[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 66 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4959-S4961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FUTURE OF THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this weekend there was an important
conference in Prague, the Czech Republic, in which both Europeans and
Americans discussed the future of the Atlantic alliance.
I wanted to report briefly on that and submit statements for the
Record later.
First, let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an
op-ed piece written by our colleague, the Senator from Mississippi,
Senator Cochran, relating to the subject of missile defense.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, May 8, 1996]
Unready for Rogue Threats
(By Thad Cochran)
When it comes to thinking about ballistic missile defense
(BMD), most opponents of defending America are mired in the
logic of the Cold War. Critics would do well to consider new
ideas, as their old logic is inadequate for the emerging
security environment.
It was suggested in an op-ed piece by Michael Krepon [The
Last 15 Minutes, March 27] that the START process of reducing
the number of Russian nuclear weapons should be a preferred
alternative to national missile defense. This argument is, in
fact, a staple from the past. The ability to defend against
Soviet missiles was considered anathema to achieving U.S.-
Soviet strategic arms control agreements, and therefore it
was sacrificed for the goal of reducing Soviet nuclear arms
through negotiation.
This position, questionable at the time, now ignores
reality. It misses one of the primary features of the changed
world: the proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons to
rogue states outside the old East Bloc. The central point of
the Defend America Act now before Congress is that American
cities must be protected against those rogues now bent on
acquiring long-range missiles and nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons. The START process does not help us here--it
doesn't even apply.
START II, ratified by the Senate with overwhelming
bipartisan support, cannot and does not pretend to take a
single missile or mass-destruction weapon out of the hands of
countries such as North Korea, Iran and Libya. The Defend
America Act calls for defenses against the limited missile
arsenals existing and sought by such rogue states.
The notion is also put forward that we should focus on
various multilateral and nonproliferation measures instead of
national missile defense. Again, the old Cold War debating
tactic of pitting diplomatic efforts against BMD shines
through. And again, it does not fit the new world. We know
that diplomatic efforts to prevent the spread of missile
technology alone are inadequate to address the
proliferation threat.
Despite some modest diplomatic successes, such as with the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the list of countries
acquiring missiles and mass-destruction weapons continues to
grow. Rogue states have proven themselves capable of
sidestepping our diplomatic nonproliferation measures. For
example, inspections in Iraq, the world's most heavily
inspected regime, have been on the ground for years, yet we
are regularly surprised by new revelations of previously
unknown Iraqi proliferation efforts.
Diplomatic efforts to help slow the pace of proliferation
must continue. But nobody should be fooled into believing
that arms control agreements alone can solve the problem; and
nobody should be fooled by the old Cold War argument that
missile defense must be sacrificed to pursue various arms
control efforts. This is not an either/or choice, as the
critics would like us to believe.
[[Page S4960]]
It should be common knowledge, but it isn't, that America
has no operational national missile defense system.
Consequently, because we cannot be confident in our various
diplomatic efforts to stop missiles before the ``last 15
minutes'' of their deadly flight, it makes sense to focus
attention and resources now on the capability to intercept
missiles and warheads before they reach their targets. The
proliferation of missiles and mass-destruction weapons now
makes missile defenses essential to American security.
Some argue that there is no missile threat to the United
States for the foreseeable future. This notion comes on the
heels of statements by Chinese officials to American
officials that the United States would not support Taiwan in
a crisis because of the Chinese capability to rain nuclear
bombs on Los Angeles. It also ignores the fact that,
according to U.S. intelligence estimates and private
accounts, the North Koreans have in development a missile
that, when operations, will be able to target parts of the
United States. In the past, the North Koreans have sold
missiles to anybody with the cash to pay. How far and wide
might this missile be sold? Nobody inside or outside the
intelligence community knows.
We do know that North Korea has sold its missiles to rogue
states in the past, including Iran. We also know that Libya's
Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein have both expressed their longing
for missiles and nuclear weapons with which to threaten the
United States, and willing sources of technology and brain
power exist to help them.
For America to delay moving ahead on BMD until multiple
rogue missile threats emerge--and there is consensus in the
intelligence community that such is the case-- carries high
risks that Americans need not be vulnerable to.
Some think tanks may be able to convince American leaders
that they should not worry about emerging missile threats,
but providing the common defense is a constitutional
responsibility those in authority dare not forfeit or ignore.
That is why I support the Defend America Act and that is why
the president should sign it.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the conference to which I referred was to
discuss the future of the Atlantic alliance given the fact that the
Central European nations of Europe have not yet been taken into either
the economic or the political organizations to which the Western
European nations have belonged since the end of World War II.
Specifically, would these countries be taken into NATO, and would they
be taken into the community of European nations in terms of the
economic arrangements that currently exist? The answer to those
questions by most of the members at this conference was that it was
time for the Western European nations, including the United States, to
reach out to the Central European countries like the Czech Republic,
Poland, Hungary, and others who wished to be a part of the alliance
both to develop stronger economic ties and also to provide for common
security arrangements. The basis for this conclusion was primarily
philosophical, not practical, though the practical benefits of the
arrangement are clear for all to see.
From a practical standpoint, it goes without saying that exports and
imports benefit all nations participating, that there are benefits to
common defense, and certainly from the United States' perspective a
forward defense by having friends in Europe as preferable to an
isolationist position. But the philosophical reasons were the ones that
were dwelt upon by the participants in this Atlantic alliance
conference because of the understanding that the Western nations, among
others in the world, share a common set of values, a common heritage,
and an understanding that mankind should be free, that government
should protect that freedom and independence based upon the
philosophical and moral values of the Western nations. There is a sense
that we do not have an option to be apart but rather must continue to
work together to advance that philosophy.
