29 April 2003
Powell Asks for Senate Consent to NATO Enlargement
(Testifies before Foreign Relations Committee April 29) (4060)
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee April 29 that the admission of seven additional nations to
NATO should be approved because it will help promote democracy, the
rule of law, free markets and peace throughout Eurasia, and it will
improve NATO's ability to respond collectively to new dangers.
At its Prague Summit in November, NATO agreed to admit Bulgaria,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia as new
members. Powell met with the committee to ask the Senate's advice and
consent to ratification of NATO's accession protocols.
In his prepared remarks, Powell emphasized to the committee that NATO
"is more than a treaty for collective defense. It is the central
organizing force in a great web of relationships that holds North
America and Europe together. It represents a community of common
values and shared commitment to democracy, free markets and the rule
of law."
The seven new members, Powell said, have benefited by being candidates
for NATO membership. The countries adopted needed reforms, which
though in each country's best interest, may have been difficult to
achieve without the stipulations of NATO candidacy, Powell said. Such
areas of reform included treatment of minorities, creating real
opposition political parties, restoring private property, combating
corruption, willingness to confront the past and support for NATO
membership, he said -- positions at odds with their histories under
communist governments.
Powell also focused on the advantages the seven new members would
bring to the NATO alliance. The seven would add 200,000 troops to
NATO's military forces -- a number equal to those brought in by
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic when they joined in 1999, he
noted. "It will expand NATO's reach from the Baltic to the Black Sea,
both politically and geographically," he said.
All seven invitees, Powell said, are "already de facto allies in the
war on terror. All of them have contributed to stabilization efforts
in Afghanistan through Operation Enduring Freedom and the
International Security Assistance Force."
Furthermore, Powell said all seven "have expressed support for the
United States' position on Iraq.
"In February 2003, immediately following my presentation to the U.N.
Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam's regime, they jointly
called for the international community to take decisive action against
Iraq's continued violation of international law and defiance of the
Security Council. They also issued a joint statement at the Prague
Summit in November 2002, supporting the United States' position on
Iraq", Powell noted. In addition, all seven sent liaison officers to
the U.S. Central Command's headquarters in Florida before combat
operations in Iraq, and several are providing military support to the
coalition, he said.
Powell acknowledged NATO's recent problems, first with regard to
Turkey's request in February for defensive assistance, and then with
NATO members of the U.N. Security Council opposing the U.S. position
on Iraq. About Turkey he said, "Make no mistake. The disagreement was
serious, and our delay to Turkey's request damaged the credibility of
our Alliance." And as for the opposition of NATO states in the
Security Council, Powell called it a "bruising battle" that "has
raised troubling voices about the long-term health of the Alliance."
Powell balanced these difficulties "against the backdrop of almost
half a century of solid cooperation." He noted that on April 16 NATO
agreed to take over leadership of the International Security
Assistance Force in Afghanistan. And all NATO members have indicated
they are prepared to discuss a NATO role in Iraq, he said.
"We have noted possible Alliance roles in stabilization, humanitarian
assistance operations, and NATO assistance to coalition partners,"
Powell said. If these discussions lead to positive results, he said,
it "could be the next big step in NATO's transformation to an alliance
willing and able to take on any role in any region where it feels it
can make a contribution to the peace or meet a common threat."
NATO's strengths, in Powell's view, are that it remains an
organization:
-- with an integrated military structure that "creates a reservoir of
working, planning, and training together that is irreplaceable;
-- capable of operating as a whole or from which coalitions of the
willing can be drawn;
-- that provides a valuable forum for discussing issues of war and
peace; and
-- that binds together nations that share the same beliefs and values,
including the notion that "vigorous debate" is "the hallmark of an
alliance of democratic nations."
The text of Powell's prepared remarks follows:
(begin text)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
April 29, 2003
(As Prepared)
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL
"AN ENLARGED NATO: MENDING FENCES AND MOVING FORWARD ON IRAQ"
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
April 29, 2003
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to testify on the enlargement of NATO
agreed in Prague last November, and on the future of the Alliance.
With respect to enlargement, Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage the
Senate to provide its advice and consent to the ratification of the
Accession Protocols that will welcome into NATO seven new members --
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
This enlargement is part of an ambitious agenda whose goal is to
transform the Alliance.
And Mr. Chairman, before I continue, let me acknowledge your
leadership and vision in this process of enlargement. I know that you
and your staff have provided invaluable guidance to the entire
executive branch team. We could not have asked for better cooperation
and support.
The Background
The West's victory in the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet communism
signaled a decisive turning point in modern history -- a victory for
freedom and democracy. But the troubles and tragedies of the past
decade have made clear that new threats are rising. We have seen these
threats take many shapes, from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans to the
terrorist attacks of September 11. To deal with these new threats, the
United States has continued to rely on NATO and will do so in the
future.
