{
  "id": "97-666",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-666",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100706,
      "date": "1997-07-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:58:19.986941",
      "title": "NATO Enlargement: The Process and Allied Views",
      "summary": "In December 1996, NATO countries expressed the intention to name one or more candidate\nstates\nfor membership at the alliance summit in Madrid on July 8-9, 1997. Designation of candidates\nwould be the first significant step in the process of admitting central European countries. NATO has\nset a target date of April 1999 for completion of current members' constitutional processes to revise\nthe North Atlantic Treaty to incorporate new members.\n  Expansion of the alliance has triggered a broad debate about NATO's purpose and future. Since\nthe end of the Cold War, NATO's missions have been evolving. The Clinton Administration\nbelieves that enlargement will enhance NATO's ability to strengthen those new missions and build\nstability in Europe.\n  NATO states continue to emphasize Article V, the provision for collective defense, of the North\nAtlantic Treaty. They wish to ensure that new members do not dilute the alliance's political\nlikemindedness, nor its defense posture. At the same time, most member states believe that bringing\ncountries into the alliance could strengthen those countries' path towards democracy, and enhance\nstability.\n  Several differences have emerged among member states on the issue of enlargement. The\ndegree to which some members believe that Article V could be strengthened or weakened by\nenlargement is one concern. Some members emphasize more than others NATO's \"new missions,\"\nsuch as crisis management and peacekeeping. In general, candidate states better able to support new\nmissions or that contribute to stability in Europe have broader support among most member states.\n  Most member states are concerned about the possible costs of enlargement, and the alliance has\nnot yet agreed upon a plan for sharing those costs. Some member governments also remain\nconcerned about a possible backlash against the alliance from Russian nationalists, should\nenlargement go forward.\n  There is an apparent consensus to name Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary as candidate\nstates at the Madrid summit. Some members, in particular France and Italy, support Slovenia and\nRomania as well. The Baltic states do not have support in a first round of enlargement. Following\nMadrid, negotiations for accession with candidate states will begin, and should be completed by\nDecember 1997.\n  NATO enlargement will face competing issues in several member states. Qualification for\nEuropean Monetary Union (EMU), efforts to constrain budgets, and national elections could affect\nthe debate over enlargement. Member states will watch developments in the U.S. Senate, above all. \nIn France, Italy, and Turkey, the debate could prove to be difficult. Member states will follow\ndifferent constitutional processes to amend the North Atlantic Treaty.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-666",
          "sha1": "ce0dd76138c8f622c3a7dc26b68c91b3523c38ea",
          "filename": "files/19970701_97-666_ce0dd76138c8f622c3a7dc26b68c91b3523c38ea.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19970701_97-666_ce0dd76138c8f622c3a7dc26b68c91b3523c38ea.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "European Affairs",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}