[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 13 (Monday, February 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S850-S852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                             NATO EXPANSION

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues 
to leave the door to NATO open. Others, whose wisdom I respect, have 
come before the Senate to urge that we legislatively adopt a policy 
that would close the door to NATO membership to candidate countries, 
regardless of their qualifications. While the reasons advanced in 
support of that view carry weight, I do not believe that they outweigh 
the reasons for leaving the door open.
  Last year, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, I chaired a series of hearings at which ambassadors of 
candidate countries appeared and testified concerning their respective 
countries' reasons and qualifications for joining NATO. At the end of 
that series of hearings, we issued a report urging that Poland, the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovenia be included in the first 
round of NATO expansion. Since that time, ten months ago, I believe 
that subsequent developments have supported strongly the conclusion 
that we drew in favor of NATO expansion.
  Now, the Senate is close to voting on the admission of Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I intend to vote for expansion. These 
countries have each proven that they share our democratic and free 
enterprise values, that they want to be members of NATO, and that they 
are willing to join us in bearing the burdens that Alliance membership 
imposes.
  Mr. President, I want to take particular note that each of these 
countries, contrary to the positions taken by some of our allies of 
longer standing, have not hesitated to publicly state their support for 
our effort to persuade, and if necessary, compel Saddam Hussein to 
comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted 
after Iraq's unprovoked military aggression against Kuwait. One of the 
tests of alliance is the political will to take risks for the common

[[Page S851]]

good of the group. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have met 
this test.
  As I stated earlier, our recommendation ten months ago was that 
Slovenia and Romania be included in the first group of countries 
considered for NATO membership. That did not happen. But neither 
Slovenia nor Romania recoiled from their rejection by NATO. In fact, 
both have persisted in policies readying their countries and their 
militaries for NATO membership, and have been vocally enthusiastic 
about the prospect.
  On July 8th, 1997, the ``Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic Security 
and Cooperation'' was issued by the Heads of State and Government of 
NATO. Paragraph 8 of the Madrid Declaration stated that, and I quote:

       We reaffirm that NATO remains open to new members under 
     Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Alliance will 
     continue to welcome new members in a position to further 
     principles of the Treaty and contribute to security in the 
     Euro-Atlantic area. The Alliance expects to extend further 
     invitations in coming years to nations willing and able to 
     assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, 
     and as NATO determines that the inclusion of these nations 
     would serve the overall political and strategic interests of 
     the Alliance and that the inclusion would enhance overall 
     European security and stability. To give substance to this 
     commitment, NATO will maintain an active relationship with 
     those nations that have expressed an interest in NATO 
     membership as well as those who may wish to seek membership 
     in the future. Those nations that have previously expressed 
     an interest in becoming NATO members but that were not 
     invited to begin accession talks today will remain under 
     consideration for future membership. The considerations set 
     forth in our 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement will continue to 
     apply with regard to future aspirants, regardless of their 
     geographic location. No European democratic country whose 
     admission would fulfill the objectives of the Treaty will be 
     excluded from consideration. Furthermore, in order to enhance 
     overall security and stability in Europe, further steps in 
     the ongoing enlargement process of the Alliance should 
     balance the security concerns of all Allies.

  Mr. President, those words sound like a promise to me. Perhaps more 
importantly, they recognized a central fact. That fact is that by 
setting an artificial limit to NATO enlargement, we are drawing a new 
dividing line across Europe. Whether that line is geographic or 
temporal does not matter. When such a line is drawn, in the present 
environment it creates a gray area. History teaches us that gray areas 
are not solutions, they are problems waiting to happen.
  Other candidate NATO members do not want to be consigned to gray 
areas. They know that bad things happen to small countries left alone 
in gray areas. We know that we do not want to create situations that 
invite anti-democratic forces to grow and plan and act.
  At the Commission, we pay very close attention to human rights 
concerns in Europe. Our experience with NATO enlargement has been that 
the requirements countries must meet for consideration for NATO 
membership have very strongly influenced their domestic politics. While 
all human rights problems are not resolved, most of them are. Also, 
disputes between ethnic majority and minority groups are given 
prominence and progress is made toward solutions. Some of these 
problems have existed for centuries and, in my view, would have 
continued unaddressed but for the necessity each country has seen to 
``put its house in order'' before applying for NATO membership.

