28 February 2002

Administration Witnesses Call for New NATO Capabilities, Members

By Ralph Dannheisser
Washington File Congressional Correspondent

Washington -- Bush administration officials have told the Senate Armed Services Committee they have three prime goals for the upcoming Prague NATO Summit: ensuring that the alliance has the capabilities to meet today's threats, increasing its membership, and enhancing its relationship with Russia and other non-members.

But they encountered skepticism from some committee members -- including senior Republican John Warner of Virginia -- as to whether further enlargement of the organization from its current membership of 19 would be wise before it solves its own internal problems.

New nations should be invited to join NATO "only if there's a compelling military rationale," Warner declared.

The administration witnesses -- Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Air Force General Joseph Ralston, commander-in-chief of the U.S. European Command, testified February 28 as the committee looked into the future of the NATO alliance.

Listening intently in the audience were the ambassadors from at least three of the nine countries that aspire to be added to NATO's ranks at the Prague meeting in November -- Romania, Slovenia and Lithuania.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan), opened the hearing by observing that "depending upon whom you talk to, NATO's glass is either half full or half empty," with some observers on both sides of the Atlantic having "raised concerns about the future roles and missions of NATO and NATO's relevance in the post-September 11 world."

Characterizing himself as being "from the glass is half-full camp," Levin said "the fact remains that NATO must address a number of crucial issues no later than the November Prague summit."

Grossman acknowledged the broad questions being raised but declared, "The future of NATO has been debated before and we have always come back to the fundamentals: Values matter. Collective defense matters. Capabilities matter. The transatlantic relationship matters.

"And because NATO has always adapted to meet new challenges, NATO matters," he said, terming the alliance "a fundamental pillar of America's foreign and defense policy."

Indeed, Grossman argued, "NATO is not less important after September 11, it is more important." And when President Bush meets with the heads of other NATO nations in Prague, he said, "we expect that allies will be ready to approve a program of action to enhance NATO's ability" to deal with terrorism and related threats.

"Allies are indispensable if we are to defeat new threats posed by terrorists and hostile states seeking weapons of mass destruction," he told the panel.

Sharing a concern expressed by some of the senators, Grossman said that "the growing capabilities gap between the United States and Europe is the most serious long-term problem facing NATO," adding it is one that must be addressed.

He said the United States "will continue to urge allies to refocus their defense efforts, if need be by pooling their resources to do collectively what they are unable to do individually." But, he added, the allies themselves "must be prepared to do much more to improve their capabilities."

Addressing the issue of enhanced NATO relations with Russia, Grossman said the so-called "at 20" relationship will give Russia the chance to take part in developing cooperative approaches in areas such as counter-terrorism, civil emergency preparedness, airspace management and joint training and exercises. But, he stressed, the approach "will not give Russia the ability to veto NATO actions in any area. It is not a back door to NATO membership."

Feith, in his testimony, acknowledged that "enlargement of the alliance is not an exercise free of risks and difficult judgments." Nonetheless, he said, "we think NATO can enlarge -- indeed should -- in ways that will serve the national security interests of the United States and our current allies."

None of the witnesses gave any hint as to administration thinking on which countries might be approved for membership at the Prague meeting. But Feith said that, as specific candidacies are considered, "the Defense Department will be assessing the state of the aspirants' military structures, their implementation of defense reform, the readiness of military units dedicated to NATO missions, and the military value the aspirant countries can add to NATO."

He added, "As we encourage allies to spend more on defense, it is even more important that we get them to 'spend smarter,'" and raised the Joint Strike Force Program as a model of cooperation and efficiency to be emulated.

Ralston said that the steady integration record of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic -- the most recent additions to NATO's membership ranks -- suggests that further enlargement can be managed successfully. He said that the aspirant nations "offer limited but improving military capabilities and infrastructure to the alliance."

Some committee members -- particularly on the Republican side -- were less certain.

"Is it really time to move forward with any significant enlargement?" when internal problems within NATO remain to be dealt with, Warner asked. "Would it not be better to let this round of enlargement pass by...(and make an effort to) put our own house in order?" he wanted to know. He said the case for welcoming any of the nine additional aspirants "has yet to be made."

When Warner raised concern that granting membership to the Baltic states "could be disruptive" to relations with Russia, Feith disagreed. "Russia recognizes that we are not a threat to them, NATO is not a threat to them," he said.

Senator Pat Roberts (Republican, Kansas) said he shared some of Warner's views. Stipulating that the basic notion that "the United States must remain linked to our allies in Europe" was not in question, Roberts asked whether NATO, with an ever-expanding membership, would remain viable and relevant.

Citing NATO's policy of acting by consensus decisions, Roberts said that achieving unanimity has sometimes been difficult enough for the current 19 members -- and indeed when there were only 16. Getting a potential 28 members to act in a coordinated manner could be "like trying to transport frogs in a wheelbarrow," he said.

Feith acknowledged that the larger the membership, the more unwieldy it could become. But, he said, this negative would have to be "netted out" against the clear benefits of enlargement.