{
  "id": "98-669",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "98-669",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105198,
      "date": "1998-08-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:52:52.922941",
      "title": "NATO: Senate Floor Consideration of the Accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland",
      "summary": "The 1998 Senate debate on the accession to the North Atlantic Treaty by the Czech Republic,\nHungary, and Poland was spread across eight days from March 17 to April 30. Enlargement of the\nNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was favored by the leadership of both parties, and\nduring the debate the Resolution of Ratification was widely expected to pass. Opponents of NATO\nenlargement structured most of their arguments and amendments as expressions of concern about\nthe future of the Alliance as it moves into the 21st century. The Senate gave its advice and consent\non April 30, voting 80-19 in favor of ratification.\n  The central point of contention between supporters and opponents of NATO enlargement was\na disagreement over if and how NATO should change its Strategic Concept to fit the post-Cold War\nworld. Supporters of enlargement generally believed the Alliance should continue its evolution into\na versatile defender of Western interests. Opponents viewed such evolution as not conforming to\nthe terms of the 1949 Washington Treaty.\n  The American share of enlargement costs concerned Senators on both sides of the debate. \nSupporters tended to accept lower cost estimates and to declare that enlargement was a worthwhile\nexpense. Opponents worried that the Senate was signing a \"blank check\" which could spiral out of\ncontrol, and sought to lower the U.S. share of the NATO's common costs from the current level of\naround 25 percent.\n  Two issues with open-ended implications played key roles in the debate. The first was Russia. \nOpponents were concerned that adding the three applicants would bolster extreme factions in Russia\nand strain United States-Russia relations. Most supporters cited Alliance efforts to engage Russia\nand to aid its transition to democracy; they argued that Russia would eventually see NATO's\ndefensive nature. The second issue was how enlargement would affect European stability and U.S.\nsecurity. Supporters focused on the need to maintain U.S. engagement in Europe and its ability to\nmeet new security threats. Opponents warned of Russia becoming a regional destabilizer and argued\nthat adding three countries to those the United States is committed to defend would further stretch\nwhat many considered an already overburdened military.\n  Little debate took place about any moral responsibility the West might have concerning the past\ninjustices done to the three applicants; these issues, however, were clearly important to many\nenlargement supporters. Many viewed enlargement as the fulfillment of American promises during\nthe Cold War and a way by which the West could redeem itself for the abandonment of Eastern\nEurope in the wake of the Second World War.\n  Two conditions on ratification were also debated by the Senate. The first mandated a three year\npause before any future rounds of accession; the second linked NATO and European Union\nmembership. The sponsors of the resolution of ratification argued that such conditions would limit\nNATO's effectiveness.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-669",
          "sha1": "1e4420a1a3b5f2b6b2e34196e0adeabff05f0ae1",
          "filename": "files/19980810_98-669_1e4420a1a3b5f2b6b2e34196e0adeabff05f0ae1.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980810_98-669_1e4420a1a3b5f2b6b2e34196e0adeabff05f0ae1.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}