01 April 2003
Burns Urges Senate Ratification of Seven New NATO Members
(Testimony on Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia) (5830)
America needs "a permanent Alliance willing and able to take on the
dangers posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and other new
threats," and U.S. policies "are designed to ensure that NATO can
continue to meet this challenge," Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns told
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 1.
Burns, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, testified on the
issues of enlargement and the future of the alliance.
He said U.S. security would be increased and NATO's collective defense
would be stronger with the addition of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia -- the seven nations
invited to join NATO at the November 2002 Prague Summit. He said he
believes they meet the alliance's high standards for membership and
recommended that the Senate ratify the Accession Protocols, which were
signed in Brussels March 26.
"All seven are reforming and modernizing their defense establishments
to add strength to NATO's collective defense capabilities," Burns
said. "All have demonstrated a firm commitment to NATO's community of
values by addressing such issues as corruption, minority rights,
regional relations, trafficking in persons, the legacy of the
Holocaust, property restitution, and good governance."
Burns acknowledged differing levels of progress on achieving these
reforms and that the invited nations are the first to recognize that
the job is not done. He emphasized, however, that they are committed
to reform and that their efforts "have not slowed, but rather
accelerated" since the Prague Summit.
"Each of the invitees has made new commitments in writing, at the
highest level, to specific reform measures on a range of issues ...
that will guide their efforts throughout the accession period and
beyond," he noted.
Burns described the invitees' contributions to NATO operations in
Afghanistan and the Balkans, as well as to coalition efforts to disarm
Iraq. He said they "understand the value of NATO membership and they
will never take it for granted ... [and] will be among our most
committed allies when they walk through NATO's doors as full members."
Which is why, he added, their voices must be heard in NATO
deliberations.
"[W]e should look at NATO enlargement not as how many countries we are
obligated to defend, but rather how many countries we can count on to
stand with us when the going gets tough. Size and geography and
population count less than the political will to defend our principles
and collective security," he said.
Burns spoke about the recent NATO debate over defending Turkey against
possible attacks from Iraq, and after providing a brief perspective on
earlier disagreements within the alliance, he pointed out that "NATO
has survived crises in the past, and NATO will survive this latest
episode."
The ambassador then outlined the six main challenges facing the
alliance: strengthening its role in meeting threats outside Europe
including providing additional support in Afghanistan and playing a
part in post-war Iraq; completing its military and defense
transformation including implementing the Prague Capabilities
Commitment, establishing a Response Force, and streamlining its
command structure; integrating the seven new members (after the
accession protocols have been ratified by the law-making bodies of
NATO's current members); improving the quality of relations with
Partner nations; working more effectively with the European Union; and
honoring its commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Following is the text of Burns' prepared remarks to the committee:
(begin text)
Testimony by Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns, United States Permanent
Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
On the Future of NATO to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
April 1, 2003
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today. I am honored to
appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the
future of NATO, our most important Alliance and a central pillar of
U.S. foreign and defense policy. America needs a permanent Alliance
willing and able to take on the dangers posed by terrorism, weapons of
mass destruction and other new threats. The Administration's policies
are designed to ensure that NATO can continue to meet this challenge.
Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge your leadership in
defining a sensible American policy on NATO. I very much appreciate
the advice and guidance that my team received from you when you
visited us in Brussels last year. Your commitment to NATO throughout
your Senate career has been steadfast and very much appreciated by all
of us in the United States Foreign Service.
I would like to thank Senator Biden for his leadership of this
Committee last year, when the Senate supported both NATO's
transformation and NATO enlargement in preparation for the Prague
Summit.
Let me also say that I greatly appreciate the participation of the
Congress in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We are proud that
Congressman Doug Bereuter now serves as President of this important
forum.
Mr. Chairman, we are meeting at a moment when the United States faces
momentous challenges overseas. American and coalition soldiers are in
harm's way in Iraq, undertaking by force what Saddam Hussein refused
to do peacefully -- to disarm as demanded by the international
community for over 12 years.
