MCCAIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Albright in his March 30th op-ed piece in the Washington Post former Secretary Kissinger argued that the Helsinki agreement on NATO enlargement will dilute NATO through the creation of a NATO plus Russia forum.
He quoted President Yeltsin to the effect that Russia is now part of the required consensus for NATO decisions. What are some examples of issues that we envision that would require consultations with Russia under the proposed agreement discussed at Helsinki?
ALBRIGHT: First of all, Senator, I think that former Secretary Kissinger is wrong in terms of his analysis of how this is going to look. As I stated, the sanctity of the NAC will be preserved. Decisions about NATO, actions will continue to be made within the NAC. And that will include the members of NATO. And Russia is not a member of NATO.
The Joint Council as it is established will be a consultative mechanism, not one in which there would -- the Russians would have a veto over decisions where there is a disagreement. There might be a number of consentual issues that come up that in fact will discuss -- generalized conditions in Europe, possibilities for cooperation on a variety of projects.
But the sanctity of the decision making process will remain with the NAC. And it does not.
ALBRIGHT: And we state over and over again that Russia will have a voice but not a veto. And that aspect is preserved.
MCCAIN: Would a future decision to admit additional countries in the alliance be discussed with Russia?
ALBRIGHT: No. That is an issue that is a NAC decision.
MCCAIN: So that would not be part of the...
ALBRIGHT: No.
MCCAIN: What are some examples of issues about which Russia would be obliged to consult with NATO, such as Russia's evolving union with Belarus, Russia's policy towards the Baltics, the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the caucuses? Are those...
ALBRIGHT: No. I think that there -- this is an evolving discussion as to what the kinds of -- what kinds of topics there would be. I think that -- our hope is that we will have an increasingly transparent and open relationship with the Russians on questions such as you have raised. We also do have those kinds of discussions in a bilateral forum now. And so, for us, the issue of this joint council is an ability to talk about problems. It is not going to be in that way a decision-making forum if we disagree on any one of those subjects.
MCCAIN: Is there any action that NATO might take over which Russia would have or think that it would have a veto?
ALBRIGHT: It will not have a veto over any NATO action. Only countries that are members of NATO can have a veto in NATO decision- making.
MCCAIN: Nor in which they would think they would have a veto?
ALBRIGHT: I -- you know, I can't say what they have in their minds, but the truth here is that they know that the sanctity of NATO per se remains whole, and that while it would be useful, I think, to cooperate in a number of areas, when push comes to shove, NATO is going to be making its own decisions about its actions.
MCCAIN: As you know, this is a very -- the reason why I raise this -- there's a lot of discussion about this issue. And when it raises the concern of people like former Secretary Kissinger, then I think it's of the utmost importance that it be clear to the Congress and the American people exactly what this consultative process that Russia will be a part of exactly means.
Will this consultative role be assumed by Russia prior to the admission of new members? Or on the date of? Or after? What do you envision that timeframe?
ALBRIGHT: Let me clarify something on that, Senator. At this very moment, there is already a consultative process that takes place, the 16 plus one. Russia has it. Other countries have it. So there is nothing different in terms of timing. It is a matter, I think, of institutionalizing some of what is going on already.
So based on what I've already said, that there is now way that they will make a decision over who new members are or actions that NATO might wish to undertake, what this does is kind of put a shingle on something that already exists, the 16-plus-one consultative mechanism.
MCCAIN: Secretary Cohen, do you have any comments?
COHEN: I was just going to say that the right of independent action is explicitly retained by NATO. And so Russia would have no ability to interfere with any action taken by NATO.
I was trying to think of an answer to your question about -- Well, would we have a reason to question them about some of their activity?
One thing that was represented at the Helsinki Summit is that we have no reason, no plans, no intent to place nuclear weapons on any of the territories of the new members who might come in. Implicit in that from my perspective is the understanding that Russia would not place nuclear weapons on the territories of the former republics of the Soviet Union.
And were they to do so, this might very well cause NATO to re-examine its no plans, no intent, no reason. So those might be areas in which we would have an opportunity to discuss matters on a bilateral basis -- NATO, Russia dealing with each other.
But I don't see -- it's my understanding of it, they will have no role in any of the internal decisions and independent actions on the part of NATO itself.
MCCAIN: And you are pleased with the status of the Russian military liaison positions both in NATO and possibly in additional commands.
COHEN: I've talked to George Joulwan, General Joulwan, and he seems very pleased with the nature of the relationship that has been established with having a liaison relationship with his Russian counterpart.
MCCAIN: Would you envision that in other commands, such as SACLANT?
COHEN: That's a possibility, but I don't envision it at this point.
MCCAIN: OK. I want to thank you both for very excellent testimony today, and thank you for your time and effort that you've put into this very, very important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.