CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P.0 BOX 3159
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www uoregon ediV-ode
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Nicole Krueger
The expansion of NATO is unnecessary and
causes nations also involved with the European
Union to try> to expand military spending and
cut deficits at the same time
The world is changing. This
much is impossible to deny.
What that change will mean
has been a subject of debate for
average people and policy-makers alike.
For Cold War strategists and arms mer
chants who made their fortunes by call
ing for aggressive posturing against the
Soviet Union, the last few years have
been a period of desperate scrambling.
Near the top of many foreign policy
experts’ lists of “New World Order” con
cerns has been the role the North At
lantic Treaty Organization will play in
the future political landscape.
NATO was a favorite toy for many of
those playing military games at the
height of Cold War paranoia. The organi
zation, which currently includes the
United States, Canada and a number of
Western European powers, provided a
ready source of military power, a willing
market for U.S. manufactured arms and
ostensibly served to help “contain" the
Soviets.
These days, of course, there is no War
saw Pact threat to be used to justify
spending billions of dollars to facilitate
NATO containment. Worse, many mem
bers of NATO have proven reluctant to
continue spending billions of dollars on
arms to defend against a threat U.S. lead
ers are still struggling to invent.
Enter Eastern Europe and Russia. No
longer considered the enemy, these na
tions are now viewed by many foreign
policy pundits as backwoods cousins
who, with the right schooling and the
proper possessions, could become valu
able allies (otherwise known a con
sumers).
Late last year, NATO decided to admit
three of these nations into its hallowed
halls to receive the appropriate reeduca
tion. The proposal, to admit Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic, now
awaits approval from the U.S. Senate.
The issue stretches heyond that vote
and those nations, however. Admission
to NATO requires passing certain entry
exams, which include political, finan
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
cial and military requirements. Like In
ternational Monetary Fund and World
Bank loans, NATO memberships have
enough strings attached to entertain all
the cats in New York.
Despite these requirements, the gov
ernments of many Eastern European na
tions want to join the club. Therefore,
many nations, including the Baltic states
and Romania, are making the requested
alterations with the hope of one day
joining the organization.
In other words, the dual forces of
NATO requirements and European
Union mandates are shaping the devel
oping democracies of Eastern Europe far
more than the newly found voice of the
people. In particular, the European
Union insists nations minimize their
deficits, while NATO requires high mili
tary spending. For many of the countries
hoping to enter both circles, this means
slashing social spending to stay in the
black while pouring billions into updat
ing run-down military infrastructure.
Perhaps this sort of behavior could be
justified (however inadequately) if there
was a visible strategic need for NATO.
Unfortunately, the most likely scenario
to come from NATO expansion (assum
ing it continues to reject Russia) is to
threaten and alienate the region’s former
superpower. If politics and military pos
turing succeed at pushing Russia into a
militant, defensive mode, the only peo
ple who benefit will be the foreign poli
cy experts who see the geopolitical order
they claim to comprehend restored.
If expansion won’t help the region or
the admitted governments, who stands
to gain? Certainly not the American tax
payer. Estimates of the cost over the next
12 to 15 years range from the Depart
ment of Defense’s S27 billion to the Con
gressional Budget Office’s mark of S125
billion.
Even those estimates may not put an
accurate price tag on expansion, howev
er. Among the many factors that could
raise the cost is reluctance on the part of
other current NATO members to help
pay for extending the alliance. If France,
the United Kingdom and others don’t
want to provide funding for armament
and training of newly admitted nations,
the country most likely to write the
check is the United States.
Sadly, the United States is probably
willing to bear that burden. The reason?
Heavy lobbying by military contractors.
As we mentioned earlier, the end of the
Cold War has left many companies look
ing for new markets in which to unload
weapons. Eastern European nations
bound to meet NATO’s demands for
military strength are just such a market.
With their political clout, defense in
dustry lobbyists are likely to provide sig
nificant soft money incentives for the
Senate to approve expansion. If this hap
pens, someone will suffer.
