[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17679-17682]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    RUSSIA AND THE NEW START TREATY

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the challenges 
America faces in our relationship with Russia and their implications on 
the Senate's consideration of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, 
known as START.
  A number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken 
about the treaty's impact on global nuclear nonproliferation. I would 
like to use my remarks today to highlight my concerns about the treaty 
in the broader context of: one, the Obama administration's ``Reset 
Policy'' towards Russia; and two, the new START treaty's impact on our 
allies in Eastern Europe

[[Page 17680]]

and the Baltic states. I believe these concerns must be addressed by 
the administration before I can determine my support for the treaty.
  Over the last decade I have been an ardent champion of NATO and have 
worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. I have also 
been active in improving our public diplomacy in Eastern Europe through 
our expansion of the Visa Waiver Program at the request of our friends 
and allies in Central and Eastern Europe. That legislation which the 
President signed on Visa Waiver was supported by both our State 
Department and by our Department of Homeland Security.
  In my remaining time in the Senate, I will continue to work to 
strengthen the Visa Waiver Program which has improved our image in the 
world and strengthened our borders through shared best practices and 
enhanced intelligence sharing with our partners and allies abroad.
  My passion for foreign relations stems in large part from my 
upbringing as the grandson of Southeast European immigrants. As an 
undergraduate at Ohio University, my first research paper examined how 
the United States sold out Central and Eastern Europe and the former 
Yugoslavia to the Soviets at the Yalta and Tehran conferences in 1943 
and 1945. These states would become the ``Captive Nations'' suffering 
under the specter of Soviet domination, brutality, and oppression for 
nearly 50 years.
  As a public official in Ohio, I remained a strong supporter of the 
Captive Nations. During my tenure as mayor of Cleveland, I joined my 
brothers and sisters in the Eastern European Diaspora to celebrate the 
independence days of the Captive Nations at City Hall. We flew their 
flags, sang their songs, and prayed that one day the people in those 
countries would know freedom.
  We saw the Berlin Wall fall and the Iron Curtain torn in half thanks 
large in part to the leadership of Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, 
and President George H.W. Bush. But even with the end of the Cold War, 
I remain deeply concerned that darker forces in Russia are reemerging 
as a threat to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom, not just 
for the Russian people but for the citizens of the newly freed Captive 
Nations.
  This concern in 1998 during my tenure as Governor of Ohio and Chair 
of the National Governor's Association prompted me to pursue an all-50 
State resolution supporting NATO membership for the Czech Republic, 
Hungary, and Poland.
  When I think about the importance of NATO and our commitment to the 
Captive Nations, I am inspired by President George W. Bush's speech on 
NATO expansion in Warsaw on June 15, 2001. President Bush stated: ``We 
should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we 
can do to advance the cause of freedom.'' There was concern at that 
time because of the debate with Russia that we would back off and not 
support further expansion of NATO.
  I worked diligently from my first day as a member of the Senate in 
1999 to extend NATO membership to my brothers and sisters in the former 
Captive Nations. I knew NATO membership would provide these fledgling 
democracies safe harbor from the possible threat of new Russian 
expansionism. But I also knew the process of NATO expansion would 
enhance much more than security in Europe.
  As I noted in a speech on the Senate floor on May 21, 2002, ``While 
NATO is a collective security organization, formed to defend freedom 
and democracy in Europe, we cannot forget that common values form the 
foundation of the alliance.'' In other words, the foundation of the 
Alliance is based on common values.
  Democracy, the rule of law, minority rights, these are among the 
values that form the hallmark of the NATO alliance.
  One of my proudest moments as a Senator was when I joined President 
Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Richard Myers at the NATO 
Summit in Prague on November 21, 2002, when NATO Secretary General Lord 
Robertson officially announced the decision to invite Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to become 
part of the Alliance. This was truly one of the most thrilling days of 
my tenure as a Senator.
  Later that day, my wife Janet and I were happy to attend a dinner in 
honor of Czech President Vaclav Havel at the Prague Castle. Following 
that dinner, at 1:30 a.m. Prague time, I placed a call to Cleveland to 
talk with my brothers and sisters at home with ties to these NATO 
aspirant countries. They had gathered in the Lithuanian Hall at Our 
Lady of Perpetual Help to celebrate that day's historic events, and 
this was truly a capstone to years of effort.
  It is because of my long history and work with the Captive Nations 
that I continue to worry about the uncertainties of our future 
relationship with Russia. I have traveled to 19 countries during my 21 
trips to the region as a Senator. Presidents, prime ministers, and 
foreign ministers in Eastern Europe have told me time and time again it 
is comforting for them to know their relationship with NATO and the 
United States serves as a vital hedge against the threat of a future 
potentially expansionist Russia.
  Yet now there is much talk from this administration about resetting 
the U.S. bilateral relationship with Russia. Moscow seeks to regain its 
global stature and be respected as a peer in the international 
community. I do not blame them.
  President Obama's May 2010 National Security Strategy states: ``We 
seek to build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with 
Russia, based on mutual interests. The United States has an interest in 
a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia that respects international 
norms.'' I agree with the administration. There is nothing inherently 
wrong with this approach.
  There are indeed key areas where the United States and Russia share 
common cause and concern:
  1. Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and will 
continue to be essential towards any effective multilateral pressure on 
Iran to give up its nuclear program.
  2. Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and 
has stated a nuclear-free Korean peninsula is in the interest of both 
our nations.
  Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has 
stated a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula is in the interest of both our 
nations.
  No. 3, we are partners in the International Space Station, relying on 
the Russians. Until the August 2008 invasion of Georgia, our government 
and U.S. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement 
with Russia similar to the one we entered into with India. In fact, I 
worked on that with Senator Lugar. I thought that was a good idea. With 
the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we can do is break 
off communication and revert back to our Cold War positions. President 
Obama's trip to Moscow last year and President Medvedev's reciprocal 
trip to Washington in June were opportunities to further engage Russia 
and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can 
accomplish together for the good of the international community.
  However, I believe our reset policy with Russia should not establish 
a relationship with Moscow at the expense of the former Captive 
Nations. We simply do not know how our relationship with Russia will 
transpire during the years to come. Will Russia fully embrace a 
democratic government, free markets, and the rule of law or will Russia 
seek to reestablish its influence over the former Soviet Union whose 
collapse then-President and now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin described 
in 2005 as ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe'' of the 20th 
century? This is what Putin had to say about the dissolution of the 
Soviet Union, a pretty striking comment coming from the former 
President and now Prime Minister.
  This brings us to the topic of the new START treaty, which the Senate 
may consider in the coming weeks. America's grand strategy toward 
Russia

