Military

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you NATO’s future, including the next round of NATO enlargement, as we approach the Alliance’s summit meeting in Prague this November.

I would like to thank Congress for passage of the Freedom Consolidation Act, also known as the Gerald Solomon Act. This legislation, recently signed by the President, is an important statement of the purpose and vision driving NATO enlargement.

Allow me to add that one of the personal and professional highlights of my career was the privilege I had as a Senate staffer of assisting Chairman Solomon with his responsibilities in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He strongly believed in the transatlantic community. He worked to strengthen it. He was a man of firm and honest convictions and a great leader.

When approaching the issue of NATO enlargement, it is useful to review the fundamental purposes of the 1949 Washington Treaty. Its preamble states:

[The parties] are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

NATO accomplished these objectives during the Cold War. Over the last decade, it has furthered these goals in Bosnia and halted brutal ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. It has adapted itself to play an important role supporting the current U.S.-led war on terrorism. In the future, an expanding list of NATO members will continue to promote Euro-Atlantic stability and strengthen the Alliance’s ability to promote and protect its values and interests.

In his recent remarks to the German Bundestag, President Bush reminded us that "NATO’s defining purpose – our collective defense – is as urgent today as ever. America and Europe need each other to fight and win the war against global terror." The horrific attacks of September 11 and the war on terrorism have underscored the continued, if not increased, relevance of NATO to America’s security. Today, more than 18,000 Allied troops are conducting missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and the war on terrorism. NATO Partner countries are also making significant equipment and personnel contributions.

One must not forget that our ability to respond effectively with our Allies and partners in the war is in no small way the result of over 50 years of joint planning, joint training and joint operations within NATO.

Those contributions have entailed great sacrifice. America is not the only NATO Ally to have lost soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom. The forces of our NATO Allies also have suffered losses, as have other coalition states.

As President Bush said, NATO’s core mission remains the collective defense of its members. But there is room and need for change in how NATO fulfills its responsibility to promote and protect Allied values and interests. NATO needs to transform itself to handle new threats and serve its other purposes.

Hence, the Prague Summit will stress three themes: "New Capabilities, New Members, and New Relationships."

NATO's integrated military forces are the essence of the Alliance’s core mission. But the "capabilities gap" between the United States and its European and Canadian Allies continues to grow. If this divergence is not reversed, it will increasingly impede the Allies' ability to operate with U.S. forces and will, ultimately, weaken the Alliance’s political cohesion. So our first goal at Prague must be to begin to remedy the capability deficiencies within NATO.

The Department of Defense has been a forceful proponent of a new, more focused capabilities initiative to enable Allies to fight more effectively together, capitalizing on the special strengths that each can contribute. During their June 6-7 meeting in Brussels, NATO Defense Ministers agreed to prepare for approval by NATO heads of state and government at the Prague Summit an action plan to remedy shortfalls in four top-priority areas:

First: Enhanced defenses against nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks against Allied forces.

Second: Strategic lift and Logistical Support. Allies have to have the ability to transport their forces and equipment rapidly to wherever they are needed, and to supply them until their mission is completed.

Third: Secure, deployable, and interoperable communication and information systems that will connect Alliance forces.

Fourth: Modern weapons systems -- such as all-weather precision guided munitions, jamming systems, and air-ground surveillance platforms -- that will enable Allies to make first tier contributions to combat operations.

NATO Ministers of Defense issued a Statement on Capabilities affirming these four priority areas and that the new action plan "should be based on firm national commitments, with specific target dates, that our countries will make."

To best achieve success in improving Alliance capabilities in these priority areas, Defense Ministers also agreed that this initiative should lead to increased multilateral cooperation and role sharing. The pooling of military capabilities, increased role specialization, cooperative acquisition of equipment and common and multilateral funding will be encouraged.

The U.S. also pointed out to Allies that NATO’s ability to carry out its agreed missions will depend not only on its military "hardware", but also on how it structures and commands its forces. Just as the United States revises its Unified Command Plan to reflect current circumstances in the world, NATO also must assess its Command Structure for relevance and effectiveness. In Brussels, Allies agreed on the urgent need for a comprehensive review of all elements of the NATO command and force structure. NATO heads of state and government will be presented for their approval at Prague clear guidelines and a firm timeline for completing this review, so that decisions on command arrangements can be taken by the summer of 2003.

It is our intention at the Prague summit to strengthen NATO's relationship with Russia, Ukraine, and other members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace.

