[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S2284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON ACCESSION OF POLAND, 
                    HUNGARY, AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the treaty.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to participate in the debate 
regarding NATO.
  One of the interesting facts about the debate is that the mission of 
NATO has not been a matter of significant discussion.
  There are a lot of questions--about the cost of enlargement, the 
political and strategic benefits to potential new members of NATO, and 
the effect of any expansion of the NATO alliance on our relationship 
with Russia--that have all been discussed. These issues have received 
the most attention.
  But while expansion of NATO numerically is significant, perhaps the 
mission of NATO deserves serious consideration as we look at an 
institution which has not only been involved in a long heritage of 
successful maintenance of the territorial integrity of our comembers of 
this organization in Europe, but has also been a vital part of 
protecting American interests.
  NATO has been very successful. Earlier, the Senator from Washington 
stated that NATO has been the most successful multinational defense 
organization in the history of the world. And I think that is a fair 
statement. A major achievement of the organization is the fact that a 
third world war has not erupted in Europe. It is pretty clear that the 
Soviet Union, in its days of power and strength, dared not infringe on 
the territory of those protected by the NATO alliance. That is to the 
credit of the organization.
  Article 5 of the NATO treaty was the heart of the organization. And I 
would like to refer the Members of the Senate and those interested in 
this debate to Article 5 at this time.
  Article 5 States:

       The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more 
     of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an 
     attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if 
     such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the 
     right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by 
     Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist 
     the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, 
     individually and in concert with the other Parties, such 
     action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed 
     force, to restore and maintain the security of the North 
     Atlantic area.

  What the heart of the treaty really designates is that the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization was an organization designed to affect and 
protect the territory--the territorial integrity --of the Nations that 
were its member states.
  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we did not have the same kind 
of threat to the territory of the NATO states that had existed prior to 
the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think few of us would argue with 
the proposition that the NATO alliance really was an alliance which 
drew a bright line to defend against the potential incursion by the 
Soviet Union.
  Since the Soviet Union collapsed, there has been discussion among 
NATO planners to find a new mission for the Alliance. 
Counterproliferation, the advancing of political ``interests'' of NATO 
members, peacekeeping, and crisis management became the kinds of issues 
discussed at NATO--an entirely different mission than it originally had 
and, frankly, a mission that is not consistent with the charter of NATO 
itself.
  The assembled NATO powers, in 1991, adopted and promulgated a 
strategic concept. For the strategic concept of 1991, there was an 
interesting transition in the statement of what NATO is all about. 
Collective defense, the concept in Article 5 which has been the central 
theme and thesis of NATO for its years of great success, was relegated 
to the bottom of the list of mission priorities.
  As a result of putting collective defense at the bottom, a number of 
other things were listed as missions of NATO. In some respects, I find 
these new mission priorities to be challenging because they are not the 
kinds of things for which NATO was created, and they are not the kinds 
of missions that the U.S. Senate and its giants in the Senate ratified 
when ratifying the NATO treaty 50 years ago. The ``fundamental security 
task'' in the new strategic concept of 1991 was ``To provide one of the 
indispensable foundations for a stable security environment in Europe . 
. . in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any 
European nation or to impose hegemony through the threat or use of 
force.''

  This is a major expansion and a substantial change in the mission of 
NATO. It is a change in the direction in which the organization is 
headed. It changes NATO's responsibility. Clearly, no longer is NATO 
for the collective defense of a limited territory. NATO now has the 
impossible task of stopping intimidation and coercion throughout NATO 
and non-NATO Europe alike. So the mission of NATO has been 
transitioning from the mission ratified by the Senate, and it has been 
evolving, as if treaties are allowed to evolve. It has been organic, 
rather than static or having specific boundaries.
  The catch phrase that defines this effort is that NATO must ``go out 
of area or go out of business.'' This whole concept, I think, demands 
very close observation.
  Mr. President, I have tried to point out that the objectives 
specified in the strategic concept of 1991 embraced by the NATO allies 
is a set of objectives far different from that which the NATO 
organization was authorized to achieve in its Charter, which was 
ratified by the U.S. Senate. I believe that NATO was not intended for 
these new purposes.
  The understanding of the U.S. Senate in 1949, and the understanding 
of the American people, has been that NATO is designed to protect 
territory--the territory of member nations--not designed to be on call 
in other areas in Europe and, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, 
in Africa and literally to the uttermost parts of the Earth.
  I will be submitting an amendment for consideration by the Senate to 
make it clear that collective security will remain the heart of NATO, 
and that this is the only mission allowable under the treaty, because 
it is impossible to amend the treaty without bringing it back to this 
Senate for amendment.
  My amendment is tailored not to constrain NATO's effectiveness in the 
future, nor is it intended to micromanage NATO's military planning from 
the Senate floor. The central portion of the amendment is taken 
directly from the North Atlantic Treaty itself. My amendment states 
that any military operation outside Article V must be based on the 
principle of collective defense, namely, the territorial integrity, 
political independence, or security of a NATO member.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for his agreement in allowing me to 
finish my remarks.




                          ____________________