[[Page 17681]]

must be realistic. It must be agile. As I have said, it must take into 
account the interests of our NATO allies. I am deeply concerned the new 
START treaty may once again undermine the confidence of our friends and 
allies in Central and Eastern Europe. Let me be absolutely clear: I do 
not ideologically oppose the administration's nonproliferation agenda. 
The President's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons is 
noble, but I believe the Senate's consideration of the new START treaty 
must be considered through a wider lens that includes the treaty's 
implications for our friends and allies in the former captive nations.
  Let's talk about what is going on right now. First, I am concerned 
about the uncertainties surrounding a Russia that could revert back to 
a country seeking to expand its influence on the Baltic States and 
Eastern Europe. President Medvedev's February 2010 National Military 
Doctrine of the Russian Federation, released 2 months before the 
conclusion of the new START treaty in April of this year, explicitly 
labels NATO expansion as a national threat to Russia's existence and 
reaffirms Russia's right to use nuclear weapons if the country's 
existence is threatened. I am sure such statements, combined with 
Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, send shivers down the spines of our 
brothers and sisters in Central and Eastern Europe, even if they don't 
say so publicly.
  The concerns of our captive nation brothers and sisters regarding 
Russia are not abstract. They are rooted in blood and tears and in a 
history of abandonment. My hometown of Cleveland, OH, was once the city 
with the world's second largest population of Hungarians after 
Budapest. I remember vividly the stories my Hungarian brothers and 
sisters told me about the Hungarian revolution of 1956. Encouraged by 
the implicit promise of intervention from the United States and the 
United Nations, hundreds of thousands of Hungarians protested against 
the People's Republic of Hungary in support of economic reform and an 
end to political oppression. Those protests spread throughout Hungary. 
The government was overthrown. But Moscow sought to maintain its 
control over the captive nations, took advantage of America's inaction 
on the rebellion, invaded Hungary, crushed the revolution and 
established a new authoritative government. Over 2,500 Hungarians were 
killed in the conflict, and 200,000 Hungarians fled as refugees to the 
West. Hungary would suffer under the oppression of the Soviet Union for 
nearly another half century. Of course, there was a similar episode in 
Czechoslovakia during the Prague spring of 1968.
  The former captive nations have accomplished so much as free market 
democracies and members of the NATO alliance. Our friends and allies 
must have absolute confidence negotiations toward the new START treaty 
did not include side agreements or informal understandings regarding 
any Russian sphere of influence in those Captive Nations. Moreover, I 
remain deeply concerned, even in the absence of agreements of 
understanding, that the former Captive Nations may once again wonder: 
Will the West abandon us again? Will agreement with Russia once again 
be placed above the interests and concern of our allies? Will we forget 
what happened after Yalta and Tehran? We cannot let this happen again.
  Second, the former Captive Nations are also closely watching Russia's 
military activities. Last September--and nobody made a big deal out of 
it--Russia undertook Operation West, a military exercise involving 
13,000 troops simulating an air, sea, and nuclear attack on Poland. Not 
much said about it. These war games, which took place during the 70th 
anniversary of Polish independence, were the largest Russian military 
exercises since the end of the Cold War. If we look at the Russian 
military's recent activity, one cannot help but understand our allies' 
concern Moscow may be reverting to the past. I hope President Obama 
will meet with leaders from the former Captive Nations this weekend 
during the NATO summit in Lisbon. The President should provide these 
leaders public reassurance that the United States remains committed to 
article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on 
any member of NATO shall be considered to be an attack on all.
  One of the best ways to alleviate the anxiety about the Russian 
military amongst our Captive Nation allies is for this administration 
to pursue negotiations with Russia toward its compliance with the 
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the CFE. The Senate's 
potential consideration of a new START cannot be disconnected from 
Russia's prior track record on treaty compliance. Russia decided in 
2007 to suspend its compliance with the CFE treaty, a treaty signed by 
22 countries that placed balanced limits on the deployment of troops 
and conventional weapons in Europe. This unilateral decision by Moscow 
should serve as a reminder to Senate colleagues about Moscow's 
commitments to its international obligations. Russia's compliance with 
the CFE treaty is essential to sustained security and stability in 
Central and Eastern Europe. Again, complying with it would send a very 
great signal to the people worried about Russia's direction.
  Our friends in Central and Eastern Europe are worried about the 
uncertainty surrounding a Russia that appears at times to be reverting 
back to an authoritative state seeking to weaponize its oil and natural 
gas resources as a means to expand its influence on Europe and the 
West. Russia has the largest reserves of natural gas and the eighth 
largest oil reserves. Moscow turned off the tap to Europe in the recent 
past. They could do it again. We should also be concerned about Moscow 
using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of NATO against 
each other. I know when I was at the German Marshall Fund Brussels 
forum this year and last, I spoke with our friends in the EU and 
encouraged them that rather than unilaterally negotiating with Russia 
in terms of natural gas, they should all come together and negotiate as 
a team so they wouldn't be pit against the other. Unfortunately, most 
of them ignored that.
  Finally, I am deeply troubled that the Obama administration has 
decoupled Russia's human rights record from America's bilateral 
relationship with Russia. The United States and Russia are both 
signatories of the 1975 Helsinki Declaration, which clearly states 
that:

