Some justification I've heard for NATO expansion is the argument that stabilizing Eastern European governments would prevent potential re-absorbtion by the Soviet Union. From what I understand, the newly-fallen Soviet Union was pretty destitute as-is at the time and not likely capable of seizing nation-states. Was this a possibility?
Another justification I've heard for Clinton's NATO expansion is that it was necessary to establish a Western foothold in Eastern Europe to prevent nuclear war. Did any concrete actions undertaken by NATO operations in Eastern Europe directly act as valid evidence that their activities did act to prevent the likelihood of nuclear war?
And finally, if the U.S. had not promoted NATO expansion under the Clinton administration, what would have or could have been the potential action or strategy for East-West diplomacy? I.e., what other policies were on the table? Why didn't we choose these policies?
I'm working on a perspective paper on this specific topic (arguing against 1993 NATO expansion), and am interested in any and all relevant expertise.
I'd take time to consider the wishes of the states who joined NATO. I've noticed that many people look at it strictly from an imperialist perspective, either American or Russian. But what did the people and leaders of Estonia, Latvia, etc., think about joining NATO? Make sure to incorporate them in your paper.
Hello there. Your question seems to be related to school work, so we just want to remind you, and any potential respondents, that our rules DO permit people to ask for help with their homework, so long as they are seeking clarification or resources, rather than the answer itself. This policy is further explained in this META Thread.
Additionally, while our users may be able to help you out here, we hope that you also will take the time to check out our six-part series, "Finding and Understanding Sources", which should hopefully prove to be helpful for you as you continue in your research.
I'm not going to give you the answer, because this is a homework question, but I will point you in a direction. Ask yourself about the position of the US in the world relative to others at the time, and contrast that position with the US's position for the previous 40 or so years.
Take a good look into Clinton's general view on foreign-policy, and what his goals were, and I think you'll find some good footholds for your paper. If you can find a copy of Hal Brand's "What Good is Grand Strategy", there are some fairly good starting points for you around page 145.