Differences with a number of our long-standing Allies over how to deal
with the grave threat posed by Saddam have put a serious strain on
Trans-Atlantic ties. Just as we will have to rebuild Iraq, we will
have to bring NATO back to the consensus and unity that marked the
Prague Summit just four months ago, when we agreed that NATO needs new
members, new capabilities and new relationships to meet the threats of
the 21st century.
Today I would like to give you a view from Brussels on where NATO is
right now, where we want it to go, and how we believe the seven
invited nations will help us get there. I will try to make the case
today that the seven invited nations are ready to become full NATO
members, and that their accession is in the best interests of the
United States. I will also tell you why I believe NATO remains our
most important Alliance, and how we seek to transform it to meet the
new threats so evident after September 11, 2001. Finally, Mr.
Chairman, I will give you my thoughts on the key challenges that NATO
faces in the period ahead.
THE U.S. ENLARGEMENT STRATEGY
Mr. Chairman, last week, on March 26, I had the honor of signing on
behalf of the United States in Brussels the Protocols on the Accession
to the North Atlantic Treaty of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. I strongly encourage the U.S. Senate
to provide its advice and consent to the ratification of these
protocols. I am convinced that bringing these seven nations into the
Alliance will make NATO a stronger collective defense organization and
will increase the security of the United States.
When President Bush and NATO leaders invited the seven countries to
begin accession talks with the Alliance at last November's Prague
Summit, it was truly a historic step forward. Since the fall of the
Berlin Wall and communism more than a decade ago, the U.S. and our
Allies have pursued the strategic aim of creating a Europe whole,
free, secure and at peace. This has been President George Bush's
objective as it was of President Clinton and of President George
Herbert Walker Bush, with wide bipartisan support -- to firmly anchor
the nations of Central and Eastern Europe in both NATO and the
European Union.
NATO's enlargement, coupled with enlargement of the EU, will move
Europe beyond the divisions and instability that made the 20th century
one of history's bloodiest. This is a profound achievement for the
United States and our European Allies.
We have pushed these countries hard to be ready for NATO membership.
Since the end of the Cold War, and particularly since becoming
candidates for NATO membership, the seven invited nations have joined
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in consolidating democracy and
free markets in that half of Europe closed behind the Iron Curtain
during the Cold War. The prospect of Alliance membership has helped to
erase old dividing lines and shift Europe and NATO's center of gravity
eastward, broadening security and stability on a continent that has
seen too little of both.
Mr. Chairman, my recommendation of ratification is based on months and
years of work by our government with the invited countries. Twice last
year, in February and in October, I led a U.S. interagency team to the
seven invited nations -- as well as to Albania and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia -- to assess their readiness for NATO
membership. During these visits, as well as in Brussels and at the
Vilnius-10 Summit in Riga last July, our team met with every
President, Prime Minister, Foreign and Defense Minister of the seven
nations -- in well over one hundred separate meetings. Our goal was to
learn as much as we could about these countries' readiness for NATO
membership, and to encourage them to press ahead with their historic
reform efforts.
Based on these meetings and visits, and on our wide-ranging contacts
with these nations at all levels of the U.S. Government, I believe
that all of the invited nations meet NATO's high standards for
membership. All seven are reforming and modernizing their defense
establishments to add strength to NATO's collective defense
capabilities. All have demonstrated a firm commitment to NATO's
community of values by addressing such issues as corruption, minority
rights, regional relations, trafficking in persons, the legacy of the
Holocaust, property restitution, and good governance. All have
responded positively and constructively to a very intrusive U.S.
examination of their efforts, often beyond the rigors of NATO's
Membership Action Plan that all of the invited nations have endured
since 1999.
This is not to say that the invited nations have solved all their
problems. Despite the remarkable progress we have seen, each of them
remains a society in transition from communism to an open democratic
and market-oriented system. Their levels of progress differ, and many
challenges remain. Together with our Allies, we will need to continue
to encourage and support their reform efforts in the years ahead.
