[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 10, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1185-E1187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY 
  MEETINGS IN BERLIN, AND A SUBSEQUENT TRIP TO TURKEY AND AFGHANISTAN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN S. TANNER

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 10, 2008

  Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, during the recent district work period I 
led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) 
meetings in Berlin, from May 23-27. The co-chair of my delegation was 
the Hon. John Shimkus. Participating in the delegation were 
Representatives Marion Berry, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Jo Ann 
Emerson, Carolyn McCarthy, Ralph Regula, Dennis Moore, David Scott, and 
Mike Ross, and staff worked to make this a successful trip in the 
examination of a number of key NATO issues.
  The NATO Parliamentary Assembly brings together members of 
parliaments of the NATO allies, as well as observer participants from 
NATO partner states such as Russia and Ukraine, for discussions of 
current issues of interest to the alliance. Members attend committee 
meetings where reports are read and debated. The meetings afford an 
opportunity to sound parliamentarians from allied states on public 
opinion, defense and foreign policy, and trends in thinking on issues 
of mutual interest. The meetings also provide the opportunity to come 
to know members of parliaments on a long-term basis, an invaluable 
asset in developing insights into policy development in allied 
governments.
  After the Assembly meetings in Berlin, the delegation traveled on to 
Turkey and Afghanistan, where we explored issues that I will address in 
a moment.
  Recurrent themes on key NATO issues were evident in the Berlin 
committee meetings. Above all, NATO's International Security

[[Page E1186]]

Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan was a constant topic of 
discussion. It is clear that ISAF needs more combat personnel, and that 
caveats--restrictions that allies place on the use of their forces--are 
adversely affecting efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Energy security, 
Russia's foreign policy objectives, defense capabilities, and Iran were 
also important areas of discussion.
  I am chairman of the NPA's Committee on Economics and Security. I 
would like to take this opportunity to mention that our friend and 
colleague, Ralph Regula, continued his long and distinguished service 
on that committee during the Berlin meetings. His contributions over 
many years have been invaluable.
  Representative Boozman and a Lithuanian colleague presented a well-
received report in the Economics Committee on India's economy. India 
plays an important role in south Asia, and U.S.-Indian relations have 
strengthened over the past decade. India's proximity to Afghanistan and 
its often tense relations with Pakistan play a role in the 
stabilization of that volatile area. The Indian economy has opened up 
in recent years, and there is clear evidence of a growing middle class 
in the world's largest democracy. There was also a report on the Afghan 
economy, which must grow and diversify more rapidly if Afghanistan is 
to stabilize. The report emphasized the negative effects of 
Afghanistan's extensive poppy culture and poor governance on ISAF's 
stabilization efforts.
  Our friend and former colleague, Doug Bereuter, who was once 
president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, gave an interesting 
presentation on the efforts of the Asia Foundation, which he now heads, 
to assist schools and women in Afghanistan and other parts of Asia. His 
report, a version of which he also presented in the Political 
Committee, was enlightening and extremely well-received.

