[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5805-S5818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATO EXPANSION TREATY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 noon
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session to
consider Executive Calendar No. 6, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolution of Ratification to Accompany Treaty Document No.
108-4, Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on
Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 4 hours of
debate on the treaty.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we now commence a very important debate on
the NATO treaty.
On behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I am pleased to
bring the protocols of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949
to the floor for the Senate's consideration and ratification. The
protocols extending membership to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were signed on March 26, 2003, and were
transmitted by President Bush to the Senate on April 10, 2003. The
accession of these countries to the NATO Alliance is a tremendous
accomplishment. It deserves the full support of the Senate and the
governments of the other 18 NATO members.
The Foreign Relations Committee has held 10 hearings on NATO since
1999. Five of these hearings were held during the last 2 months, as we
prepared for this debate on the Senate floor. The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee gave its unanimous approval to the resolution of
ratification.
I especially thank Senator Joseph Biden for his assistance in moving
NATO expansion forward and for his insightful participation in the
wider debate on NATO policy. The resolution of ratification before us
today reflects our mutual efforts to construct a bipartisan resolution
that could be broadly supported by the Senate.
During the course of the committee's consideration of the Protocols
of Accession for these seven nations to join NATO, we received
testimony from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Under Secretary of
State Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith, and United
States Ambassador to NATO Nick Burns. Each expressed strong support for
NATO expansion. In addition to efforts undertaken in the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senators Levin and Warner and the Committee on
Armed Services conducted two hearings examining the military
implications of the treaty and shared an analysis of their findings
with us. This letter has been made a part of the Record and our
committee report.
When NATO was founded in 1949, its purpose was to defend Western
democracies against the Soviet Union. But the demise of the Soviet
Union diminished the significance of NATO's mission. We began to debate
where NATO should go and what NATO should do. In early 1993, I
delivered a speech calling for NATO not only to enlarge, but also to
prepare to go ``out of area.'' At that time, many people were skeptical
about enlarging NATO's size and mission. Those of us who believed in
NATO enlargement prevailed in that debate. And I believe that events
have proven us right.
As we consider this new enlargement, it is clear that the last round
has been highly beneficial. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic are
among the most dynamic countries in Europe. They are deeply interested
in alliance matters, and they have sought to maximize their
contribution to collective security. The prospect of NATO membership
gave these countries the incentive to accelerate reforms, to settle
disputes, and cooperate with their neighbors. Their success, in turn,
has been a strong incentive for democratization and peace among
Europe's other aspiring countries.
Many observers will point to the split over Iraq as a sign that NATO
is failing or irrelevant. I disagree. Any alliance requires constant
maintenance and adjustment, and NATO is no exception. The United States
has more at stake and more in common with Europe than with any other
part of the world. These common interests and shared values will
sustain the alliance if governments realize the incredible resource
that NATO represents. As the leader of NATO, we have no intention of
shirking our commitment to Europe.
But as we attempt to mend the alliance's political divisions over
Iraq, we must go one step further and ask, if NATO had been united on
Iraq, could it have provided an effective command structure for the
military operation that is underway now? And would allies, beyond those
currently engaged in Iraq, have been willing and able to field forces
that would have been significant to the outcome of the war? In other
words, achieving political unity within the alliance, while important
to international opinion, does not guarantee that NATO will be
meaningful as a fighting alliance in the war on terror.
In the coming years, NATO will have a decide if it wants to
participate in the security challenge of our time. If we do not prevent
major terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, the
alliance will have failed in the most fundamental sense of defending
our nations and our way of life.
This reality demands that as we depend NATO, we also retool NATO, so
that it can be a mechanism of burden sharing and mutual security in the
war on terrorism. America is at war, and we feel more vulnerable than
at any time since the end of the cold war and perhaps since World War
II. We need allies to confront this threat effectively, and those
alliances cannot be circumscribed by geographic boundaries.
In our committee hearings on NATO, we have heard encouraging
testimony that our allies are taking promised steps to strengthen their
capabilities in such areas as heavy airlift and sealift and precision-
guided munitions. We also have heard that the seven candidates for
membership are developing niche military capabilities that would be
useful in meeting NATO's new military demands. But clearly, much work
is left to be done to transform NATO into a bulwark against terrorism.
An early test will be NATO's contribution to peacekeeping and
humanitarian duties in the aftermath of combat in Iraq. A strong
commitment by NATO nations to this role would be an important step in
healing the alliance divisions and reaffirming its relevance for the
long run.
The Resolution of Ratification we are considering today includes nine
declarations and three conditions. I will review each of these
provisions for the benefit of the Senate:
[[Page S5806]]
Declaration 1 reaffirms that membership in NATO remains a vital
national security interest of the United States.
Declaration 2 lays out the strategic rationale for NATO enlargement.
Declaration 3 emphasizes that upon completion of the accession
process, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia will have all the rights, privileges, obligations,
responsibilities, and protections of full NATO members.
Declaration 4 emphasizes the importance of European integration.
Declaration 5 reiterates NATO's ``open door'' policy, and declares
that the seven new countries will not be the last invited to join the
alliance.
Declaration 6 expresses the Senate's support for the Partnership for
Peace.
Declaration 7 expresses support for the NATO-Russia Council
established at the Prague Summit, but reinforces the Senate's view that
Russia does not have a veto or vote on NATO policy.
Declaration 8 declares that the seven candidate countries have
implemented mechanisms for the compensation of victims of the Holocaust
and of Communism.
Declaration 9 states that the committee has maintained the
constitutional role of the U.S. Senate in the treaty-making process.
Condition 1 requires the President to reaffirm understandings on the
costs, benefits, and military implications of NATO enlargement.
Condition 2 requires the President to submit a report to the
Congressional Intelligence Committees on the progress of Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in meeting
NATO security sector and security vetting standards.
Finally, Condition 3 requires the President to certify to Congress
that each of the governments of the seven candidate countries is fully
cooperating with the U.S. efforts to obtain the fullest accounting of
captured and missing U.S. personnel from previous conflicts and the
Cold War.
When President Bush made his first trip to Europe 2 years ago, he
strongly voiced the U.S. commitment to Europe generally and to NATO in
particular. Now at a moment when relations with some of our European
allies are strained, a clear showing of bipartisan support for NATO
enlargement takes on added importance. The affirming message of the
first round of enlargement led to improved capabilities and
strengthened transatlantic ties. I am confident that this second round
will do the same. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this
resolution of ratification.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will proceed with an opening statement
relative to the matter before us, and that is expansion of NATO.
Mr. President, today we begin consideration of an amendment to the
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 to admit to NATO seven new members--
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
If we approve this legislation, as I hope we will, it will mark an
important step in the strategic transformation of the Alliance to
respond to a new security environment.
I would like to discuss the history of this strategic transformation
and then to examine the qualifications of each of the seven candidate
countries.
The process of transforming the Alliance actually began shortly after
the collapse of communism in Europe in 1989.
The first major change in the post-Cold War NATO was an absolutely
critical event that is all-but-forgotten today: the accession to NATO,
without fanfare, of the former East Germany when it reunited with the
Federal Republic of Germany on October 3, 1990.
We talk about the expansion of NATO and we never really mention that.
Again, the first significant thing that happened in transforming the
alliance in the new security environment was that East Germany, a
former Warsaw Pact member, was accepted and subsumed into and became
part of Germany again, but also became part of NATO as a consequence of
that.
The following year, in June 1991, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and in
December 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved.
At the Madrid Summit in July 1997, NATO invited three countries from
the former Warsaw Pact--Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary--to
enter into final accession negotiations with the Alliance.
I might say a word about the care with which this body scrutinized
that round of NATO enlargement.
The Committee on Foreign Relations alone held a dozen detailed
hearings and published a 550-page book containing hearing transcripts,
policy analyses, a detailed trip report, and other documents. Other
committees also held hearings on enlargement.
Then, during March and April of 1998, came seven full days of intense
debate on ratification here on the floor. I had the privilege of being
floor manager for the ratification, which was approved by a 80-19 vote
on the evening of April 30, 1998.
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic formally joined NATO on March
12, 1999. Less than 2 weeks later, the Allied air war was launched
against Serbian aggression in Kosovo.
The events of the 1990s, and the increasing instability in the Middle
East and Central Asia, led my farsighted colleagues--Senator Lugar and
former Senator Nunn, to the memorable conclusion that the NATO Alliance
had to ``go out of area, or out of business.''
Still, most analysts remained skeptical. The terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, dispatched any remaining doubts about the nature of
the threats we now face. The unanimous decision on the following day by
the NATO Allies to invoke Article 5 for the first time in NATO's
history confirmed the vitality of NATO's collective defense principle.
At the NATO Ministerial Meeting in Reykjavik in May 2002, the Allies
agreed that in order to meet security threats, NATO needed forces that
could be deployed quickly to wherever they are needed and sustained
over time to complete their mission. This agreement effectively
settled, at least conceptually, the ``out-of-area'' debate.
Meanwhile, in Brussels and among NATO members a discussion had begun
on the merits of a so-called ``Big Bang'' next round of enlargement to
give meaning and force to the new missions ahead.
Recognizing that potential members in Central and Eastern Europe
would individually require years to reach all of the military standards
of NATO, members began to view their entrance as a regional grouping as
politically and geographically strategic.
Initially, I personally had some skepticism of this perspective and
was concerned about the abilities of these countries to contribute to
the alliance. But the determined response of these countries to the war
against terrorism, their participation in SFOR and KFOR peacekeeping in
the Balkans, their participation in Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan, and the progress they have made on their NATO membership
action plans, so-called MAPs, convinced me all seven of these countries
would serve us well as formal allies. I declared my support for all
seven of these countries in an article I wrote for the Los Angeles
Times of September 1, 2002.