The invited nations are the first to recognize that the job is not
done. They are committed to reform. Their efforts have not slowed, but
rather accelerated, in the months since NATO's historic decisions in
Prague. Each of the invitees has made new commitments in writing, at
the highest level, to specific reform measures on a range of issues.
These individual Timetables for the Completion of Reforms were
submitted to NATO prior to the signing of Accession Protocols on March
26. They constitute important political commitments that will guide
their efforts throughout the accession period and beyond -- and will
help inform Allied parliaments about the status of these nations'
preparations for membership.
Take a look at Romania's reform timetable and you will find budgetary
commitments to enable its anti-corruption office to do its work. Read
Bulgaria's and you will see specific steps that the government is
taking to curb illicit arms sales and safeguard NATO secrets. The
timetables of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania outline their strategies
for educating their children about the Holocaust and restituting
communal property. Read Slovenia's timetable and you will find a
specific commitment to increase defense spending to 2 percent of GDP
by 2008. See Slovakia's for a detailed description of the government's
efforts to improve the situation of its Roma minority.
THE INVITEES
Mr. Chairman, the President's Report to Congress on NATO enlargement,
which was submitted last week, contains a detailed analysis of each of
the invited nations. Rather than review all the findings of that
report, let me try to give you a brief snapshot of these seven
countries, each of which brings a different set of strengths to the
NATO table. Their participation in the MAP and in the Partnership for
Peace "PfP" program has enabled them to make significant strides in
reforming their militaries and in enhancing the interoperability of
their armed forces with NATO. Furthermore, each of these countries has
also made important political and military contributions to the
security challenges we face - in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in Iraq,
and in some cases in all three theaters.
Romania, the largest of the invited nations, self-deployed over 400
combat troops to Afghanistan and now has a 70-strong
nuclear/biological/chemical defense team on the ground in Kuwait in
support of the coalition, with more personnel en route. Again and
again, Romania has demonstrated the ambition, and the means, to play a
major role in NATO as a close Ally of the U.S. The government is also
showing a clear commitment to tackling its remaining reform
challenges, including corruption and cementing the rule of law, where
much work remains to be done.
Like Romania, Bulgaria has been with us every step of the way on Iraq
-- despite calls from some other parts of Europe to remain on the
sidelines. Bulgaria has played a key role in UN Security Council
deliberations, joined our Coalition, and contributed a
nuclear/biological/chemical defense team to the Iraqi theater of
operations as well as airfields for our movements to and from
Afghanistan. Bringing Bulgaria and Romania into NATO would further
extend stability into Europe's most troubled region -- southeast
Europe. Bulgaria's government has taken numerous painful steps on
defense reform, including destroying its SS-23 and SCUD missiles and
reducing the size of its armed forces by the thousands. Moreover,
Bulgaria is working closely with us to tighten export controls and
protect NATO classified information. These are tough challenges, but I
am confident that the government will succeed on both counts.
Like Bulgaria and Romania, Slovakia has faced the challenge of
reducing a large, antiquated military machine inherited from its
Warsaw Pact past -- and is accomplishing this task with success.
Slovakia's military is capable of making a significant contribution to
Alliance defense, including through its mechanized infantry battalion
for NATO-led operations and its nuclear/biological/chemical defense
team now on the ground in Kuwait in support of the coalition. Slovakia
is also on a very positive political and economic trajectory, having
put the autocrat Vladimir Meciar out to pasture in last September's
elections, and is making good progress on remaining problems such as
integration of the Roma and fighting corruption.