This great Alliance, which has kept the peace for more than 50 years,
is more than a treaty for collective defense. It is the central
organizing force in a great web of relationships that holds North
America and Europe together. It represents a community of common
values and shared commitment to democracy, free markets and the rule
of law.
This was never more evident than on September 12, 2001.
On that day the Alliance invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty
and told the world that it regarded the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon as attacks on all of its members. From this
historic decision we know that NATO has the will to combat terrorism
and to address the new threats that face us. But the Alliance must
also have the means. So it must transform, militarily and politically,
to secure our collective defense on into the 21st century and to
sustain the trans-Atlantic link. At the historic Prague Summit last
November, NATO heads of state and government made decisions that have
put us solidly on the path to transformation.
Their strong and unanimous endorsement of the U.S.-crafted
transformation agenda of New Capabilities, New Members and New
Relationships will help ensure that NATO remains relevant in the days
and years ahead.
President Bush and I were particularly pleased that Senator Voinovich,
of this committee, and Senator Frist, along with other members of
Congress, were able to join us in Prague. There, our leaders agreed to
expand NATO membership to include all of the new democracies in Europe
who are prepared to undertake the responsibilities of leadership. Such
an enlargement will help to strengthen NATO's partnerships to promote
democracy, the rule of law, free markets and peace throughout Eurasia.
Moreover, it will better equip the Alliance to respond collectively to
the new dangers we face.
The Current Enlargement
The United States and other NATO Allies signed the Enlargement
Protocols last month in Brussels. President Bush has transmitted them
to the Senate. Your swift action on these Protocols will bring us a
major step closer to realizing President Bush's vision for a "Europe
free, whole and at peace."
This enlargement will revitalize NATO by expanding its geographic
reach, enhancing its military capabilities and inducting seven
countries committed to a strong trans-Atlantic link. It will serve
U.S. interests by strengthening both NATO and our bilateral ties with
these new Allies, who have already done a great deal to support our
vision for NATO and collective security.
All seven of the invitees have demonstrated that they are in a
position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and to
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
The countries invited at Prague have been working intensively in
NATO's Membership Action Plan since 1999. In this process, they have
focused not only on security and defense issues, but also on
democratic and market reforms. During these intensive preparations,
each invitee has received both support and feedback from NATO.
The United States has also had its own dialogue with the seven
countries about their reforms. In addition to the day-to-day work of
our embassies, we sent an interagency team headed by Ambassador Nick
Burns in February and October of last year to visit each of the
countries to make specific reform recommendations and to evaluate
progress.
The prospect of NATO membership helped to create in each country a
political atmosphere that encouraged governments to adopt needed
reforms. These reforms are in each country's own best interest. In
many cases, they would have been difficult to bring about without the
demands of NATO candidacy.
The record of each invitee government demonstrates powerfully its
commitment to NATO. Reform areas included treatment of minorities,
creation of a viable political opposition, restoration of private
property, willingness to confront the past, combating corruption, and
support for NATO membership.
For example, Estonia and Latvia have taken important steps to protect
the rights of their Russian-speaking minorities. Their governments
have eased requirements for citizenship and adopted other measures,
which provide assurances that all of the people of those countries
will be treated with dignity and respect.
All three of the Baltic States have acknowledged dark times in their
histories. When Estonian Prime Minister Siim Kallas visited Washington
last September, he publicly recognized Estonians' collaboration with
the Nazis and participation in the murder of Jews during the
Holocaust.
All seven invitees have also adopted sweeping measures to combat
corruption. Parliaments in Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia have
adopted, or are in the process of adopting, tough anti-corruption
legislation. These three states have also established special
prosecutors to root out public corruption. The new Latvian government
under Prime Minister Repse has instituted a major anti-corruption
program.
Slovenia has taken important strides in reducing the state's
involvement in private enterprise. And Slovenia already has one of the
highest Transparency International ratings for clean government among
NATO members.
The public support for NATO membership in each of the new member
states is high. In Romania, it is above 80 percent. In Slovenia's
referendum last month, 66 percent voted for NATO membership. A clear
majority in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania supports membership.
Among the positive developments, there are disappointments. We remain
troubled by reports of continuing "gray" arms sales. Bulgaria and
Romania have extensive arms industries with longstanding ties to the
Middle East. We have had considerable success in stopping transfers of
arms to countries of concern. More important for the long term, we are
working with these countries to help them improve their systems of
export control and to tighten oversight of defense industries.
We must not forget as well that the seven invitees also bring tangible
security assets to the Alliance. Enlargement will bring more than
200,000 additional troops into the Alliance -- as many as in 1999
[i.e., when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted]. It
will extend NATO's reach from the Baltic to the Black Sea, both
politically and geographically.
