SUBJECT: CHAIRED BY: SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D-MI) WITNESSES: MARC GROSSMAN, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS; DOUGLAS FEITH,UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY; GENERAL JOSEPH RALSTON, USAF, COMMAND IN CHIEF,EUROPEAN COMMAND BODY: SEN. LEVIN: (Strikes gavel.) Good morning, everybody. The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. In just nine months, NATO heads of state and government will meet in Prague to make a decision on enlargement of the alliance and to focus on a number of other crucial areas. In our invitation letters to the witnesses, Senator Warner and I asked them to comment on NATO enlargement issues; on the role of NATO in the global fight against terrorism; the organizational and transformational changes, if any, that NATO needs to make; the technological and capabilities gap that has developed between the United States and the other members, and how that gap should be addressed; the NATO-Russia relationship and how the "NATO at 20" concept should be implemented; how an enlarged NATO could function effectively as a military organization; and any other issues that our witnesses consider relevant to the future of NATO. Depending on whom you talk to, NATO's glass is either half full or half empty. Some on both sides of the Atlantic have raised concerns about the future roles and missions of NATO and NATO's relevance in the post-September 11th world. Some have even cited NATO's invocation of Article 5 for the first time in its history and the numerous offers by NATO members of participate in the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as a factor demonstrating NATO's weakness, because the United States has not seen fit to take up most of those offers. I'm reminded of a statement by NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, upon the conclusion of the meeting of NATO's heads of state and government in June of last year, that, quote, "NATO's credibility is its capability," close quote. He made that statement to exhort the alliance's European members to spend more and more wisely -- on defense. That exhortation has not borne fruit, because Lord Robertson said publicly last month that, quote, "the truth is that Europe remains a military pygmy," close quote. To put the issue in some context, the $48 billion annual increase requested by President Bush for the defense budget constitutes 150 percent of the total defense spending of the United Kingdom or France, the next-largest NATO member states defense budgets after the United States. I must admit that I'm from the "glass is half full" camp. I'm a strong supporter of NATO, the most successful alliance in the history of the world. NATO successfully deterred an attack by the former Soviet Union and also,very importantly, helped to keep the peace among the nations of Western Europe for five decades. In recent years NATO forces fired shots in anger for the first time in its history and brought a negotiated end to the conflict in Bosnia. NATO conducted an air war against Serbian security forces and reversed ethnic cleansing for the first time in history. Even though the United States carried out the bulk of the Kosovo air campaign, I believe it was the moral strength and cohesion of 19 sovereign nations that led to the successful conclusion of the conflict. At the present time, the alliance is conducting three peacekeeping operations in the Balkans: in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in Macedonia. The Europeans are providing the bulk of the forces for these operations and the overwhelming majority of the civil assistance and financial support for those countries.
Pursuant to NATO's invocation of Article V in response the horrendous terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, NATO airborne early-warning aircraft were deployed to patrol the skies over America, and NATO's standing naval forces were deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean at the United States' request. But the fact remains
(coughs) -- excuse me again -- that NATO must address a number of crucial issues no later than the November Prague summit.
Today we begin our consideration of all of these issues with three administration witnesses. I want to welcome
undersecretary of State for political affairs Mark Grossman; undersecretary of Defense for policy Doug Feith; and the commander in chief, U.S.-European command and NATO's supreme allied commander, Europe, General Joe Ralston.
It's good to have all three of you before us again.
Before I call on Senator Warner, I want to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Rudolf Petan, who is the chairman of the Committee for Defense of the National Assembly of the Republic ofSlovenia. And I'm wondering if he is in
the room, whether or not he would stand and be recognized.
It's nice to have you with us. We understand your ambassador is also with you.
And there may be some other ambassadors from other counties who are with us here today, and I don't know all of them, but I wonder if all the ambassadors who are here would please stand and be recognized, if there are other countries' ambassadors.
Nice to have you all with us. I wonder if you could just tell us what countries you are from, please.
(Each ambassador stands and names his country, with Sen. Levin repeating it for the record.) Romania. And you're Slovenia. And Lithuania. Nice to have you all.
Senator Warner, let me first thank you for pressing the urgency of this hearing. It is a very important hearing,as you have pointed out to me, and we are delighted now to call upon you.