President Bush’s top priorities include creating a new, cooperative US-Russian relationship. This effort is integrated with NATO’s effort to forge a closer relationship with Russia based on specific, practical joint-initiatives. The goal is to erase vestiges of Cold War hostility. Fostering improved NATO-Russia cooperation can prompt further democratic, market and military reform in Russia and contribute to improving Russia's relations with its neighbors. The NATO-Russia Summit on May 28th, which created the NATO-Russia Council, was the first step forward on this path. NATO Defense Ministers and their Russian counterpart convened the first NATO-Russia Council for Defense Ministers on June 6th.

As we move forward on this path, NATO will take care to retain its independent ability to discuss, decide and act on security issues as its members see fit. Protecting Alliance solidarity and effectiveness is of the utmost importance. The North Atlantic Council will decide, by consensus, on the form and substance of our cooperation with Russia. Russia will not have a veto over Alliance decisions. And, we shall ensure that NATO-Russia cooperation does not serve to discourage or marginalize other Partners.

NATO’s relationship with Ukraine has begun to deepen. Ukraine recently announced its aspirations to join NATO. We welcome and encourage Ukraine’s decision to move closer to the Euro-Atlantic institutions. Through more intensive interactions with NATO, Ukraine will receive guidance and recommendations on such issues such as defense and political reform. However, Ukrainian aspirations can only become a reality if Kiev is able to accelerate the pace of its political, military, and economic reforms.

The Partnership for Peace began in 1994. It has been an invaluable tool to foster reform in the countries of Central Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and to build bridges between them and NATO. The importance of NATO’s exercises with its Partner nations was not fully understood until the war on terrorism began. The ability to base coalition forces in Partner nations has paid off in spades. Through the Partnership for Peace, these nations knew NATO, its values, and its procedures well enough that our requests were treated as favors asked for by neighbors, not strangers.

The integration of the newest three members of the Alliance is going well. All three have contributed to the ongoing operations in the Balkans from the moment they joined the Alliance. They are also making significant contributions to the war on terrorism. For example, The Czech Republic deployed its 6^th Field Hospital, consisting of 150 men, to Bagram, Afghanistan to support the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Polish Combat engineers and logistics forces have also deployed to Bagram and a Polish Special Operations Forces unit is assisting in Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) and Leadership Interdiction Operations (LIO).

Even though they are the newest Allies, the Czechs, Hungarians, and Poles serve as mentors to Partner nations. For example, Poland has joint battalions with Lithuania and Ukraine. Hungary has created a joint infantry battalion with Romania, and the two are developing another joint unit with the Ukrainians.

In addition, defense budgets of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as a portion of GDP average 1.93%, above the non-U.S. NATO average of 1.90%.

NATO’s Membership Action Plan (or "MAP"), adopted in 1999, created a framework to assist aspiring nations. The MAP covers five main areas: political/economic, defense/military, resources, security, and legal. It works on an annual cycle, beginning with each aspirant submitting an Annual National Program to NATO in the fall. This aspirant-developed program lays out plans and expectations for the five areas. The key to the Annual National Program is that it is realistic and achievable. Throughout the year, the NATO International Staff and the NATO Allies meet with each aspirant individually to review and make recommendations. However, each aspirant decides on a national basis the areas on which it wants to work. The MAP culminates with an Individual Progress Report for each aspirant drafted by NATO, reviewing the aspirant’s accomplishments and deficiencies.

The MAP has been a success story. All aspirants have made progress in implementing their reforms to meet their MAP objectives. Even if an aspirant is not invited to join NATO at Prague, participation in the MAP will have been a positive step for both that country and the rest of Europe. The MAP gives that country a deeper understanding and appreciation of NATO’s values and how civil-military relations should work for democracies, as well as facilitating transformation required in any case to make its armed forces more modern and effective.

In addition to the MAP, the U.S. has conducted an extensive bilateral engagement program with the aspirants. In February, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Nick Burns, led a team, including Bob Bradtke and me, to all nine MAP participants. Since then, I have led Bilateral Working Groups with the Ministries of Defense of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia. My deputy has led similar groups to Bulgaria and Romania. I plan on visiting Slovakia in July for the same effort. EUCOM has sent teams to the aspirants, and General Ralston has visited them all in his role as SACEUR.

-----------------

To conclude, let me end with one final thought: the Alliance is here to stay. Without NATO, the Euro-Atlantic community would not exist. Its growth – the process of NATO enlargement – is a sign of its vitality and political attraction. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress on this next round of NATO enlargement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.