[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7024-S7025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NATO ENLARGEMENT AT THE SUMMIT OF THE EIGHT

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call to my 
colleagues' attention a column by Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post 
that was published in today's edition on page A19. This column is 
entitled ``'Diktat' From Washington,'' and discusses what happened 
after the announcement that the United States would support only the 
admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary into NATO.
  As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 
better known as the Helsinki Commission, I held a series of hearings on 
human rights and NATO enlargement, and last week released a Commission 
report assessing the readiness of candidate states to join the 
Alliance, based upon our evaluation of their human rights compliance. 
In the course of these hearings, I expressed my support for the 
inclusion of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, Slovenia, and Romania in the first round of NATO expansion.
  Now, Mr. Hoagland has recounted how the U.S. policy choice was 
conveyed to our allies and how they received it, both before and at the 
Summit of the Eight, just concluded in Denver. I commend this account 
to my colleagues and suggest that they consider what Hoagland calls the 
creation of at least a temporary line dividing nations that suffered 
equally under Soviet rule, and its probable consequences in central and 
eastern Europe.
  While I do not believe that equality of suffering is the standard by 
which candidate NATO members should be judged, I am afraid that 
omitting Slovenia, Romania, and the Baltic states could cause future 
problems that could be avoided if we admitted them now. I will have 
more to say on this subject as we approach the Madrid Summit.
  Mr. President, I ask that the aforementioned Jim Hoagland column be 
printed in the Record.
  The column follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 25, 1997]

                         Diktat From Washington

                           (By Jim Hoagland)

       NEW YORK--The devil that always lurks in the details of 
     cosmic feats of diplomacy has suddenly emerged to jab 
     President Clinton's plans for NATO expansion with several 
     sharp pitchforks.
       The pitchforks will not derail the administration's rush 
     for expansion of the Atlantic alliance. But they could 
     tarnish an event Clinton had confidently expected to be a 
     crown jewel in his presidential legacy--the NATO summit in 
     Madrid two weeks away.
       That meeting now will be approached without great 
     enthusiasm by many of America's European allies, who are 
     disturbed by what some see as an American attempt to 
     ``dictate'' to them who will be admitted as new members of 
     the alliance.
       France and a half-dozen other countries will continue to 
     press at the Madrid summit to add Romania and Slovenia to the 
     list of approved candidates, French President Jacques Chirac 
     told Clinton in Denver last weekend during the Summit of 
     the Eight, according to a senior French official aware of 
     the contents of the conversation.
       The French do not expect to shake America's insistence that 
     only the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland will be issued 
     invitations at Madrid on July 7. All 16 members accept those 
     three candidates; nine of the 16 favor expanding expansion to 
     five.
       But Chirac's remarks represent a rebuff for an American 
     attempt to shut off debate on the numbers game. Deputy 
     Secretary of State Strobe Talbott convoked the ambassadors 
     from NATO states on June 12 and delivered what diplomats from 
     three of America's closest allies described to me later as a 
     ``Diktat'' that stunned them. The normally elegantly mannered 
     Talbott's demand for silence would have done justice to Ring 
     Lardner's great line: ``Shut up,'' he explained.''
       The tone between Clinton and Chirac in Denver was far more 
     cordial, but their failure to agree was clear: ``Each one 
     spoke as if disappointed that he had not been able to 
     convince the other of a very good argument,'' a French 
     official said.
       The Clintonites feel they minimize the initial problems of 
     expansion by sticking to three clearly qualified candidates. 
     Chirac argues that rejection of Romania is unfair, immoral 
     and certain to further destabilize NATO's troubled southern 
     flank.
       The bilateral French-U.S. meeting at the economic summit 
     also failed, as expected, to resolve differences between 
     Paris and Washington on internal NATO command arrangements. 
     This means that the original U.S. hope that France would 
     formally rejoin NATO's military command at the Madrid 
     gathering and make it an even more glittering celebration has 
     to be abandoned.
       A third maximum U.S. goal got hooked by gremlins at Denver 
     when President Boris Yeltsin made it clear that Russia would 
     not treat the Madrid summit as a high-level celebration of 
     unity and harmony.
       Yeltsin curtly rejected a suggestion that he attend the 
     gathering, saying pointedly that he would send his ambassador 
     in Madrid instead. Later he was inveigled to upgrade Russia's 
     representation to a deputy prime minister.
       Chirac, who worked hard to persuade Washington not to back 
     Yeltsin into a corner on NATO expansion, finds Yeltsin much 
     more at ease now that NATO and Moscow have signed an 
     agreement establishing a NATO-Russia Council. Russian 
     participation in the Denver summit provided Yeltsin with good 
     arguments to use to explain NATO expansion to the Russian 
     public, Chirac believes.

[[Page S7025]]

       Yeltsin, Chirac and other Europeans seem to fear that the 
     Clintonites will attempt to turn Madrid into an event that 
     combines holding a beauty contest for potential members and a 
     crowning of the American president as king of NATO.
       The Czechs, Poles and Hungarians could hardly be blamed for 
     using Madrid and its invitation to NATO as a seal of approval 
     by the world's most important capitalist powers. They will 
     advertise their NATO-approved stability to potential 
     investors considering putting money into investment-hungry 
     Central and Eastern Europe, widening the gap between them and 
     Romania, Bulgaria, et al.
       That situation draws at least a temporary line dividing 
     nations that suffered equally under Soviet rule. But the 
     administration is unwilling to discuss publicly and frankly 
     the consequences of that line-drawing. Nor does it squarely 
     address the existential questions that its vague promises of 
     future NATO expansion raise for the Baltics, Ukraine and 
     other former Soviet republics want into the organization.
       Those questions will be forced on the administration in the 
     U.S. Senate when it comes time to amend the alliance treaty 
     and discuss U.S. responsibilities in Europe. Madrid, with all 
     its devilish but surmountable details, is the beginning of a 
     grand debate, not the end.

                          ____________________