One week ago, Slovenia surprised many by winning its referendum on
NATO membership by a two-to-one margin, a tribute to the efforts of
its government and -- I believe -- to the wisdom of its people. The
mandate that the government has received bodes very well for
Slovenia's future contributions to the Alliance. With its model
democracy and strong economy, we can expect Slovenia to continue to
serve as a leader in the Balkans, in areas like de-mining and mountain
warfare training. We welcome the government's commitment to raise
defense spending every year from now until it reaches 2 percent of GDP
by 2008.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are well prepared to take up the
responsibilities of NATO membership. Though small, they have worked
hard for a decade to develop niche military capabilities to fill
Alliance shortfalls, and we can expect continuing staunch support from
them for U.S. objectives. All three have contributed troops to
NATO-led operations in the Balkans and all three are on the ground
with us in Afghanistan. All three have joined the coalition to disarm
Saddam Hussein, and all are taking steps to deploy military personnel
to the theater for purposes of peacekeeping and reconstruction. The
Senate and successive U.S. Administrations deserve credit for having
been true and loyal friends of the Baltic States. The U.S. never
recognized their illegal annexation by the Soviet Union and stood by
them as they built their new democracies. These are truly admirable
countries, freed forever from totalitarianism, and ready to enjoy the
benefits of freedom and security that they surely deserve.
A MORE ATLANTICIST ALLIANCE
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to consider not only the
objective qualifications of the seven invited nations, but also the
factors that have led them to seek membership in NATO, what kind of
Alliance they are interested in joining, and how this affects more
broadly U.S. national security interests.
In the thousands of miles that my colleagues and I have traveled, and
in the hundreds of meetings that we have held -- not only with
government officials but with members of the opposition, public
opinion leaders, and civil society as well -- we have heard time and
again how grateful the invited nations are for the leadership that the
U.S. has shown on enlargement and in strengthening security in the
Euro-Atlantic area.
When I first took up my assignment in Brussels in the summer of 2001,
the conventional wisdom at NATO was that somewhere between one and
four nations might receive Prague Summit invitations - certainly not
seven. It was President Bush's vision -- first articulated in Warsaw
earlier the same year of an Alliance stretching "from the Baltics to
the Black Sea" -- that shifted the balance at NATO in favor of a
robust enlargement. The horrible events of September 11, 2001 further
convinced many at NATO that the Alliance should expand its ranks with
those countries willing to take risks to win the war on terrorism.
From the very beginning, it was the U.S. that championed the most
robust possible enlargement -- a fact that has not been lost on the
invitees. They know that if not for U.S. leadership, NATO membership
might not have happened for them. They can thank President Bush and
his predecessors as well as the Senate for this achievement.
Let there be no doubt -- these are nations that understand the value
of NATO membership and they will never take it for granted. They will
be among our most committed allies when they walk through NATO's doors
as full members. Senator Voinovich of this committee, who attended the
Prague Summit, will recall the remarkably eloquent words of Latvian
President Vike-Freiberga at the North Atlantic Council meeting
following her country's invitation to join the Alliance. She said,
"Our people have been tested in the fires of history, they have been
tempered by suffering and injustice. They know the meaning and the
value of liberty. They know that it is worth every effort to support
it, to maintain it, to stand for it and to fight for it. We make a
solemn pledge and a commitment here today, on this historic and solemn
occasion, that we will strive to our utmost to do our part to
contribute not just to the strength of the Alliance but to do whatever
needs to be done to create a world where justice and liberty are
available to all."
Hearing those words again, it is easy to understand why President Bush
said at Prague that he expects the invited nations to "refresh the
spirit" of NATO itself.
Some say these nations should be seen and not heard. The U.S. believes
these nations deserve our respect for all they have done to reassert
their own independence and freedom. Theirs is one of the most dramatic
and hopeful stories of our time. We need to hear their views on the
issues of the day, including on NATO's future. These nations know the
meaning of democracy, having been denied it for so long. They know the
value of freedom, having had theirs crushed by Soviet communism and
totalitarianism. They don't just bring new capabilities to the table;
they also bring strong political will to defend our way of life.
Mr. Chairman, in this new century, we should look at NATO enlargement
not as how many countries we are obligated to defend, but rather how
many countries we can count on to stand with us when the going gets
tough. Size and geography and population count less than the political
will to defend our principles and collective security.