The political situation in Europe will
only become more unstable. Worse, the
people of Eastern Europe, who desper
ately need government services to help
them through currency problems and
the pain of transition, will instead watch
as their tax dollars are spent on Ameri
can-made tanks, guns and missiles.
If the new nations are ever unable to
pay for these toys, the price for the Unit
ed States could rise. It is possible, even
likely, that Congress and the White
House would approve loans to the gov
ernments that, in part because of tight re
strictions, could eventually result in de
fault.
Clearly, then, the only groups who
will benefit from proposed expansion
are the corporations, politicians and
military leaders who have been pushing
for the free-market globalism currently
popular. In other words, the rich will get
richer by hurting the general population.
That scenario, rapidly changing world
or not, is one thing that always seems to
stay the same.
7 his editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial hoard. Responses may Ire
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Support activists
From an outsider’s perspective, the
whole town of Eugene, including the Uni
versity, is a bit messed up regarding this
particular case of sexual assault. No more
so than any other town or college, but
messed up nonetheless. I have a few sug
gestions/tidbits to share:
1. Rape is a crime, people. We're not
talking about cheating on a test or noise
complaints. A University has no business
handling a rape case, as evidenced by
your school president’s lack of confidence
in your decisions. But if a school is ill
equipped to handle rape cases, the courts
are certainly not much better. If they were,
maybe more people would press charges.
Institutionally, there are things we still
need to talk about when a community’s
lawyers, citizens and press care more
about whether the victim was wearing
provocative clothing or whether they per
sonally choose to be sexually active. Un
wanted penetration constitutes rape.
Maybe the sexual history of the accused
in rape cases should be picked apart as
thoroughly and publicized in the press as
tastelessly as with this case.
2. Students need to know the definition
of rape. Since at least four-fifths of all
rapes are committed by people whom the
victims know, date rape should be clearly
defined early in an academic career. How
Oregon views date rape in the courts is
also relevant. What is the maximum
penalty for a date rapist in this state?
These are things people need to know.
3. Students should know that a Univer
sity or college need only reveal to the pub
lic (i.e. prospective students) cases that
are reported to the police. They would
prefer to handle all public safety cases in
order to keep their reputation a positive
one. For instance, at my alma mater, Con
necticut College, there have been, accord
ing to public records (which the deans
quoted), only two rapes in the past 15
years. I would guess that at least two oc
cur on that campus every weekend. With
10 times the student population at the U
of O, it doesn’t take a math major to figure
out how prevalent date rape is. I think I
smell the potential for a national move
ment to change this policy on all college
campuses.
4. Students should know the town’s
conviction rate for sexual offenders.
That’s usually a good indicator of how
victims are treated by the community,
and whether they should press charges.
5. Students should know that if they are
brave enough to come forward as a victim,
they will not receive support from admin
istrators, certain student groups and espe
cially not the press. I’m sickened by the
one-sided support in The Register-Guard
and the inability of readers to cut through
tire bull and realize that it is not fun to be a
victim of rape, and it is not easy to come
forward.
6. If you want to change anything on
this campus, whether it be behavior
codes, the abysmal minority hiring prac
tices of this school — and subsequent ho
mogeneous course offerings — this stupid
quarter system, or anything else, remem
ber one thing: You have only two to three
years to get the job done (unless you're a
particularly political first-year student,
then you have four to five), and the ad
ministration knows this. This means that
you need the infrastructure to hold rallies,
vigils, sit-ins and distribute PR quickly.
This also means that you have to insist on
being on more University committees,
and in general, support student activism.
If you’re already active, invite some of
your apathetic friends to a meeting or two.
Get going!
Please support survivors of rape and,
for that matter, all student activists. Don’t
make them have to do all the work to
change things. Some of them actually
have to worry about other things, like
maintaining faith in human compassion.
You’re a campus community (with an
emphasis on the community part).
Jeff Klein
Eugene