The critical turning point in defining new tasks for NATO occurred at
Prague in November 2002, at NATO's so-called ``Transformation Summit.''
Prague crystallized the debate over NATO's new missions, new
capabilities, and new members, and it afforded members opportunity to
set forth a strategic agenda for a revitalized NATO.
Among the accomplishments at Prague, the alliance agreed to the
Prague Capabilities Commitment. NATO, because it is a military
organization--I think it is beyond that and is a political organization
as well--loves all these acronyms. It takes a while; I apologize for my
colleagues who do not follow this closely. The PCC, the Prague
Capabilities Commitment, replaced the overly ambitious and broad
Defense Capabilities Initiative of 1999 with a more concrete framework
for force modernization and adaptation, including acquisition of
equipment and technology through consortia of members and the
development by individual
[[Page S5807]]
countries of so-called niche capabilities, which I will describe later.
That is a new term that is formally being used.
NATO also adopted an American proposal to develop a NATO response
force, NRF, a high-readiness, mobile combat unit that would allow NATO
to go out of area to meet threats where they arise.
Finally, the alliance invited the seven countries whose
qualifications we are considering today to begin final negotiations
with the alliance on joining as full members.
NATO issued the invitation knowing that the militaries in most of the
seven countries would not greatly enhance the war-fighting ability of
the alliance, at least in the short term. Taken together, however, they
will measurably increase NATO's potential.
The seven invited countries will add 220,000 active-duty troops to
the alliance immediately, or about 175,000 by the end of the decade,
once current reform and restructuring of forces are completed in
Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. This represents a 6 percent
overall increase in NATO military forces.
This round of enlargement will also yield strategic infrastructure
benefits. The membership of the seven countries will increase the
number of airfields with long runways available to the alliance by 6
percent and the number available in Europe by 13 percent.
Airfields and ports in these countries also factor in to the
Pentagon's initial plans to reshuffle its forces in Europe, including
the possibility of building U.S. bases and airfields in Bulgaria and
the nearby Black Sea port of Burgas, as well as at a Romania airbase
and a Black Sea port of Constanta.
In addition, Romania has unmanned aerial vehicles and a C-130 lift
capability, while Slovakia has air-to-ground training ranges.
Moreover, the enlargement will add so-called niche capabilities to
NATO's array of professional forces, several of which could be directly
applicable to future out-of-area missions. These specialized
capabilities include Bulgarian and Slovak antinuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons teams; Slovenian demining units; Romanian elite force
and mountain troops; Lithuanian special forces and medics; Estonian
explosive detection teams; Latvian explosive ordinance destruction
specialists, including underwater demolition teams; and a joint Baltic
Sea air surveillance network.
While their forces may be small in number, the seven invited
countries have shown no hesitancy in deploying their uniformed men and
women in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and, in some cases, in the Middle
East, as coalition operations have required.
In February of this year, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined NATO candidates Albania,
Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the so-called
Vilnius Ten in bravely standing with the United States and its
coalition partners.
They declared the importance of the transatlantic alliance and called
for action by the international community in response to the clear and
growing danger posed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Mr. President, a short excerpt from their declaration demonstrates
the vigorous spirit these nations I believe will bring to NATO:
Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and
the special responsibility of democracies to defend our
shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are
a part, must stand together to face the threats posed by the
nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass
destruction.
In word and in deed, these countries have already demonstrated their
value as partners and de facto allies, and it is in the interest of the
United States, in my view, to see this partnership be made formal by
their acceptance into NATO.
The governments of the seven involved countries have also taken
tremendous steps and, in some cases, faced considerable political risk
to align their institutions and policies in accordance with NATO's
standards and values. Let me summarize their individual qualifications
for NATO membership.
Bulgaria: Bulgaria has committed to spend around 2.8 percent of GDP
on defense in 2003, a higher percentage than that of several of our
current allies, and to continue to downsize its armed forces by the
thousands. On October 31, 2002, Bulgaria announced that it had
destroyed all of its FROG, SCUD and SS-23 missiles, remnants of the old
Soviet arsenal.
To shut down any further proliferation of gray arms, Sofia has
adopted a supplemental export control legislation, drafted a new border
security act, and adopted new regulations on border checkpoints.
Moreover, it took immediate and decisive action against those
involved in the illegal shipment that occurred last year from the Terem
military complex.
Bulgaria, a rare country that protected its Jewish citizens during
World War II, has generally been tolerant of all its religious, ethnic,
and political minorities. An exception was the anti-Turkish campaign in
the late eighties, the dying spasms of a discredited Communist regime.
Today a largely ethnic Turkish party is a member of the governing
coalition. Bulgaria is now moving to complete the process of property
restitution to its Jewish community with only one property still under
legal procedure.
Estonia: Estonia leads the Baltic region in free market reforms,
increased defense spending last year of 2 percent of GDP, and is
developing a light infantry brigade, the first battalion of which
should be equipped and trained by the end of this month. The
organization, Transparency International, has rated Estonia the least
corrupt country in central and Eastern Europe.
Building on an already good record, last year, they adopted an action
plan to improve the administration and judicial capacity in their
country.
Estonia has amended minimum language requirements in its laws on
citizenship and employment to address needs particularly of its large
Russian ethnic community. As a result, in the most recent national
elections, the ethnic Russian parties failed to clear the 5 percent
hurdle necessary to enter Parliament. In other words, the majority of
Estonia's ethnic Russian citizens cast their vote for multinational
parties on the basis of substantive issues, not ethnicity. I think that
is remarkable.
In August 2002, overcoming a few voices of intolerance, the Estonian
Parliament voted to recognize January 27 as a day of remembrance for
the Holocaust.
I know the Presiding Officer is a student of that era, as well as my
colleague from Indiana, the chairman.
That is also a fairly remarkable undertaking. People in this country
think it would be automatic, but that is a pretty big deal.
Latvia has enacted a law to require 2 percent of its GDP to be spent
on defense beginning this year. By the end of 2003, Latvia's first
professional infantry battalion will be ready to participate in NATO-
led operations, with three additional mobile reserve battalions ready
in 2004.
Riga's economic reform efforts have been well funded and generally
successful, and Latvia is now assisting other post-Communist countries
such as Georgia and Ukraine with their own reform efforts.
After a somewhat contentious start in the early 1990s, Latvia has had
considerable success in integrating its large Russian-speaking minority
by dismantling citizenship and bureaucratic restrictions to full social
and political participation within Latvia.
Lithuania has increased its spending on defense to 2 percent of GDP
in 2002. By the end of 2004, Lithuania will be able to deploy and
sustain a mobile, professional infantry battalion, and by 2006 a rapid
reaction brigade.
A small, elite unit of Lithuanian special operations forces is
currently serving in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Recently, this unit was involved in ground combat against al-Qaida
forces during a strategic reconnaissance mission and together, with
allied reinforcements, captured several of the enemy.
Lithuania signed a border treaty with Russia in 1997, which the
Russian Duma is expected to ratify later this month, and has reached an
agreement to permit Russian military traffic to transit Lithuania on
its way to Kaliningrad.
In 2002, Vilnius launched a Program for Control and Prevention of
Trafficking in Human Beings and Prostitution. The Government has
established
[[Page S5808]]
a public center for the Roma in Vilnius, launched a program to
integrate Roma into Lithuanian society, and developed information
campaigns to promote this tolerance.
Conscripts in Lithuania's armed forces have a unit in their training
on the history of World War II and the Holocaust in Lithuania, and the
Government is working with international nongovernment organizations to
establish legal procedures for Jewish communal property restitution.
Quite frankly, in a sense, as I go through this, if we did nothing
other than accomplish these changes in the countries I have mentioned
so far, unrelated to the military, in order to get them to move toward
NATO--not to get them to make it clear what they had to accommodate to
move toward NATO--I would argue it would be a significant success, a
singular success, but the story goes on.
Romania, by far the largest of the seven candidate countries, spends
$1 billion, or 2.38 percent of its GDP, on defense. Moreover, Romania
is committed to being a net contributor to NATO and is upgrading its 21
MiG-29 fighter aircraft, its navy ships, and its missile launching
systems.
An elite Romanian infantry battalion, the Red Scorpions, served in
Afghanistan--that is how they are referred to, the ``Red Scorpions''--
and was replaced by the Carpathian Hawks that are currently there. I
love these names. It is sort of part of the history of Romania, which
is another question.
I might add that Romania flew these units to Afghanistan on their own
C-130s, a feat which many of our current NATO allies are unable to
duplicate.
The Romanian economy has grown substantially over the past 3 years,
by 4 percent in 2002, and inflation, although it remains high, has been
brought under the IMF target rate of 22 percent.
Romania opened a National Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office in
September 2002 and has begun a judicial reform effort that includes
prosecuting judges for bribery and corruption, an act called
``unprecedented in the region.'' Romania's relations with Hungary have
improved following the 2001 agreement on Hungarian ``status law'' for
ethnic Hungarians outside Hungary's border. I might add, one of the
major changes that took place when Hungary wished to come in was
Hungary made similar reforms.
These changes are consequential. As a student of European history,
some of this is centuries in coming. The animosities and antagonisms
have been real. This is a big deal. The reason I bother to point that
out is that it all has a ripple effect, in my view.
Hungary's admission to NATO began Hungary forming their policies that
related to ethnicity. That, in turn, I believe, has made it easier for
Romania--and necessary, by the way, to become part of NATO--to act in a
similar way.
Slovakia has made great progress in democratic reforms and is the
first country to reelect a center-right reform government in Central
and Eastern Europe since the end of the cold war.
Under Prime Minister Dzurinda, Bratislava committed to raise its
defense spending and maintain it at 2 percent of GDP in 2003 and
beyond. A sweeping defense reform plan, known as the Slovak Republic
Force 2010, will establish by 2010 a small, well-equipped interoperable
armed force integrated into NATO military structures.
