24 August 2001
Text: Senator McCain Advocates NATO Membership for Baltic States
(August 24 speech in Tallinn, Estonia) (3480)
Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, told an audience in
Tallinn, Estonia August 24 that he strongly supports NATO membership
for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regardless of Russian sensitivities.
"We hold both a moral and a strategic interest in the Baltic states'
membership in the NATO alliance," McCain said. "The moral imperative
is to correct the division of Europe agreed to by the great powers at
Yalta. The strategic imperative is to secure the Baltics' relationship
with the West, of which they are an integral part, and to secure their
relationship with Russia, so that never again will there be any doubts
about the Baltic nations' independence."
McCain said that the purpose of NATO enlargement is "to create an
impregnable zone of stability, security, and peace in Europe.... In
doing so, we replace the containment strategy of the Cold War era with
the enlargement of our community of values."
NATO is "not a group of Cold War-era military allies looking for new
missions to stay relevant, but a political community of like-minded
nations...dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to fostering a
continent where war is unimaginable, security is guaranteed, and
prosperity unbounded," he said.
McCain also argued that NATO membership for the Baltic countries
"would reduce the prospects and possibilities for conflict with
Russia." He cited the example of Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic to show that "NATO membership does not preclude a nation from
having a healthy relationship with Russia. It can, in fact, encourage
better relations, as we have witnessed, particularly in the dramatic
turnaround of the historically troubled relationship between Warsaw
and Moscow."
He proposed four "principles" for U.S. and NATO policy toward Russia:
realism, reform, reciprocity, and resolve.
"Our policy must be predicated upon Russian actions. Moscow's motives
remain, in many respects, opaque. U.S. and European views of Russia
should also be shaped by the extent to which it carries out genuine
economic and political reform. Economic and political corruption
remain pervasive in Russia, and until reforms are implemented,
Russia's neighbors cannot be faulted for questioning its intentions.
Reciprocity refers to development of a relationship wherein mutual
interests are manifested in concrete action. Finally, we should feel
no reluctance to stand up to Russian leaders when they challenge our
interests and values," McCain said.
The Senator's speech was given in memory of former U.S. Ambassador to
Estonia Robert C. Frasure, who is honored in this annual lecture
event. Estonian President Lennart Meri and U.S. Ambassador to Estonia
Melissa Wells attended the Senator's lecture, as did Estonian Minister
of Defense Juri Luik, who introduced Senator McCain.
Frasure was deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs
when he was killed in a motor vehicle accident on Mount Igman near
Sarajevo in August 1995. The accident also claimed the lives of two
other American diplomats and a French soldier who were engaged on a
peace mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
McCain was President Bush's main rival for the Republican presidential
nomination in last year's election.
Following is the text of the speech as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
Tallinn, Estonia
August 24, 2001
The Robert C. Frasure Memorial Lecture
Senator John McCain
FROM TRAGEDY TO DESTINY: ESTONIA'S PLACE IN THE NEW ATLANTIC ORDER
Bob Frasure died on a lonely road in war-torn Bosnia, another victim
of Slobodan Milosevic's tyranny, in pursuit of his vision of a Europe
whole and free. When the last of the "Forest Brothers" died in 1978
after decades of bravely resisting Soviet occupation, Baltic patriots
around the world could not have anticipated our celebration tonight of
your nations' re-integration with the West, after the horrors of the
last 60 years. The Euro-Atlantic agenda today is robust, thanks to
Bob's early vision and resolute NATO engagement on regional security
challenges.
Bob Frasure did not live to see his vision of a Bosnia at peace
realized, war criminals facing justice, its people spared of war's
horrors. The West's intervention on their behalf, and in support of
their neighbors in Kosovo years later, opened the door to a future of
stability and freedom, challenging Balkan ghosts and serving justice
to the leaders haunted by them. This peace was Bob Frasure's ambition,
and we honor him for it tonight.