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I commend you on your statement.
And I will ask that my entire statement be placed in the record, and I shall give portions of it.
But I comment in my opening statement, consistent with yours, that our comments are not to be interpreted
in any way as -- I think either of us and, I think, the committee as a whole -- anything but the greatest respect for NATO, and our constructive concern with regard to its future. I want to make that very, very clear. I've been singled out as a critic since I took a strong stance about expansion in the last go-'round. I hope not to take that in the future, and will do so only if I compellingly believe that those steps have to be taken here in the Senate.
Basically, I asked the chairman for this hearing because I would not desire to see the Senate faced with a fait accompli sometime late next year, and we have to just simply say a yes or a no. We authorize in this committee.
The Appropriations Committee appropriates enormous sums of money for NATO, and I feel that the Congress should be a partner that's consulted as we move ahead, particularly in this year, where we're going to consider the enlargement issue. And I hope that our two witnesses, Secretary Grossman and Secretary Feith, can give this committee and, therefore, the Congress -- and most particularly the Senate, given its advise and consent role with regard to treaties and international agreements -- that we will be made a partner
in the consultations and the deliberations with regard to the expansion issues and any change with regard to the missions of NATO as they possibly will be defined in the forthcoming meeting.
So with that in mind, I'd just pose several questions as we go along -- chairman, and I join him, is what's the future role and mission of NATO in a world where threats to NATO members are now a non-state, in many respects, in the form of terrorism through global syndicates and organizations, and other threats that were never envisioned at the time the NATO charter was drawn up? The question is, is NATO beginning to equip itself with regard to these new threats?
And General, I hope you can comment on that. You have observed, as have others in your position, the
magnificent performance of our forces, the forces of Great Britain and other nations, in the Afghan region; to start with, the special operation teams which the chairman and I in our visit to that region in November, 15-, 20-member teams, highly trained to go in and perform a mission. Now, that is something that NATO should begin to envision. No longer are we faced with the one division up, one division in reserve. I mean, that type of warfare is most unlikely. I'm not saying that it should be totally eliminated from your op plans, but it is most unlikely, and this type of operation that we witnessed in operation would be needed by NATO if it were to be engaged to repel these global threats of terrorism.
The technological gap, the chairman referred to that. It's growing and it's of great concern. You quoted
General -- I mean -- yes, the Secretary-General Robertson. I'd like to give a little larger quote which seems to me -- and we know Robertson very well. The chairman and I and members of this committee have me with him regularly when he was the defense minister for the United Kingdom, and now he's done a brilliant job, I think, in the new role as secretary- general. Let me quote him: "The United States must have partners who can contribute their fair share to operations which benefit the entire European-Atlantic community, but the reality is, hardly any European country can deploy usable and effective forces in significant numbers outside their borders and sustain them for months or even years, as we all need to do today. For all Europe's rhetoric and annual investment of over $140 billion by NATO's European members, we still need U.S. help to move, command and provision a major operation. American critics of Europe's military incapability are right. So if we are to ensure that the United States moves neither towards unilateralism nor isolationism, all European countries must show a new willingness to develop effective crisis management capabilities." End quote. I know of no initiative here in the Senate towards any unilateralism or isolationism. I don't know how he
selected those rather strong words. But we have an obligation to our taxpayers in the country who are contributing significant sums, to the men and women in uniform who are posted to the NATO commands, to make sure that this remains a viable organization and is worthy of our contributions.
History reflects the importance of U.S. presence on the European continent. There may be old jealousies and
animosities, but we have as a nation kept a steady hand to reconcile differences between those countries which go back for generations. Generations. And I think they recognize that and the value. And we wish to remain a partner -- not big brother, a partner -- in this operation.
Now the future enlargement. I can understand, and we welcome our ambassadors and others who will be
following these proceedings in the Senate, and I fully appreciate and respect the desire of your nations to be assessed as fairly and objectively as possible as this question of enlargement comes up. But I think we have to step back and say, is it really time to move forward with any significant enlargement, when internally we recognize these problems, from equipment to missions? Would it not be better just to let this round pass by and take our house and sort of put it in order, and then begin to look to the future for such enlargement as we feel is necessary?