  The Political Committee is normally the most contentious of the 
Assembly's committees, and that was once again true. As I mentioned, 
Russia sends observers to the Assembly who may participate in debates, 
but who may not vote. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a former Russian general 
and candidate for the Russian presidency, is now a member of 
parliament, and he made his presence frequently felt. He repeatedly 
denounced NATO and its efforts to stabilize the Balkans and Afghanistan 
as ``terrorist'' incursions in Russia's supposedly legitimate sphere of 
influence. The Russian delegates have chosen during the past several 
years to play a disruptive role in Assembly proceedings.
  Representative Ross delivered a well-received report in the Political 
Committee on ``NATO and Iran,'' which looked forward prospectively to 
ways that the alliance might work with the EU and the U.N. to induce 
Tehran to terminate its nuclear enrichment program that is in violation 
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. His ideas ranged from political 
pressure to greater economic sanctions to carrots in the form of 
limited military confidence-building measures in return for a cessation 
of Iran's illegitimate nuclear activities. I should mention that 
Representative Chandler is a vice-chairman of the Political Committee, 
and he played an active role in a number of sessions.
  The Committee on Defense and Security also engaged in some 
interesting debates. ISAF's prospects in Afghanistan were sharply 
debated. The representatives of several allies, such as Britain, 
Canada, and the Netherlands that have combat forces in Afghanistan, 
urged other allies to contribute more troops and to lift their caveats. 
The debate was sharp at times. ISAF now has 52,000 troops, of which 
approximately 22,000 are from the United States. The Russians continued 
their erratic behavior in the Defense Committee, denouncing the allies' 
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Rep. Shimkus is the vice-chair of 
the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Defense and Security Cooperation, and 
he made several valuable interventions on such issues as the need for 
allies to spend more on defense, and on NATO's efforts to stabilize the 
Caucasus.
  Two of our colleagues play key roles in the Assembly's Committee on 
the Civil Dimension of Security. Representative Moore is vice-
chairperson of the Committee on Civil Dimension, and Representative 
Emerson is vice-chairperson of the Subcommittee on Democratic 
Governance. Each made important contributions to the debates in the 
Civil Dimension Committee. An interesting discussion took place in 
response to a report on NATO and energy security. Representative Scott 
made a valuable contribution in detailing ways that NATO could play a 
constructive role in building energy security and thereby enhancing 
global security.
  The Committee on Science and Technology also heard a report on energy 
security. The German rapporteur contended that Russia is a reliable 
supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, a controversial point of 
view that some believe is contradicted by Moscow's occasional cut-offs 
of energy to Ukraine, Georgia, and Lithuania. Increasingly, our 
European allies are dependent on Russian energy resources, a 
development that could open the door to Russian pressure and influence 
in NATO in the event of a crisis. Representative Scott chided the 
Russians for not having ratified the Energy Charter Treaty, which 
obligates signatories to follow market practices and disavow the use of 
energy as a political tool. Representative Shimkus raised the point 
that diversification of supply and types of fuels is key to enhancing 
energy security. This was a forceful debate on an issue that is likely 
to engage NATO's interest in the decades to come.
  The last day of the Assembly's meetings was spent in a plenary 
session. There were a number of interesting speakers, including the 
German foreign minister and the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop 
Scheffer. De Hoop Scheffer urged the parliamentarians to go back to 
their publics and make the case for the importance of developing 
reliable, deployable combat forces, and for making a meaningful 
contribution to ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan. A German general also 
spoke. The Russian Zhirinovsky again made his presence felt when he 
claimed, to the amazement and amusement of the delegates, that Russia 
had generously brought down the Berlin wall and made democracy possible 
in East Germany. He contended that NATO would fail in Afghanistan, just 
as Russia had. The German general--General Ramm--calmly replied that 
Russia failed in Afghanistan because it had sought a military solution, 
and that NATO would succeed because it is seeking a political solution.

  Our delegation had an interesting private meeting with Secretary 
General de Hoop Scheffer, during which we had a highly informative 
discussion of such issues as Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran's 
relations with its neighbors. The delegation also met with the U.S. 
ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, who gave us her valuable 
perspective on the issues that she considers to be most important on 
the NATO agenda. We also visited the new U.S. embassy, near the line of 
the old Berlin wall, and met with our ambassador, William Timken. 
During a dinner the final night of our meetings, German Chancellor 
Angela Merkel sat at my table, and we had a lively discussion about a 
range of issues of mutual interest.
  After the meetings in Berlin, we flew to Turkey for meetings with a 
range of senior Turkish officials. Turkey remains a key ally, perhaps 
even more important than it was during the Cold War. Turkey's strategic 
location--on the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, facing the Mediterranean, 
at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and on the route of critical 
energy supplies--is vital to NATO security. In addition, Turkey is a 
Muslim country and a democracy. An important issue confronting Turkey 
is its application to join the European Union, a step that some EU 
governments strongly oppose. Today, there is a vigorous discussion in 
Turkey about the role of Islam in society. An Islamic Party, the 
Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by prime minister Tayyip 
Erdogan, is in a protracted but restrained contest for power with other 
parties and the Turkish military. On May 28 the delegation met with 
specialists in Istanbul who represent a range of views in Turkey's 
academic and journalistic world on the country's future, and on the 
debate over the role of Islam and secularism in Turkish society.
  Our meetings in Istanbul prepared us for our visit the next day to 
Ankara, where we held a succession of meetings with senior government 
officials. We met with prime minister Erdogan, with whom we had a 
direct but constructive discussion over U.S.-Turkish relations and on 
Turkey's future. We then met with our former NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly colleague, Abdullah Gul, now the president of Turkey and also 
a member of the AKP. We had a very cordial discussion on a range of 
issues. It is clear that U.S.-Turkish relations have improved since 
November 2007, when the United States began to assist Turkey in its 
effort to subdue the Kurdish terrorist movement known as the PKK, which 
is seeking to carve away Turkish territory and unite it with part of 
northern Iraq, where Kurds also live. Finally, we had a meeting with 
the defense minister Vecdi Gonul, a civilian who is an important link 
for the AKP to the Turkish military. We are hoping that our Turkish 
friends in the political parties and the military will resolve their 
differences peacefully, and that Turkish democracy will be 
strengthened.
  While in Ankara, the delegation went to the tomb of Kemal Ataturk, 
the founder of modern Turkey. I laid a wreath and signed a memorial 
book in honor of the man who established the secular Turkish state. It 
was a solemn occasion on a brilliantly bright, sunny day.
  After our meetings in Ankara, that night the delegation proceeded to 
Adana, where the Turkish military base Incirlik is located. U.S. 
forces, with Turkish permission, fly supply missions to Iraq and 
Afghanistan from Incirlik. Adana and the base are located near the 
Syrian border. The following morning we met with the governor of Adana, 
who gave us a briefing on PKK activity and on political developments in 
the Adana region. He was a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the 
EU, which he believes would strengthen Turkish democracy.