NEW THREATS/NEW CAPABILITIES
Mr. Chairman, the seven nations that received invitations at the
Prague Summit understand that the threats we face today are
fundamentally different from those of the last century -- that the
threats of today come not from strong states within Europe, but from
unstable failed states and terrorist organizations far from Europe's
borders.
As NATO Secretary General George Robertson has said in his inimitable
fashion, "geography will no longer act as our shield," because the
current and future security environment "does not afford us the luxury
of fighting theoretical battles about what is 'in' and what is 'out of
area.'" In other words, as you famously said, Mr. Chairman, NATO is
either "out of area or out of business."
This was the lesson the United States derived from the tragic events
of September 11 -- that the gravest threats to our security can come
from anywhere on the globe. NATO's future is thus the defense of peace
not just in Europe but wherever threats arise to all of us in the
Euro-Atlantic community. In fact, NATO is already operating well
beyond the borders of our member states, and that is where NATO
belongs. The old "out-of-area" debate is indeed dead.
Today in Afghanistan, troops from fourteen NATO, and fourteen NATO
Partner, countries make up the vast majority of the 4,500 strong
International Stabilization and Assistance Force (ISAF). In addition,
NATO itself has assisted current ISAF lead nations Germany and the
Netherlands with force generation, planning, intelligence,
coordination and information sharing, and communications.
If NATO's past was centered in countering the Soviet threat to Western
Europe, its future must be devoted to meeting the greatest security
challenge this generation faces -- the toxic mix of terrorism, states
that sponsor terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction far from
Europe's shores. NATO needs to pivot from its inward focus on Europe
-- which was necessary and appropriate during the Cold War -- to an
outward focus on the arc of countries where most of the threats are
today -- in Central and South Asia, and in the Middle East.
Mr. Chairman, our transformation agenda for NATO is an ambitious one,
and there are many challenges to overcome. But at the Prague Summit
last November, President Bush and his fellow Heads of State and
Government took historic decisions to set this process in motion.
The Prague vision was both simple and far-reaching -- to launch a
wholesale transformation of the Alliance for the 21st century. The old
NATO served us well, but because the threats to our common security
had changed, Allies agreed that NATO had to change with them.
At the Summit, Allies agreed to a three-part reform effort -- to build
new military capabilities to fight terrorism and the spread of Weapons
of Mass Destruction and to keep the peace; to take in new members to
broaden NATO's reach; and to nurture new relationship with Russia,
Ukraine, our Mediterranean Dialogue Partners, and our partners in the
Partnership for Peace, particularly with the states of Central Asia
and the Caucasus to extend security across Eurasia.
NATO's goal of new military capabilities was expressed in the Prague
Capabilities Commitment, through which our European Allies committed
to fill NATO shortfalls in areas such as heavy air and sealift,
air-to-air refueling, precision guided munitions, and advanced
communications. In recent months, Allies have begun implementing the
Prague decisions, pooling their resources by establishing a number of
multinational consortiums aimed at acquiring these capabilities.
Our challenge between now and the next NATO Summit in mid-2004 is to
ensure that our Allies follow through on these commitments in a tight
budget climate. At NATO, we are keeping the heat on -- both through
bilateral pressure and peer group pressure within the North Atlantic
Council. Our most effective lobbying tactic is through leadership and
example. As demonstrated so vividly again in Iraq, Congress has funded
the strongest military in the world. Allies know what they have to do
to catch up.
In Prague, our Allies also agreed to a U.S. proposal to establish a
NATO Response Force to allow us to move more quickly and flexibly
wherever needed. This will be a rotational force that is
technologically advanced, lethal, and has trained and exercised
together as a combined and joint force. The NATO Response Force was
Prague's capability headline; it will also be the most visible
determinant of our success on this front.
This cutting-edge NATO force needs to be matched by similar
streamlining in the NATO command structure, with new technologies and
military doctrines designed to address 21st century threats. We are
making good progress in transforming NATO's structure and should be
able to agree on the key elements by the June Defense Ministerial.
