ethnic groups living in neighboring countries. Albania has ethnic groups in neighboring Greece, Macedonia (FYROM), Kosovo, and other places. Macedonia itself is currently embroiled in a dispute with Greece that has potential territorial claims. And it's not the only one with dreams of a Greater (insert name of country).
The push to include Ukraine and Georgia in the alliance is just folly. If we want to make the world a more dangerous place, then we should continue to make insignificant countries with centuries-long disputes with other, bigger countries members of NATO.
I would also bring up the matter of the gentleman's agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan after the fall of the USSR about not pushing NATO into the eastern bloc countries. We should not be provoking others when our own record of upholding the territorial sovereignty of countries is hardly spotless. Our motives are not without suspicion.
"I don't think helping struggling economies is a good argument for NATO entry. A lot of financial and trade incentives are available to help struggling economies. But NATO is primarily a military alliance that promises to support member countries by military might in any difficulties"
I can agree with that.
"We are linking ourselves militarily to small countries that have centuries of scores to settle with their neighbors."
Two NATO countries have never fought each other despite tensions. In fact bringing them to the same table somewhere would help this. Likewise I can argue that they are more deserving of protection than Germany, where most of our NATO bases are currently located.
"I would also bring up the matter of the gentleman's agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan after the fall of the USSR about not pushing NATO into the eastern bloc countries. We should not be provoking others when our own record of upholding the territorial sovereignty of countries is hardly spotless. Our motives are not without suspicion."
I will agree since that pact the leaders of both countries have failed to reaffirm themselves to the agreement on both sides. But due to the threat of significant violence I still believe a third party presence is warranted there. I would have no problem with a Russian backed contingency if it weren't for their current political leaders tendency for force in these matters.
MikeyA
And the reason they have never fought each other is precisely because that exclusive club has never admitted members which had territorial or political designs on another member. This will all change with the admission of these Balkan countries and other prospective members like Turkey (problems with Greece and Cyprus), Ukraine and Georgia (problems with Russia, South Ossetia and other Caucasian states). I believe we are getting into a very different kettle of fish with the admission of members who have these kinds of problems with their neighbors.
I don't see what admitting these countries does to improve the security of any of the NATO countries. Seems to me it dramatically increases the possibility of conflict because of its provocative nature (see Russia here), not to mention, many of these countries are Moslem and have an entirely different ethos, culture, and political history from the European core of the NATO nations. I think it's a bad idea.