With the protocols of accession for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic signed by Nato Foreign Ministers, the emphasis now is on their speedy ratification by alliance parliaments. President Bill Clinton has already invited Nato leaders to a special 50th birthday summit in Washington, in the spring of 1999, where the new members will take their place in the Alliance fold. But as the BBC's Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, reports, the debate on Nato's future size and role is really only just beginning.

There is something curious about the so-called debate on Nato enlargement: there has never really been any real debate at all.

The momentum behind the enlargement process has been unstoppable - not least because all of the major Nato players decided from the outset that taking in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic was a good thing in itself.

There has been some criticism of enlargement but this has hardly had any real impact.

Even on Capitol Hill, where the US Senate must ratify NATO expansion, the debate has been less about the merits of the individual contenders, and more about the future role of the Alliance and the sharing of responsibilities among its existing members.

The real debate on Nato expansion is only just beginning.

For in deciding to take in three new members in the first wave, the alliance has committed itself to a slow, step-by-step process; one that affords ample time for discussion.

In the spring of 1999, when alliance leaders meet in Washington to welcome their first recruits from central Europe, there are already expectations that some announcement will be made on the next wave of members.

Romania and Slovenia - who narrowly missed selection this time - are widely seen as being among the front-runners.

But between now and then there will be some hard thinking about what Nato's purpose is at the start of the third millennium.

Is it to become an alliance open to virtually anyone in Europe - an organisation not of 19 countries but maybe one day even 30 ?

Or are there good arguments to limit its size, not least to ensure its military effectiveness and ease of decision-making?

For a time Bosnia has give Nato a new credo. The advocates of this new peace-making role say it is there to provide just this sort of military muscle to contain and control conflict.

But hopefully there are not going to be too many Bosnias.

The United States is already trying to refocus the alliance on wider goals.

Non-proliferation and the threat of weapons of mass-destruction from the Middle East was one of the key themes of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's speech in Brussels on Tuesday.

Her remarks were yet another aspect of this growing debate on where Nato is going in the next century.
 

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©