My concerns with the NATO expansion have not changed substantially since the full Senate last debated the
issue in 1998, because if anything, the problems revealed by the Kosovo operation in '99 have increased my apprehension and, indeed, others, about the future rounds. I start from the basic premise that NATO is first and foremost a military alliance. That is why NATO was founded. That is why it continues today. Nations should be invited to join NATO only if there's a compelling military rationale, not political, for additional members, and only if those additional members will make a positive military contribution to the alliance. In my view, that case has yet to be made for the nine nations currently seeking consideration. We must always keep in mind that any country joining NATO will be extended the protection of Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states, "An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all," end quote. That article was proudly invoked for the first time following the attacks on the United States on September the 11th. This security guarantee is the most solemn commitment any nation can make. Are the people willing to risk U.S. military troops and expend significant taxpayer dollars to defend the nine additional nations seeking NATO membership, pursuant to Article 5? That is the fundamental question. If NATO expands beyond its current 19 members, some fear -- and I share that fear -- that the alliance will
become increasingly inefficient, indecisive, and just about a mini-United Nations for Europe, but a United Nations without a strong military capability.
We saw the Kosovo operation. We saw how 19 worked on those issues. You add nine, you get to 28. Does
that reach the almost unmanageable -- from a military perspective, unmanageable -- command challenge? You know -- and I say this only because of my sincere respect for the tens of thousands of men and women who have served in NATO proudly, the very large commitments of funds from the respective nations -- General Ralston, what number commander are you in the history of NATO?
GEN. RALSTON: Thirteenth.
SEN. WARNER: Thirteenth commander.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Lucky 13.
SEN. WARNER: Yeah. You know, in the annals of military history of certainly the Western world, there are
times when there's a great regiment or a great division, and when that nation can no longer support that regiment or division, rather than let it atrophy or change in some way, they proudly, as we say in the military, retire the colors. Maybe we should consider proudly retiring the colors of NATO and start over again, and figure out what is it we need by way of an organization and such military capabilities to meet the future threats and therefore preserve the integrity and the traditions of this organization, which so many have made -- given their -- indeed their lives and their careers to make it what it is. I think that's something that fundamentally we ought to take a look at. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Warner, thank you for your very important and heartfelt statement.
While we're considering the expansion of NATO, I notice that our witness table is shrinking.
But before I call on our witnesses, let me see if any of my colleagues would like to have an opening statement.
Senator Lieberman?
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I do have a statement which I'd ask
you include in the record. I thank you for holding the hearing. I thank our witnesses. And I thank Senator Warner for his thoughtful statement just now. I know that in some sense his concern about the Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, a bill of which I am a co-sponsor, has engendered this hearing. And that's appropriate and constructive. And I certainly agree with him that as we make these momentous decisions -- or the administration does -- that Congress and the Senate particularly should be fully involved, not afterward but as policy is being formulated.
I, as my sponsorship of this bill indicates, have a different point of view here, with all respect. And if I may try
to briefly state it historically. NATO is the greatest military alliance in the history of the world, created after the Second World War, clearly in the '40s, clearly for the purpose centrally of defending Western Europe and the values of freedom that we share with our European allies from Soviet threat, from, at the worst, Soviet invasion. I think it also always had another purpose, which was to be a unifier of Europe and the U.S., and particularly Europe postwar, to create a structure in which the nations of Europe who had fought one another would build a community together. And of course it's done that magnificently.
We have come a long way. We obviously won an extraordinary victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
And I know that there are some ways in which history tells us that when the reasons that motivated the
creation of an alliance no longer exist, that the alliance withers. But while we were victorious in the Cold War, obviously, it seems to me that the purpose of sustaining European unity within itself, now on a broader scale, as the Berlin Wall falls and the movement of freedom, our values spread to the east across Europe, that remains a very strong purpose. But also the alliance takes on broader regional and global responsibilities for security, and in doing so is a tremendous asset to us, to the United States as the sole superpower in the world. So in some ways my own feeling is that NATO has evolved since the Berlin Wall collapsed, and it has evolved in its mission as history has drawn it, but to go to places where its founders never could have imagined it would have gone, all in pursuit -- and this is my most important point to me anyway, which is in pursuit of the values that motivated the creation of NATO in the first place, which is the protection, advancement and spread of freedom.