In February 2003, Slovakia opened a new department to fight
corruption, which is overseen by the Deputy Prime Minister and the
Minister of Justice. Bratislava is preparing new laws to create an
Office of the Special Prosecutor and to prevent corruption in public
administration and the judiciary.
I remember, after the Prague Spring was crushed back several decades
ago, I went to Bratislava to meet the fellow who was responsible for
the Prague Spring.
To think that today this is all happening is, to me, amazing, just
within the time that I have been in the Senate.
Alone among the seven candidates, Slovenia comes out of a tradition
of nonalignment as a part of the former Yugoslavia. It is the
exception. Also alone among the candidates, it won its independence by
force of arms in a short, successful war against the Federal Yugoslav
forces in June of 1991.
I might add, I pushed very hard in the first round for Slovenia to be
added. I thought they were qualified then.
Moreover, Slovenia has won widespread acclaim for aspects of
peacekeeping activities. Its International Trust for Demining and War
Victims Assistance is currently responsible for two-thirds of all the
demining operations in southeastern Europe.
Although the wealthiest in per capita terms of the candidate
countries, Slovenia has lagged behind the other six in terms of defense
spending as a percentage of GDP. Ljubljana has committed to reach 2
percent GDP by 2008. Slovenia has focused on creating two battalions of
rapid reaction forces for combat and peacekeeping operations.
Freedom House gave Slovenia the highest rating of all the candidate
countries with respect to rule of law and preventing and combating
corruption. Slovenia is the only country among the seven candidates to
have held a referendum on NATO membership. On March 23 of this year, 66
percent of those participating voted in favor of membership, a
considerable achievement during the first week of the highly televised
military operations in Iraq, which I need not tell my colleagues was
not particularly politic or popular among most European voters.
No society anywhere is perfect, and despite their outstanding record
of accomplishment, significant challenges remain for each of the seven
candidate countries. They include: permanently curtailing all gray arms
sales in Bulgaria; implementing strict control over classified
information in Bulgaria and Latvia; eliminating discrimination against
ethnic minorities, especially Roma, in Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia;
abolishing the remaining restrictions on the freedom of the news media
in Romania; completing the restitution of religious and communal
properties that had been seized by the Communists or by the Fascists
during the Holocaust in all of the seven countries; educating the
publics of all of these countries about the Holocaust and the poison of
anti-Semitism; and fully implementing legislation designed to eradicate
corruption in all seven countries.
Membership in NATO, however, in my view, will reinforce the process
of democratic and economic reforms ongoing in these countries.
That is why I mentioned Hungary before. I think this is a process. I
think they have all met the minimum standards required, both in terms
of their militaries, at this point, and in terms of reforms necessary.
I truly believe were we unwilling--and I don't believe we will be--to
admit them, we would turn this progress in the wrong direction. As a
member of NATO, what we have seen is that these countries will get
better and better and better. At least that is my hope and expectation.
Each country has worked with NATO under the Membership Action Plan
process and has developed a subsequent Timetable for the Completion of
Reforms to identify strategies to conclude and build on the steps
necessary to assume the full responsibilities and obligations of NATO
membership.
As Ambassador Nick Burns, the United States Permanent Representative
to the North Atlantic Council, recently told the Foreign Relations
Committee, ``We have pushed these countries hard to be ready,'' and
``they will be among our most committed allies when they walk through
NATO's doors as full members.''
The Resolution of Ratification before the Senate today is similar to
the resolution approved during the last round of NATO enlargement. Let
me briefly summarize it.
The text reflects bipartisan agreement, in accord with the view of
the administration, that U.S. membership in NATO remains a vital
national security interest of the United States.
The Resolution of Ratification makes clear that any threat to the
stability of Europe would jeopardize vital U.S. interests.
It reaffirms that the security and prosperity of the United States is
enhanced by NATO's collective defense against aggression that may
threaten the territory of NATO members.
It affirms that all seven countries have democratic governments, have
demonstrated a willingness to meet all
[[Page S5809]]
requirements of membership, and are in a position to further the
principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the
security of the North Atlantic area.
The resolution underscores the importance of European integration,
mentioning the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--
OSCE--and the European Union in that regard.
The resolution also contains positive declarations on the alliance's
``Open Door'' policy toward potential future members, on the alliance's
successful Partnership for Peace program, on the NATO-Russia Council
created last year, and on compensation for victims of the Holocaust and
of communism.
The resolution contains three substantive and sensible conditions
relating to costs and burden-sharing, on intelligence matters, and on
full cooperation with efforts to obtain full accounting of captured and
missing U.S. personnel from past military conflicts or cold war
incidents.
In summary, I believe the Resolution of Ratification accomplishes the
objective of providing the strategic rationale for the accession of
these seven new members and preserving U.S. interests with respect to
future enlargement.
This round of enlargement isn't the end of the road. Rather, it is a
historic milestone in a process that began with the end of the cold
war.
Thus, it is essential that the door to membership remain open for
candidates states Albania, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, as well as down the road for potential candidates like
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, and perhaps
other countries.
By endorsing NATO enlargement, we recognize the soundness and
relevance of the vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace.
We acknowledge that a larger, stronger transatlantic relationship
anchored in NATO will better serve us in confronting the transnational
terrorist threats of the twenty-first century.
We affirm that the United States will continue to play a leadership
role in the security of the North Atlantic area, which I think is
critical for us to reaffirm.
I urge my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of the Resolution of
Ratification and endorse the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia as full members of the NATO
Alliance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. We are pleased to yield time to the distinguished Senator
from Kansas, as much as he would require.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
admitting Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As NATO's focus
evolves to include transnational threats, it is important to have as
many like-minded nations abroad as possible.
At the same time Congress and the President must ensure NATO as a
military alliance can act efficiently and with precision in the post 9/
11 world.
These days I hear some pundits talk about rebuilding the alliance as
if it is in the same shape as post-war Iraq or post-war Afghanistan.
NATO is in no such condition. The inability to achieve North Atlantic
Council approval for assistance to Turkey was damaging but not
catastrophic. NATO is in good shape.
Nonetheless, it would be productive for NATO to consider improvements
that would streamline its decision-making process, increase operational
planning for contingencies, and more appropriately respond to a member
nation who refuses to uphold basic alliance mandates such as Article
IV.
Toward that end, I am pleased to join Chairman Warner and Senator
Levin in offering an amendment to the Resolution of Ratification that
adds a declaration concerning potential reforms to NATO internal
processes.
Specifically, the declaration includes a Sense of the Senate that the
President should place on the agenda for discussion at the North
Atlantic Council the consensus rule as well as a process for suspending
a member nation that acts contrary to the provisions of the North
Atlantic Treaty.
Further, the Warner-Levin-Roberts amendment requires a report from
the President regarding Alliance dialogue on these issues as well as
methods to provide more flexibility to NATO's military leadership for
operational planning prior to formal alliance approval.
My primary focus is on the process of consensus and planning for new
contingencies.
The decision-making process of consensus within the NATO alliance
served the organization and is purpose well in the 20th Century. While
the bipolar security environment of the previous century shaped our
command, and defined our mission, the 21st Century requires that we
depart from the clearly defined role of territorial defense.
NATO must recognize the need to change from the traditional terrain-
based military of a defensive alliance to an effects-based alliance in
order to prepare for a new set of security challenges. Our adversaries
do not recognize international law, sovereignty or accepted norms of or
behavior.
As we recognize the growing need to conduct operations outside the
alliance's boundaries as we do in Afghanistan in order to protect our
interests and enhance our security, we also need to acknowledge the
inherent limitations of consensus voting by 26 nations.
Issues of security and the need to take military action will likely
not be perceived uniformly in an organization that spans a wide
geographic area, encompassing different interests. Recognizing this
reality and the need to adopt a different modality for decision making
within the alliance is imperative.
I would argue NATO needs to consider adopting--I emphasize needs to
consider--a decision-making model that doesn't require a consensus vote
to act. Nations that choose not to take military action would not be
compelled to participate. However, they would not block the alliance
and those nations that decide to act from carrying out military
operations.
That brings me to contingency planning. Currently, NATO's military
leadership is forbidden to even conduct prudent planning for
contingency operations until the matter is voted on in the North
Atlantic Council.
The difficulty in crafting viable plans to often complex military
operations amongst nineteen separate nations is a daunting task. The
measure of difficulty to conduct planning will be exacerbated with the
addition of seven new members.
Current planning processes may even prevent the full realization of
the NATO Response Force, something that could be stood up at the June
principal meeting. This capability is central to NATO's appropriate
effort to develop an agile and responsive force that will enable the
alliance to respond to terrorism and instability.
To transform the military capability into a viable, very responsive
force without the means to rapidly employ it, is counterproductive. It
is time for NATO to consider developing a methodology by which the
military leadership is permitted to conduct prudent planning for
contingency operations.
These are my concerns, as we vote--and I will vote--to approve
further expansion of the alliance. I commend my colleagues, the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, for sharing
these concerns and for crafting a worthy amendment.
I am a cosponsor, and I urge support for Warner-Levin-Roberts
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am so proud to stand on the floor of
the Senate today as we consider the candidacy of seven new European
democracies--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia
and Slovenia--for membership in the NATO Alliance.
[[Page S5810]]
The question of NATO enlargement is one that has long been close to
my heart. As Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of the State of Ohio, I
worked closely with constituents in my State with ties to countries
that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain.
It is amazing to me to see how far many of these countries have come
in such a short time, rising to embrace democratic reforms after so
many years under communist rule. The fact that seven countries that
were once part of the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact or Tito's
Yugoslavia have been invited to join the NATO alliance is testament to
how much has been achieved since the collapse of the Soviet Empire more
than a decade ago.