Why is that so? Mr. President, it is important for the people of the
United States to see the advantages of democracy in the world. If I
could sum up in one sentence what our national interest is abroad, it
would be to advance the cause of democracy for the peoples who share
that common value with us.
As I said, it benefits the United States from a philosophical point
of view because, if there is conflict in the world, the United States
is less free not only from a military point of view but from the point
of view of the rights that we exercise as American citizens. We know
from the depths of the cold war that Americans were less free at home
because of the commitments that we had to make abroad.
That is why, both from a practical and a philosophical point of view,
it is important for the United States to participate with our Western
European allies and why it is important for all of us to try to advance
the cause of freedom by extending the number of democratic states in
the world.
There is another important point that was reached by most
participants in the conference. That was that of all of the threats
that face the civilized nations of the world today, as Lady Margaret
Thatcher said in one of the key addresses at the conference, the most
critical threat of all is the threat of weapons of mass destruction and
the missiles to deliver those weapons. That same theme was articulated
by others at the conference as well.
The conclusion of the policy statement at the conference was that a
concerted action by the alliance leaders to develop and to deploy an
effective ballistic missile defense for all of the democratic peoples
of the world was an important goal for us to be achieving, and that, if
we could achieve that goal, we would no longer have to answer the
question of why NATO continued to have a purpose in the world today.
Conceived as an organization to protect Western Europe from the
threat of communism and the expansion of communism, some have felt that
NATO has no more purpose because that ideological threat no longer
exists. That is true; but what does exist is the threat from rogue
nations, whether ideologically oriented or not, rogue nations who are,
one could say, the world's criminal element because they have no regard
for the democratic rights of other nations and have exhibited
aggressive tendencies. Iraq and Iran are two of the most recent
examples. These are nations, along with others like North Korea, who
have acquired or are acquiring both weapons of mass destruction and the
missiles, the means, to deliver them, and who can use those missiles
not only in military activity against the Western alliance such as in
the gulf war but also in conduct of their foreign policy to blackmail
states such as the Western European nations and the United States.
Let me conclude with this point. As Margaret Thatcher pointed out to
the conference, the threat is primarily against nations of the so-
called civilized world attempting to advance legitimate foreign policy
goals by making threats with the use of ballistic missiles. If Iraq,
for example, had had a nuclear capability and we knew that, the
question that I posed in the conference was, would the United States
have, and would the United States conference have voted to use military
action against Saddam Hussein? It was a close enough question in the
conference even knowing that we could defeat Saddam Hussein, but if
Saddam Hussein had had a nuclear warhead, or if we knew that he would
use chemical or biological weapons, would the United States Congress
have voted to thwart his actions after he invaded Kuwait? For that
matter, would the European nations have joined the grand coalition if
they knew that they were vulnerable to a missile attack from Saddam
Hussein?
Asking that question raises the point of the use of these weapons for
blackmail, because a nation which can blackmail, others obviously is a
criminal nation and a nation who can expand its foreign policy goals
and thwart ours. But with the development and deployment of effective
missile defenses, that ability to blackmail is gone because the United
States and the Western European allies, who would have such an
effective defense at that point, would be able to say to Saddam Hussein
or to the rulers of Iran or North Korea or Syria, whatever country it
might be, ``You cannot push us around; you cannot threaten the nations
of Europe; you cannot threaten your neighbors with these ballistic
missiles because, as you know, we can destroy them; we have a defense
against them.''
So, Mr. President, I think it is an important development that, at
this Atlantic alliance, leaders there concluded by and large that it
was important for us to develop in a concerted way--our European allies
as well as the United States--an effective ballistic missile defense to
thwart this blackmail use of weapons of mass destruction by the outlaw
or so-called rogue regimes of the world.
[[Page S4961]]
I will just conclude by saying that the importance of the United
States proceeding with this and bringing it to the floor in the next
couple of weeks, along with the budget that we will be debating later
this week and the authorization bill for the Armed Services Committee
which the distinguished Presiding Officer sits on--as we debate this
bill we will be discussing specifically the issue of whether or not we
will continue to adequately fund and to begin deployment of an
effective missile defense system.
That will be a matter of great debate on this Senate floor, and I
hope my colleagues, in consideration of that, will pause and reflect
upon the conclusions of this Atlantic alliance which, as I said, has
now come much farther along the path of agreeing that in the end there
should be a coordinated, combined effort. It would not just be the
United States, but it would be our Atlantic allies as well
participating with us in some kind of effective global ballistic
missile defense system.
Mr. President, I will at a future time insert in the Record some of
the statements that were made at this important conference. For the
moment, I simply wanted to alert my colleagues to the fact that, as we
begin this budget debate and as we begin the debate on the Defense
authorization bill, a consensus is developing around the world, and the
United States needs to lead in this effort. I know the distinguished
Presiding Officer and I will be involved in that debate in a
significant way as it unfolds in the next few days.
Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Under the previous order, the time until 3:30 shall be under the
control of the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chair.
It is my understanding that before the Senate we have a cloture
motion against the travel provision against which lays the majority
leader's proposal to repeal the administration's 4.3-cent gas tax
inaugurated in August 1993. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion the Senator talks about will be
voted on tomorrow.
Mr. COVERDELL. At what time, if I might ask the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is set for 2:15 p.m.
____________________