DEFENSE OF TURKEY IMPASSE
Mr. Chairman, earlier in my remarks I mentioned the very difficult
debate that we had in Brussels several weeks ago regarding the defense
of Turkey. I know that this is an issue of concern to this committee
so I think it is important that I address it.
This was not the first time that NATO members have disagreed vocally,
and publicly, on a difficult issue. The Suez Crisis and Vietnam were
bitter, as was President DeGaulle's decision in 1966 to withdraw from
NATO's integrated military structure. NATO debate leading up to the
1979 Two-Track Pershing Missile decision that eventually led to the
elimination of an entire class of nuclear weapons in Europe was
coupled with public demonstrations that rivaled those we have seen
during the last month.
My point, Mr. Chairman, in providing this historical perspective, is
that NATO has survived crises in the past, and NATO will survive this
latest episode.
Mr. Chairman, we should also remember that in this latest
disagreement, only three of our Allies opposed the wish of the
majority to respond immediately and positively to Turkey's request for
contingency measures to assist in its defense. Sixteen Allies
supported the proposal, and the divisions were as deep within Europe
as they were across the Atlantic.
For the 15 Allies who stood with Turkey, it was a fundamental
obligation of the Alliance -- a matter of principle -- to come to
Turkey's aid. The actions of France, Germany and Belgium led to a
crisis of credibility in the Alliance because their narrow efforts
violated the core fabric of NATO -- that we come to each other's
assistance in times of need.
In the end, Germany and Belgium did the right thing, and NATO met its
commitment under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty by deploying AWAC
surveillance aircraft, Patriot missile systems, and biological and
chemical response units to Turkey in order to deter and defend against
Iraqi aggression. Our final success in breaking the impasse was only
made possible by the decision to meet in NATO's Defense Policy
Committee and decide to help Turkey "at 18" -- that is, without
France, which withdrew from NATO's integrated military structure in
1966.
One of the bright spots in that otherwise frustrating week was when
the Ambassadors of the seven invited nations visited me in my office
to tell me they were with us and would have supported aid to Turkey if
they had been part of the deliberations. I would have liked to have
had them at the table with us that week, and I look forward to the day
when they will be. The seven invited nations are expecting to join
NATO as equal members on an equal footing, and to have their voices
heard and respected when we differ.
Privately, a few of these Ambassadors told me that their publics back
home were wondering whether NATO's collective defense commitment was
still reliable. I assured them that the U.S. would always insist that
NATO live up to its core responsibility and meet its commitment to its
members -- as we will for them once they become members.
An Alliance that keeps its word is the kind of Alliance that the seven
invited nations want to join. It is the kind of Alliance that they are
dedicated to preserving. These are countries that understand the value
of freedom and see NATO as the way to maintain that freedom.
Some commentators have suggested that enlarging the Alliance by seven
will make decision-making more cumbersome and difficult. I agree that
this will be a challenge but one that we can manage well. Gaining
consensus did not become more difficult with the accession of the
trans-Atlantic minded Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in 1999. On
the contrary, NATO's newest members have shown themselves to be the
least likely to block consensus and among the most likely to seek it.
The issue is not the number of nations at the table, but rather the
will to act collectively and decisively in our common interest.
SIX CHALLENGES
In summing up, Mr. Chairman, as we look toward the next NATO Summit in
mid-2004, we hope the Senate and NATO's other eighteen National
Parliaments will ratify the Accession Protocols so that we can
strengthen NATO with seven new members. We need these nations with us
as we pursue a NATO agenda that is both clear and complex. Here are
the six main challenges for NATO as I see them:
Our first order of business should be to strengthen NATO's role in
meeting threats outside of Europe. In Afghanistan, NATO is already
providing support to German and other Allies participating in the
International Stabilization and Assistance Force. We are prepared to
favorably consider having NATO provide additional support should
participating Allies request this. Lord Robertson and some of our
Allies would like to see NATO take a larger role in ISAF. This makes
sense to me.