We owe so much to Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, President
George H.W. Bush, and now President George W. Bush. As I said to the
President in a letter prior to his trip to Poland in June 2001, when he
clearly articulated his support for enlargement of the Alliance:
During my entire life I have supported the Captive Nations
and yearned that someday they would have freedom, but I
doubted that would happen during my lifetime. However, it did
happen because of your dad and President Reagan, who said
``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''
I also said:
You, Mr. President, have the opportunity to guarantee the
freedom and security of those once subjected to life under
Communist control by making it clear that you will support
the expansion of NATO to include former territories of the
Soviet Union, Tito's Yugoslavia and the Warsaw Pact
regardless of Russia's opposition.
And he did it.
President Bush outlined his vision for enlargement in a landmark
speech to the students and faculty at the University of Warsaw on June
15, 2001, when he remarked that as we approach the NATO Summit in
Prague:
We should not calculate how little we can get away with,
but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.
That speech was very strategic because at the time there were many
people who were wondering whether or not the President would move away
from the expansion of NATO in consideration of compromising with at
that time President Putin in regard to the ABM Treaty--the ABM Treaty
at the time looking like it would stand in the way of moving forward
with the President's National Missile Defense Initiative.
The President was true to his word, and it was extremely gratifying
to see this vision begin to turn to reality when President Bush joined
other NATO heads of state in Prague last November. I remain grateful to
the President for inviting me to join him as a member of the
Congressional delegation to the NATO Summit, along with Senator Bill
Frist, Congressman Tom Lantos, Congressman Elton Gallegly and
Congressman Doug Bereuter. The thrill of being in the room when NATO
Secretary General Lord Robertson announced the decision to invite the
three Baltic nations, as well as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia, to join the Alliance, is something that I will always
remember.
On that historic day, I listened as heads of state from our allied
nations including the Czech Republic, France, Spain, Great Britain,
Poland, Canada, Turkey, and many others praised the work done by the
seven candidate countries and expressed their strong support for
enlargement to include these new European democracies.
While there are disagreements within NATO that must be addressed,
there is general consensus among the current members of the Alliance on
the question of enlargement. It is acknowledged that in addition to
shared values, the seven candidate countries bring defense capabilities
that will enhance the overall security and stability of the NATO
Alliance. President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the highest-ranking member of the
U.S. military, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard
Myers, have all expressed this view. America's top leaders believe that
in addition to niche military capabilities, these seven countries bring
energy, freshness and enthusiasm to the Alliance.
As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee last week, enlargement of the NATO Alliance to
include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia is in the national security interest of the United States. It
will, he said:
Help to strengthen NATO's partnerships to promote
democracy, the rule of law, free markets and peace throughout
Eurasia. Moreover, it will better equip the Alliance to
respond collectively to the new dangers we face.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, after working with the NATO
aspirant countries on comprehensive domestic reforms in preparation for
membership in the Alliance, has also concluded that this round of
enlargement will enhance the strength and vitality of NATO a view which
he expressed at the Prague Summit and reiterated earlier this week
during a meeting with members of the Foreign Relations Committee.
I share this view, and I believe it is appropriate and timely that we
now consider these candidates for membership in NATO. They have
provided crucial support in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks
against our country on 9/11, and continue to make significant
contributions to the ongoing campaign against international terrorism.
They have shown their solidarity in our efforts to disarm Saddam
Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people, and have pledged to work with
the international community to promote security and reconstruction in
Iraq following the end of military action.
The candidate countries have also moved forward with democratic
reforms to promote the rule of law and respect for human rights. I am
strongly concerned about the disturbing rise in anti-Semitic violence
in Europe and other parts of the world. Several of the candidate
countries, including Latvia, Bulgaria, and Romania, have joined with
the United States, Poland and other countries to actively encourage the
chair-in-office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe--OSCE--to mount a serious and credible OSCE conference on anti-
Semitism. Due in part to their efforts, the OSCE has agreed to conduct
such a conference, and it is scheduled to take place in June. This is
just one example, but it is indicative of important action that is
taking place.
As was highlighted during a series of hearings on NATO enlargement
conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee, the seven candidate
countries bring nearly 200,000 new troops to the alliance. They have
also pledged to commit significant resources to national defense, with
Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania all at or above 2 percent of
the gross domestic product mark in 2002. Slovakia and Latvia were just
under 2 percent, and Slovenia at 1.6 percent in 2002, and they have
pledged and committed to reach the 2-percent mark by 2008.
The average defense spending among candidate countries was 2.1
percent for 2002, which is equal to the average spent by the current
NATO members for the same period. It is interesting to note that 11 of
the 19 members of the alliance did not reach the 2-percent mark for
defense spending in 2002, which we should all be concerned about.
Clearly, there is room for improvement in this regard for current
members of the alliance.
On March 27, 2003, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Marc Grossman testified before the Armed Services Committee regarding
the future of NATO. When asked about the benefits of enlargement, he
said:
I believe, Senators, that the accession of these countries
are about the future of NATO, and will be good and directly
benefit U.S. interests. Why? They're strong Atlanticists.
They're allies in the war on terror. They've already
contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom and the
International Security Assistance Force in Kabul.
The list goes on. I agree with Secretary Grossman's assessment. These
countries already make significant contributions that strengthen the
transatlantic relationship.
They have acted as de facto Allies. In fact, they have acted as
better Allies than some of the members that are currently in NATO. And
I believe they will make important contributions, as members, to the
NATO alliance.
While much has been achieved, there is still work to be done as the
candidate countries continue to work on their membership action plans.
As was said in Prague, Prague should be viewed as the starting line,
not the finishing line. There is still a lot more that has to be done
on those maps.
[[Page S5811]]
Efforts have continued since the Prague summit. I was very pleased to
learn that the people of Slovenia--who have been engaged in a
discussion about NATO membership for many years now--voted
overwhelmingly in support of Slovenia's membership in NATO during a
national referendum on March 23, with roughly two-thirds of the voters
favoring accession to the alliance. This was a crucial step for the
country that was the birthplace of my maternal grandparents. Hooray for
Slovenia. I am glad they understood.
It is imperative that the candidates continue to address the
outstanding issues that require attention, including military reform,
respect for human rights, and efforts to combat organized crime and
corruption. It is this last piece, perhaps, that concerns me the most.
These problems have the potential to undermine democratic reforms,
respect for the rule of law, and other core NATO values, and I believe
they could be very dangerous if left unchecked.
I was glad to hear from Secretary Powell, during his testimony before
the Foreign Relations Committee last week, that there are, in fact--
this is wonderful--significant steps that have taken place on behalf of
the NATO aspirants to combat corruption and organized crime. With
regard to Bulgaria, for example, the Secretary of State remarked that
the Bulgarian Government recently created an interagency anticorruption
commission to be led by the Minister of Justice. The Bulgarian
Parliament also passed anticorruption legislation and antibribery
legislation.
Secretary Powell noted that the Romanian Government is now working on
legislation to reform its judiciary, civil service, and political party
financing activities. I am also hopeful that Romania will move forward
with steps to ensure progress on outstanding property restitution
issues, including those of significance to Hungarian and other minority
groups in Romania.
So while I still think there is work to be done, I am satisfied that
things are moving in the right direction.
After meeting with leaders from these seven countries and spending
time in each country that has been invited to join NATO--I have been in
all of them and have met with all of their leaders--I am confident that
reforms will continue. I sincerely believe reforms will be swifter and
more complete as these countries are brought into the alliance rather
than left out. History tells us this has been the case with other
countries that have been part of the alliance. NATO has a way of
asserting pressure and, as General Lord Robertson said during our
meeting Monday, squeezing those who need to shape up.
As we consider enlargement today, it is clear that the world is a
different place than it was when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic were brought into NATO. The world's democracies and
multilateral institutions, including the NATO alliance, face new
threats to freedom, marked not by Communist aggression but, instead, by
the dangerous nexus between weapons of mass destruction, rogue nations,
and terrorists who have shown their willingness to use chemical,
biological, or nuclear weapons against those who value freedom and
democracy, if given the chance.
NATO's decision to invoke article 5 in the aftermath of the tragic
events of September 11 signifies that an attack on one is an attack on
all, and that sent a strong message of solidarity to the people of the
United States and the world at large. I suspect that when the
resolution was put together in regard to article 5, we were very
careful to make sure we did not get ourselves in entangling alliances.
Never did we ever believe we would be calling on the other nations in
NATO to come to our assistance as they did.
NATO's mission to transform to meet these growing threats does not
make the alliance irrelevant; rather, it means we need the shared
commitment to freedom, democracy, and security embodied by the NATO
alliance now more than ever before. A NATO alliance enlarged to include
seven new democracies that have embraced these values will enhance our
ability to meet new challenges for peace in the world.
At the Prague summit, NATO heads of state embarked upon a course to
identify the capabilities needed to confront new challenges to
international security. They agreed that new challenges would require
the alliance to operate beyond Europe's borders. The Prague Declaration
noted:
In order to carry out the full range of its missions, NATO
must be able to field forces that can move quickly to
wherever they are needed, upon decision by the North Atlantic
Council, to sustain operations over distance and time,
including in an environment where they might be faced with
nuclear, biological and chemical threats, and to achieve
their objectives.
As Secretary General Lord Robertson has said, NATO must either go out
of area, or go out of business.
This will become crucial as NATO prepares to assume new
responsibilities in Afghanistan this August, moving forward on the
North Atlantic Council's decision on April 16 to provide enhanced
support to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul. NATO's
new ISAF role is perhaps indicative of the types of missions the
alliance could take on in years to come. As Secretary Powell indicated
last week, this is the largest step to date that the alliance has taken
outside its traditional area of responsibility. And, as you know, Mr.
President, they are now talking about the possibility of NATO being
involved in security forces in Iraq.
