[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 112 (Monday, July 8, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4217-S4218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  NATO

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week officials from all 31 of our 
NATO allies are going to be here in Washington for what is referred to 
as the NATO summit. At that summit, we will be celebrating 75 years of 
the most successful military alliance in modern history. And why do I 
call it the most successful military alliance? I mean that after two 
devastating world wars about 20 years apart--and those wars brought 
incredible bloodshed and destruction to Europe--now, we have had almost 
80 years of relative peace in Europe. No European NATO member has been 
invaded.
  Now, we take it for granted that most of Europe is peaceful, but that 
was not the case before NATO arrived. Remember that the Soviet Union, 
after World War II, quickly exerted domination over the countries that 
it occupied at that time. But the U.S.S.R. wasn't satisfied with that 
situation.
  So many people expected war to break out in Europe at some point 
during the Cold War, but it did not. Thank God, no war happened.
  The Soviet Union helped launch wars in Asia and violent revolutions 
in Africa and Latin America. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, but the 
U.S.S.R. did not dare touch those countries that were under the NATO 
umbrella. The strongest defense resulted in peace.
  NATO was not the result of some idealistic dream. Rather, NATO was a 
very practical response to the hard lessons learned of two World Wars 
that the United States tried its best to stay out of those wars as long 
as it could.
  Now, we all remember from history that World War I was supposed to be 
the ``war to end all wars.''
  Woodrow Wilson, you will remember, proposed the League of Nations in 
a very naive belief that an international forum could prevent war 
through diplomacy and international condemnation. Obviously, the League 
failed.
  By contrast, NATO is a working military alliance of Nation States, 
not some debating society, as the League turned out to be.
  After World War II, the United States realized that minding our own 
business and letting Europe sort out its messes wasn't working. We, 
eventually, got dragged into World War II anyway, by which time it took 
an incredible amount of resources and over 400,000 American lives to 
bring that war to an end.
  NATO grew out of the realization that U.S. leadership was essential 
to preventing World War III. NATO prevented a war by being prepared for 
war. Strength equaled peace. We know that deterrence works, but 
deterrence must be credible.
  Our defense must be strong enough that would-be aggressors would 
think twice before attacking. As Ronald Reagan said:

       NATO's strategy for peace has always been simple: Prevent 
     aggression before it starts. Be strong enough, be determined 
     enough so that no adversary should think, even for a moment, 
     that war might pay.

  At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO members said

[[Page S4218]]

that Ukraine and Georgia could join sometime in the future, but made 
clear that that membership would not be offered anytime soon.
  Now, just 4 months later, Russia invaded and occupied parts of the 
Republic of Georgia. Now that happens to remind me of when Secretary of 
State Dean Acheson gave a major speech in 1950 outlining the U.S. 
defense perimeter in the Pacific. It very clearly did not include the 
Korean Peninsula. Less than 6 months later, North Korea invaded the 
south.
  So signals you send as a nation or as leaders of a nation make a 
difference sometimes. And that statement by Acheson led to the Korean 
war.
  So just like Acheson's speech in 1950 did to Korea, the weak 
statement at the 2008 Bucharest summit made it clear that Georgia and 
Ukraine were on their own. That was seen as a green light by Putin. The 
perception of weakness led to war.
  How did the United States react to this aggression against the 
sovereign, pro-American Republic of Georgia? There happened to be some 
stern words that didn't accomplish much.
  Then, 6 months later, the Obama-Biden administration announced the 
infamous reset to patch up relations with Russia. That reset sent a 
very dangerous message. The Obama policy was almost the opposite of 
peace through strength. No wonder that Putin felt emboldened, 6 years 
later, to invade neutral Ukraine in both the Crimean Peninsula and in 
Ukraine's east.
  President Obama responded by refusing defensive weapons to Ukraine 
and, at the same time, urging negotiations. Now, you can't have fair 
negotiations when someone has invaded your home and has a gun at your 
head.
  Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas often cites former Soviet Foreign 
Minister Andrei Gromyko's rules for negotiations. This Russian says:
  No. 1, demand the maximum. Do not meekly ask but demand that which 
has never been yours.
  No. 2, present ultimatums. Do not hold back on threats, since you 
will always find people in the West who are willing to negotiate.
  No. 3, do not give one inch of ground in negotiations. They 
themselves will offer you at least part of what you are asking for, but 
do not take it. Demand more because they will go along with it, and in 
the end, you will get a third or even half of that of which you had 
nothing previously.
  Those are the rules of a Soviet Foreign Minister.
  Now, we should remember all of that when we hear Putin's demands 
today. The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, starting in February 
of 2022, was the result of a failure of deterrence. We could have 
avoided additional aggression had the West shown more strength.
  What about the argument that it was provocative to let countries that 
Russia used to dominate join NATO?
  Well, here are some key facts about NATO that ought to put those 
arguments to an end:
  No. 1, NATO is a defensive alliance.
  No. 2, NATO membership is open to sovereign democracies that want to 
join, but it does not seek expansion for its own sake.
  No. 3, it is the right of all sovereign countries to choose their 
alliances. There is no neighbor veto to joining a defensive alliance.
  Now, let's look at the Baltics. You remember that they were, at one 
time, called Soviet Republics. Actually, the United States never 
recognized the illegal Soviet occupation of the Baltic States that 
started in 1940. We maintained, during that next 50 years, 
uninterrupted diplomatic relations with all three countries throughout 
the Cold War.
  Here is a little-known historical fact. Upon the founding of NATO, 
the U.S. Secretary of State received a letter from the acting consul 
general of Estonia welcoming the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty 
on behalf of his country.
  Here is what the Estonian diplomat wrote:

