The Foreign Service Journal, April 2019

36 APRIL 2019 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL planners from the current situation? Can France help us elabo- rate a more effective strategy for the defense of Western Europe involving tactical nuclear weapons? Can we assist the slow crabwise movement of France toward even closer cooperation with—if not integration within—NATO? And, specifically, can the Pluton be made of real practical value to NATO in a military sense, despite the seemingly conflicting requirements of French independence and NATO solidarity? I believe that the answer to all of these questions is “Yes.” But Western leaders will have to exercise imagination, patience and flexibility. —John R. Countryman, FSO, May 1977 FSJ The Central Issue of European Security–1995 The constant tinkering with security pacts and organizations that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall will not be finished until Russia’s place in Europe is defined. This will be a long and dif- ficult task, requiring a lot of perseverance to meet the many ups and downs of Russian democracy. If it can be done for Russia, the job of finding the right position for the states of Central and Eastern Europe will become far easier. The Clinton administration endorses the approach of integrat- ing Russia. But instead of focusing on the task of tying Russia into Europe, the administration, together with the new Republican congressional majority, has taken a dangerous detour. It is giving priority to expansion of NATOmembership to a few central Euro- pean states—Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and possibly Slovakia—as the main vehicle for its integration policy. A healthy NATO remains essential for European security, but the concept of expanding its membership as a device for integrat- ing the Eastern states is seriously flawed. If this idea brings about serious, enduring confrontation between Russia and the West, it may be the worst mistake in United States policy toward Europe since World War II. —Jonathan Dean, FSO ambassador (ret.), in “Slowing NATO’s Growth,” August 1995 FSJ NATO and Afghanistan: Made for Each Other?–2008 At first glance, NATO and Afghanistan might seemmade for each other. Faced with ongoing problems of insurgency despite the overthrow of the Taliban regime in November 2001, Afghanistan continues to require outside assistance to bring a modicum of security to the lives of ordinary people. NATO, for its part, faces the challenge of proving meaningful in a post-Cold War world where its role can no longer be to keep America in, Russia out and Germany down. So the advent of new threats was, at least in one sense, remarkably fortuitous.