28 February 2002
Administration Witnesses Call for New NATO Capabilities, Members
(Some senators question wisdom of expanding membership) (1080)
By Ralph Dannheisser
Washington File Congressional Correspondent
Washington -- Bush administration officials have told the Senate Armed
Services Committee they have three prime goals for the upcoming Prague
NATO Summit: ensuring that the alliance has the capabilities to meet
today's threats, increasing its membership, and enhancing its
relationship with Russia and other non-members.
But they encountered skepticism from some committee members --
including senior Republican John Warner of Virginia -- as to whether
further enlargement of the organization from its current membership of
19 would be wise before it solves its own internal problems.
New nations should be invited to join NATO "only if there's a
compelling military rationale," Warner declared.
The administration witnesses -- Under Secretary of State Marc
Grossman, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Air Force
General Joseph Ralston, commander-in-chief of the U.S. European
Command, testified February 28 as the committee looked into the future
of the NATO alliance.
Listening intently in the audience were the ambassadors from at least
three of the nine countries that aspire to be added to NATO's ranks at
the Prague meeting in November -- Romania, Slovenia and Lithuania.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan),
opened the hearing by observing that "depending upon whom you talk to,
NATO's glass is either half full or half empty," with some observers
on both sides of the Atlantic having "raised concerns about the future
roles and missions of NATO and NATO's relevance in the post-September
11 world."
Characterizing himself as being "from the glass is half-full camp,"
Levin said "the fact remains that NATO must address a number of
crucial issues no later than the November Prague summit."
Grossman acknowledged the broad questions being raised but declared,
"The future of NATO has been debated before and we have always come
back to the fundamentals: Values matter. Collective defense matters.
Capabilities matter. The transatlantic relationship matters.
"And because NATO has always adapted to meet new challenges, NATO
matters," he said, terming the alliance "a fundamental pillar of
America's foreign and defense policy."
Indeed, Grossman argued, "NATO is not less important after September
11, it is more important." And when President Bush meets with the
heads of other NATO nations in Prague, he said, "we expect that allies
will be ready to approve a program of action to enhance NATO's
ability" to deal with terrorism and related threats.
"Allies are indispensable if we are to defeat new threats posed by
terrorists and hostile states seeking weapons of mass destruction," he
told the panel.
Sharing a concern expressed by some of the senators, Grossman said
that "the growing capabilities gap between the United States and
Europe is the most serious long-term problem facing NATO," adding it
is one that must be addressed.
He said the United States "will continue to urge allies to refocus
their defense efforts, if need be by pooling their resources to do
collectively what they are unable to do individually." But, he added,
the allies themselves "must be prepared to do much more to improve
their capabilities."
Addressing the issue of enhanced NATO relations with Russia, Grossman
said the so-called "at 20" relationship will give Russia the chance to
take part in developing cooperative approaches in areas such as
counter-terrorism, civil emergency preparedness, airspace management
and joint training and exercises. But, he stressed, the approach "will
not give Russia the ability to veto NATO actions in any area. It is
not a back door to NATO membership."
Feith, in his testimony, acknowledged that "enlargement of the
alliance is not an exercise free of risks and difficult judgments."
Nonetheless, he said, "we think NATO can enlarge -- indeed should --
in ways that will serve the national security interests of the United
States and our current allies."
None of the witnesses gave any hint as to administration thinking on
which countries might be approved for membership at the Prague
meeting. But Feith said that, as specific candidacies are considered,
"the Defense Department will be assessing the state of the aspirants'
military structures, their implementation of defense reform, the
readiness of military units dedicated to NATO missions, and the
military value the aspirant countries can add to NATO."
He added, "As we encourage allies to spend more on defense, it is even
more important that we get them to 'spend smarter,'" and raised the
Joint Strike Force Program as a model of cooperation and efficiency to
be emulated.
Ralston said that the steady integration record of Poland, Hungary and
the Czech Republic -- the most recent additions to NATO's membership
ranks -- suggests that further enlargement can be managed
successfully. He said that the aspirant nations "offer limited but
improving military capabilities and infrastructure to the alliance."
Some committee members -- particularly on the Republican side -- were
less certain.
"Is it really time to move forward with any significant enlargement?"
when internal problems within NATO remain to be dealt with, Warner
asked. "Would it not be better to let this round of enlargement pass
by...(and make an effort to) put our own house in order?" he wanted to
know. He said the case for welcoming any of the nine additional
aspirants "has yet to be made."
When Warner raised concern that granting membership to the Baltic
states "could be disruptive" to relations with Russia, Feith
disagreed. "Russia recognizes that we are not a threat to them, NATO
is not a threat to them," he said.
Senator Pat Roberts (Republican, Kansas) said he shared some of
Warner's views. Stipulating that the basic notion that "the United
States must remain linked to our allies in Europe" was not in
question, Roberts asked whether NATO, with an ever-expanding
membership, would remain viable and relevant.
Citing NATO's policy of acting by consensus decisions, Roberts said
that achieving unanimity has sometimes been difficult enough for the
current 19 members -- and indeed when there were only 16. Getting a
potential 28 members to act in a coordinated manner could be "like
trying to transport frogs in a wheelbarrow," he said.
Feith acknowledged that the larger the membership, the more unwieldy
it could become. But, he said, this negative would have to be "netted
out" against the clear benefits of enlargement.
(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