And the new members will make the Alliance stronger and they will
bring fresh ideas and energy to it. I am pleased to report that all
seven invitees are already de facto Allies in the war on terror. All
of them have contributed to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan
through Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security
Assistance Force.
Romania has sent its "Carpathian Hawks" battalion to Afghanistan and
did so using its own airlift rather than asking the U.S. for a lift --
a feat that several current Allies could not have accomplished. That
Romanian battalion is now patrolling and fighting beside U.S. soldiers
in the most dangerous regions of Afghanistan.
All of the new members have expressed support for the United States'
position on Iraq.
In February 2003, immediately following my presentation to the U.N.
Security Council on the threat posed by Saddam's regime, they jointly
called for the international community to take decisive action against
Iraq's continued violation of international law and defiance of the
Security Council. They also issued a joint statement at the Prague
Summit in November 2002, supporting the United States' position on
Iraq.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, all of the new invitees sent military liaison
officers to CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] headquarters in Tampa,
ahead of possible operations in Iraq. Several of the invitees are
providing military support to the international coalition.
A Slovak CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] unit is
now stationed in Kuwait, incorporated into a Czech unit. The Romanians
are providing a similar unit. The Bulgarians provided us with the use
of their airbase at Burgas. It is clear that the seven invitees are
already demonstrating their military value to the Alliance.
The Shifting Landscape
This value has been particularly noticeable given current
circumstances wherein some on both sides of the Atlantic are
questioning the health of the Alliance and the solidity of the
trans-Atlantic relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to minimize the challenges that the
relationship faces today as we attempt to shape both it and the
Alliance for a world no longer fenced off by the Cold War.
In February we had a bruising debate in NATO over providing assistance
to Turkey. In the end we achieved our goal of providing support for
Turkey's defense. We would have preferred to make that decision at 19,
instead of at 18, but France would not permit it. The United States
and many of its NATO partners found it regrettable that some members
so readily discarded their obligations under Article IV to provide
purely defensive assistance to Turkey in order to press their own
agendas on Iraq.
Make no mistake. The disagreement was serious, and our delay to
Turkey's request damaged the credibility of our Alliance. Likewise,
outside of the Alliance we have come through another bruising battle,
this one at the U.N. Security Council over Iraq. This battle included
five current and one future member of NATO. This too has raised
troubling voices about the long-term health of the Alliance.
But now that the war in Iraq is over and the defensive measures taken
in Turkey are ended, we can look back at these disagreements and
debates with dispassion and against the backdrop of almost half a
century of solid cooperation.
Such cooperation is anything but a thing of the past. On April 16, for
example, the Alliance agreed to assume the lead of ISAF [International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan] IV in August. This action
will bring added continuity to the vital mission of helping to
stabilize Afghanistan, and take NATO beyond its traditional area of
responsibility to address today's threats at one of their sources.
This decision was taken unanimously by the NAC [North Atlantic
Council] without the rancor that characterized debates over Article IV
obligations to Turkey.
Lets be clear. One of the challenges we face is understanding the
threat.
September 11 burned itself irrevocably into the mind of every
American. To say international terrorism is just another threat is to
defy the instinctual reality that every American knows in his or her
heart and soul. Every American who watched the World Trade Towers
burn, crumble and disintegrate, with thousands of people inside, and
who watched the Pentagon in flames, knows what terrorism can bring to
our homeland. That reality leads Americans to conclude that terrorism
must be eradicated -- especially the terrorism that seeks nuclear
weapons, and other means of mass destruction.
Some in Europe see it differently. Some see terrorism as a regrettable
but inevitable part of society and want to keep it at arms length and
as low-key as possible. It is our job to convince them otherwise. This
is a threat we share and must combat together -- indeed, can only
combat together.
Of course there will be disagreements. But the United States must
continue to lead NATO to ensure our collective security, as we have
for more than 50 years
But we must not forget also that we are democracies in NATO. None of
us follows blindly. We debate. We disagree. On those occasions when we
disagree, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and find a
way to work things out. At the end of the day, that is our great
strength. And that is why the trans-Atlantic link will not break. The
glue of NATO is too strong and holds us too fast to let it break.
When I was in Europe at the beginning of this month, I stopped in
Belgrade to deliver personally my condolences over the death of
Serbia's Prime Minister Djindjic, brutally assassinated earlier this
year. I was struck by the speed with which the government of President
Marovic and the new Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic is leading a
renewed and vigorous political effort to rid the nation of its
dangerous criminal elements, to hand over those wanted by the
International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague, and to strengthen
democracy in Serbia and Montenegro. I was impressed.
