Nato and Enlargement: Progress Since Prague Hearing

NATO AND ENLARGEMENT: PROGRESS SINCE PRAGUE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 29, 2003 Serial No. 108–19 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 86–774PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska HOWARD L. BERMAN, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York Vice Chairman ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida PETER T. KING, New York ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts AMO HOUGHTON, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York BARBARA LEE, California THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York RON PAUL, Texas JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania NICK SMITH, Michigan EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JEFF FLAKE, Arizona GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia ADAM B. SCHIFF, California MARK GREEN, Wisconsin DIANE E. WATSON, California JERRY WELLER, Illinois ADAM SMITH, Washington MIKE PENCE, Indiana BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan CHRIS BELL, Texas WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida ELTON GALLEGLY, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York PETER T. KING, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia BARBARA LEE, California THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon VINCE MORELLI, Subcommittee Staff Director PATRICK PRISCO, Professional Staff Member JONATHAN KATZ, Democratic Professional Staff Member BEVERLY HALLOCK, Staff Associate (II) VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL C O N T E N T S Page WITNESSES The Honorable Robert A. Bradtke, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................. 7 The Honorable Ian Brzezinski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense ............................. 14 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING The Honorable Doug Bereuter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe: Prepared statement 3 The Honorable Robert A. Bradtke: Prepared statement ...................................... 10 The Honorable Ian Brzezinski: Prepared statement ............................................ 17 (III) VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL NATO AND ENLARGEMENT: PROGRESS SINCE PRAGUE TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:05 p.m. in Room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Bereuter [Chair- man of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I open this hearing on the Subcommittee on Europe and welcome our witnesses and our guests. Today, we will examine the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to admit seven European countries to full membership in the Alliance and the qualifications of those seven members. Our witnesses today are Mr. Robert Bradtke, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia; and Mr. Ian Brzezinski, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO affairs. As two of the officials most closely involved in the enlargement process, they will testify on developments in the enlargement process since last November’s Prague Summit and the progress that the seven accession countries—Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lith- uania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia—have made since then in meeting the criteria for membership. The decision to admit former communist nations from Central and Eastern Europe into the Atlantic Alliance is one of the great successes of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success, promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. I am personally pleased that the House has performed an important leadership role in NATO enlargement. In fact, the expansion to the current 19 members can properly be said to have been initi- ated first in the United States and, within America, first in the U.S. House of Representatives. Enlarging NATO is certainly nothing new; during the Cold War, the Alliance enlarged on three occasions, admitting Greece, Turkey, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Spain. But the decision to admit Europe’s new democracies to the Alliance that had until re- cently been their adversary was an important, even an historic, change. Ten years ago, when voices in the Congress first promoted this idea, it may have seemed a questionable initiative to many Mem- (1) VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL 2 bers of Congress, yet 5 years ago, when the Senate gave its advice and consent to the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, it certainly was not as contentious as many observers had earlier expected. In fact, the admission of the new democracies of Poland, Hun- gary, and the Czech Republic has reinvigorated the Alliance. With their recent history of life under communist rule, they appreciate the importance of safeguarding freedom, both in Europe and around the world, and they have provided evidence that they share our commitment to promote liberty and oppose tyranny. The most recent examples of this came in Iraq. Polish special forces were on the ground in Iraq fighting alongside their Amer- ican, British, and Australian counterparts. Though numbering only a couple of hundred, they participated in the capture of the port city of Umm Qasr, the first city seized by coalition forces. Our Czech allies provided a contingent of chemical weapons defense specialists based in Kuwait, a skill at which they excel, and our Hungarian allies hosted the training facility for Iraqi opposition forces. While our three new allies have been a great help in Iraq, in Af- ghanistan, and in the peace operations in the Balkans, it is true that their integration into the Alliance was not an unqualified success. We saw some backsliding on their commitments once they joined the Alliance in 1999, most notably in the case of Hungary. While enlargement has been a net gain for NATO, there have been concerns of free-riding allies, though they would not be the first European countries to shirk some of their obligations to the Alli- ance. NATO has learned from the most recent round of enlargement and has worked with the incoming countries to ensure that they can contribute to NATO from Day One of their membership. The Membership Action Plan, or the MAP, allowed each candidate country to work with the NATO staff to create a road map to membership. While the MAP is not a check list for admission—that re- mains the prerogative of member governments and legislatures— it has helped the candidate countries develop reasonable defense planning that will make NATO stronger. When the Alliance members voted at the Prague Summit to admit the seven incoming allies, they did so with the under- standing that their defense reforms were incomplete. These seven countries have developed plans that will enable them to defend their territories, in cooperation with NATO, and that will let them contribute to Alliance missions. Many of the are focusing on niche capabilities that will fulfill shortfalls in Alliance requirements. But it is important to emphasize that these seven countries must main- tain their commitment to implement these reforms. They have con- tinued to implement the reforms since the Prague Summit last No- vember when they were invited to join NATO and since they signed the accession protocols on March 26th. Now, they must continue, of course, this reform process through the ratification process through the accession process next year and beyond. Even before they become full Alliance members, though, we have seen the benefits that NATO and the United States will reap from having them as part of the Alliance, and I go on at some VerDate Mar 21 2002 11:30 Jun 17, 2003 Jkt 086774 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\EUROPE\042903\86774 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL 3 length to describe the contributions they have made with respect to the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think in many cases my remarks are going to be very duplicative of what our two witnesses say, so I will insert that for the record.

Load more