[[Page E1187]]

  At Incirlik, we also had the opportunity to meet with some of our 
troops who are from our constituencies. These are the young men and 
women that make the United States safe and secure, whether serving here 
or in distant places. We should keep them in our thoughts as we 
appreciate the stability and security that we enjoy here in the United 
States.
  By chance, we crossed paths at Incirlik with Gen. David Petraeus, who 
was at the base for a brief stay. He offered to meet with the 
delegation, and there was an interesting exchange of views on a range 
of strategic issues.
  On May 31 we left Incirlik at an early hour for the flight to Kabul, 
where we spent the entire day. The stabilization of Afghanistan is 
NATO's principal mission. Many believe that NATO's credibility is on 
the line in Afghanistan because the allies have pledged to commit the 
resources to stabilize the country to prevent the reappearance of a 
failed state, a failed state that caused the tragedy of 9/11. There are 
clearly differences in the alliance over how to accomplish this 
objective. Some governments prefer to employ economic reconstruction 
assistance and avoid sending their troops into combat; these tend to be 
the governments that have the most restrictive caveats on their forces.
  We met with the most senior U.S. officials in Kabul to discuss 
Afghanistan's path to stabilization. Our meetings were highly 
substantive, and we all gained valuable information on ISAF's effort 
and on U.S. perspectives and initiatives. We also met with Afghan 
President Hamid Karzai, and had an extensive discussion of 
Afghanistan's problems and prospects.
  In Afghanistan, there can be no reconstruction without security. The 
Taliban is not a strong force, but the Afghan state lacks strong, 
enduring institutions. There must be security therefore for the 
rebuilding effort to succeed. ISAF may need more forces in the coming 
year in order to secure territory cleared of the Taliban. A positive 
development is that approximately 25% of the combat missions are now 
led by the Afghan National Army (ANA), with strong backing from the 
U.S. and some other NATO militaries. During our meetings in Kabul, U.S. 
officials were upbeat on the progress of the ANA, but the task of 
securing Afghanistan is far from finished. The poppy crop continues to 
thrive in the south, some warlords maintain a sway over territory that 
has never been under the control of an Afghan government, and there are 
enduring tribal rivalries and distrust of Kabul.
  Closely associated with the issue of engagement of the Taliban in 
combat is the need to establish a viable economy and justice system. 
The Soviet and Taliban eras decimated the educated elite. The number of 
persons trained as lawyers and judges is minimal. At the base of the 
justice system is the police. The EU has struggled to develop a program 
to train the police, so the U.S. military has stepped in. Gen. Cone is 
developing more professional police cohorts one region at a time, and 
backing them with the U.S. military until they establish their 
authority. This will be a long-term effort, and it is going to require 
patience on the part of NATO publics.
  Members and staff also met with U.S. participants in ISAF's 
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the leading edge of bringing 
reconstruction to Afghanistan through such efforts as road building, 
school and hospital construction, and the development of local markets. 
A basic economy has begun to appear around some of the PRTs, but there 
remains much to accomplish.
  There are three key needs for the PRTs. The first is the placement of 
agricultural specialists in each of the 26 ISAF PRTs. The United States 
only recently placed one agricultural specialist at each of its 13 
PRTs; the need is great for agricultural specialists at other NATO 
PRTs, and in the local agricultural schools. Afghanistan is and will 
remain for the foreseeable future an agrarian economy, now dependent 
largely on poppies. This poppy culture must diminish over time, perhaps 
to be replaced by orchard crops and wheat. This effort will take time.
  A second need for the PRTs is the hiring of local Afghans who can 
assist our own officials in understanding local practices and political 
authority, and who can serve as guides as we plan efforts to rebuild 
the country.
  A third need for the PRTs is the availability of transport. Today, 
our civilians in the PRTs must rely heavily on the military to move 
them around the region where they live. But because security comes 
first, the civilian specialists must often wait lengthy periods of time 
to obtain the transport and accompanying security to accomplish their 
tasks.
  Our trip to Afghanistan was highly informative and there remains much 
to digest about what we learned. This was a difficult, but valuable 
trip that provided insights into one of the United States' most 
difficult foreign policy problems.
  As always we were extremely well-served by our accompanying military 
personnel. The 932nd Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve now at Scott Air 
Force Base, Ill., provided exceptional professionalism in assisting us 
throughout our trip and ensuring our safety in moving throughout Europe 
and to Afghanistan. All worked long hours to ensure that our trip went 
smoothly. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to 
duty.

                          ____________________