09 February 1998
ALBRIGHT: PROPOSED NEW NATO PARTNERS SUPPORT ANTI-IRAQ ACTION
(Stresses U.S. desire for a "diplomatic solution) (1720) By Susan Ellis, USIA Staff Writer Washington -- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said February 9 that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- the three nations proposed for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- have indicated they "are ready to support us, as appropriate, should military action become necessary" in Iraq. In remarks to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, Albright announced that she had been advised of the decision in a meeting with the foreign ministers of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic 10 minutes before her presentation. Noting that in the United Nations Security Council "each of them stood with us to maintain sanctions" she added: "They quickly responded to my request for their support subject to consultations with their governments." But Albright also reemphasized the U.S. wish to seek "a diplomatic solution" to the impasse with Iraq. Explaining that "Canada and Denmark became the first NATO members to ratify the admission of our future central European allies," Albright said, "On Wednesday (February 11), President Clinton will send the instruments of ratification to the U.S. Senate." Asked what would happen if any one NATO country fails to ratify the new members, Albright replied, "It is a hypothetical question. All NATO partners will understand, no matter what specific national issue they may have, that the expansion of NATO is in everybody's national interest, and in the internal discussions that we have had, I think there has been broad-based support." Concerning the failure of the Slovak Republic to qualify for NATO membership, Albright said, "It is a cause of sadness to many people in this room that the Slovak Republic" did not meet the criteria to be among the first states to be admitted. She said lack of a functioning market system and civilian control of the military were two of the factors in the decision. During panel discussions on the future of NATO at AEI before Albright's address, a recurring theme was the tension in the United States between the need for U.S. involvement abroad and the need to meet critical domestic requirements. Karlyn Bowman, who edits the opinion section of the AEI's magazine "The American Enterprise," offered a "quick snapshot of public opinion on NATO." Calling Americans "reluctant, cautious internationalists," she said NATO has not yet "set down roots in public opinion." Bowman said while Americans "are clearly aware of the global leadership role that we must play, (we are) also aware of enormous needs on the home front. We feel of late we're sharing a disproportionate share of the burdens abroad, and we're getting cranky about the costs." Congressman Barney Frank (Democratic-Massachusetts) echoed this sentiment, saying his chief concern about NATO enlargement is cost. "The United States will pick up a disproportionate share of the tab in return for which we can call ourselves the leader of the free world," he said, adding: "It is a very expensive title." Frank said expanding NATO is "perfectly reasonable," and "particularly important for reassuring the Poles who are entitled to reassurance because they have been so scandalously...treated by most foreign countries for so long." However, he added, there will be a problem keeping broad American support for internationalism "while a large number of working Americans, particularly those who don't see themselves designing software or inventing bio-technology products or selling mutual funds, see themselves not as not benefiting from the new economy but threatened by it. What we think we need, many of us, is some resources devoted at home to some of the equity consequences of the new international economy. We have a lot of winners, we have some losers. The losers have not been well cared for." Frank also said, "We're in a very tight budgetary situation in America....There is a willingness to allow an expansion of NATO... but not a willingness to do that if it's going to take any significant resources away from a very limited pot that we have for other purposes." Charles Gati, a Hungarian-American and senior vice president of Interinvest, a global money management firm, noted that "in the fall of 1993 no more than a handful of U.S. senators supported the idea of NATO enlargement....Today by sharp contrast the best guess here in Washington is that no less than four-fifths of the U.S. Senate will vote to ratify the treaty that will make Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic members." Speaking from the labor movement's perspective, Jack Joyce, president of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, said the issue of NATO enlargement is the issue of democracy itself. Joyce said the democratic process "is fragile" and "bold steps" are needed to assure the survival and growth of the democratic process in Eastern Europe. "We have to recognize that we made an enormous investment in waging and winning the Cold War and it would be indeed tragic if we allowed -- because of a concern about resources -- that enormous investment to be dissipated," he said. "NATO expansion is necessary to the process of growing and expanding democracy through the region but it is not sufficient," Joyce noted. "We need at the same time to recognize and work to address the need of economic viability...and equally the need to intensify efforts of democracy-building in the area." Joyce pointed to the Marshall Plan and other successful efforts to build economic viability in Western Europe and assure democratic growth in the area, and said they could be used as a model for Eastern Europe. In response to comments that NATO enlargement threatens Russia, Vladimir Dlouhy, former minister of industry for the Czech Republic, said, "By having stability in our region, by having economic growth, we will be able to play a strong role as a bridge to Russia and at the end of the day again this will be very positive for American interests." Dlouhy said enlargement is not just about costs but about "bringing our armed forces into the armed forces of NATO...and decreasing the old inefficiencies. This might save much more than the technical costs of enlargement. So both economically, politically and even from the arms point of view, the enlargement of NATO is very positive also for the American people." One questioner asked if joining the European Union were not preferable to joining NATO for Eastern Europe. Nils Morten Udgaard, foreign editor of Afterposten in Norway, demurred. He said the United States "has remained the main political actor in Europe" since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and "to me that is the main motive for the desire to join NATO among public opinion in Eastern Europe." He continued: "Civic culture which we would like to join in Europe is very strongly an American civic culture. You would not join up with America if you joined the European Union alone. If you look at the main events only since the Berlin Wall came down, it was the American leadership which really secured (for) the Germans the very peaceful revolution in Europe after '89. It was the Americans who gave the first initiative on Partnership for Peace in NATO; it was the Americans who indicated solutions for the very European problem of Bosnia; it was the Americans who took the lead in extending NATO and it was the Americans this year who gave a certain perspective to the Baltic countries through the U.S.-Baltic Charter. So from the point of view of European public opinion, any solution to this question we're discussing here without America, would be a very bad solution." Karel Kovanda, deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, said the contribution to NATO of the proposed three new members would be "more than military." "It is not military hardware where we are looking for my country to catch up with other NATO armies," he said. "It is interoperability; it is the ability for our soldiers and officers to speak English; it is communications; it is cooperation...." Kovanda stressed the importance to the Czech Republic "to do well within NATO. We have to do well in order for the process of NATO enlargement to remain open." Finally, stressing a point made by Udgaard, Kovanda said: "NATO is a guarantee of continued United States presence in Europe...(a point) that has to be underlined and highlighted just about as strongly as possible." Richard Perle, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, addressed the question of the possible dilution of NATO's power through the admittance of new members. No more will the alliance be diluted, he maintained, than is the United States' power diluted by "our closest allies," the other 15 member states of NATO. "Once the three new members are admitted, we'll discover they contribute a great deal to the solidarity of the alliance and may set an example for some other allies," Perle stated. Citing the situation Bosnia as an example, he said the Dayton Accords cannot be implemented successfully by military forces alone. "We need police forces who can enforce those aspects of the Dayton Accord that can't be imposed militarily -- police to protect people returning to their homes, to assist in the apprehension of war criminals and the like....I rather suspect we will do better looking for assistance in this regard with the new members of the alliance. We all have something to contribute." The United States, he said, "contributes intelligence, logistics, research and development, and a formidable military capability. I think the new members will have a contribution to make as well, not identical to that of the United States, but highly complementary." As to concerns about Russian sensitivities on the issue of NATO enlargement, Perle said, "Anyone who has been around NATO knows very well that this alliance is not only not adventurous or aggressive, it is fundamentally and to its core a defensive institution. I believe that many Russians know that...(and) in the fullness of time, as information becomes freely available...I believe many Russians will come to understand that NATO does not pose a threat to them, and we certainly should not say anything that gives any credence to the notion that it does."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