We believe that NATO should also consider a role in rebuilding Iraq,
including WMD destruction, civil-military reconstruction and
contributions to peacekeeping. Rebuilding Iraq will require a broad
coalition and NATO should play its part -- ideally as a collective
contributor, but at least as a facilitator of individual Allied
contributions.
NATO's second challenge is to complete the military and defense
transformation of the Alliance that we started at Prague, including
implementing the Prague Capabilities Commitment, establishing a NATO
Response Force, and streamlining our command structure, to create a
more nimble, expeditionary Alliance capable of addressing the new
threats we face today.
Our third challenge is to integrate the seven new members into the
Alliance, provided the Senate and NATO's other parliaments give their
advice and consent to the Accession Protocols. We intend to work
closely with our new members to ensure that they strengthen Alliance
defense capabilities and are on the cutting edge of NATO's
transformation. At the same time, we will continue to emphasize that
NATO's door remains open, including for Albania, Macedonia, Croatia
and others who may apply for membership in the future, as we pursue
our strategic aim of building a unified and peaceful Europe.
Our fourth challenge is to lift the quality of NATO's relations with
Partner nations, to realize the full potential of the NATO-Russia
Council and to further support reform in Ukraine. We also want to make
a major push this year to jumpstart NATO's interaction with Partners
in Central Asia and the Caucasus on the front lines of the war against
terrorism. In addition, we should do more with Middle Eastern
countries through NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue.
Our fifth challenge is to work more effectively with the European
Union. The recent NATO-EU breakthrough on Berlin-plus arrangements
sets the stage for greatly enhanced strategic security cooperation. We
now have the opportunity for a cooperative -- not competitive --
relationship. Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, NATO handed over its
peacekeeping operation in Macedonia to the EU, on the basis of these
arrangements. We should seize this opportunity while recognizing that
NATO will remain Europe's preeminent security organization. We must
preserve and protect NATO's interests as we move ahead with the EU.
Sixth, we should be true to NATO's commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The recent tragic assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Djindjic
reminds us of the risks that reformers take each day to secure a
better future for their nations. We must continue to support their
efforts. At the same time, we should look for additional opportunities
to integrate the nations of this troubled region into the
Euro-Atlantic community. This should eventually include the
transformation of the Alliance's role in Bosnia and Kosovo to civilian
authorities.
PRESERVING THE TRANS-ATLANTIC LINK
Mr. Chairman, let me close with just a few words about why I believe
the United States should stay engaged with our Allies through NATO.
While it may sometimes be necessary to go it alone in the world, it is
always preferable to act with our Allies and friends. As Churchill
said, "the only thing worse than fighting with Allies is fighting
without them."
For more than a half-century, NATO has been our most important
Alliance and the strongest bridge across the Atlantic, linking North
America and Europe in a community of shared democratic traditions and
values. We should continue to ask NATO to play this role, and to adapt
to help us meet the new threats of the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to rely on our Allies to share the
risks with us in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and
to work with them in the war against terrorism. Their contributions
make us a stronger nation, and will give us a more secure and peaceful
world.
I do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead, but I am
confident that we are on the right path and that the seven invited
countries will strengthen the Alliance, refresh its spirit and infuse
it with a stronger political will.
Amid all that has happened since September 11, 2001, many have asked
if NATO still has a future and is still relevant to the U.S. and its
allies. Mr. Chairman, I am firmly of the view that NATO will remain
central to American national interests and to those of our European
Allies for as far into the future that we can see. NATO is vital
because it is America's only permanent bridge to Europe; it is the
expression of our commitment to each other's defense; it is the
vehicle through which we continue to maintain the peace in Europe and
by which we must now address threats outside of Europe. As we reaffirm
and rebuild our sometimes troubled Trans-Atlantic ties from the
debates of the past few months over Iraq, NATO is one of our key
instruments. We should continue to depend on NATO and to believe in it
as a guidepost for our future in Europe and beyond.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you very
much for inviting me here. I will be happy to respond to any questions
or comments that you have.
(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
|
|
|
