NATO PLUS THREE

• Share

After every great war the victors search for a way to safeguard their gains. In 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was intended to disarm Germany and keep it weak. Following World War II, the Allies tried at Yalta and Potsdam to shape a reordered Europe but ended up splitting it between East and West. Now another world struggle, the long, bitter cold war, has ended, and the architects of security are back at their drawing boards. They are trying to seal peace and stability into Europe's future and, although they don't say so very loudly, hedge against the rise of a vengeful Russia. In Madrid this week, a summit meeting of the 16 nations of NATO is starting to enlarge and reshape what is now usually described as the most successful alliance in history. The question is whether it will continue to be.

For an enterprise intended to preserve international amity, the expansion of NATO has produced a discomforting amount of friction and ill will. Even this week's summit could turn into a "food fight," as an American official puts it, because the U.S. has ruled that only three new countries will be admitted to NATO in the first round, though others are to come in later. The welcome mat is out for the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. But France, Italy, Canada and other members of the alliance were pushing the candidacies of Romania and Slovenia, and in some conference rooms charges of "American arrogance" echoed. The U.S. will prevail, of course, because such decisions must be unanimous.

As soon as the summiteers issue their invitations and wind up the ceremonies, President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Defense Secretary William Cohen will board their Air Force planes and bustle across Europe to congratulate the fortunate three and soothe and reassure the anxious applicants that have been left out. Some of those, especially the Romanians, are extremely upset, though they say they will be glad to greet the President and hear his better-luck-next-time message.

At a glance, adding former Warsaw Pact allies of the Soviet Union to the ranks of the triumphant NATO alliance seems a good idea. After all, the argument went, these were the captive nations, now freed, and they deserve the advantages of membership, including the guarantee that an attack on any member will be considered an attack on all of them.

But in fact no one knows how the expansion will affect Europe or the alliance, how much it will cost or how many years or decades the growth spurt, and the conflicts that come with it, will last. Meanwhile, each time new members are taken in, new dividing lines will be drawn across the Continent. Russia, one of the two states that can blow up the world, will be on the other side of those lines.

While he is still in Europe, Clinton will find telegenic and symbolic sites to begin his next task: persuading the U.S. Senate to ratify the NATO treaty to include the new members. All the other national parliaments involved will have to ratify it too, but the Senate is the key. If it falters, some of the Europeans could drift away. And while the White House expects to win the two-thirds vote it needs in the Senate, it no longer believes rounding up 67 votes will be a simple matter.