Rethinking Europe.

• Author: Kupchan, Charles A.
• Position: Restoring order in the Atlantic region

The Atlantic security order is on shaky ground. Bringing peace to the Balkans has proved costly and elusive, and the failure of NATO's air campaign to protect Kosovo from the regime in Belgrade has seriously tarnished the alliance. Even more worrisome, however, is the fact that its members have failed to offer a compelling strategic vision for the future. The end of protracted East-West rivalry requires that analysts and policymakers rethink the purpose of NATO and, more broadly, the logic of America's heavy-handed strategic role in Europe.

This rethinking entails addressing two sets of questions. First, where is NATO enlargement headed? Should the membership of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic be followed by successive waves of enlargement? Where does Russia fit into an Atlantic community defined, for now, by NATO's eastern frontier? Second, what should be the relationship between Europe's own process of integration and the evolution of the Atlantic security order? Can and should the United States remain "Europe's pacifier" indefinitely, or is the time approaching for Europe to begin putting into place its own security order?

Setting the Atlantic relationship on the right course entails proceeding with NATO enlargement. Rather than continuing to focus on adding members from Central Europe, however, NATO must make Russia's membership a top priority. For if NATO is to be the centerpiece of a new Atlantic security order, it must ultimately embrace all of Europe's major powers. At the same time, Europe must gradually assume much more of the burden of managing its own security. More self-reliance, whether or not the Europeans themselves want it, will become a necessity as the next century progresses, for American resources and leadership will be in much shorter supply than today. While it has the luxury of doing so, Europe needs to wean itself of its strategic dependence on the United States.

Russia in NATO

NATO should never have embarked on enlargement into Central Europe; the costs plainly outweigh the benefits. But now that enlargement has begun, sound strategic logic requires its continuation. Committing to enlargement is to commit to establishing NATO as the central vehicle for building a stable Europe. To halt its expansion at Poland's eastern border therefore makes no strategic sense. Instead, NATO must set its sights on drawing Russia itself into the alliance.

NATO should follow this course for three reasons. First, Russian inclusion is a condition for a durable peace. A central determinant of European stability in coming decades, perhaps the central determinant, will be whether Russia exercises its power in a benign or malign manner. During the critical period in Russia's transition from its present disorder to reassuming natural weight, the West should be doing all it can to support democratic reform and to expose Russians to the norms and attitudes that underpin the responsible conduct of foreign policy - tasks best accomplished with Russia inside, rather than excluded from, the NATO tent.

Second, integrating Russia into NATO will prevent the emergence of a new gray zone in the heart of Europe. Those states that lie between an enlarged NATO and Russia - the Baltics, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine - remain Europe's most fragile and vulnerable members. To halt NATO enlargement after the first wave would only exacerbate their security predicament. To the extent that any sort of strategic vision now exists among NATO members, it calls for the elimination of this gray zone through successive waves of NATO enlargement. But admitting these states into NATO sequentially from west to east would surely have the dangerous end result of isolating Russia. However much it is reassured about NATO'S benign intentions, Russia should not and would not stand by idly as every country on its western flank joins an opposing military bloc.

Third, Russia's entry into NATO would give the Atlantic community more influence over developments in Europe's east, where the key challenges of the coming decades will arise. At stake are the security of Russia's nuclear weapons and technology, Russia's relationship with China, the stability of Ukraine, and access to Caspian oil - interests that warrant deep Western engagement. Russia's relationship with its smaller neighbors, too, would be subject to the restraining effects of NATO's cooperative rules, helping to eliminate the residue of imperial ambition. In contrast, halting NATO enlargement at the frontier between Poland and Belarus would restrict the alliance from engaging in those parts of Europe where its peace-causing effects are most needed.

The Clinton administration, at least to judge by its rhetoric, has not ruled out Russia's eventual membership in NATO. In the President's words, "NATO's doors will remain open to all those willing to shoulder the responsibilities of membership." In reality, though, most officials do not take seriously the notion of Russian membership. At best, the minority willing to entertain the idea puts Russia at the end of a long queue, behind all the countries to its west.

Russia should be moved close to the front of the queue. To buy time for Russian democracy to deepen and for its economy to recover and mature, a small second wave of enlargement, one not likely to provoke Russia (Slovenia...