As the alliance prepares for its role in Afghanistan, it does so at a
time when current members of NATO and other countries in Europe have
considerable experience working together, due to operations in Kosovo,
Bosnia, and Macedonia. As former Supreme Allied Commander Joe Ralston
noted in remarks before the Atlantic Council on Monday evening, this is
in stark contrast to the past, when members of the alliance depended on
annual training exercises.
I think that is really something we should emphasize, that these
nations have been working militarily together since Bosnia. They are in
Kosovo today. They will be in Afghanistan. It is amazing how well the
NATO command has worked in Kosovo. And I am confident it will work as
well in Afghanistan.
But new missions will demand that NATO step up efforts to improve its
military capabilities. This was a major theme at the Prague summit last
November, where NATO heads of state approved the creation of a NATO
response force, which is envisioned to consist of approximately 25,000
troops who are ready and able to deploy anywhere in the world within 30
days. The goal is to have the force operational by 2006. While work has
been ongoing to flesh out the details of the NATO response force, this
is still a paper concept, and we look forward to learning more about
efforts to turn this into a viable force at the June ministerial
meeting in Madrid.
The NATO response force goes hand in glove with the Prague
Capabilities Commitment, which replaces the Defense Capabilities
Initiative, or DCI, that was initiated at the 1999 Washington summit.
As many of us know, very little progress was made on that 1999 Defense
Capabilities Initiative.
The Prague Capabilities Commitment, though, calls on Allies to
improve and develop military capabilities, focusing on defense against
weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, command, control and
communications, and strategic air and sea lift, among other things.
This initiative focuses on pooling resources and identifying niche
capabilities that certain countries can bring to the table in order to
strengthen NATO's military reach. I have been pleased to hear from
Secretary Powell, Lord Robertson, and General Ralston that the alliance
has begun to identify niche contributions that the seven candidates can
make to future operations.
They are willing and able. They have, in fact, already demonstrated
their willingness to use them in NATO operations in the Balkans as well
as military efforts to combat international terrorism.
For example, Bulgaria contributes troops to NATO operations in the
Balkans, with military personnel in both Bosnia and Kosovo. Bulgaria
has also contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom, allowing for
coalition aircraft to refuel at Burgas, and sending a nuclear,
biological and chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan. Bulgaria
has also deployed a NBC unit to the Iraqi theater of operations at the
request of U.S. Central Command.
[[Page S5812]]
Estonia also supports NATO missions in southeast Europe, and has
approved the deployment of troops to assist in the reconstruction of
Iraq.
Latvia has deployed medical teams to Afghanistan, and in April the
Latvian Parliament approved the deployment of troops to Iraq for peace
enforcement and humanitarian operations.
Lithuania has deployed a medical team and a Special Operations Unit
to Afghanistan. Lithuania has also deployed troops to support Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
Romania sent a military police platoon to support the International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Romania has also provided an
NBC unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Slovakia has deployed an engineering unit to Afghanistan, and was the
first NATO candidate country to deploy troops--an NBC unit--in support
of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Slovenia provides troops and equipment to NATO operations in the
Balkans, and has also provided crucial assistance in de-mining and mine
victims assistance, running the International Trust Fund for De-mining.
Additionally, Slovenia has provided humanitarian and de-mining
assistance to Afghanistan.
They are all doing a job right now and will do more once they are
brought into NATO formally.
While there is still work to be done, these contributions are
encouraging. If NATO is to meet future challenges, it is imperative
that the capabilities gap between the U.S. and our European allies be
addressed. The Prague Capabilities Commitment highlights critical needs
within the alliance. This is a good place to start, and I am hopeful
that it will succeed in producing tangible results. Without adequate
capabilities, NATO's ability to respond to future security challenges
will be seriously undermined.
As NATO looks to the future, there will be other challenges. Bringing
in seven members will, I believe, strengthen the alliance; at the same
time, there will be adjustments as NATO adapts to membership at 26
rather than the current 19. I share the sentiments expressed by
Secretary of State Colin Powell and NATO Secretary General Lord
Robertson that the alliance will adapt, as it always have.
I disagree with some of my colleagues, who may argue that significant
changes should be made to the NATO decision-making process. The
alliance has always been based on consensus, protecting the view of
each member. As Secretary Powell remarked in testimony before the
Foreign Relations Committee last week, NATO is not a committee or a
council. It is an Alliance that has traditionally--and successfully--
been based on the rule of consensus.
I was interested when Lord Robinson spoke to us on Monday. We were
talking about this issue. He said somehow we worked it out. We had the
problem with Turkey, and there was a question of how that would all be
worked out. The alliance had the flexibility to move forward and take
care of that problem.
He specifically said that they need the flexibility, that somehow
they will work it out. If we come in with some specific way of how we
will do this, it will tie their hands and won't give them the
flexibility to do what they have to do when the time comes. I am
confident they will do that.
It is my sincere belief that the European democracies of Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will, as
they have already demonstrated, contribute to NATO's proud tradition
and serve to strengthen the alliance. I strongly support enlargement of
the alliance to include these countries, and look forward to further
expansion in the future to those countries who have demonstrated the
ability to accept the responsibilities that come with membership in the
NATO alliance. I never thought I would be here today on the Senate
floor able to recommend this to my colleagues. It is a wonderful day.
I rise today in strong support of the Resolution on Ratification
before us today, which will extend U.S. support to make NATO membership
a reality for these new European democracies.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally
to both sides during the quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, since the end of the cold war, the mission
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has changed from one of
confronting the Soviet Union to one of securing democracy and stability
in one undivided, free Europe.
By passing the resolution of ratification of the Protocols to the
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the Senate supports
a giant step toward realizing that goal.
I want to speak just for a moment about the recent disagreements
among NATO countries regarding Iraq. After many years of supporting
NATO enlargement, and my particular interest in Baltic membership in
NATO--which I will speak about--I confess that I am concerned that now
that my dream is on the cusp of reality, NATO is divided and torn.
I was one who thought the United States should have taken a longer
diplomatic path before resorting to war with Iraq and I am particularly
concerned about the impression expressed by many of our allies that
there is no room for disagreement with US policy.
I believe that our relations with our NATO allies can and must be
repaired. But I also want to remind my colleagues that NATO is an
alliance of democratic countries whose populations were overwhelmingly
opposed to the US going to war with Iraq.
If our goal is to support an undivided, democratic, and free Europe,
we must accept and welcome debate within the NATO alliance and work
harder to hear and accommodate the views of our allies. It would be the
height of irony if the organization originally formed to confront
totalitarian communism would disintegrate because of a lack of
tolerance for disagreements with United States policy.
I want to focus my remarks today on this resolution on the Baltic
states, not because I oppose the membership of Bulgaria, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia. On the contrary, I supported the policy of
seeking the largest possible enlargement of NATO in this round. I
always confess my prejudice when I speak about the Baltic states. My
mother was born in Lithuania. So when I speak of the Baltic countries,
it is with particular personal feeling.
I could not have predicted a few years ago that we could not have to
fight, and fight hard, to get Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia into NATO.
Even as recently as three years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin
claimed the NATO membership for the Baltic States would be a ``reckless
act'' that removed a key buffer zone and posed a major strategic
challenge to Moscow that could ``destabilize'' Europe.
Russian objections to Baltic membership in NATO had no credibility.
Russia has nothing to fear from NATO and nothing to fear from Baltic
membership in NATO. The tiny Baltic States are no military challenge to
Russia, and certainly a democratic Russia does not threaten Europe.
I give credit where it is due, and I believe President Bush's strong
leadership in supporting NATO enlargement and his firm rejection of
Russian objections to Baltic membership were key to securing broad
support, both here and in Europe, for this round of NATO enlargement.
A quick review of history is called for to help appreciate just how
remarkable it is that Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are on the verge
of membership.
In June 1940, the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic countries of
Estonia,
[[Page S5813]]
Latvia, and Lithuania and forcibly incorporated them into the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics.
Throughout the occupation, the United States maintained that the
acquisition of Baltic territory by force was not permissible under
international law and was unjust. We refused to recognize Soviet
sovereignty over these Baltic States.
On July 15, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an Executive
order freezing Baltic assets in the United States to prevent them from
falling into Soviet hands. On July 23, 1940, Secretary of State Sumner
Welles issued the first public statement of such policy of
nonrecognition of the Soviet takeover of the Baltic countries. The
United States took steps to allow the diplomatic representatives of
those countries to continue to represent them in Washington despite the
Soviet occupation.
In 1959, Congress designated the third week in July as ``Captive
Nations Week,'' and time after time, year after year, I would gather in
Daley Plaza in Chicago with those from Baltic States and other occupied
countries to wonder and pray if there would ever be freedom in those
countries again.
The good news about Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia's membership in
NATO is it did not come about by accident. The people of the Baltics
never let go of their dreams of freedom. They never let our Government
forget that they were going to live by those dreams. The official U.S.
policy of nonrecognition of Soviet takeover of the Baltics gave them
hope.
I went to Lithuania a few years ago with my late brother, Bill. We
went to the tiny town where my mother was born, Jurbarkas. When we were
there, we found we had relatives, cousins, that we never knew we had,
family separated by the Iron Curtain.
I did not believe in my lifetime that I would see the changes come to
pass in the Baltic States. When I visited Lithuania the first time in
1979, it was under Soviet domination. Freedom was at a premium, and the
poor people of that country slogged by day after day wondering if they
would ever have another chance at self-governance.
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia asserted their independence from the
domination of the Soviet Union, but at a great cost. Soviet
paratroopers stormed the Press House in Vilnius, injuring four people.
Barricades were set up in front of the Lithuania Parliament, the
Seimas. On January 13, 1991, Soviet forces attacked the television
station and tower in Vilnius, killing 14 Lithuanians. I was there
shortly thereafter. Today, one can see how it is a standing memorial to
those who died in the latest fight for freedom in the Baltics.