Bob would agree that we have much work left to do in Bosnia, Kosovo
and Macedonia. In concert with our allies, we should be prepared to do
it. The possibility of full-fledged ethnic warfare in Macedonia must
be of gravest concern to all members of the Atlantic Alliance, whose
aspiration for a free and secure Europe cannot abide another civil war
in the Balkans. I am proud that the newest members of the Alliance
support an active NATO role in Macedonia. The contributions of Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO's victory over Serbian forces
in Kosovo put to rest any misplaced delusions about their contribution
to the Alliance's mission, and reinforced their transformation from
the Cold War's victims to the new era's guarantors of security and
peace. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, formerly captive nations, have
all sent forces to support ongoing NATO operations in Southeastern
Europe, in a welcome display of regional security cooperation.
Our Alliance reflects Europe's continuing and historic transition from
hostile division to a continental zone of enlightened rule within
secure borders. But that transition remains incomplete. NATO's fate,
and that of Europe, rests upon completing the job we started at the
1999 Washington summit, and which we will continue in Prague next
October. As President Bush stated in Warsaw: all of Europe's new
democracies, from the Baltics to the Black Sea, should have a chance
to join the North Atlantic Alliance.
It is my hope that you, Estonia's leaders, shall preside over your
nation's full and final integration into the transatlantic community.
In doing so, you will affirm the vision of the patriots who came
before you, and ensure that your people never again serve a foreign
master, but live in peace in a community of shared values, and shared
security. This is not a vain hope for Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania;
indeed, it is one that I expect to come to pass, and for which I
pledge my support.
We hold both a moral and a strategic interest in the Baltic states'
membership in the NATO alliance. The moral imperative is to correct
the division of Europe agreed to by the great powers at Yalta. The
strategic imperative is to secure the Baltics' relationship with the
West, of which they are an integral part, and to secure their
relationship with Russia, so that never again will there be any doubts
about the Baltic nations' independence.
Contrary to what some assert, NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania would reduce the prospects and possibilities for conflict
with Russia -- which is good for them, good for us, and good for the
Russians. As we have seen in the three newest members of the Alliance,
NATO membership does not preclude a nation from having a healthy
relationship with Russia. It can, in fact, encourage better relations,
as we have witnessed, particularly in the dramatic turnaround of the
historically troubled relationship between Warsaw and Moscow.
The last round of NATO enlargement demonstrated the importance of the
Alliance as a living, vibrant institution, committed to meeting the
security challenges of the new Euro-Atlantic region. Cold War-minded
critics contended then that we were creating a new dividing line in
Europe -- but the result of enlargement was to extend the zone of
stability and security eastwards, into lands in which the absence of
these qualities has frequently led to armed conflict in the past.
Critics said NATO's consensual decision-making process would become
bogged down by the addition of new members. But to the extent that
consensus over NATO's response to Milosevic's crimes in Kosovo was
difficult to achieve, the newest members of the Alliance often
provided the strongest support within our councils for joint military
action. NATO's newest members also made important human, material, and
geographic contributions to the Alliance's mission.
Leaders in Prague, Budapest and Warsaw will be the first to tell you
that their status within NATO has required enormous sacrifice -- both
to meet the terms of Alliance membership and to carry out their solemn
obligations to it, in peace and in war. Their commitment was sorely
tested when, just days after they formally joined NATO, we went to war
to uphold the principles upon which it was founded. Their response
left no doubt about their resolve to roll back armed aggression in
Europe, from which they had suffered so terribly in another age.
As we approach the Prague summit next year, let us reflect not only
upon the successes of the last round of enlargement, but upon the
virtues of a new round, and the qualities NATO aspirants would bring
to the Alliance. We do not seek to expand NATO for expansion's sake
alone; proponents of enlargement, of which I am an enthusiastic one,
occasionally fall into the rhetorical trap of arguing that we must
keep adding new members to NATO to sustain its dynamism, in the same
way that you must keep moving on a bicycle to avoid falling off it.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, history's most successful
military alliance, is not so fragile. We do not require the mere
ceremonies of enlargement, and the new faces it brings to our
councils, for fear of institutional failure, or for simple lack of
some higher purpose. We must enlarge this Alliance to complete the
task we started in 1948: to create an impregnable zone of stability,
security, and peace in Europe that is upheld by our joint military
power, rooted in our resolve to defend this territory against
aggression, and inspired by our commitment to the principles of
liberty, to which we pledge our sacred honor.
In doing so, we replace the containment strategy of the Cold War era
with the enlargement of our community of values. We relegate Yalta's
division of Europe to the history books. We forge a new Euro-Atlantic
community, transformed by the values we fought the Cold War to
protect. And we celebrate the freedom that almost all European peoples
enjoy today as a consequence of our mutual sacrifice.
