THURMOND: Senator Cohen, there has been considerable debate regarding the expansion of NATO. You have been considered one of the Senate's experts on NATO, leading the congressional delegation to the verkunde conference on NATO for many years.
Would you please give us your views on NATO expansion, especially as it affects Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic? Are we moving too fast, not fast enough? What factors should we consider as we move forward? What are the dangers?
COHEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the process of NATO enlargement is underway. There will be a meeting that will take place in July of this year in which the NATO countries will consider potential members.
That line of -- time-line should allow several of the countries that are now under consideration to be included by the end of this century. And I think we have to await the determination by the NATO countries to determine what their judgment is, as far as who should be in and who should be out.
All I can say at this point is that the process is just beginning. Whatever decision is made in July as to which countries are recommended for admission, that's only the beginning of the process and not the end of the process. And so, I think that it would be premature to prejudge who the countries are that NATO will admit.
..............................
GLENN: Do you, though, in your opinion, just looking at this, if we have a NATO expansion, does that require any change, in your opinion, in our forces, on equipment, on numbers? Are we going to have to put some people back into Europe, because there is a little seacoast involved with that NATO expansion area?
How do you see that working out? Is that going to change our disposition?
COHEN: I doubt if it will change our disposition. There will be costs involved, and that's something that I've also advocated in the past -- that as we talk about NATO expansion, that we convey to the American people this is not cost free. There are going to be cost involved. CBO had done an analysis and said there can be as much or as little as we determine.
GLENN: If we just don't let them in the membership, we're taking on responsibilities for the borders of those countries.
COHEN: That's right.
GLENN: And so, that seemed to me, that would require some redistributing of forces, perhaps on our part.
COHEN: It may require the redistribution, but also we're taking into account, as NATO becomes enlarged, how those forces will be configured, whether or not they will be indigenous forces of the nations who are admitted, whether or not there will be any foreign forces forward deployed in those countries that are admitted. So all of that pretty much right now is up in the air. But I'm not aware that it's going to require any major restructuring on the part of the United States. I think to the contrary.
....................................
SNOWE: Senator Cohen, on the issue of NATO enlargement, obviously that issue has been addressed in a number of ways here today. And I'm -- this is a complex issue, a difficult one -- the cost, the role of Russia in this process.
Your predecessor, Secretary Perry, mentioned that Russia should have a voice but not a veto in the alliance.
Now, obviously, that does raise a number of question. Some would suggest that that means they would have a tremendous voice in the alliance and in fact a veto power in essence.
Can you give us your views on how you would regard the role of Russia in this instance?
COHEN: Well, Secretary Perry's has been very precise in how he has phrased his view of this. And when he says a voice and not a veto, what I believe that the secretary has indicated as far as trying to negotiate -- there's no such charter in existence right now. You have members of -- the secretary-general of NATO, who has traveled recently to Russia.
There'll be other conferences taking place. The vice president will be meeting with Chernomyrdin soon in February. So there are going to be some substantial contacts between ourselves and the Russians.
And what I think that Secretary Perry has in mind is allowing the Russians to express their opinion in terms of NATO enlargement, to have some voice in a forum in which to express opinions, but then having to leave that forum and allow the NATO countries to cast their -- their own deliberations.
It's going to take a lot of refinement, in my opinion, to know how to achieve that.
I know there's considerable controversy. Some would advocate that we not have a NATO-Russian charter as such, but have an OSCE- Russian charter, in which the United States would have a role, but it would not be NATO because of NATO's unique status and capabilities.
I think we have to approach it very carefully and make it very clear to the Russians that we understand their sensitivities, that they should not see NATO enlargement -- it really would work to their benefit by having a stable, prosperous Central and Eastern Europe would work not to their disadvantage but to their benefit.
I recall, for example, when the two Germanys were united. Mikhail Gorbachev was very strong in denouncing that. He said a united Germany can never be part of NATO. Then, of course, we have a united Germany that's part of NATO and posing no threat to the Russians.
And so I think what we have to do is make it very clear that -- that we see this not as a threat, and they should not see it as a threat, but actually a benefit of stabilizing a region that has been the place where two world wars have started in the past.
SNOWE: What would be your strategy in terms of working with Congress on this implementation? I know the president has indicated that achieving this goal of NATO enlargement by April of 1999.
COHEN: Well, the NATO countries are meeting in July to express their recommendations as far as admission.
COHEN: At that time, those recommendations will be made public. The countries, I assume, would be invited. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it should be seen as just the beginning of a process not the end of the process, because I know that some country will say we didn't get invited the first time; therefore, we're out.
But that's not the case. It should be made very clear this is the first time there will be second and third entries.
With respect to consultations, obviously, if this is going to cost the United States money -- and it will -- it's yet to be determined how much cost will be involved -- that that's something that requires knowing the consultation with the approval of the Congress. So it's something that everyone on this committee and other committees will have a very important role to play in.
SNOWE: I certainly think so, and I hope that there will be. And I certainly know that you will be involved in the consultation process and to a considerable degree.
But I'm concerned about this issue, because it's one of those areas that, obviously, we're going to have to address and ratify. And I would hope that we do play a role in that regard because of the magnitude of some of the questions, particularly the issue of cost, which are wide-ranging at this point. So it's hard to know.
COHEN: I think it's important that we begin the educational process because -- and not present it as a fait accompli to either the Congress or the country, because there are benefits to be derived. We've seen them already.
Just the mere talk of countries being considered for admission into NATO has produced some rather remarkable results in central Europe, as far as countries now getting together and dropping old animosities, as such, reforming their economies, putting in civilian control over their military.
So it's had a very beneficial effect already, just the mere consideration that they would be admitted or have a possibility of being admitted.
There are costs and there are benefits. And what is needed is a discussion and a debate started as soon as possible. I think that's why the administration is putting this right up front as one of its top items on the agenda.
...................................