[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMBASSADOR SANDY VERSHBOW ON NATO ENLARGEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 21, 1998

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, five weeks ago the Senate began the debate 
on the admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the North 
Atlantic Alliance (NATO). That debate and the vote of the Senate to 
ratify the accession protocols of these three countries is expected to 
take place in the near future.
  A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, two opinion pieces which were published 
in the Washington Post--one by David Broder and the other by Jim 
Hoagland--which questioned the extent to which the enlargement of NATO 
has been thoroughly discussed and evaluated prior to the Senate vote on 
this critical issue. I strongly disagree with the point of view that 
these two experienced journalists have expressed.
  During the recent District Work Period, the Washington Post published 
an excellent letter to the editor from U.S. Permanent Representative to 
the North Atlantic Council, Ambassador Alexander R. Vershbow, ``The 
Case for NATO Expansion.''
  Ambassador Vershbow is a career diplomat who has served our nation 
with great distinction as Special Assistant to the President and Senior 
Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council at the 
White House (1994-1997). Earlier he served as Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (1993-
1994) and he was Deputy Permanent U.S. Representative to NATO (1991-
1993). He also brings a sensitivity to the problem of Russia in the 
expansion of NATO, having served as Director of the State Department's 
Office of Soviet Union Affairs (1988-1991).
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that Ambassador Vershbow's excellent letter, 
published in the Washington Post on Tuesday, April 7, be placed in the 
Record. I urge my colleagues to read his thoughtful views.

               [From the Washington Post, April 7, 1998]

                      The Case for NATO Expansion

       Critics have sought to give the impression that serious 
     debate about NATO enlargement has never taken place and that 
     the United States and its allies have failed to address 
     important questions about Russia and the future security 
     environment in Europe.
       More than 1,000 articles published during the past year and 
     a half have covered all aspects of NATO's evolving role. More 
     than 300 conferences on NATO enlargement have been held in 
     Europe and North America, including several in Russia. Twelve 
     hearings before Congress in the past six months--with more 
     than 550 pages of testimony--have explored the details of 
     NATO's mission and membership and examined arguments from 
     every point on the political spectrum.
       Critics charge that NATO enlargement will poison relations 
     with Russia. This might be true if NATO were seeking to 
     isolate Russia, but the opposite is the case. Through the 
     Partnership for Peace and the newly established NATO-Russia 
     Permanent Joint Council, NATO has created a network of 
     security cooperation that has engaged all the states of 
     Europe--even former neutrals. The new NATO gives Moscow a 
     chance to move away from the old Soviet pattern of 
     confrontation to one of real partnership in Europe.
       NATO-Russian relations are better and show more promise 
     today than they have at any time in the past 50 years. They 
     encompass everything from planning for joint action in civil 
     disasters to joint military operations in Bosnia. And they 
     are still developing. How counterproductive it would be if we 
     undercut Boris Yeltsin's courageous decision to cooperate 
     with NATO by bowing to the pressure of Russian hard-liners. 
     That would strengthen the anti-democratic elements in Russia 
     and encourage the belief that the Allies, in the face of 
     Moscow's bullying, had returned Central Europe to a gray zone 
     of instability and limited sovereignty.
       As we work to adapt NATO to better fit the security 
     environment of the next century, we understand that we must 
     preserve the essential feature that has made this the most 
     successful alliance in history--the integrated military 
     structure and its capacity for collective defense. The three 
     new members we have invited will significantly improve the 
     alliance's defense capabilities. And having so recently 
     regained their freedom after decades of totalitarian 
     oppression, they can be counted on to stand with us, not just 
     in defense of NATO territory but when the values we share are 
     threatened--as they did recently during the confrontation 
     with Iraq.
       In postponing the vote on ratification for several weeks, 
     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott declared that his intention 
     was to ``get a focus on the issue.'' It is proper to ensure a 
     fair debate of the issue, but as Sen. Jesse Helms noted in 
     sending the bill to the floor of the Senate, now is the time 
     to act.
       No one who favors democracy should want to keep the lines 
     of security drawn in Europe where Stalin marked them in 1945. 
     NATO enlargement is the right policy for the United States 
     and the right policy for the future of democracy in Europe.

                                           Alexander Vershbow,

                                          Ambassador, U.S. Mission
                                                to NATO, Brussels.

     

                          ____________________