[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 89 (Friday, June 28, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1179-E1180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            REAFFIRMING OUR SUPPORT FOR NATO AND ENLARGEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 27, 2002

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a Resolution which 
addresses the importance of NATO, its future, enlargement and continued 
U.S. support for the Alliance.
  In just five months, the Heads of State and leadership of NATO will 
meet in Prague to, among other things, discuss the future of the 
Alliance and its capability to address new and emerging threats and to 
make a decision on the enlargement of the alliance. It has been eight 
months since the House of Representatives debated NATO enlargement and 
overwhelmingly passed the Gerald Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act.
  Since then, there has been a great deal of debate within the Bush 
Administration, within the international community of experts and among 
the NATO partners with respect to NATO's future.
  But since we last discussed whether new members should be invited 
into NATO, I felt we should take a moment to discuss exactly what type 
of alliance we will be inviting new members to join and what we believe 
the role of this alliance should be in the future. I also wanted to 
address the relationship between NATO and Russia which many Members 
raised during the House debate on the Solomon bill last November.
  To that end, as Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee I held three 
comprehensive hearings on the question of NATO and enlargement. We 
heard from outside experts, we met with the Ambassadors of the ten 
candidate states and we heard from the Bush Administration and our 
SACEUR. The resolution I am introducing today is the work product of 
those hearings and all the other meetings and briefings which have 
taken place in between.
  Clearly, NATO must maintain its political purpose and military 
coherence.
  In this context, I disagree with those who believe that in this post-
Cold War and post-September 11 era, NATO may no longer be relevant to 
the overall security of the United States.
  NATO is indeed relevant to the U.S. NATO remains the foundation of 
American security policy in Europe. NATO has proven to be a strong and 
viable alliance preserving the collective security of Europe for over 
53 years.
  Back in 1949, when the Senate debated the ratification of the North 
Atlantic Treaty there was concern about what Article 5 would commit the 
U.S. to do in Europe. Isn't it ironic that the first time in 53 years 
Article 5 was invoked, as it was on September 12, it was invoked by our 
allies in defense of the U.S.
  NATO was relevant in ending the brutal conflicts in both Bosnia and 
Kosovo. Today, our NATO Allies provide eighty percent of the military 
forces remaining in those countries. And, NATO, working with the 
European Union, was instrumental in helping resolve the problem in 
Macedonia before things got out of hand.
  Since September 11, NATO's relevance has been clear with respect to 
the campaign against global terrorism and the war in Afghanistan. 
Although the Afghan campaign was never a NATO operation, fourteen of 
our allies from NATO, with some 5,000 troops are operating today side-
by-side with U.S. military forces in Afghanistan as many of them have 
been since the first days of the conflict. Just last week command of 
the International Security Force transferred from British forces to 
Turkish forces, both NATO partners. Where would the U.S. effort be if 
these NATO partners considered themselves too irrelevant to help keep 
the peace in Afghanistan. Whose 5,000 troops would be patrolling the 
streets of Kabul if not for NATO forces.
  I also disagree with those who believe that unless NATO is willing to 
undergo major restructuring to become a global rapid reaction force in 
the war on terrorism, it can no longer be relevant. Global terrorism 
and weapons of mass destruction are challenges worthy of NATO concern 
and capability to act against and NATO must seriously address these 
issues between now and Prague. But at the Ministers meeting in 
Reykjavik in May and the Defense Ministerial in June, NATO leaders did 
address the realities of the new and emerging threats and have 
committed, with strong U.S. support, to build the capabilities 
necessary to address them. For many, NATO does not have to be present 
in places like the Philippines, or Sudan or Kashmir or even Iraq to be 
relevant. These matters, while important, should not be seen as the 
only issues which define NATO for the future.
  With respect to Russia, I believe the concerns expressed by some of 
our Colleagues last November and since then had great merit and needed 
to be clarified by NATO. At the Iceland summit, the U.S. and NATO 
initiated a new relationship with Russia which resulted in the 
formation of a new NATO-Russia Council which was inaugurated in June at 
the Rome summit between NATO heads of state and Russia President Putin. 
I believe this new relationship represents a breakthrough in NATO-
Russia relations and should address the concerns of many.
  Finally, an essential aspect of NATO is the welcoming of new members 
into the alliance.
  I believe enlarging NATO does contribute to the overall security of 
the United States because membership in NATO does enhance overall 
European stability and security. We are encouraged by the number of 
applicants for NATO membership and their dedication and enthusiasm to 
achieving that goal. As we all know, there are ten applicant countries 
who have decided that NATO is certainly relevant to them and an 
organization in which they wish to be a member. But, NATO membership 
for them is more than joining a military alliance. For them, it will be 
a validation of their return to being democratic, European and pro-
western states. The process under which these applicants are being 
evaluated, called the Member Action Plan, has been a useful tool for us 
to analyze their own commitment to meeting the political, economic and 
military standards expected of all members of the Alliance.
  Mr. Speaker, my resolution addresses all of these issues in a 
comprehensive way. Our Subcommittee intends to mark this resolution in 
the Fall and will consider endorsing candidate countries for NATO 
membership at that time and based on the best information we have on 
their readiness to contribute to the overall security of the Alliance. 
It is my hope that the House Leadership will then make time

[[Page E1180]]

for another opportunity to debate NATO and the enlargement issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe NATO is as important for transatlantic 
security today than it was fifty three years ago when it was created. I 
ask my Colleagues to cosponsor my resolution and to continue to support 
NATO.

                          ____________________