[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4548-S4549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATO ENLARGEMENT

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate engaged in a 
particularly important debate about the expansion of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  I particularly want to commend the leadership and dedication of my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. Senator Smith managed this 
important legislation on the floor with great competence, and the 
people of Oregon should be proud of how he handled this difficult 
assignment. Despite my colleague's persuasive efforts, however, I have 
decided to oppose this treaty.
  Mr. President, a new era in world affairs demands new forms of 
international cooperation. There is indeed a clear and immediate 
imperative to bring the new democracies of Eastern Europe into the 
family of freedom-loving nations.
  What is less clear is that the best way to do this is through the new 
military alliance proposed by this treaty. My reservations about this 
treaty are

[[Page S4549]]

three, and I would like to outline them briefly.
  First, the treaty redefines NATO's fundamental mission from 
protecting against a known threat into something much more nebulous. 
The initial purpose of this alliance was to contain communism and 
staunch the threat of the Soviet Union spreading its sphere of 
influence over the entire continent. With four decades of sound 
leadership, consistent vision, and unflinching strength, the alliance 
succeeded in that endeavor, bringing the West safely through the Cold 
War, and allowing the people of Eastern Europe to finally reassert 
their long-suppressed desire for freedom.
  But what is NATO's role in a new environment, with the Soviet Union 
relegated to history? I don't think that question has been sufficiently 
debated, or an answer sufficiently defined, for us to be rushing into 
this expansion. Is there really some strategic end that would be served 
by the United States pledging to treat any conflagration in the 
turbulent realm of Eastern Europe as an attack against our own 
sovereignty?
  It may well be that there are circumstances in which the cause of 
world peace and security would be best served by an American commitment 
to turn back an aggressor or defend a fragile democracy. But in the 
absence of a well-defined threat or clearly articulated strategic 
mission, it is hard to see how this expansion of NATO is anything other 
than a gamble that an institution created for one purpose is equally 
suited for the yet-to-be-determined purposes of a new time.
  Second, I believe that this expansion will have a deleterious effect 
on our relationship with Russia. At this critical time--when what was 
once our most formidable adversary stands at a delicate point between 
the continued climb toward democracy and freedom on the one side, and a 
fall backwards into heavily-armed nationalism on the other--I'm 
especially troubled that this proposed NATO expansion will push future 
Russian leaders in the wrong direction.
  As the end of this century approaches, Russia is still in possession 
of one of the world's most powerful military arsenals. A Russia with 
reborn territorial designs on her neighbors is the greatest imaginable 
potential threat to European stability and security.
  That is why it is so vital that we seek ratification and 
implimentation of the START II treaty with Russia, which would actually 
reduce the size of its nuclear arsenal. The Russian Duma has so far 
refused to take this step, but appears to be moving in that direction. 
If they interepret this expansion, however, as a hostile gesture in 
their direction, they may well refuse to ratify, leaving us all less 
safe than we might otherwise have been.
  The United States has made tremendous strides in our relationship 
with Russia since the fall of the Soviet system. American diplomacy now 
should be focused on consolidating those gains, and finding ways to 
help Russia complete its transition to democracy. Many experts in our 
own country, as well as many of the most credible pro-Western leaders 
in Russia itself, have warned us that expanding NATO could inflame 
nationalist passions, and lead to a turning away from the path of 
democracy and peaceful relations. That would be the most disastrous of 
unintended consequences, and must give us pause as we consider this 
step.
  Third, the cost of this initiative is anyone's guess, and must compel 
us to caution as well, particularly considering that the United States 
already pays a disproportionate share of NATO's costs. If NATO 
expansion were vital to our national security, then our country would 
be resolved to pay any price, in President Kennedy's timeless phrase. 
But we live in a fundamentally different time, one in which each 
country's security is determined as much by the quality of its schools 
and the cleanliness of its air and water than by the might of its 
armies and navies. Committing to an expanded military alliance which 
may entail far greater costs than the Administration has estimated 
could diminish our ability to make the investments that will make us 
safer and stronger.
  The Senate had an opportunity, through the amendment offered by 
Senator Harkin, to gain a better sense of the size of this financial 
commitment. I strongly supported that effort. Unfortunately, it did not 
prevail, and we are left with burning questions about the size of the 
financial commitment entailed by this treaty, and the effect that will 
have on our ability to address those domestic priorities which make us 
stronger as a nation.
  What is true for us is true for these struggling new democracies as 
well. As Senator Moynihan has pointed out so wisely, these countries 
are under no immediate threat. Their most pressing challenge is the 
development of growing economies, and the institutions of democracy. 
But if they join NATO, these struggling nations will be required to 
spend billions on the latest in military hardware instead of making 
critically needed investments in areas that lead to long-term benefit: 
infrastructure, education, environmental health, and many others.
  Decades of a failed communist system left these countries in economic 
ruin. I believe it is a testament to their energy and determination 
that they are slowly overcoming this legacy and building up new, 
vibrant free market economies. We should, in the name of international 
security, be doing everything possible to help them through this 
transition.
  I do not believe that anyone has properly assessed the impact that 
joining NATO, and making the necessary investments to participate in 
that military alliance, will have on our Eastern European friends' 
ability to continue a successful transition to market economics. And I 
do not believe we should jump pell-mell into such an enlargement until 
we have done so.
  The democratization of Eastern Europe is an exciting and hopeful 
development. As a child of the Cold War, I am awed by the transitions 
we have seen. The United States has a special responsibility to nurture 
freedom wherever it is seeking to plant its roots. But in the final 
analysis, it is not clear that extending NATO membership to Poland, 
Hungary, and the Czech Republic is the best way to do it.
  In this case, the burden of proof is on the proponents. We should not 
take so solemn a step as committing American lives to the protection of 
another country unless we are absolutely certain, beyond any doubt, 
that it is the wisest of possible courses. I remain unconvinced, and so 
I opposed the measure.

                          ____________________