       Estonia is still under the illegal occupation and 
     domination of the Soviet Union and is, therefore, prevented 
     from manifesting openly its keen interest in this pact.

  But I want to further quote this Ambassador.

       I have the honor to offer my best wishes to the signatories 
     of the North Atlantic Pact, and to express my confidence that 
     they, inspired by the ideals of democracy, of individual 
     liberty, and of the rule of law, will strive relentlessly for 
     peace with justice, which excludes peace at any price.
       Therefore, I express the belief that countries, which were 
     forcibly deprived of self-government and independence will 
     benefit by this noble endeavor.

  That ``noble endeavor'' is the establishment of NATO.
  The Estonian diplomat was right all those 75 years ago. His country, 
which is now free and a great NATO ally, has, in fact, benefited from 
the North Atlantic Treaty.
  While the Baltic States have been officially NATO members for 20 
years now, they would have signed the Washington Treaty in a second had 
they not been illegally occupied by the Soviet Union. So I consider the 
three Baltic countries honorary founding members of NATO.
  I have explained that the United States learned after two World Wars 
that it is better to prevent World War III than to get dragged in once 
that future war could be raging.
  But we ought to ask again: Why the NATO alliance?
  The United States, with its powerful military and nuclear arsenal, 
would respond to defend an ally if article 3 were invoked. That has 
certainly played a big role in deterring the Soviets and now the 
Russians.

  But that could be accomplished simply by giving a one-way security 
guarantee to Europe. While that might still serve our national interest 
in preventing World War III, it would put a burden on all of our 
shoulders.
  So the real benefit of the NATO alliance is that it leverages 
American leadership to bolster the ability of our European allies to 
defend themselves. If every country had different defense plans and 
weapons that used different ammunition, an aggressor would be able to 
pick them off one by one, even if they tried to join forces.
  In theory, the Europeans could do some of this on their own. In fact, 
some European leaders have suggested that the European Union ought to 
develop an independent military capacity.
  Now, I would say: If they want to do that, more power to them. 
However, most Europeans accept that American leadership has been 
indispensable to date. It has been to our benefit that NATO militaries 
are interoperable with the U.S. military.
  The only time article 3 of the NATO treaty has been invoked was after 
the United States was attacked on 9/11. Many of our NATO allies sent 
men and equipment to fight and die alongside the U.S. military in 
Afghanistan.
  It is true that there is a minority of countries in NATO that are 
further from potential threats and do not spend enough on their own 
national defense or their contribution to NATO. Then there are 
countries like Poland and Estonia that take national defense seriously 
and spend more as a percentage of GDP than even we do in the United 
States.
  Keep this in mind: It is the existence of NATO that sets the 2-
percent spending expectation, makes common defense plans, and helps to 
determine what capabilities are needed for a credible defense.
  Without NATO, Europe would be weaker, and the chances of the United 
States getting dragged into another war would be even greater. A strong 
national defense is an instrument of peace more than an instrument of 
war.
  In fact, we could call our Defense Department the ``Department of 
Peace.'' That is really what its main function is--being strong to 
prevent war.
  We must make sure our military and our allies' militaries are strong 
enough to fight a war, precisely so we don't have to go to war.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.