Oppose Expansion

President Molly Broman, Independent:

How long will America have to "come to the rescue" of other countries? How many times can we effectively do that? What happened to the historical evolution of countries in fighting their own wars? Where would America be today if we had cried to foreign powers to help us in the American Revolution? Would there even be an "America" as we know it? It would definitely be different from what we experience today. Also, who is to say that we should be in charge of deciding where other countries borders should be? If such power were granted to the wrong individuals...just imagine where that would lead the world. People making decisions based upon their own agendas and motives, who are not intimately involved, is not a wise way to responsible with such resources. Why not leave decisions of those kinds up to the citizens...the ones who will have to live with the consequences.

President Phelan Straube, Republican:

NATO expansion is a touchy subject to the Russians. I believe we should wait until the reformers in Russia are firmly in power. NATO expansion in the long run is a good idea. A stable force in Europe is badly needed--however, timing is the key.

President Paul Robinson, unregistered:

The decision is difficult but the U.S. needs to completely reassess both its security relationships and our traditional preoccupation with Europe. With the end of the Cold War and the rise of Eastern Asia as an ecomomic powerhouse we need to seek a better balance in our ties with the world in general. Reducing our security committments in Europe is a good first start toward seeking a better balance. A good example of the way forward is Australia. Though settled and developed by Europeans they now acknowledge that the locus of their most important geopolitical interest is in Asia. For the U.S. our interests range most of the world. Both Asia and South America will play as important a role in our future economic development as Europe will. And further the increasing diversification of the U.S. population will necessitate broadening the overly Eurocentric viewpoint of our policymakers.

President Brian E. Doran, Democrat:

First of all, dissolve NATO. Its very existence reminds everyone of the rhetoric from Cold War days gone by. Replace it with a subdivision of the United Nations, Security Council. The primary goal is to establish economic and humanitarian links Eastern and Western Europe. Use teams with a Peace Corps approach to coordinate redevelopment efforts. The military would only advise the "group" about possible problems or help train countries requesting assistance for post Cold War life. The criteria for use of the military would be established by the "group."

President Ed Bergh Jr., Democrat:

Expanding NATO into the eastern part of Europe would be a boon to those analysts of the Cold War who maintained that the American presence in Europe after World War II helped add fuel to tensions between the USSR and the USA. If the U.S. wants to help solidify the gains of the former Communists, now doing so well in Russia, further undermine democracy in Russia (the temptation to suspend the constitution is always there), and increase American hegemony in a time when the Republicans can find very little to go to war about, then we should do it. But that is absurd. Fifty years after the end of World War II we should realize that there is a limit to what we should squander our resources, time and talents on.

President Elizabeth Pittenger, Independent:

Membership in NATO should be EXTENDED to any country that wishes to join. Acceptance into NATO should be over a timeline that allows for negotiation. Russia's history of xenophobia is far longer than Germany's history of aggression. In light of Russia's political upheaval we should nurture her new ventures into trusting the West. Germany's recent history is firmly democratic and non- expansionist, in comparison.

President Joseph Bernardo, other:

The larger any alliance, the more difficult it will become to maintain a common identity of interests. Better to keep the NATO we know, for the purposes its members already agree upon, than to create what will essentially be a new organization with many junior members with different and sometimes opposing interests (how many Turkey and Greece scenarios do you want?). NATO will be a more effective military alliance just the way it is. The political advantages of expanding Western influence can be obtained by other means. I suggest that the tear-aways of the former Soviet empire be encouraged to form their own alliance, which can enter into a friendly entente with NATO.

President Ruffian, Independent:

The failing in this poll is that it doesn't allow the president to make a 3rd Option, say in this week's example, "Qualified support" or "Qualified opposition." Life is rarely black and white, and what would help this country more is not seeing how had it is to make a choice given only two options - what would serve us better is to teach us no matter how you look at a problem, there may yet be another option that isn't readily apparent. I would oppose NATO expansion as any kind of imperialistic, one way force. But I would also stress that any country whose people as a majority wish their nation to belong to NATO should have the option to join. Please think about a different way to do this. Having only two choices, like having only two parties, is largely what's wrong with America.

President Paul Hanson, Republican:

The decision of opposition for NATO expansion was not hard to make. Being conservative is tough, but being considerate is way more important. Opening doors that are locked isn't the way to make friends and an expanding military presence in an already unstable area just isn't in our best interest. To promote democracy we should be attempting to open up stronger trade routes to these countries, not weapons routes.

President Michael Hawes, Other:

The decision offered in this weeks' poll was difficult both because it is difficult to predict the reactions of other countries to our initiatives and because the limitation to two choices, while pragmatic, is unrealistic. The biggest factor is my decision was not even mentioned in either memo. That factor is our souring relationship with China. While it is true that Russia may become a threat in the future, China presents a quickly growing threat right now. Our capital in the international arena is too scarce for us to squander it in Europe when the economic and security interests of this country are more immediately threatened in the Pacific.

President Steven Helt, Republican:

This was an easy decision for me. While democracy and free trade ought to be encouraged globally, these miniature nations (the survey itself refers to the "statelets" of the former Czech nation) are far from stable and have internal problems they should tend to before joining a multinational alliance that has any goals at all. Russia in particular is in need of stability and a renewed democratic identity before they can be included into the Western Bloc.

