[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 48 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S3620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 RUSSIA

  Mr. President, others have argued that the inclusion of Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic in NATO will destabilize Russia and 
endanger our efforts to build a constructive relationship with that 
important nation. I do not believe this is the case. The Russian 
legislature is refusing to ratify START II. Russia is forging closer 
ties to Iraq and Iran and undermining US policy in the Middle East 
whenever possible. Moscow is trying to disrupt US-backed plans to move 
Caspian Sea oil through an Azerbaijani-Georgian pipeline to the Black 
Sea. But there is no evidence that any of these actions is linked to 
NATO expansion. Indeed, Russia was pursing these policies long before 
the expansion of NATO was seriously contemplated. NATO expansion may be 
a convenient excuse for Russia's stance on foreign policy issues that 
run counter to US interests, but it is not the cause.
  I have no doubt that Russia, if given the choice, would like to 
maintain a ``sphere of influence'' in Central Europe, or barring that, 
a buffer zone. But this is 1998, not 1948, and Poland, Hungary, and the 
Czech Republic have the right and the ability to reject the former, and 
the United States has a vital interest in denying the latter. As former 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted.
  Basing European and Atlantic security on a no man's land between 
Germany and Russia runs counter to historical experience. A greater 
security dilemma would be created by ceding to our own fears about 
antagonizing Russia than proceeding with enlargement.
  Furthermore, appeasing the Russian extremists who object to NATO 
expansion would only serve to undermine the very democratic forces that 
we're trying to protect. I see no evidence of a brewing nationalist 
backlash that critics keep warning us about. The Russian people are 
concerned about securing jobs, protecting their pensions, and 
preserving their personal security. Opinion polls show that Russian 
voters don't care one way or another about NATO expansion. As one 
expert witness, Mr. Dimitri Simes, before the Foreign Relations 
Committee remarked, the Russian leadership: engaged in terrible 
atrocities in Chechnya against [. . .] many Russian civilians. They are 
not paying wages and pensions at a time when people can easily observe 
the huge mansions of the new elite [. . .]. None of this moves Russian 
politics in a nationalist or reactionary direction. But somehow an 
obstruction like NATO enlargement is supposed to have a mystical, 
destructive impact on Russian politics. It is very difficult for me to 
believe.