Later that day and the next, in Brussels, I was heartened by the
discussions I had with 21 European ministers, as well as EU [European
Union] High Representative Javier Solana and NATO Secretary General
Lord Robertson. A majority of these Allies had joined the coalition to
disarm Iraq. Those Allies who did not have welcomed our success and
are now exploring ways to support stabilization and reconstruction.
So I caution those who, yet again, will write about the demise of
NATO. We heard this story after the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War. We heard it during the troubled times in the
Balkans. I give naysayers of NATO credit for their persistence -- but
they are persistently wrong. Any alliance that countries are knocking
on the door to get into is anything but dead.
After the heated debate over Turkey, Secretary General Robertson said
the damage done to NATO was a hit above the waterline, not below. The
same can be said about the fallout on NATO from the debate in the U.N.
Security Council over Iraq. Nevertheless, NATO must continue to adapt
to changing circumstances. It must address the challenges central to
this era: rogue states, terror, weapons of mass destruction.
Increasingly NATO members will have to be prepared to focus their
energies beyond Europe -- a reality that will require that member
nations possess military forces with the capability to go and fight
beyond Europe. The Alliance will recover. We will persevere. We must.
The Future
It is essential that we recover and endure because there is much work,
which needs to be done, and many allies who want to do it.
In Afghanistan we need to ensure the changeover in August goes as
smoothly as possible. NATO will take over and run ISAF headquarters in
Kabul, coordinate operational planning, appoint the ISAF commander and
supervise the troop contribution process. This operation will
constitute NATO's largest step to date beyond its traditionally
Europe-focused role.
In southern Europe Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia will still demand our
attention and our presence.
In Macedonia right now, the EU has made its first deployment of forces
with over 300 troops. These troops and this deployment in no way
contradict NATO; in fact, they reinforce the importance of the
alliance and complement its work, as the commander of the EU force
reports to NATO's Deputy SACEUR through NATO's Regional Command South.
And, as I have referred to, in Iraq we are exploring what NATO
collectively can do to secure the peace. All members have said they
are prepared to discuss a NATO role in Iraq. We have noted possible
Alliance roles in stabilization, humanitarian assistance operations,
and NATO assistance to coalition partners. These preliminary
discussions, if they lead to concrete results, could be the next big
step in NATO's transformation to an alliance willing and able to take
on any role in any region where it feels it can make a contribution to
the peace or meet a common threat.
In line with this new orientation, as SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander
Europe] General Jones pointed out at the beginning of this month, NATO
will undergo another sea change when it stands up a highly ready
Allied Response Force with global reach, as agreed last November.
So I believe there will be more than enough work to go around, and if
NATO can play a role, it should.
We should not ask: What can NATO do to prove its relevance? We should
ask: What can NATO do to advance the peace?
The essential elements of the Alliance remain firm:
-- NATO's integrated military structure creates a reservoir of
working, planning, and training together that is irreplaceable;
-- The Alliance itself can call upon this rich reservoir or, as seems
increasingly likely, coalitions of the willing can be drawn from it.
For example, the EU-led operation in Macedonia I referred to earlier
draws on NATO assets and capabilities.
-- Moreover, NATO's Council provides a valuable forum for discussing
matters of war and peace;
-- And fundamentally, NATO binds together nations who share the same
beliefs and values. Nations who accept that vigorous debate is the
hallmark of an alliance of democratic nations.
NATO is an alliance within which the seven future members invited at
Prague, with the advice and consent of the Senate, will be able to
join their colleagues and be welcomed to stand and be heard and not be
told to sit and be silent.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot outline specific roles for NATO in the future.
In some instances we will operate as an Alliance. In some as members
of a coalition of the willing. We may wage war and we will maintain
the peace.
For over half a century NATO was indispensable to security on both
sides of the Atlantic. That has not changed. Today the Alliance
remains indispensable to our security, and to meeting the security
challenges in a world of diverse threats, multiple challenges, and
unprecedented opportunities. The Alliance remains crucial to the link
that binds North America to Europe and Europe to North America.
Let me stress also, Mr. Chairman, that the door to NATO will remain
open. Prague was not the end of the enlargement process, just one step
on the way. We welcome the applications of Albania, Croatia and
Macedonia and other future applicants as well.
We will continue to enlarge the Alliance as emerging new democracies
-- and perhaps some established ones as well -- pursue membership, and
as they demonstrate their ability to contribute to the security of the
Euro-Atlantic community as required under Article 10 of the NATO
Treaty.
Today, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Senate to make its vital contribution
by performing its own constitutional duty in helping us transform the
Alliance. I again urge this Committee to act swiftly to recommend that
the Senate provide its advice and consent on the NATO accession
protocols that will welcome our new allies into our Alliance.
I understand that the committee will mark up tomorrow and that a floor
vote will likely occur on May 7th. If I am correct in that
understanding, I am grateful for such speed, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, and I will be pleased to take your questions.
(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
|
|
|
