1
Most American academic security specialists opposed the expansion of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include three former communist regimes in
Central Europe when it was proposed and when the countries joined in 1999. In March
2004, NATO accepted seven more members. I review how well predictions by backers
and critics about consequences of NATO expansion have fared.
1
In short, the critics were
wrong: most of the predicted effects of NATO expansion have not transpired. However,
in some areas, especially regarding the effects on defense spending and democratization
in Central Europe, the evidence is mixed. Moreover, there have been no certain gains
from NATO expansion. Backers mostly argued that NATO needed to expand in order to
avoid unwanted outcomes. That those events have not occurred may be due to NATO
expansion or to the unlikelihood of the events themselves. Critics argued that expansion
would produce unwanted outcomes. That those events have not occurred may indicate
that those predictions were exaggerated. The debate over NATO expansion reveals how
indeterminate key areas of international relations theory are and the difficulties of
applying theories to policy debates.
I first reviews the claims put forth by various sides in the debates. While backers
and critics disagreed with each other, they also disagreed among themselves over the
effects that expansion would have. In short, one group of on each side was bound to be
right. Next, I assess how well the outcomes match the predictions, and find that on the
whole, backers fared better than critics in predicting what would occur if NATO
expanded. Last, I examine why the critics were wrong, but why backers are not entirely
1
The term “debaters” is used to refer to both critics and backers of NATO expansion. The term
“critics” refers to anyone argued that NATO expansion would be harmful, even if they did not
explicitly oppose expansion. The term “backers” refers to anyone who argued that NATO
expansion would be beneficial, even if they did not explicitly endorse expansion.
Convention