Images of crowds of unarmed civilians facing down Soviet tanks in the
Baltics to protect their parliaments were a powerful message of
resistance. It created hope across the world.
The Baltic countries have nurtured their relations with the West, but
they have also worked to have a good relationship with Russia. Despite
the bitter experience of years of Soviet occupation, each Baltic
country has tried to establish a good working relationship so that
citizenship and language laws conform to European standards, taking
care not to discriminate against ethnic Russians still living in their
borders. As a result of these steps, and because of U.S. and NATO's
efforts to engage Russia in a positive relationship, Russia's
opposition to Baltic membership has disappeared.
The Baltic countries, I wish to add, have also taken an extraordinary
and historic step to face up to the bitter legacy of the Holocaust,
when hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latvian Jews
perished, by setting up a Holocaust museum, teaching about the history
of the Holocaust in school, returning the Torah scrolls taken from
synagogues and destroyed during that sad period, and working to restore
Jewish property rights.
Some people question whether these tiny countries bring anything to
NATO. NATO is not a country club; it is a military alliance. When the
Soviet troops finally left the Baltic countries, they took almost
everything, and these tiny countries started to rebuild their economy
and rebuild their power to defend themselves.
The old Soviet ways disappeared, and new thinking, new leaders
appeared. Western ways of thinking about military organization, whether
civilian control of the military, took their place. To be sure, these
are small countries, but they have been helpful countries. They will
make a positive contribution to NATO. They already have in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
When we ratified the membership of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic, some in the Senate doubted their contributions and worried
about the cost burdens. I think they realize today that those worries
have not materialized into anything serious. Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic have been great allies of NATO.
Let me conclude by saying this. Today, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia
have worked hard to become market economies, to watch their democracies
flourish. The fact they want so much to be part of NATO is an
affirmation of great hope and great optimism for Europe. I am glad we
stood by these countries during the dark hours of Soviet occupation.
I am sorry my mother did not live long enough to see this day, but
she did live long enough for two of her three sons to return to the
tiny village of Lithuania that she never saw after leaving in 1911. Our
return trip to Lithuania was part of closing a loop in our own family
history, but it also established a bond, a uniting, a tie between the
United States and a small Baltic nation.
By the action of the Senate today in expanding NATO for these new
countries, and particularly to expand them to include all of the Baltic
countries and my mother's home nation of Lithuania, I believe we are
completing the job which was started in 1999: to expand NATO and cement
a stable democratic and free Europe.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution
ratifying the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
NATO, to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia,
Romania, and Bulgaria.
NATO has been the bedrock of international security since its
establishment 54 years ago. Although the military dimension of the
alliance was instrumental in containing the Soviet Union, NATO was
always about more than military security. America's relationship with
our NATO allies has symbolized the common values, as well as the common
interests, of democracies united against those international actors who
represent tyranny and aggression.
We live at a time of danger, unpredictability, and potential global
instability. But we also live in a time of historic opportunity.
Alliances are not absolved from the forces of change in world affairs.
The ability to adapt to the challenges of this new era in world
affairs--challenges from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--
speak to the importance of NATO and other international institutions,
including the United Nations, that have played such key roles in
promoting and protecting our common interests since World War II.
NATO's decision in November 2002 to expand its current membership of
19 by inviting Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania,
and Bulgaria to begin accession negotiations acknowledges the
imperatives of change. I strongly endorse this action. Today, member
and candidate countries are expected to do what they can to modernize
their forces, including development of niche capabilities and the
establishment of a NATO response force. But we know that the
contributions of an enlarged NATO will not be defined solely by
military capabilities. Expanding NATO also encourages a process of
political and economic reform in candidate states.
There is a deep security dimension to an expanded NATO. The threats
from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction cannot be handled by the
United States or any country alone. Defeating terrorism requires
unprecedented international cooperation in the diplomatic, military,
law enforcement, intelligence, and economic areas. If our purpose in an
expanded NATO is about defeating these threats to our common security,
than bringing these seven new members into NATO is critical to our
national security.
Although America's military power may be unprecedented in world
history,
[[Page S5814]]
NATO will continue to play a vital role in American and global
security. In Afghanistan, the German proposal for NATO to take charge
of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, represents a new
and significant turn in NATO's mission. NATO may well play a role in
maintaining security in postwar Iraq. At some point, when there is an
Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, NATO troops may be called upon to
help guarantee that peace.
I believe NATO's next 50 years will be just as important for world
peace as its first 50 years.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to urge the ratification of Treaty
Document 108-14, allowing for the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, NATO.
I wish to commend the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Lugar, as well as the ranking minority member,
Senator Biden, for the work their committee has done to prepare for
this historic vote. Since the first accession to the original
membership of NATO, when Greece and Turkey were admitted, the Senate
has preserved its role of advice and consent on amending this treaty.
Senators Lugar and Biden, who have made the advancement of the Atlantic
alliance a central concern in their respected careers as two of the
Senate's most thoughtful members on foreign policy, have maintained the
Senate's critical function, and have, through hearings and statements
through the years, provided many opportunities to study the policies
and the evolution of the U.S. national interest within the Atlantic
alliance.
This is the second time we have voted to ratify the North Atlantic
treaty since the end of the cold war. President Clinton supported the
first group of new entrants in 1998, and at that time I joined 79 of my
colleagues in support of membership for Poland, the Czech Republic and
Hungary. When I took to this floor to urge ratification, I said: ``I
hope this is not the last enlargement, although I am confident that
future enlargements, if they occur, will occur with the same detailed,
painstaking consideration as we have conducted over the past 4 years.''
Senators Lugar and Biden have given this accession treaty that
consideration, and their committee has unanimously recommended passage.
In so doing, the committee has concluded its work to achieve a major
platform in President Bush's foreign policy: the admittance to this
alliance of the latest group of nations willing and capable to advance
the mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We will all note that the debate today will be shorter than it was in
1998. And I predict that the vote for passage will be at least as
strong, although it is worthwhile noting that every vote this Senate
has had since 1955 on all of the new entrants to NATO has been with
strong majorities. The reason the debate will be shorter today reflects
the consensus that has formed on the subject we address today:
The enlargement of NATO, Mr. President, is good foreign policy for
the United States.
Of course it is also good for the candidate countries. Working
through our detailed membership action plans, these nations have
transformed their militaries, improving interoperability and--this is
equally important--developing complementarities of missions. They have
had to accept goals for defense expenditures, exceeding, in some cases,
the percentage of GNPs dedicated to defense by some of NATO's older
members.
And the desire to join NATO has forced the applicant nations to
promote and meet other conditions of open and democratic societies.
These nations have had to resolve all border issues, establish
political norms for the protection of minorities, open their historical
archives and accept the responsibilities of their captive or
totalitarian pasts, including the Holocaust era and the communist era,
combat corruption and set standards of transparency, and educate their
publics on the nature of the commitment to NATO. Throughout these years
of preparation, we have seen, in varying strong and distinct measures,
a host of nations enthusiastically embracing our values and earnestly
accepting the responsibilities explicit in membership of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The core of that responsibility lies in article V of the North
Atlantic treaty. That article states: ``The Parties (that is, the
member states) agree that an armed attack against one or more of them
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 and 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 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.''
This is the commitment at the core of the NATO alliance. It is that
commitment that served to deter a Soviet attack against Europe and
North America for nearly 50 years. That was a deterrence that was
backed up by an explicit understanding that, if deterrence failed,
NATO's goal would be to predominate in victory. The deterrence worked,
the peace was kept, and that is why NATO is rightly considered the most
effective military alliance in modern history.
The end of the cold war brought on a reevaluation of the role of
NATO, with a few suggesting that NATO was no longer necessary without a
Soviet threat. That misguided view--that mistook the end of the Soviet
threat for an era of unprecedented peace and security--never took hold.
More sober minds recognized that security and stability were not to be
assumed as the status quo, and that conflict would take new forms, be
it ethnic war from the dissolution of Yugoslavia to transnational
threats emanating from other parts of the world and threatening the
security of Europe and North America.
As has already been mentioned in the debate, NATO has only invoked
article V once in its history, and it was not during the cold war when,
as I mentioned, the deterrence of the alliance always held. Article V
was invoked after September 11, 2001, when the members of the alliance
determined that the attacks by al-Qaida on the United States were to be
considered an attack against the entire alliance. In the days after
September 11, 2001, NATO aircraft flew patrols over U.S. airspace as
the U.S. military prepared to deploy to Afghanistan in the first phase
of our global war on terrorism.
Under U.S. leadership, NATO has accepted that it will face new
missions in the 21st century, and that many of those activities
defending the members of the alliance will be out-of-area missions. A
quick review of the contributions of the nations seeking membership in
this latest treaty accession demonstrates, in my view, that they
understand the new missions and are already contributing.
Bulgaria was a member of the President Bush's ``coalition of the
willing,'' and granted use of its airspace as well as an airbase for
our Iraq operations, and has offered infantry forces for peacekeeping.
While Iraq was not a NATO operation, our ability to rely on Bulgaria,
as well as other existing NATO members for equipment and support, made
our victory in Iraq more easily attainable.
Estonia has been contributing to NATO operations in the Balkans,
providing forces to SFOR and KFOR. It was also a member of the
``coalition of the willing,'' and has also offered soldiers for post-
conflict peacekeeping in Iraq. Similarly, Latvia has also contributed
to SFOR and KFOR in the Balkans, supported U.S. policy in Iraq, and has
sent medics to support our operations in Afghanistan. Lithuania has
contributed to U.S. operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was
a vocal member of the ``coalition of the willing'' in Iraq.
Romania has made significant contributions to U.S. operations,
providing troops and transport aircraft to our mission in Afghanistan,
and granting use of their territory during our operations in Iraq. One
thousand American troops are currently stationed in Romania.
