NATO

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
June 2, 2004
NATO

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is hard to turn on the television without seeing the stirring images of the Allied landings on D-Day. I think in the heart of every American there swells a pride in these scenes, and what was accomplished on that day truly stands as one of the most historic achievements in recorded history. I think what was on display on D-Day with our Allies was a commitment to freedom, a commitment to the rule of law, a commitment to humankind that has made this world a better place in which to live.

As I reflect on these images, which we will share with our European allies, I am also, unfortunately, reminded of what I experienced this last weekend in Bratislava, Slovakia, at the NATO Parliamentary. It has been my privilege since being a U.S. Senator to participate in many NATO Parliamentaries. This time, the majority leader, Senator Frist, asked me to chair our trip to this important meeting. It is the first time I have gone when I have been the only Senator in attendance. I hope that does not mean there is less of an interest in security. I think, unfortunately, what it means is the many claims on the time of Senators begin to compete with what is increasingly becoming regarded as an institution of diminishing value. I think that is unfortunate.

Before I left, I read a book by Robert Kagan. It is a small book, but its message is powerful and important. The title is "Of Paradise And Power: America and Europe in the New World Order." Basically, the message is that the values that bring NATO together in the first place, the values that have held it together through the cold war, are values that are changing now and stressing NATO in ways that many are unwilling to face up to.

For the RECORD, I would like to read the first paragraph. I think it says very clearly the problem. Says Mr. Kagan:

It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power-the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power-American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Immanuel Kant's "perpetual peace." Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in a anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable, and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory-the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways.

What we don't realize at an official level is how badly we have parted ways.

But what Mr. Kagan wrote, I observed in starkest and tragic relief in Bratislava, Slovakia. It was not all bad. I would describe what I saw, in the language of that great Clint Eastwood western-I think the Europeans would hate a reference to a western in a speech like this-but that title was "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly."

There was much good. Let me tell you, for me, first and foremost was the good that the British representatives did. I say thank God for the Brits and for a strong leader like Mr. Blair. They continue to provide a bridge between an America and a Europe going in different directions. It is sometimes difficult for them, but their hearts are stout and their backs are strong and they are great Allies. They were on D-Day and they are still on this day.

Second, another good: The first meeting I attended was about the NATO-Russia relationship. The Russians made a presentation. It was great to be in a room where we were talking about issues in which Russia, though out of NATO, was able to communicate with NATO, express its feelings, its concerns. But then, after they made their presentation, some of the things they said caused me to wince. I was about to make a comment to contest a few of the points they had made, but I didn't need to. An Estonian did it for me, then a Latvian, then a Pole. They contested as equals-equals of Russia-things which they said were not the truth, not factual, not real, and certainly not the whole story.

It was thrilling to see. I asked myself as I watched this, Why is this happening? Why can an Estonian stand on equal ground with a Russian and debate as an equal? It occurred to me with great clarity: Because of the U.S. military's marriage to NATO and because the U.S. military continues today what it did from the founding, that visionary founding by Congress and Harry Truman; that is, to put actual bullets in our budgets to provide an umbrella of security for Europe that was credible to the Soviet Union. It was a thrilling thing to see.

I remember when I first came to the Senate and I was on the Foreign Relations Committee. I was given an assignment to help pass the first expansion of NATO, postfall of the Berlin Wall. Many of the questions raised were: What will this do to Russia coming out of communism, trying to come into the Western world? What will it do to a fragile democracy they are trying to build? Isn't this just cold war? And yet some of us said, while we respect those concerns, these new members-the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians-are needed for new blood in NATO because we were getting stale and we needed their input. We needed someone in membership to understand what the boot of tyranny on the back of the neck was like, and they did, as we all know.

We won that debate. The vote was large. It was lopsided. But it took a lot of work to make that argument successful. We did succeed and NATO was expanded indeed through these countries, each of which had suffered greatly under the Soviet Union at various times when they had uprises.

But now I have to say that what we promised would happen in these countries has actually occurred. You have Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Romania. These are not perfect democracies. But guess what they are. They are now democracies. They are pursuing the rule of law. They are allowing free enterprise. They are developing emerging middle classes. They have become job magnets for European capital. They are joining the European Union. They are now part of the free world. And the lever was NATO. But that is the good.

Now I have to tell you what I thought was bad.

Two reports were given on Saturday. They were not my reports. One was made by a German and one was made by a Frenchman.

The first report was about the post-9/11 commitment that NATO had made with respect to Afghanistan. You will remember the only time article V has ever been invoked was after 9/11. We had been attacked. Article V says if member countries are attacked, it is an attack on all.