       Participating States will respect human rights and 
     fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, 
     conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction 
     as to race, sex, language or religion.

  In recent years, we have seen anything but a respect for human rights 
in Russia. Prime Minister Putin stated during a recent interview with 
the Kommersant newspaper that prodemocracy demonstrators in Russia 
assembling without prior permission ``will be hit on the head with 
batons. That's all there is to it.''
  The actions of the Russian Government speak louder than words. We 
have seen protests canceled, newspapers closed, activists detained and 
abused. Yet we have seen little effort by this administration to engage 
in a sustained dialog with Moscow on its human rights record and 
commitments under the Helsinki Declaration. We did more about human 
rights violations 20 years ago in Russia than we are doing today. It is 
like we have tape over our mouth.
  As David Kramer of the German Marshall Fund of the United States 
notes in a Washington Post opinion on September 20:

       The human rights situation in Russia is bad and likely to 
     get more worse as [Russia's] March 2012 presidential election 
     nears. Those in power will do anything to stay in power . . . 
     Enough already with U.S. expressions of ``regret'' about the 
     deteriorating situation inside Russia--it's time to call it 
     like it is: Condemn what's happening there and consider 
     consequences for continued human rights abuses.

  I believe the Obama administration's inaction and reluctance to 
confront Russia on its human rights record sends a dangerous signal to 
Moscow that there are little or no consequences for bad behavior. At a 
minimum, such

[[Page 17682]]

coddling of bad behavior by the West only serves to embolden Moscow as 
to our resolve to hold Russia to account on its international 
obligations, a distressing thought as we consider the new START in the 
Senate.
  I have fought all my life to secure freedom for my brothers and 
sisters in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Yugoslavia. Once 
they received their freedom, I championed--and continue to champion--
their membership in NATO and the EU. I am working with Senator Shaheen 
right now in the former Yugoslavia to see how many of those countries 
we can get into the European Union and how many we can get into the 
NATO alliance. I will be darned, at this stage in my life, to do 
anything that would jeopardize their security and economic prosperity. 
I have seen too many opportunities for the region slip away during my 
lifetime. I will not let it happen again.
  Political expediency should never be an excuse to rush to judgment on 
public policy, let alone our national security. Treaties supersede all 
laws and acts of Congress. The Senate's advice-and-consent duties on 
treaties are among our most solemn constitutional duties. I cannot, in 
good conscience, determine my support for this treaty until the 
administration assures me that our reset policy with Russia is a policy 
that enhances rather than diminishes the national security of our 
friends and allies throughout Europe.
  Moreover, I must receive the strongest assurances that this policy 
does not once again amount to the United States leaving our brothers 
and sisters in the former Captive Nations alone against undue pressures 
from Russia.
  When I finally cash out, I want to know these countries we forgot at 
the end of the Second World War, where millions of people were sent to 
the gulag, will never be forgotten again.
  I think this President has an obligation to look at this treaty 
beyond just the nonproliferation side. He has an obligation to look at 
it as part of resetting our relationship with Russia, and we ought to 
get some things cleared up before we go ahead and sign this treaty.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________