These are just highlights of ways that these countries have directly
contributed to the challenges we face
[[Page S5815]]
today, and they do not include the specialties these various countries
are developing to confront the challenges of tomorrow.
I raise these highlights because I believe that ratifying this treaty
is good foreign policy, Mr. President, in that it strengthens America's
position in the world, and enhances our ability to achieve our goals
when the defense of our national security requires us to go beyond our
borders.
This second wave of nations joining NATO since the end of the cold
war brings political stability and expands security to most of Central
and Eastern Europe, a geographic zone that brought us calamitous strife
and bloodshed in the 20th century. We are referring to a region that
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has felicitously termed the
``New Europe.'' I have nothing against the Old Europe, and note that
history shows a common bond with many of the nations of that ``Old''
Europe, a bond reaffirmed by our coalition partner, Great Britain, and
currently and I hope temporarily denied by other members, such as
France, Germany and Belgium.
Today we vote for New Europe. In recognizing their contributions, we
should not deny their enthusiastic embrace of America's role in the
world. They were, after all, the captive nations of the Soviet era, and
we were, after all, the leading light in the fight against communism.
In their enthusiastic embrace of our values and our missions, I think
of the line of Cicero, that ``Gratitude is not only the greatest of
virtues, but the parent of all others.'' These nations have shown
already that they are willing to defend freedom, and their membership
in the Atlantic alliance will advance that defense.
I will repeat again what I said in 1998, and say that I hope this is
not the last enlargement. Croatia and Ukraine have indicated that they
wish to join some day, and I would welcome them. The mission of NATO is
to defend, not exclude.
Today I urge my colleagues to join me in ratifying this latest round
of accession to NATO, and in so doing, to add force and depth to an
organization that has long served the security of this Nation.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the proposed North
American Treaty Alliance expansion before the Senate today.
When the NATO countries met in Prague last November, they agreed to
invite seven new countries to join the Alliance as full members. These
seven countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia have submitted their applications and proven
their willingness and ability to respect the political and military
obligations of NATO membership and to contribute to the Alliance's
common-funded budgets and programs.
The NATO Alliance has been enormously successful over the last 50
years and will continue to do so for many to come. Too often some only
see NATO as a coalition of nations organized for collective defense. It
is so much more. NATO enhances the political and economic stability for
all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area. By helping these new members
as they strengthen good governance, rule of law, and human rights, NATO
will also facilitate a better long-term environment for American trade
and investment as well as collective defense and security.
In our war against terrorism, NATO serves a vital role. Strengthening
the Alliance for this purpose is a positive development. From the
conflicts in the Balkans, the war in Afghanistan or the most recent
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the seven invitee nations have contributed, or
have committed to contribute, critical support in the form of
personnel, overflight or basing rights.
As a matter of fact, in this most recent war with Iraq, we received
greater support from these seven countries than some of our more
historical European allies. The value of loyal allies committed to
democracy and making the world free from tyranny, regardless of any
business dealings, cannot be understated.
These seven countries are committed to eliminating and addressing
past wrongs. Whether it is the atrocities performed during the Second
World War and the Holocaust to the proliferation of military weaponry
known as Grey Arms, each of these countries has recognized the issues
and is committed to correcting the wrongs done.
Expansion of NATO is not a new or unusual event. Throughout its
tenure, NATO has continually added new members. Turkey and Greece were
the first new members to join in 1952, followed soon after by Germany,
in 1955. Spain entered in 1982 and the first former Warsaw Pact
countries, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999.
It is also likely there will be another round of expansion, inviting
such countries as Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. President Bush has
espoused an ``open door'' policy to NATO membership.
Today the door should not be held open for some and kept shut for
others. The defined membership criteria encourages all that satisfy
these requirements will be welcomed.
NATO expansion will serve U.S. interests by strengthening both NATO
and our bilateral ties with these new allies, who have already done a
great deal to support our vision for NATO and collective security.
I do have concerns regarding NATO and its future viability. We need
to take a long look at the arbitrary and politically motivated, but
indefensible use of the ``consensus rule'' NATO employs, and those
nations who try to manipulate the path to peace for less than honorable
purposes.
I understand my good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, and
Senator Levin will offer an amendment related to the ``consensus
rule.'' I think the amendment is a good idea and deserves the support
of this body.
Finally, the path to peace is broad enough to allow all those who
wish to traverse it in good company. We should welcome them with open
arms.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have enjoyed watching this debate
with my colleagues on the topic of expanding the North Atlantic
Alliance. This new round of expansion is one of the most significant
events in the alliance's history and will have a profound impact on
Trans-Atlantic relations for a long time. The message I bring and I
think my colleagues bring is that the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, NATO, is still vital to our security and expansion will
make it all the more stronger. Seven countries, Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, have made bids to join NATO.
This debate has evolved in such a way as to recognize the strengths
and weaknesses of the alliance in a sober way. The hyperbolic debate
over burden-sharing and the contributions of some our allies, whether
material or physical, has gone by the way-side with this new round of
expansion. The contributions of alliance members is no less important--
in fact, it is a central tenet to the success of the alliance. Rather,
by inviting these seven new members, we have focussed more attention on
how better to integrate, and give opportunity and prominence to those
states that wish to contribute more to the collective security of the
alliance.
At a hearing the Foreign Relations Committee held on the first of
April, one of the witnesses, Bruce Jackson of the Project on
Transitional Democracies made several excellent points about these new
candidates, one of which I should emphasize for the sake of my
colleagues who were not present.
I will revert to the question of contributions and military power.
Many critics have focussed on the current capabilities and potential
contributions of these seven countries and questioned whether and what
they will bring to the alliance. Mr. Jackson pointed to the fact that
when West Germany was invited to join NATO, it had neither an army nor
a defense budget.
By contrast, the Baltic states have taken it upon themselves to
orchestrate regional security agreements and contribute a rational
portion of their budgets to national defense. The Balkan countries
joining the alliance, Romania and Bulgaria, have militaries that can be
immediately utilized for NATO operations. In fact, all of the seven
countries, have themselves contributed to NATO missions in Europe, to
Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, OIF.
Romania pulled together 100 of its personnel for SFOR in Bosnia,
contributed 200 to KFOR in Kosovo. Romania
[[Page S5816]]
committed itself and contributed substantially to our efforts
during Operation Enduring freedom, OEF, and the International Security
Assistance Force, ISAF. For OEF, they sent a 400-person battalion to
serve in Kandahar. For ISAF, they sent a military police platoon to
Kabul to support securing the Afghan capital. In support for the
security and revitalization of a post-conflict Afghanistan, Romania
airlifted arms and munitions to be used by a newly reconstituted Afghan
National Army. In Iraq, Romania has sent a WMD unit to assist in force
protection and have committed to providing peacekeepers and police to
assist in the security of that country.
In 1997, during the debate to enlarge NATO for the Czech Republic,
Poland and Hungary, the emphasis was and for President Bush especially,
still is a unified and free Europe. Our mission then was to stand
beside these democracies and direct them to a bright future of freedom,
democracy and prosperity.
The assumption of all the states woven into the North Atlantic Treaty
is a common set of values among its members. These values, democracy
and free markets, are the values in which this collective security
agreement is defending. Ensconced in the treaty signed on April 4, 1949
were the shared values of democracy, individual liberty, the rule of
law, the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes, civilian control
of the military, and central to the treaty's purpose, commitment to the
stability and well-being of the countries party to the treaty.
I have in my hands a copy of the Atlantic Charter, a document that
very much predates the North Atlantic Alliance and was penned during
the dark days of World War II by British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt. This document espoused
the foundations on which NATO was born--liberty, self-determination,
perpetuation of prosperity and collective security.
Though not the axiom which keeps the alliance glued together, it is
difficult to ignore that, as much as the territory, it is those
principles that the alliance is fighting to protect.
Here in this building we should think proud of our institutions and
their triumph on the world's stage. Not for the hubris at the moment of
victory, but for the better tomorrow which all our new European friends
will enjoy after the half-century of abandonment behind the Berlin
Wall.
Our commitment should never waiver and our continuing mission should
remain clear in our minds. We should have enough charity in our hearts
to realize the world around us that does not enjoy the freedom we do,
and be willing to push the borders of liberty beyond the comfortable
world in which we occupy. Seven countries are now eagerly awaiting the
advice and consent of this body.
I ask unanimous consent to print the following document in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Atlantic Charter
The President of the United States of America and the Prime
Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it
right to make known certain common principles in the national
policies of their respective countries on which they base
their hopes for a better future for the world.
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial
or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do
not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples
concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the
form of government under which they will live; and they wish
to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those
who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their
existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States,
great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal
terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world
which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration
between all nations in the economic field with the object of
securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic
advancement and social security;
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny,
they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all
nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own
boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men
in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from
fear and want;
Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the
high seas and oceans without hindrance;
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world,
for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the
abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be
maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be
employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten,
aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending
the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general
security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential.
They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable
measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the
crushing burden of armaments.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill
Source: Samuel Rosenman, ed., Public Papers and Addresses
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 10 (1938-1950), 314.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a
letter dated May 7, 2003, be printed in the Record in regard to the
NATO enlargement protocol.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 7, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Hon. Tom Daschle,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle: As the full
Senate prepares to take up consideration for modifications to
the North Atlantic Treaty in order to accommodate new members
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Alliance, we
feel that it is fitting to make a number of observations
concerning this important step forward in trans-Atlantic
relations.
We wish to express our satisfaction with those portions of
the draft resolution of ratification now before the Senate
which preserve intelligence equities.
Draft Condition (3) has two parts. Subsection (A) would
require the President to submit a report, by January 1, 2004,
to the Congress intelligence committees on the progress of
the indicted accession countries in satisfying the security
sector and security vetting requirements for NATO membership.
