Political Science professor denounces NATO expansion

On the heels of Hungary's recent vote to accept membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Political Science Professor Alvin Rubinstein criticized expanding the military alliance yesterday in a speech at the Faculty Club. Rubinstein began his lecture, which was sponsored by the Women's Club, by asserting that "NATO expansion is the most important foreign policy issue that a president has had to deal with in the post-Cold War era." "It will greatly affect foreign policy in the decades ahead," he told a group of 20 women. Explaining how NATO's role has drastically changed since its inception, Rubinstein stressed that prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, world security faced a constant threat. But with the end of the Cold War and the elimination of most major world threats, there is no reason for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join NATO, Rubinstein argued. He stressed that these three nations would be better off spending the millions of dollars they will devote to meeting NATO military standards on economic growth. Rubinstein added that a nation like Poland could never meet the organization's strict standards, since Poland can only afford to donate $50 million to improve its own forces. "There is not much $50 million can do for Poland," he said. "Just one F-18 fighter plane costs $85 million." Rubinstein also denounced the Clinton administration for believing that building up military forces in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic would only cost an additional $150 million to $200 million. Clinton once claimed that sending American troops to Bosnia would only cost $4 billion, Rubinstein added, but costs for that operation have already exceeded $8 billion. Rubinstein also criticized Clinton's three main reasons for eastward expansion. Clinton, in the few speeches he has given on NATO expansion, has claimed that enlarging the organization will foster greater democracy and freer world markets in Eastern Europe, Rubinstein said. But, according to Rubinstein, "NATO is a military alliance? and should not be concerned with these aspects." He added that the United States has only involved itself in European affairs three times in the last century -- World Wars I and II and the Cold War. All three military actions were rooted in American beliefs that "one nation should not dominate Europe." Judith Jablone, who retired as a physician at Student Health Services last year, agreed with Rubinstein's arguments. "NATO will only get diluted by expanding? and there is no reason for expansion now," she said. "Europe would be better off if nations use their money for economic development rather than spending it on new machinery." Despite his disapproval of NATO expansion, Rubinstein said he has come to the realization that Congress will most likely support increasing the size of the organization. In discussing the future of the alliance, he said, "I'm an optimist and I agree with Yogi Berra -- 'It ain't over till it's over'."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.