In response to that attack and the issuance of article V, NATO was supposed to go to work. And they made commitments, according to this report, of things they would do in Afghanistan.

According to the report which I listened to, it was readily admitted that a reasonable attempt was made at the first commitment and that the other three were not even attempted and were utter failures.

That is what their report said. That is what I heard.

They went on to cite the fact that helicopters were needed. Lift was needed so their soldiers could actually participate, but that the member countries of NATO wouldn't send any helicopters. The troops they were sending came with such operational restrictions by their governments that all they could do was defensive work. They couldn't help in the war. They were restricted by their governments from making a contribution.

Let us say the Americans were fired upon. They couldn't help. If they were fired upon, they could fire back. That is what the report said. I was stunned to hear it. But that is what I heard-four commitments; three were utter failures and one attempt.

The next report was made by a Frenchman who talked about the exciting development in the European Union to develop a European defense initiative in which they would develop rapid response forces that could do what he described as "St. Petersburg tasks." Lipservice was given that this could be done with NATO. But when you consider what was supposed to be done with NATO in fulfilling the earlier commitments, these St. Petersburg tasks had nothing to do with that and were completely unrelated to what NATO needed them to do.

What I heard bad was there was soaring rhetoric, everybody there talked about their superpower, and everybody knew their budgets. While this rhetoric was going north, their budgets were heading south. It was scary.

I made the comment that if they were going to fail in their first responsibility and divert limited resources to a new initiative connected to the EU and leave NATO hollow, that would have a serious negative impact on America's commitment to NATO-and it certainly would to this Senator's commitment to NATO. There was just quiet when I responded in that fashion.

The French reporter who was making this report about the new European defense initiative noted how critically poor America was at peacekeeping, and what a poor job we do at rebuilding a country. I never thought that was true with Japan or Germany.

Then a Brit responded to him. She said she had recently been in Bosnia and it is fact that NATO is going to turn over its operational responsibilities in Bosnia to this European force. She said she heard the Kosovars said, We don't trust the EU, we trust the Americans, which certainly flies in the face of the charge that we are no good at peacekeeping. I thanked her for noting what I did not have to say. The Kosovars and the Albanians believed their freedom came from American efforts-not European Union efforts.

Those are the bad things. Let me tell you about the ugly things.

When I left on Sunday to fly home, I reflected upon 9/11 and the article V guarantee that had been issued and how the European Union had not been able to, or our members in Europe had not able to, fulfill their Afghan responsibilities. I thought about how unfair it was to mothers of American troops, and we as a government have said credibly so that Estonians can talk to Russians as equals that if they are attacked we will go to war-thermonuclear war, if necessary. But if the United States is attacked, the response in Afghanistan-a NATO commitment-has been we will apply defense for ourselves, and we will fall short of fulfilling our promises.

That is the first ugly thing-the first ugly realization I left with.

The second was this: I heard from country after country in Central and Eastern Europe how they were being pressured as new members of the European Union not to be cooperative with America on security issues.

That makes me angry. I think that is really ugly.

I was reminded of the Commissar about a year ago when these new NATO members put an article in the Wall Street Journal saying they stood with America on the war on terrorism and the President of the French Republic fearing these new countries would be a Trojan horse for the Americans and a challenge to the Franco-German leadership of Europe that was opposing the American effort-that somehow they had not acted "well-born." Those are his words.

He went on to add, warning: I was sad to learn, that is being administered in subtle but powerful ways to these new EU members. He said it could cost them membership in the EU. It has not done that.

Then Chirac said:

Beyond the somewhat amusing or childish aspects of the matter [the matter being the letter of support in the Wall Street Journal] . . . it was dangerous. It should not be forgotten that a number of the EU countries will have to ratify enlargement by referendum. And we already know that public opinion, as always when it's a matter of something new, have reservations about an enlargement, not really seeing exactly what their interest is in approving it. Obviously, then, [what the central Europeans have done] can only reinforce hostile public opinion sentiments among the 15 and especially those who will hold a referendum. Remember that all it takes is for one country not to ratify the referendum for [enlargement] not to happen. Thus, I would say that these countries have been, let's be frank, both not very well brought up and rather unconscious about the dangers that too quick an alignment with the American position could have for them.

I conclude with the words of Edmund Burke, that nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. I also remember the words of Isaiah to ancient Israel, not to lean on a weak reed.

I say to the American people, NATO is not dead, but it is in trouble. As politicians promise you relief through internationalization, I ask the American people to consider reality, deeds, not words and empty budgets.

I yield the floor.