We feel that this report is essential. Fitness for NATO
membership is a function not only of adequate general
security procedures, but also of the strength of national
structures ostensibly in place to ensure effective political
control over the activity of security services. We suggest
that the indicated report should cover the latter
consideration as well as the former.
Subsection (B) of draft Condition (3) would require the
President to report, by January 1, 2004, to the Congressional
intelligence committees on the protection of intelligence
sources and methods by accession countries. The report would
identify the latest procedures and requirements established
by accession countries to protect intelligence sources and
methods. The report would also include an assessment of how
these countries' overall procedures and requirements for the
protection of intelligence sources and methods compare with
the same procedures and requirements of other NATO members.
As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence observed
during the last round of NATO expansion (see, Exec. Rpt. 105-
14, 105th Congress, 2d Session, p. 56, 57, March 6, 1998), a
number of factors should be taken into account to assess the
reliability of accession countries to protect NATO sources
and methods, namely: The strength of democratic reforms, with
a focus on ministerial and legislative oversight of
intelligence services and activities; the degree to which
accession countries have succeeded in reforming their
civilian and military intelligence services, including the
ability of the services to hire and retain qualified Western-
oriented officers, and the evolution of political and public
support for these services; Russian intelligence objectives
directed against these countries, including any
disinformation campaigns designed to derail, retard, or taint
their integration with the West; counterintelligence and
other security activities being pursued by the accession
countries and the adequacy of resources devoted to these
efforts; and the work underway between the [accession
countries] and NATO to ensure that security standards will be
met by the time [they] join the Alliance.
The context for cooperation with NATO accession countries
has changed drastically since 1998, given Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and other events which
have underscored the willingness of several accession
countries to cooperate with their former adversaries in the
West to fight terrorism and other critical threats. It is
also apparent that democratic reforms among the NATO
accession countries have taken strong root and are
irreversible.
It is less clear that there has been similar progress in
other areas identified by the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence in 1998 as critical indicators of likely
performance, such as counter-intelligence and resistance to
Russian attempts to influence policy. In short, security-
related concerns about NATO expansion that concerned Senators
in 1998 remain valid, although the atmosphere for lasting and
positive change is vastly improved. We look forward to the
Administration's report on these indicators.
[[Page S5817]]
On the whole, we feel that U.S. intelligence equities can
be safeguarded with this new round of NATO enlargement. We
look forward to continuing our work with the Administration
during the accession process.
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts,
Chairman.
John D. Rockefeller IV,
Vice Chairman.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution
of ratification for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The accession to NATO of these seven new democracies--Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia--is an
historic event that will have far-reaching and, in my view, very
beneficial consequences.
Just a dozen or so years ago, these countries were under the boot of
Soviet domination and communist dictatorship. Against their will, they
were arrayed against NATO as members of the now defunct Warsaw Pact.
Today, they stand ready and willing to join forces with NATO, the
organization that played such a major role in bringing freedom to their
part of the world.
We are striking a blow for freedom here today. Millions of people in
eastern Europe live free today because of the commitment, patience and
firmness of America and her allies during the cold war. And through
their accession to NATO, those millions will now be able to live in
greater security, as well as take part in the noble pursuit of
defending the liberty of others.
The expansion of NATO into eastern Europe will serve American
interests in several ways. For starters, these seven nations, I
believe, will help reinvigorate NATO's sense of purpose; which is,
first and foremost, the defense of liberty.
With memories of tyranny so fresh in their minds, the people of these
nations no doubt have a deep appreciation for the freedom that is
sometimes take for granted in the West. Thus, they are apt to have
fewer reservations than some of our other allies about confronting the
aggression of those who are hostile to our way of life. This
appreciation for freedom--and for those who helped them during the cold
war--was unquestionably a factor in the strong support that each of
these seven nations gave us in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Most of the prospective members have very limited military
capabilities, and we will certainly expect them to invest properly in
their armed forces in the coming years. But many of these countries
already possess excellent specialized capabilities, such as the Polish
special forces who fought in Iraq or the Slovak WMD defense unit now
serving in the Gulf. Over time, I am confident that each of these
countries will find it own niche in NATO.
Expansion of the NATO alliance to these countries will also offer us
the opportunity to diversify and reorder our basing arrangements--the
need for which, I believe, has been demonstrated by 9/11 and the runup
to the Iraq War. In the future, it is clear that U.S. forces will need
more flexibility--both geographic and political--than ever. It thus
behooves us to review our basing structure in Europe with an eye toward
relocating some--though certainly not all--of our forces.
NATO expansion serves that end. Many of the prospective members--
Romania and Bulgaria in particular--are located closer to where U.S.
forces are likely to see action in the future. Their governments are
known to be actively interested in hosting U.S. forces. Polls indicate
strong pro-American sentiment in these countries.
Mr. President, 65 years ago, Eastern Europe began a horrific descent
into darkness with the deal that was struck at Munich. Yalta then
solidified what was to be another 45 years of communist tyranny for
these nations. Those tragic mistakes are being rectified here today,
and we should be proud.
But make no mistake, the expansion of NATO is more than just a
rearward-looking act of humanity. It is also a forward-looking act of
statemanship that will serve U.S. interests well in the future.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my full support for
the Treaty on NATO Expansion. As chairman of the Senate Delegation to
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I cannot underscore strongly enough
the value of including these seven nations in the NATO Alliance. I
applaud and support the administration's leadership on bringing NATO
enlargement to the Senate.
These seven prospective member nations have made great strides in
developing responsible democratic governments, free-market economies,
civil society, and transparent and accountable armed forces. As their
active support for the Global War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi
Freedom demonstrates, these nations share our values and are willing--
and able--to help promote democracy and freedom around the world.
I believe that it is significant that each invitee has provided
direct military support for the Global War on Terrorism, having
contributed overflight rights, transit and basing privileges, military
and police forces, medical units, or transport support to U.S.-led
efforts. They have provided noteworthy support to the International
Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan and NATO efforts to
stabilize the Balkans. And, as has been mentioned many times today,
these countries provided resounding support for U.S. policy on Iraq. I
believe that these efforts merely herald the beginning of immense,
enduring contributions to come from these nations.
As cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, I would be remiss to
not express particularly ardent support for the accession of Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania to NATO. Through working with groups like the
Baltic American Freedom League, the U.S.-Baltic Foundation and the
Joint Baltic American National Committee, I have first-hand knowledge
of the large grassroots public support across the U.S. for inclusion of
these noble nations in NATO. These organizations deserve recognition
for their decades of work to help liberate and secure the future of the
Baltics.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as you know, I had originally intended to
offer an amendment to the pending resolution adding an additional
declaration to the nine that were added during the Foreign Relations
Committee's consideration of this matter. My amendment would have dealt
with a topic already covered by the Warner-Levin amendment, namely the
relevancy of the consensus rule by which the North Atlantic Council has
historically carried out its decision making. Now that the Senate has
adopted the Warner-Levin amendment by voice vote, I do not see any need
to proceed with my amendment.
My amendment would not have answered the question of whether in fact
the consensus rule is relevant now that the world has profoundly
changed and the membership of the organization has greatly expanded. It
would however have appropriately called upon the President to review
this matter as we move forward to sign off on the accession of seven
additional members to this important organization.
We all know that the latest round of NATO expansion--Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia--will bring
NATO membership up to 26 countries. And at least three more remain
poised for admission in the coming years: Albania, Croatia, and
Macedonia.
Let me be clear. I am all for offering NATO membership to any
democracy that wants to join and can contribute to our common security.
But I am wondering how all this expansion will affect the decision-
making capabilities of NATO as an organization.
For more than 50 years, NATO decisionmaking has been based on
consensus--every member state must agree on every important course of
action. When 16 NATO countries all faced a common Soviet threat,
achieving consensus on major issues was not much of a problem.
We may very soon--within a few years--have 29 members of NATO, from
all across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. That is almost
double the number we had not too many years ago. The idea that the
alliance's decisions will soon be dependent on the unanimous consent of
so many diverse nations, seems to me, potentially a recipe for
stalemate in NATO decision-making.
My personal view is that NATO should consider creating some form of
``top-tier administrative council''--similar the U.N. Security
Council--to prevent the diminution of NATO's power and effectiveness as
a military alliance.
[[Page S5818]]
At last year's NATO summit in Prague, President Bush pressed for
``the most significant reforms in NATO since 1949.'' He was mainly
referring to the creation of a rapid reaction force to deal swiftly and
effectively with new and emerging threats.
Last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman reiterated this
idea during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He rightly pointed out that NATO needs to be ``equipped with new
capabilities and organized into highly ready land, air and sea forces
able to carry out missions anywhere in the world.''
Mr. Grossman was referring to the need for the creation of a ``NATO
Response Force'' to handle serious global challenges, such as
proliferation and terrorism. I agree with him that such a force would
be beneficial. But I also believe that is only half of the story. It
seems to be stating the obvious that each addition to NATO will
logically affect in some way the organization, mission, and
effectiveness of this proposed rapid response force.
Just as I agree that NATO needs to tailor itself to future global
challenges by standing up a NATO Response Force, I can foresee
scenarios in which quick and decisive action will be needed in a very
short amount of time--perhaps days.
I think it is reasonable to ask whether it will always be necessary
or desirable for all 26, or 29, members of NATO to be involved in every
aspect of the deployment of this force?
If the answer to that question is no, then shouldn't we at least ask
the U.S. administration to study the question of whether NATO should
consider a more streamlined decisionmaking structure for NATO to take
into account both NATO's new missions, and the alliance's ever-
expanding membership. The Levin-Warner amendment should allow a serious
review and discussion of that issue.
As I have stated earlier, I am a strong supporter of the pending
Protocol approving the new members to NATO. We all want a strong and
vibrant NATO. I believe that the resolution of ratification, with the
declarations and conditions that have been appended by the Senate will
help to make that possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.