On the military part, I just want to trace developments here. For years obviously physical defense of member
nations' home soil, as defined in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, has been at the core of our alliance.
That mission changed in the '90s, with Bosnia and then Kosovo, as NATO applied appropriate force outside --
although just outside its immediate borders -- for the common good of stability in Europe, and to advance ideals -- certainly anti-genocidal ideals that emerged naturally from the Second World War.
Now we have taken an additional turn in the response to the horrific attacks on the U.S. of last September
11th, where NATO invoked Article V for the first time in its history, responding to attacks on our soil, by supporting a war against an enemy half a world away from the United States -- hard for the founders of NATO to have conceived of.
But I think this evolution in our alliance is both realistic and healthy, and very much in advancement of the
values that NATO was founded on. Technology has obviously collapsed geographical distinctions to the point that today a plot conceived anywhere in the world can pose just as serious a threat to NATO's members' security as an aggressive military movement by a nearby neighbor nation. I think NATO has to accept that new reality, has accepted that new reality, and has to embrace a more expansive geographical understanding of its mission. And that is why I am a co-sponsor of the Freedom Consolidation Act. I believe NATO membership should be open to a large number of nations. If it is, NATO can become an even more potent protector of transatlantic and global security from threats that include terrorism. It can be a better facilitator of regional conflict resolution, and a more influential incubator of democracy. I mean, this -- expanding NATO to the countries that are mentioned in the act that I referred to -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania -- is a way to secure for as far as we can see forward the historic victory of American ideals that we won in the Cold War. Do we accept responsibilities thereby? Yes, we do. But I think that they are worth accepting. And I believe that any democratic European -- and I stress -- any democratic European nation that meets NATO's criteria and can be a net contributor to the security of the United States and of the alliance as a whole should be admitted to NATO -- hopefully this November at the meeting in Prague.
So I look forward to hearing how the administration is assessing the candidates. I look forward to working with
the administration on this, and I am anxious to hear today how the administration intends to involve the Senate and the House in these deliberations approaching the Prague Summit. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to say this.
SEN. LEVIN: Senator Warner wanted to be recognized.
SEN. WARNER: As you, colleague, stated quite accurately, that I did block the passage by the Senate of the
Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, I did so not because of specific objections to the proposed legislation, but the procedural manner in which it was being handled. Namely, it was the last day of the session; there were not more than two or three senators on the floor, and therefore it should not have been acted upon by the United States Senate on what we call the unanimous consent calendar, where we just accept it -- without any debate, without any hearings. I think this is deserving of very careful consideration by the entire Senate -- perhaps this hearing will suffice. But, if not, additional hearings should be ordered so that we can consider it -- and then have some presentation and debate on the floor of the Senate before we adopt it.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Senator Warner. I absolutely agree, and I think this is very constructive.
SEN. LEVIN: Okay, we'll continue on our early bird venture. Senator Roberts.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R-KS): I thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1999, when I approached the issue of NATO
enlargement, I said I am concerned that the organization is now at a fork in the road -- one path leads to continued relevancy and continued success; the other leads to disunity, and a loss of direction and also relevance. And today I share the senator from Virginia's concern. I am even more concerned with the future of NATO. It was created, as has been said, and will be said by virtually everyone, as a defensive alliance, and remained so through the end of the Cold War. But because of a myriad of reasons -- from the military capability gap, which does exist; current and emerging worldwide threats; lack of a direct threat to the continuing viability of Europe; the emergency of the -- or, pardon me, the emergence, if not the emergency, of the EU and its military capability, or the lack of it -- the very growth of NATO membership, I question whether NATO is or can remain purely a defensive alliance. There is going to be a great deal of pressure to continue to think of NATO for what it was during the last 50 years -- I have that prejudice: A defensive alliance of like-minded nations focused on a common threat. No matter how loudly we proclaim that NATO remains what it was and its formula for past success guarantees continued success, it seems to me we must face the facts that NATO has changed and will continue to change.
