The only strategic reason to expand NATO as the Clinton administration has proposed is to defend against a politically and militarily weak Russia. Though inclusion in the alliance may encourage growing democracies, the Senate would better serve the long-term interests of this country by rethinking this plan.

Including Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland in the 16-member North Atlantic Treaty Alliance has natural appeal because it gives the organization a big-tent feel. The three being considered have all shown that they are committed to democratic ideals and, even if they cannot bring much militarily, accept NATO aims sincerely. The Senate must ask whether such expressions of support are enough.

NATO was formed in 1949 to counter the threat of Soviet domination of the continent. That threat ended with the collapse of Communism in Central Europe. That makes expansion of NATO suspicious. Would it be expanded merely as a feel-good gesture, and would it increase the possiblity of U.S. soldiers being drawn into border skirmishes that include new NATO members?

Then there is the question of unintended consequences. The proposed NATO could force Russia to align with China. Though unlikely in the past, such an alliance could be encouraged if Russia believed it had become surrounded by a hostile alliance. China’s recent agreement to buy 27 SU-27 fighter planes from Russia is evidence that greater military cooperation between the two is possible.

To the 16 Cold War members of NATO, the Soviet Union was the enemy and the feeling was mutual. Russia today, however, teeters between ascending to a stable democracy and sliding back into totalitarianism. The new NATO advisory council, which gives Russia a voice but not a vote, might help but it might also remind Russian leaders of their second-class status in the alliance.

The Clinton administration has yet to explain how vastly increasing the military power behind former Soviet-controlled states would be seen as anything but bear-baiting in Moscow. The Senate must balance the opportunity to expand U.S. influence with keeping a nuclear-armed Russia from feeling paranoid.

The cost of adding the three nations should also give the Senate pause. The General Accounting Office last summer agreed with administration estimates that put the cost between $27 billion and $35 billion, with the U.S. share in the area of $2 billion. Even with a possible budget surplus, that is a lot to spend. That some of the strongest lobbyists for NATO expansion are arms manufacturers should tell senators something.

Surely, there are more effective ways for the United States to help this region than setting one group of nations against another. While recognizing the political achievements of the three candidates, the Senate should find a way to bring democratic unity to the region, rather than divide it.