Our values once served usefully to differentiate us from the Soviet
system, and the oppression and fear that were its servants. Brave
dissidents behind the Iron Curtain -- far braver than we in the West
who held these same convictions, but who did not risk death in
advocating them -- reminded us, like stars in the infinite black of
the night sky, that light and hope existed in the midst of utter
darkness.
Today, those values are triumphant. No human power, no matter how
strong or malevolent, can extinguish them. Freedom's flame, roaring
through the captive nations of Europe, destroyed the bonds of
oppression, which proved no match for the common idea of liberty.
Prime Minister Mart Laar, who is here tonight, captures this spirit in
his wonderful book on the Forest Brothers' unyielding resistance to
their Soviet occupiers. In the Prime Minister's words,
Nobody believed that Estonia would, for decades and decades, be left
in the
hands of the Soviets. That wasn't even a possibility. It's only a
question
of time, everybody thought. But after decades went by, the idea about
the
West coming to their aid disappeared. The fight in the forest became a
personal thing. These people fought because they simply wanted to die
as
free men.
You now live as free men, and women, in testament to the values for
which the Forest Brothers lived, and died.
We must secure these values for all the people of Europe who share in
them, and whose democratic governments are ready to make the solemn
commitment to defend them wherever they may be threatened. Our task is
to invigorate our Alliance with this premise: that the Atlantic
community is not a group of Cold War-era military allies looking for
new missions to stay relevant, but a political community of
like-minded nations, challenging the cruel dictates of history and
geography, that is dedicated to the principles of democracy, and to
fostering a continent where war is unimaginable, security is
guaranteed, and prosperity unbounded.
Here, our common values flourish, and serve as an example to others.
Here, we consign Europe's bitter and war-torn past to history's
dustbin and replace it with a promise: that the people of our nations
shall never again take up arms against each other in this place, but
shall in concert vigilantly defend freedom against threats from
without. With this promise comes a pledge: that this is no fortified
and self-contained bastion of freedom, but a dynamic and expanding
Alliance to which we invite friends and neighbors, when they are
ready, to join. This pledge reflects our common values, which are
universal, and whose potency is multiplied, not diluted, as more and
more people share in them.
We speak of these values as universal, but of course their origin is
in the West. We see the West as a community of nations culturally
distinct from friends and allies elsewhere. NATO is an alliance of
Western nations. In discussing NATO enlargement, then, we must ask, in
Vaclav Havel's words: where is the eastern end of the West? By virtue
of their history and culture, the Baltic states clearly fall within
this shared community of values.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are each individual countries with
individual histories -- but they have suffered the shared horrors of
Nazi domination and Soviet occupation. Their status as "captive
nations" during the Cold War captured this reality. The United States
never recognized their annexation by the Soviet Union. We would be
doing so now if we argued that the Baltic nations were somehow
different from other aspiring European candidates for membership in
the Alliance by virtue of their previous, and involuntary,
relationship with Russia.
We would also be acknowledging the right of foreign powers to control
the destinies of other nations. We fought the Cold War because we
oppose this principle, resolutely. As President Havel has said, we
call the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov pact criminal because we did not then
and do not now acknowledge the right of great powers to speak for
sovereign nations in their neighborhoods. We will not abide the
argument that Russian sensitivities today should preclude Baltic
nations' aspirations for NATO admission, because we believe the Baltic
states speak for themselves.
I would suggest four principles for our policy toward Russia: realism,
reform, reciprocity, and resolve. Our policy must be predicated upon
Russian actions. Moscow's motives remain, in many respects, opaque.
U.S. and European views of Russia should also be shaped by the extent
to which it carries out genuine economic and political reform.
Economic and political corruption remain pervasive in Russia, and
until reforms are implemented, Russia's neighbors cannot be faulted
for questioning its intentions. Reciprocity refers to development of a
relationship wherein mutual interests are manifested in concrete
action. Finally, we should feel no reluctance to stand up to Russian
leaders when they challenge our interests and values.