Now, how the transformed NATO fits into our notion of vital national interests must be explored -- that's why
we are having this hearing -- and examine certainly what has not changed -- not changed -- is that the United States must remain linked to our allies in Europe. But that's not the question or the issue. If NATO is no longer primarily a defensive alliance, then I would challenge any senator to take a look at the strategic concept adopted two years ago, two springs ago, at the 50-year anniversary of NATO, and read the obligations of what we now have in that strategic concept. I question seriously whether all senators or many senators have read that and know of our obligations in regards to this with organization: Will it remain viable and will it remain relevant? That's the question, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for holding the hearing.
I do want to say one other thing. Dick Lugar has to be one of the strongest supporters of NATO that I know
of in the Congress. He speaks -- well, when he does speak, people listen. He is a recognized expert and observer in regards to foreign policy, and he recently, on the 19th of January, delivered a very hard-hitting speech to NATO in Brussels, and he said, "If NATO does not help tackle the most pressing security threat to our countries today, a threat I believe is existential, because it involves the threat of weapons of mass destruction, it will cease to be the premier alliance it has been, and it will become increasingly marginal. "As important as they are, neither NATO enlargement nor NATO- Russia cooperation is the most critical issue facing our nations today. That issue is the war on terrorism. NATO has to decide whether it wants to participate in this war. It has to decide whether it wants to be relevant in addressing the major security challenge of our day." That's a pretty strong warning -- strong words from one of the Senate's most pro-NATO senators, and I think it's food for thought. And I look forward to the questions, and I thank the witnesses. SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Reed.
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome Secretary Grossman,
Secretary Feith, and General Ralston -- and particularly welcome General Ralston who is a great leader of
our forces in Europe. Thank you, general, for being here. I was particularly struck by Senator Warner's questions which he laid out, which are fundamental to the consideration of all of these issues. And although some on the panel have reached a conclusion one way or the other, I think to many the situation or the issue is still subject to debate and questioning. But those questions, senator, are profound and very, very important. NATO was created, as we all know, as both a military and a political alliance -- predominantly a military alliance in its first several decades, I think, particularly focusing on, as Senator Roberts said, the defense of Europe. And it was the defense from a foreign threat, if you will, or at least an external threat, the Soviet Union, and also internal disputes which had cast Europe into two major world wars. All of that has changed fundamentally in the last several years. And indeed it's appropriate that at this crossroads we talk about the new mission of NATO and a new vision of NATO. I think we have to approach it with a recognition of the changes, and also with the questions that Senator Warner alluded to about its character today. Is it primarily a military alliance, or has it become a political alliance? Is it a way in which we can expand the values of the United States, or is it something that is more of an operational military arrangement? And these are the issues I think we will confront over the next several months as we consider the issue of expansion.
But there is no avoiding, one, the issue; nor, two, I think the reality that an alliance of some form, be it
political more than military, or military more than political, is in the best interests of the United States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Inhofe.
SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me inquire of the chair -- we are doing opening
statements now, and then what are we going to have in the way of rounds?
SEN. LEVIN: Well, we'll start with round one, but perhaps depending on how long your statements are --
SEN. INHOFE: Okay, well -- I'll make a brief opening statement -- I don't have one prepared. But I just want
to say that, General Ralston, I have had a chance to be over there where we are training, visiting the hospital at Landstuhl, talking to these kids when they are coming back. And without exception they all said -- they have this spirit of patriotism and this drive that they all want to get back to their units, they all want to make a career out of it. So you have done a wonderful job over there, and instilling this in them. I particularly remember a young lady, whose name was Stennis, and she was on the U.S.S. Stennis, by coincidence. And she actually had an accident where she -- in a refueling operation -- you are familiar with this -- and she ended up going overboard and crushing her lungs, and she's anxious to get back.
