[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 22 (Wednesday, March 2, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1888-S1889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky
has yielded to me his time. I will take about 7 or 8 minutes.
It is so important for Members of this body to reflect on the
President's most recent trip to Europe. Without being presumptuous, in
my judgment, I think it was one of his best, maybe his finest, and in
the years to come, I hope he can parallel the achievements of this
particular trip.
My views are important, perhaps, but more important are the views of
the representatives from nations in Europe to the United States. I had
several of the ambassadors visit in my office this week to discuss the
President's trip.
I would like to read some quotes from television programs on which
these three ambassadors appeared recently. Jean-David Levitte is
France's Ambassador, and I have had a particularly warm and productive
relationship with this ambassador since he was posted. He has had an
extraordinary career. He has been here in Washington a number of times
in previous positions.
It is well known he is very close to President Chirac. When asked a
question about the relationship between our country in the context of
the President's trip, he said as follows:
Yes, I do think so. Wolf, I participated--I was privileged
to participate in the dinner in Brussels between the two
Presidents, and it worked very well.
That is his appraisal.
Then Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's Ambassador, when asked the
question, Has the relationship, based on what you know, Mr. Ambassador,
improved? he replied:
Oh, I certainly think so, Wolf. In fact, I don't really
think we really needed the meeting in minds, President Bush's
visit to Germany this past week, to improve this relationship
between the two governments. I think we've been doing quite
well over the last year already.
He continued when pressed again:
I think there has also been substantive movement and
change, not only because President Bush, by visiting the
European Commission, put to rest the suspicions in this
country and in Europe that America might no longer be
supportive of the European Union, of the idea of European
integration, but also because in the meeting with the German
side, in which I had the chance of participating, President
Bush, I believe, enhanced the degree of U.S. support. He went
a step further in terms of expressing his support for
European efforts on Iran.
Then Sir David Manning of Great Britain. I have had a warm and
productive relationship through the years with this fine individual,
another individual who has been posted to this country on a number of
occasions. When asked a similar question about the President's trip, he
replied:
Well, I think we're all very encouraged by the President's
visit and, indeed, by Secretary Rice's visit, because this
has been an issue that's been discussed by all our heads of
government, and much more widely than the three of us here.
The point I make is, as I read through the press reports from these
three ambassadors in the United States, they were all very strong on
the issue of the success of the President's visit, together with our
distinguished Secretary of State.
Then to another subject that President Bush quite properly raised, it
is one of concern to this Senator and I think a number of us here in
the Senate. I would like to quote from the President on his trip. He
said as follows:
Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last
night, and Prime Minister Blair.
The issue, if I might step back, is:
Mr. President, European countries are talking about lifting
their 15-year arms embargo on China. What would be the
consequences of that? And could it be done in a way that
would satisfy your concerns?
The President replied:
Well, I talked about this issue with President Chirac last
night, and Prime Minister Blair, and I intend to talk about
it in a couple of hours at the European Union meeting. We
didn't discuss the issue at NATO, by the way. And here's what
I explained. I said there is deep concern in our country that
a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to
China, which would change the balance of relations between
China and Taiwan, and that's of concern. And they, to a
person, said, well, they think they can develop a protocol
that isn't--that shouldn't concern the United States. And I
said I'm looking forward to seeing it. . . .
Referring to the protocol.
I discussed this with several ambassadors when they came into my
office and, indeed, a team is to be forthcoming from the European
nations to visit the United States. I think we should hold final
judgment until we have had the opportunity, in a courteous way, to
reflect on those precautions that the European countries will take in
the context of lifting this ban.
But I point out that in my study of the relationship between China
and not only the United States and Taiwan but the entire region, they
are on a very fast pace to modernize a wide array of weapons--weapons
that could, for the first time, begin to pose in the outyears a threat
to our fleet units.
I select the fleet units because our concept of the projection of our
force forward is dependent on the protection of naval components,
particularly our carriers. I see on the horizon grave concerns about
lifting this embargo in terms of China's capability militarily in the
outyears.
A third subject I would like to cover in the context of the
President's visit is he was addressing the challenge to, indeed, all
free nations as we participate to try and give support to Israel and
the Palestine Government to come to a final consensus to resolve their
problems and to bring about a cessation of the turmoil in that region.
I am so deeply grateful the President made the following statement:
President Bush on his recent trip to Europe stated,
``America and Europe have made a moral commitment. We will
not stand by as another generation in the Holy Land grows up
in an atmosphere of violence and hopelessness.''
Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a hearing. General Jones,
the NATO Commander, was on the stand. I questioned him regarding a
concept which General Jones and I have discussed on a number of
occasions over the past several years, and that is the possibility of
NATO playing a role of peacekeeping on behalf of the Palestinian and
Israeli interests. That would have to be at the invitation of both of
those Governments.
Why NATO? Our country is very proud of a very long relationship with
[[Page S1889]]
the State of Israel, an island of democracy in that part of the world.
We have very strong ties there, as we should. Correspondingly, Europe
has had very strong ties with the Palestinian people through the years.
It goes way back. Significant portions of their population have ties to
that region. So a NATO peacekeeping force comprised of both the
military units from the European nations and some, I would say,
proportionate amount of American forces would be perceived as a
balanced force and could come, in my judgment, and provide a sense of
security to support such frameworks of peace and accords as these two
nations could hopefully achieve with our help and the help of other
nations.
Again, it would only be at the invitation of the two Governments, but
I think it is a concept that I have addressed on this floor many times.
Others have likewise; indeed, some prominent journalists whom I
respect. I do hope that it be given consideration.
General Jones in his testimony yesterday said it has been brought up
in the North Atlantic Council of recent. Other nations are interested
in this concept, and I hope our Nation, the United States, can get
behind and explore the options.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
____________________