  Moreover, international cross-border disputes that in the past have 
triggered at least hostility if not military conflict have been 
formally resolved, with the support of democratic majorities in the 
countries involved. This is not a trivial development in a part of the 
world where such disputes have given repeated rise to brutal conflicts 
that are incomprehensible to most Americans.
  For these reasons, it is vitally important that the door to NATO 
membership not be closed, especially not by the United States. 
Proponents argue that a ``delay'' is necessary as a period of 
consolidation of the Alliance, and for the Russians to accommodate 
themselves to the changed European landscape.
  I believe that ``delay'' in this case could become denial, with very 
grave consequences to those nations shut out by such a decision. 
Moreover, Russia is one of the nations I have in mind when I make this 
statement. Regardless of rhetoric by Russian Communists like 
Zhirinovsky, and others of the so-called ``red-brown'' extreme 
nationalist fringe, Russia itself has a very real interest in NATO 
expansion. And that interest is not in blocking, delaying, or limiting 
it.
  In fact, to the extent that NATO expansion is delayed or limited, the 
radical forces in Russia's political equation will be strengthened. For 
the United States to provide them with a victory they could not have 
secured by any other means would be a terrible mistake. Radical forces 
in Russia cannot be appeased by throwing them a bone. All it does is 
embolden them and add to their power, allowing them to say to Russian 
voters, ``See what we can do, and we are not yet in charge of the 
government.'' Our policy should be to do what is best for us, and that 
means to give hope, support and security to small states trying to 
become democratic capitalist members of the Western community, and 
treat anti-democratic forces with implacable opposition.
  Mr. President, the citizens of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia were 
given hope when we refused for the duration of the Cold War to 
recognize their forcible and illegal incorporation into the Soviet 
Union. Ukraine is now a NATO ``Partner for Peace.'' The President of 
Bulgaria, Petar Stoyanov, was here recently, seeing President Clinton 
to make the case that Bulgaria is a credible candidate for NATO 
membership. The people of these countries do not deserve to have the 
door to NATO slammed shut on their fingers.
  While some states with serious human rights and democratization 
problems do not look like possible NATO members at any time in the near 
future, as states around them make major efforts to put their domestic 
and international affairs in order to quality for membership, this has 
an influence and an impact. If we do as we have pledged, and allow 
candidate countries to join when they demonstrate that they meet 
the qualifications, those who choose not to make the effort will be 
more and more isolated. This process will undermine and weaken anti-
democratic forces that have stirred back to life in some former Warsaw 
Pact states after the fall of Communism.

  I want to make one other point. When the Commission issued its 
report, I reminded the Senate that NATO is a military alliance. A look 
at the map will refresh my colleagues' understanding of the need to 
include Romania and Slovenia in the next round of expansion. After 
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are admitted, we will have an 
Alliance with a member, Hungary, which lacks a land corridor connecting 
it with other Alliance members. This is a weakness of major importance, 
one whose significance can only be magnified if we artificially 
``delay'' accession of other qualified candidates. This point also 
focuses attention on Bulgaria's desire to become, when it is qualified, 
an Alliance member.
  The Washington Post's Wednesday, February 11, 1998 edition contains 
an editorial and a separate article that support my perspective on this 
issue. The editorial entitled ``Opening NATO's Door,'' states that, and 
I quote:

       There is a moral heart to the case for enlargement, and it 
     is to bind the democracies, refreshing the old, strengthening 
     the new. The first three candidates have demonstrated they 
     are committed to assuming alliance responsibilities. Their 
     accession would, as Secretary of State Albright put it 
     Monday, `make us all safer by expanding the area of Europe 
     where wars do not happen.' The resulting increments of 
     stability would benefit not only NATO members but the 
     Russians, who remain opposed to the development but are 
     unable to stop it.
       The serious American objection to enlargement comes from 
     strategists who fear the political and military dilution of 
     an alliance once focused laser-like on territorial defense 
     against a single dangerous foe. These strategists would have 
     the European Union do the main work of easing the path of the 
     new democracies, leaving NATO to deal with a still-
     problematic Russia and its huge residual nuclear resource. 
     But the would leave the now-free pieces of the old Soviet 
     empire marooned in strategic ambiguity. The new democracies 
     need better and deserve it.

  The article, entitled ``NATO Candidates Urge Senators to Back 
Expansion,'' by Edward Walsh, is also important. It quotes the foreign 
ministers of

[[Page S852]]

Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary as supporting the continued 
expansion of NATO when other candidate states are ready to join. Here 
is the description of what they said, and I quote:

       Geremek said other Central and Eastern European countries 
     that hope to join NATO were disappointed to be left out of 
     the first proposed expansion round but ``they are happy that 
     the expansion will take place and feel it will increase their 
     security.''
       Enacting legislation requiring a three- to five-year wait 
     before others could join NATO, as some have suggested, would 
     send a discouraging message to these countries, the officials 
     argued. ``The purpose of the enlargement is to diminish the 
     dividing lines [in Europe], not to create new lines of 
     division between the new members of NATO and those who stay 
     outside,'' Kovacs said.