Now, I see all this, and yet as it relates -- and I'd say the same thing to Secretary Feith. You and I were in
the Fletcher Conference as participants together, and I remember you said this would be one of your great challenges, NATO. I would hope that during your opening statements and during this meeting that we can talk about what effect on our op tempo is -- ops tempo -- is expansion of NATO going to have? I listened to Senator Lieberman, and I greatly respect him, but I disagree with the statement that they can be a net contributor -- I think I wrote this down right -- "net contributor to the security of the United States." I am not sure they have the capability of doing that militarily and politically. We were divided on our participation in both Bosnia and then in the Balkans, and I think it was because of NATO -- that was the argument that was used to get us in there. My concern was at that time we were down to about one-half the force strength that we had been during the end of the Persian Gulf War -- and can we really expect to maintain that op tempo? We have got, what, 600 -- or I am not sure just how many Guard and Reserve we have over there right now,
but they can't sustain that level -- we all know that. The budget was deficient in two areas -- one, military construction and one in force structure. So I am concerned about how our participation in the expansion of NATO would affect our capability to meet our own strategy, and that is to defend America. So those are the concerns I've shared with you privately before, and I hope we have a chance to address in this hearing.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Senator Nelson.
SEN. E. BENJAMIN NELSON (R-NE): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Ralston, it's a pleasure to have you here
on this side of the water this week. Last week we spent time on your side in Brussels. I appreciate very much the information that you were able to provide to us as we spoke that time about NATO and the future of NATO.
And of course, Secretary Feith, I welcome you back, and Secretary Grossman -- very interested in your
comments, your thoughts about the future of NATO, and particularly as to the future relationships in the world. We are talking about membership in effect, but at the same time it's clear we are talking about mission, and we are talking about capacity, contribution of members. We may have to redefine contribution in terms of ability of allies to be able to fight the kind of war we have just been fighting in Afghanistan. With the technology that we are facing and the transformation of the military as we move forward, it's clear -- at least it seems to me, based on what I have learned, and continue to see -- that our technology, our ability in the United States perhaps supersedes the provide of others to have the kind of technology, whether it's precision bombs or whatever it may be -- we seem to lead that way. My concern about NATO and expanding it is a little similar to what I've heard Senator Warner say, and that is that expanding it may mean bringing individuals in, and it may -- perhaps it's on the basis of having allies and having friends and being supportive of democracy and moving forward in that direction. But is that the same direction that we want to go for mutual defense? Or would we be expanding the obligation of the United States to include others, if we were going to have the preeminent role in providing the technology, particularly as it relates to the percent of our budget, the GDP that we are investing in military spending, defense spending, on a comparative basis to our friends and our allies in other parts of the world. Contributions can come in all flavors. Clearly passing the plate to expand the capacity of technology and the cost of technology from some of those who may not be in a position to do much technology on their own would like to support the United States in the effort that we have for technology. I am not recommending that; I am suggesting that there may be all kinds of way to define contribution and the relationship.
But before we make a decision about expanding any kind of relationship, I think we in fact do have to have an
idea of what the mission is and what the expectation is of all the members to the mission. And lest it be said we are being unilateral, I think it is important for us to ask as part of the obligation that we have, are we expanding our role disproportionately to the process by expanding the number of members to the organization. Does it become a mini-United Nations? Should it become like that? Not suggesting for a minute that we ignored or that we scrap it, but I do think that we have to have it well-defined before we decide whether we add other members.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. Senator Sessions.
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): Thank you, Chairman Levin. I am really proud of the nations that desire to join
NATO. It's a thrill to see these countries that not long ago we had hostile relationships, who were nothing like a democracy, totalitarian and oppressing their people in so many different ways. So it's a positive event in the world that we have an opportunity to discuss whether or not NATO should include them.
And I share some of the concerns that have been raised about the broadening of the mission of NATO. Exactly
what does it stand for? What does it mean? We're talking about immigration, ethnic cleansing, crime, economic issues. Are those going to be now part of the treaty? So I'm concerned about that. Others have expressed that better than I.
So I guess my two comments at this point would be, this is a good development. Whatever we do, we need to
affirm our commitment to seeing these nine and others develop economically, develop their security and enhance their personal quality of life in those countries, which, in the long run, will advance our national interest.
One of my specific concerns, however, is that as the group gets larger, I will want to inquire of you what the
power of one nation is. How can one nation -- what power does that nation have to block an otherwise unanimous vote, unanimous agreement? I remember distinctly, during the Kosovo war, that we had to have nations vote on targets of our United States Air Force as we carried that through. And I remember the commander of that air campaign testified with some emotion in this committee that had they been allowed to be more aggressive, as he recommended from the beginning, the war would have ended much sooner, with much less loss of life.