President Bruce Kaplan, Democrat:

Any public announcement of this policy should certainly not be made before the Russian presidential elections. Our strategic interest is best served by encouraging or incenting Russia to behave moderately. I believe ultimately in the vision described in the Champion scenario of an alliance that includes all of Europe, including Russia. So if we support expansion it would be in the context of eventually including Russia as well. As a current policy matter, though, I would oppose expansion publicly while working with Russian leadership to encourage them to behave in a way that might ultimately guarantee their place in a pan-European NATO.

President Joshua Carlin Torpey, Democrat:

This was a particularly hard decision. I would have like to know more about the concept of collective security. It is an interesting idea for all of Europe, even Russia, to enter into a military alliance. However, I wonder how long such an arrangement could last. Wouldn't Russia's national security interests at some point conflict with those of, say, France? NATO as it is now makes sense because the member countries have closely related national interests. I'm not so sure that an expanded NATO could survive the conflicts of interests among its member nations. I guess another reason that I chose to oppose NATO expansion was because there does not seem to be any need to rush into things. For instance, if we decide to include Eastern European nations in NATO, that could be a deciding factor in the victory of ultra-nationalists or Communists in the upcoming Russian elections.

Champion Expansion

President Donald D. Tutwiler, Independent:

To withdraw invites the same scenario as occured after WWI, a new power struggle. But I condition expansion under remaining in NATO under one condition, that NATO reimburse us for our expenditures in NATO. We have subsidized their economies long enough. This subsidy gives them an economical advantage in the world market since they do not spend a sufficient portion of their GDP on their own defense. If they do not agree, then pull out of NATO is imperative to our own economic health.

President William Prensky, M.D., Democrat:

This is a very difficult decision. Both arguments have merit. But on balance the need to expand the alliance and to include Russia within it outweighs the difficulties. Especially in light of the probability that the real danger ahead lies in the terrorist states of the Middle East.

President Andrew Larrick, Democrat:

This is a very difficult decision, and requires a careful, nuanced, approach. In addition to the concerns raised by the two position papers, there is also the issue of what effect this decision will have on domestic Russian politics. There is an important need for collective security in Europe, however. The approach should be a slow one, should take a back seat to issues of trade and economic cooperation, and deployment patterns and exercises should be done in such a manner as to emphasize internal security as versus a strictly anti-Russia defensive perimeter. The Russians should be consulted at every step in the process, and kept fully appraised of developments -- it should be a very up-front process. The goal, in the long run, should be to abandon "NATO" per se in favor of a Europe-oriented collective security apparatus, with a significant presence, but de-emphasized role, for the United States.

President Christopher Deegan, Independent:

"If you can't beat them, join them." This is the attitude we should convince the Russians to adopt. The absorption of the Baltics into NATO should be viewed only as a precursor to a Russian invitation. The more nations we have playing by the same rules & with the same goals (hopefully one of international security & peaceful resolution) the more likely our chances of surviving another few centuries of human civilization.

President Joel W. Maycock, Democrat:

Pro-expansionism should be tempered with prudent timing. Both the presidential elections of Russia and the USA should be allowed to pass with out making this a larger issue. Furthermore, a gradual process of military liaison and trust building should be entertained for the next two years before a formal acceptance of a new NATO partner. The Czech Republic would likely be a best first Eastern Nato member.

President Chris Langston, Democrat:

This is an extreamly difficult decision, especially as my advisors' memos are full of twaddle and foolishness. Russian nationalists and communists (the new Right in Russia) are opposed to the US and the West for our role as cheerleader for the colapse of the old order. These movements are predisposed to be anti-US and will find grounds for opposition regardless of our actions. Attempts to shore up Yeltsin via our NATO policy are a weak and tenuous approach. Attempts to influence the internal politics of a chaotic and enormous country like Russia are pretty much hopless in any regards. On the other hand the notion that a NATO stretching from UK to Russia will put an end to European wars is just plain stupid. NATO is not a good mechanism for preventing intra-organization conflict. It has no mechanisms for internal conflict resolution unavailable through other organizations. NATO is a collective defense pact wherein the member states have pledged to defend against an attack on one as if it were an attack on all. In the face of internal strife (e.g., Greek - Turk clashes of late) the only influence NATO provides for peace is the additional embarassment the all concern feel when supposed allies begin shooting at one another. Having Hungary and Poland in NATO will no more protect them from possible German aggression than their membership in the UN. What NATO does do however is defend its member states against external threat. Despite the current weakness of Russia (or any other visible international threat in Europe) it seems wise to solidify our committment to the former Iron Curtain states and guarantee their defense against future Russian (or other) external threats.

President Kevin Kosterman, Democrat:

It was a tough decision. Both sides made powerful arguements. I'm glad I'm not the president!

President Thomas Lorincz, Republican:

I recently was at a dinner with writer P.J. O'Rourke and this very subject was addressed. I stated that I had read in the Baltic Times a quote from the Russian Defense Minister: " Russia will take military action to prevent NATO expansion into the Baltics." P.J.'s answer to that was, "They weren't our friends before, they aren't our friends now, and they will never be our friends and that's why we should do it just because they don't like it."

President Charles S. Feinstein, Democrat:

This is a difficult decision. What tipped the scales was the desire to keep the US a leading force for world "togetherness". We must lead by example if the rest of the nations are to follow the path of democracy and peaceful coexistence.

President Charles Henry Riggs, III, Other:

This decision was NOT hard. The Cold War is over. It is time that we throw into the ashcan of history this artificial East-West division that has plagued the world since the superpower nuclear rivalry of the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties. Only by creating truly international, comprehensive bodies, such as the UN, and an all-embracing NATO, can the world of the future hope for continued movement toward world peace.

Click here to return to the Executive Decision index page.