“NATO Enlargement” is the subject of this panel, and the very words indicate how gingerly the alliance has approached the issue. The original term, “NATO Expansion,” was abandoned because of sensitivity over the aggressive implications of “expansion.” Enlargement has a more neutral sound. Why these semantic concerns? It is as if the idea of expanding NATO was a new as well as a potentially worrisome phenomenon in NATO’s history. Too many observers have assumed that the concept had emerged as abruptly as Athena springing from Jupiter’s brow. The reality is that a growing NATO is as old as the alliance itself. NATO was and is a work in progress.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.See in particular Walter Lipgens, A History of European Integration, 1945–1947: The Formation of the European Unity Movement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).Google Scholar
- 2.Clarence K. Streit, Union Now: A Proposal for a Federal Union of the Democracies of the North Atlantic (New York 1939).Google Scholar
- 4.Lawrence S. Kaplan, The United States and NATO: The Formative Years (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1984), pp. 141–2.Google Scholar
- 6.Kaplan, The United States and NATO, p. 154; Laurence W. Martin, “The American Decision to Rearm Germany,” in American-Civil-Military Decisions: A Book of Case Studies, ed. Harold Stein ( Birmingham, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1963).Google Scholar
- 9.Victor Alba, “Spain’s Entry Into NATO, “ in L.S. Kaplan, R.W. Clawson, R. Luraghi (eds.), NATO and the Mediterranean (Wilmington, DE: SR, 1985), pp. 97–113.Google Scholar