So this unanimous agreement caused us to be less effective in ending a war promptly and it exacerbated the loss of life. So that's one of my concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator Landrieu.
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): Thank you. I'll be brief because I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, to submit for
the record, a more formal statement. But let me just say for the opening that I am supportive of the expansion
of NATO and think it is a most positive development that our alliance, that has served this country and this
world so well, would want to expand.
I do acknowledge, though, along the lines of what Senator Roberts said, and according to Senator Lugar's
statement, that the threat has fundamentally changed. Therefore, the purpose of the alliance needs to also
change and to be brought into more focus for the challenges today.
I think the threat of terrorism is something that, while the United States can fight unilaterally, we would be
much more effective fighting within the alliance, a structure of an alliance. So just because the threat has changed, which is obvious, the need for alliances, I think, is greater today than at almost any time. And I mean that.
Secondly, I also think the expansion should be focused on providing strategic strength to the alliance. And
looking to the south in terms of the strategic expansion, as you can see from the map, would be something that we need to keep in focus.
And finally, what Senator Nelson mentioned, I think, is important, and that's the capability gap between the
members. So those are some of the things that I'm interested in and have more to submit for the formal record. Thank you.
SEN. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu. Now our witnesses. Secretary Grossman.
MR. GROSSMAN: Senator Levin, Senator Warner, other members of the committee, first of all, let me say
what an honor and a privilege it is for me to be here, and I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues that we're very glad to have this conversation, to have this consultation, to have this hearing about where NATO is headed, what we want for NATO, and as Senator Warner said, how to make sure that the Senate of the United States is a partner in trying to figure this out for us.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have a statement also for the record that I'd like to leave, and I'd like to
use part of it. And with the permission of General Ralston and Undersecretary Feith, I might just give a broad overview of where we stand. And then, of course, they will make a statement, and we'd be very glad to answer any questions anybody might have.
SEN. LEVIN: All the statements will be made part of the record in their entirety.
MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you, sir. Before I do anything else, though, I want to make sure that I thank you and
so many other members of the Senate for what you have done, are doing, and I know will do to continue to support NATO, as many of you have said, the greatest alliance in history. And Senator Warner, that very much includes constructive criticism. They get it from us. We get it from you. That includes constructive criticism.
I've had the privilege, I've had the good fortune to take advice and consent from all of you over the years,
and I believe we've always made better decisions because of it. When I remember back -- and Senator Roberts talked about it; Senator Warner talked about it -- the debate in 1998 and 1999, I recall the importance of Senator Kyl's amendment. I recall the work that many senators did in this committee and in other committees to include Senator Helms, Senator Biden, and as Senator Roberts said, Senator Lugar. And for my part, Mr. Warner and Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that we will be in closest possible consultation with the Senate, not when this is all over, but as much as possible in advance.
Mr. Chairman, you said in your invitation letter that we come to you at a time when people on both sides of
the Atlantic are asking questions about the future of NATO. Some people run away from this debate. I actually welcome this debate. I think our governments, our senates, our houses, our parliaments, our people, ought to be talking about the future of NATO. That's what a democratic military and political and security policy is all about.
But we all know the future of NATO has been debated before, and we've always come back to the
fundamentals. Values matter, as Senator Lieberman said. Collective defense matters. Capabilities matter. The trans-Atlantic relationship matters. And because NATO has always adapted to the challenges that have been before it, I believe NATO matters.
Before I try to answer some of the questions, Mr. Chairman, in your invitation letter, I ask you just to consider
three quotations. First quotation; Winston Churchill, Fulton, Missouri, March 5, 1946: "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe -- Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia."
The second quotation; President Vaclav Havel in Prague, July 1, 1991: "Prague, once the victim of the Warsaw
Pact, has become the city where the Warsaw Pact met its end as an instrument of the Cold War."
And third; President George Bush, Warsaw, June 15, 2001: "All of Europe's democracies, from the Baltics to the
Black Sea and all that lie in between, should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as Europe's old democracies have."
I think we've come a long way. And like Senator Sessions, I believe these are positive developments. Let me
say clearly, as you have all said, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remains a fundamental pillar of America's foreign and defense policy. As President Bush's speech in Prague shows, we want NATO to succeed.
I believe that this alliance should be an even more effective |