  Mr. President, I ask that the full text of both the editorial and the 
article from which I have just quoted be included in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  I urge my colleagues to support NATO expansion. It is the right thing 
to do for America, the right thing to do for the Alliance, and the 
right thing to do for the people of Central and Eastern Europe who 
struggled so long in a seemingly hopeless quest for freedom and 
independence. We supported them then, and we must continue to support 
them now.
  The material follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1998]

                          Opening NATO's Door

       As the Senate moves to the question of ratifying NATO 
     enlargement, the debate is in a curious place. It is 
     generally accepted that adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech 
     Republic to the 16-nation Atlantic Alliance will be approved 
     by well over the necessary two-thirds when the vote comes 
     probably next spring. Yet several years of intense discussion 
     have not removed all serious doubts about the step. Even 
     among supporters, misgivings about adding further members 
     later are evident.
       There is a moral heart to the case for enlargement, and it 
     is to bind the democracies, refreshing the old, strengthening 
     the new. The first three candidates have demonstrated they 
     are committed to assuming alliance responsibilities. Their 
     accession would, as Secretary of State Albright put it 
     Monday, ``make us all safer by expanding the area of Europe 
     where wars do not happen.'' The resulting increments of 
     stability would benefit not only NATO members but the 
     Russians, who remain opposed to the development but are 
     unable to stop it.
       The serious American objection to enlargement comes from 
     strategists who fear the political and military dilution of 
     an alliance once focused laser-like on territorial defense 
     against a single dangerous foe. These strategists would have 
     the European Union do the main work of easing the path of the 
     new democracies, leaving NATO to deal with a still-
     problematic Russia and its huge residual nuclear resource. 
     But that would leave the now-free pieces of the old Soviet 
     empire marooned in strategic ambiguity. The new democracies 
     need better and deserve it. The EU should move more quickly 
     but cannot fairly be asked to satisfy the full range of their 
     wish to be of the West. Their insecurity could rub events raw 
     and unsettle the region.
       The different currents of resistance to enlargement meet in 
     common opposition to taking in any more than Central Europe's 
     favored three. This is the impulse behind suggestions of a 
     legislated ``pause.'' Such a maneuver, tying the hands of 
     executive-branch foreign policymakers, is a truly bad idea. 
     It could generate nervousness verging on desperation among 
     the unfavored of Central Europe, and tempt others to throw 
     their weight around.
       The better way surely is, with Secretary Albright, to leave 
     the NATO door open. Other democracies, as they meet the 
     rigorous political as well as military standards for alliance 
     membership, will then be able to assert their claim to be 
     brought into the charmed circle. Time will let the allies 
     show that enlargement, far from simply moving a military bloc 
     menacingly closer to Russia's borders, calms the region as a 
     whole.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1998]

            NATO Candidates Urge Senators to Back Expansion

                           (By Edward Walsh)

       Pressing for Senate ratification of an agreement to admit 
     their countries to NATO, senior officials from three Central 
     European countries said yesterday that enlarging the military 
     alliance would enhance stability in that region.
       Foreign Ministers Laszlo Kovacs of Hungary and Bronislaw 
     Geremek of Poland and Deputy Foreign Minister Karel Kovanda 
     of the Czech Republic visited key senators yesterday and 
     Monday as part of the campaign to win the two-thirds Senate 
     vote necessary for ratification. President Clinton is 
     scheduled to send the expansion agreement, formally known as 
     Protocols of Accession, to the Senate today. The Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled at least one more 
     hearing on the agreement for Feb. 24 before a full Senate 
     vote, probably this spring.
       At a breakfast meeting with Washington Post reporters and 
     editors, the officials said Senate concerns about the 
     agreement center on the cost of the expansion and its impact 
     on U.S.-Russian relations. Russia last year agreed to the 
     expansion, which NATO officials have estimated will cost $1.5 
     billion over 10 years, with the United States paying about 25 
     percent of that amount. Other estimates have set the figure 
     significantly higher.
       Pointing to numerous potential ``trouble spots'' in the 
     region, Kovacs said NATO and the United States ``have two 
     options--to stay idle and wait for the next crisis, then to 
     intervene and try to enforce peace, which is more expensive 
     and certainly more risky, or to enlarge NATO, projecting 
     stability. The new members will further project stability.''
       Kovacs and Geremek said public opinion in their countries 
     supported joining NATO. Polls in the Czech Republic, Kovanda 
     said, show 55 percent to 60 percent support, but also 15 
     percent to 20 percent who are ``diehard opponents.''
       Geremek said other Central and Eastern European countries 
     that hope to join NATO were disappointed to be left out of 
     the first proposed expansion round but ``they are happy that 
     the expansion will take place and feel it will increase their 
     security.''
       Enacting legislation requiring a three- to five-year wait 
     before others could join NATO, as some have suggested, would 
     send a discouraging message to these countries, the officials 
     argued. ``The purpose of the enlargement is to diminish the 
     dividing lines [in Europe], not to create new lines of 
     division between the new members of NATO and those who stay 
     outside,'' Kovacs said.
       Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), a senior member of the Armed 
     Services Committee, said in a statement to the Senate 
     yesterday he intends to propose a three-year moratorium on 
     further NATO expansion as a condition to the resolution of 
     ratification for the admission of Poland, Hungary and the 
     Czech Republic.

                          ____________________