Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that it is appropriate at this time to proceed to the Warner-Levin-Roberts-Sessions amendment. I send the amendment to the desk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the…
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that it is appropriate at this time to proceed to the Warner-Levin-Roberts-Sessions amendment. I send the amendment to the desk.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I, first, wish to thank the distinguished managers, my two colleagues and friends, with whom my friend and partner for 25 years, Senator Levin, and I have had the privilege of working these many years, over a quarter of a century in the Senate. We have, I think, reached a common understanding that I will proceed for several minutes, followed by my colleague from Michigan, and in such time the two managers will address their perspective on this particular amendment. I think they are generally in support; however, I shall let the managers speak for themselves.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the ratification of the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Protocols that we are considering today would allow those seven nations to become full members of the NATO alliance.
My colleagues may recall that, in 1998, I did not vote in favor of the expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. My opposition at that time was not directed at those three countries. Rather, I was concerned with the broader question of how the expansion of NATO to include newly democratizing countries of Central and Eastern Europe would affect NATO's future missions and its effectiveness as a military alliance.
NATO's success in integrating the new members admitted in 1999, and NATO's commitment to enhancing its defense capabilities and those of its prospective new members, have helped persuade me to support the enlargement of NATO today. But I remain concerned that NATO's enlargement by seven additional nations--the largest enlargement in Alliance history--could have dramatic implications for NATO's ability to function as an effective military organization.
Today, the threats to NATO member nations come from within and without NATO's periphery. Because of NATO' success, there is no Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. The threats--such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--are transnational in nature, and they emanate from regions outside of Europe. This was recognized in the Strategic Concept NATO adopted 1999, which envisioned NATO ``out of area'' operations to address new threats. To remain a viable military alliance, NATO must have both the military capability and the political will to respond to the new threats. NATO's recent decision to assume the lead of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and its willingness to consider supporting a stabilization force in Iraq, are welcome examples of new NATO missions appropriate to today's threats.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of strong support for the NATO alliance, and has played an important role in the Senate's consideration of the North Atlantic Treaty and its subsequent amendments. In March and April 2003, the committee conducted two hearings on the future of NATO and on NATO enlargement. The Administration witnesses at these hearings unanimously supported ratification of the NATO enlargement Protocols.
One of the issues the committee examined in its NATO hearings was whether the prospective new members would enhance the military effectiveness of the alliance, and how their membership would affect the capabilities gap that currently exists between the United States and many other members of NATO.
The witnesses who appeared before our committee testified that NATO was taking concerted efforts to address the ongoing problem of a capabilities and technology gap. They noted the decisions taken by NATO's leaders at the Prague Summit in November, 2002, to launch the Prague Capabilities Commitment and to create a NATO Response Force. Through the Prague Capabilities Commitment, NATO members agreed to spend smarter, pool
their resources and pursue ``niche'' specializations such as lift capability, or precision-guided munitions. The NATO response force is envisioned to be a highly ready, rapid reaction force of approximately 25,000 troops with land, sea and air capability, deployable on short notice and able to carry out missions anywhere in the world. The response force will reinforce the need for individual alliance members to develop and contribute unique capabilities to this new force.
Regarding the military capabilities of the prospective new members, I was impressed that each of them is similarly being encouraged to focus on specific ``niche'' capabilities where they can achieve a high level of expertise and procure high quality equipment to make a substantial contribution to NATO's military capabilities overall. Some of the invitees already possess specialized capabilities that have served the alliance in the Balkan operations and in the global war on terrorism, including: special forces, nuclear, biological, and chemical defense, mountain fighting, and demining.
Equally persuasive was the testimony of our witnesses regarding the contributions of the nations admitted to NATO in 1989. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have proved to be steadfast allies and active force contributors to NATO operations in the Balkans, and in the war against terrorism.
Mr. President, historically, I was among those who objected to the last enlargement of NATO. At this time, I very carefully considered the proposal by our distinguished President, President Bush, and other world leaders, that the time has come for new members to be brought in. I commend the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense for the careful procedures that led up to the nominations of these new countries to come into the membership of NATO.
I am privileged to be on the floor now and to cast my vote in favor of these protocols which will enable the seven countries to become members of NATO in due course.
I have to say, I still have some of the concerns I had last time because NATO is such a magnificent organization. Over half a century it has proven its worth time and time again. The Warsaw Pact does not exist, the threats from the Soviet Union do not exist, largely because of the wisdom incorporated in this treaty, and the combination of the military commitments and the political will of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance members over the years to have that alliance stand there as a deterrent. It has worked, and it has worked well.