As you and other leaders in Central and Eastern Europe well know,
Russia is still grappling with its post-Cold War identity, and
exploring its relationship with the West. Much good can come from this
exploration: a new strategic relationship with the United States not
premised on mutual enmity and mutually assured destruction; a greater
willingness to act as a responsible member of the international
community; a renewed push for Russian reform. But we should not allow
Russia the temptation to pursue old habits, for its sake and for our
own. The days of spheres of influence and internal subversion of
sovereign nations are over. Russia can have a better future than its
past, and it should aspire to this, again, for its own sake.
President Havel put it well in Bratislava last May:
It is my profound conviction that Russia does not deserve that we
behave
towards it as we would towards a leper, an invalid, or a child who
requires
special treatment and whose whims, no matter how dangerous, must be
understood and tolerated.... The Prague summit could not only help the
Alliance to attain a yet deeper level of self-understanding, and a yet
clearer expression of its identity, but also inspire Russia to seek a
clearer understanding of its character, its identity, and its
relations
with others, in order that Russia's policy may be governed by a
dispassionate and objective self-confidence of someone who, not being
troubled by doubts about itself, sees no reason to look for illusory
enemies as substitute culprits to bear the blame for its own
uncertainty.
My friends, some Russian leaders still have not come to terms with
Baltic independence. They do not accept what we in the West have never
doubted: that the Baltic nations were captives of Soviet imperialism
from 1944 to 1991, and that their status today is no different from
that of other aspirant countries, despite this history of illegitimate
occupation.
We are not here to re-live the Cold War. But we can affirm, with
certainty and pride, that Baltic membership in the North Atlantic
Alliance would move Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from the gray area
of Europe, where some would relegate them, to a firm anchoring in the
Atlantic community, where they have historically belonged. From your
tragic past, let us build together a future of peace and security that
is inviolable, and that affirms the values of the new Europe in which
you live. In this new Europe, you have the sovereign right to
determine freely how you wish to protect your freedom, including
membership in NATO. When you are ready -- and I believe you will be --
we in the Alliance should welcome you with invitations to join NATO at
the Prague summit.
With opportunity comes responsibility. The Prague summit is
approaching, and Estonia's candidacy, like that of Latvia and
Lithuania, is very much on the minds of Alliance leaders. This makes
it all the more important for you to continue and accelerate the
reforms you are undertaking, including military reform. We are
watching with interest, and we wish you well in this undertaking.
Tonight, as we gather in this free nation to pay tribute to Bob
Frasure's life, I would also like to pay tribute to all the Estonian
patriots who kept your nation's dream of freedom alive in her darkest
hours, the brave Estonians who resisted Soviet occupation with the
moral authority that would ultimately bring down the Soviet empire.
The entire Red Army, the Soviet security services, and the leaders of
a police state steeped in the language of brute force simply could not
contain the call of the common man in the Baltic nations and
throughout Central and Eastern Europe for freedom -- an appeal
impervious to intimidation, bullets, or the voice of a state authority
that had corrupted itself beyond repair.
As Western Europe rose from the ashes of World War II to build a
better, more just, more prosperous order, we in the West have
dedicated ourselves to creating a new Atlantic order, one in which our
relations with each other are transformed within a sphere of shared
security -- even as we bring our values, and the stability they
provide, closer to Russia, and encourage her to share in them.
The new Europe will still face challenges to its security. We shall
meet them. We will do so confident that our unity, and the resolution
we bring to the defense of our shared values, will deter and, if
necessary, overcome any adversary, even as our principles are affirmed
by the challenge of defending them.
It is my fond hope that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are able to join
us in this historic endeavor. When you do, the old order, the old
fears, and the old ambitions will have no future. The future belongs
to us, my friends -- to all of you who suffered your country's
occupation, to all of us dedicated to a Europe whole and free.
Alfred Eerik was one of the Estonian Forest Brothers. He suffered
through a long imprisonment but lived to tell about his experience. In
a 1996 magazine interview, he shared his one wish: that he could rouse
from the grave his former KGB interrogator, who had confidently
assured him that Estonia would never again be free. In Eerik's words,
"I'd want to give him a message. I'd tell him, 'Look, look around you,
the time of independence did come back, and I am -- once again -- a
free man.'"
Thank you for the honor of addressing you tonight, in memory of Bob
Frasure, and in tribute to your nation's hard-earned freedom. May your
people ever enjoy its blessings.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