We cannot foresee the future and, therefore, we must be flexible because worldwide threats have gone through such a major transformation, from major nation-state-sponsored threats to worldwide terrorism, so much of it non-state sponsored. For that reason I want to support the admission of these new nations.
Further, while so many of these newly democratic nations do not bring a large army, large navy, or a large air force, in due course their ``niche'' military capabilities will add a very valuable dimension to NATO's ever expanding responsibilities.
NATO is participating actively in Afghanistan, and contemplating participating actively in Iraq in peacekeeping and support roles. I shall not discuss this in detail. Nevertheless, that is a tribute to Lord Robertson and others who have recognized that the threat to NATO nations comes from beyond their periphery now, but could be brought within their periphery at any time by the threat of worldwide terrorism. Those are the reasons I support NATO's participation in ``out of area'' operations in Afghanistan and post-conflict Iraq.
I remember the words of Ben Franklin as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention and a reporter stopped and asked him: Mr. Franklin: What have you wrought? And his reply was very simple: A republic, if you can keep it.
There is a challenge to these NATO nations, soon to be 26 in number. You have the heritage of this great treaty of over half a century, and the challenge is, can we keep it?
I think we can. I think we will. Within the current thinking on NATO, Senator Levin, I, and others have identified two issues that dominated our committee's hearings on NATO: the so-called ``consensus rule'' by which NATO operates and the question of whether NATO should have a process for suspending the membership of a nation that is no longer committed to upholding NATO's basic democratic principles.
With respect to the consensus rule, the recent divisive debate over planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of war with Iraq demonstrated that achieving consensus in NATO has become more difficult. How difficult will it be with 26 nations? A different manifestation of this problem occurred with respect to NATO operations in Kosovo when ``command by committee'' hampered NATO's leaders' ability to wage the most effective, rapidly responsive military campaign. Such difficulties in reaching consensus are occurring in part because respective NATO members have different views, as they should, about today's threats and how best to respond to them. Achieving consensus is likely to become even more complex as NATO enlarges its membership. That is why I believe--and my colleagues join me on this-- the consensus rule, and NATO's operating procedures more generally, should be periodically reexamined to ensure that NATO has procedures that allow it to plan, reach decisions, and act in a timely fashion.
Regarding the issue of a suspension mechanism, some of our committee members have expressed concern about the lack of a mechanism for suspending a NATO member if that nation no longer complies with the fundamental tenets of NATO--democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.
While it may well be true that NATO has ways other than suspension to deal with such a situation, it is prudent for NATO to consider the matter now, as a conceptual problem, and have some options in mind, rather than be confronted with a problem in the future, and be somewhat unprepared should it arise.
Given the tremendous interest of the Armed Services Committee in these two subjects, I, along with Senators Levin, Roberts, and Sessions, am offering an amendment to the resolution of ratification for these protocols that would urge the President--I repeat, urge the President--of the United States to raise these subjects for discussion in the North Atlantic Council at NATO, and request that a report on these subjects be provided to the relevant committees of the Congress.
I have consulted closely with administration officials, and negotiated the language in this amendment with administration officials way into last night, in order to receive their support, and they have no objections today. I hope we can achieve that because we have-- Senator Levin and I, speaking for our group--have made some concessions in order to have this matter treated in such a way that the whole Senate can be supportive.
I conclude by saying, based on the hearings conducted by the Armed Services Committee and subsequent analysis, I am persuaded that the NATO enlargement protocols we are considering today will advance the national security interests of the United States and deserve the Senate's support.
Lastly, on the assumption that NATO, I think very wisely, will take a role in Afghanistan, on the assumption again that NATO, again very wisely, will take a role in Iraq, which is a positive thing, I say this with respect to the coalition of forces: We will achieve the end result that is now unfolding in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is yet to be completed, but basically the desired result will have been achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq at some cost--with the bloodshed of Americans and other coalition partners, with enormous tax dollars. These are very significant contributions by the coalition of forces and this great United States of America.
I think it is a minimal suggestion that NATO consider changing its procedures for deciding to undertake such operations in the future to avoid the problems we have recently witnessed.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to the resolution of ratification I am proposing today, and to join me in giving our advice and consent to ratification of the protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank him for the reference to our long-term working relationship. The Senator has really taken the lead for over 5 or 6 years. We have worked on this issue for a very long time. It is not something that has just suddenly come to mind.