ROBB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Cohen, with your reference to QDR and NDP and others, you open up a whole inviting avenue of questions that I would like to pursue, and that you and I have had an opportunity to pursue and will continue to pursue. But I will just note here, publicly, thank you for maintaining the timetable that was established on that.
I know there had been a number of requests to let that slip a little bit, and the very fact that you're sticking to the timetable is encouraging.
COHEN: Let me add one caveat. We're in the middle of budget negotiations right now. And if there is any significant change in the budget from where we are and planning on to date, I probably cannot meet that deadline. I'd have to go all the way back, and force the services to go back and re-estimate exactly what we need to get there.
So I'm hoping that we stay at the same level where we are. Otherwise, I can't meet that deadline. But right now, I'm planning on being in front of you three weeks from now.
ROBB: In that case, I'll put an asterisk on my commendation to you and revisit it at the appropriate time.
In any event, I want to thank both of you for your thorough and very straightforward testimony on, obviously, a question that is going to be extremely important.
ROBB: You have anticipated many of the questions that I think are appropriate at this stage of the debate. And many of my colleagues here have proposed to both of you and you have responded to questions in several areas.
So I just have a couple of clean-up questions that sometime get into slightly tricky areas. Secretary Cohen, I'll start since you were just referring to the Bosnia operation from which I have just returned, and took a couple of your suggestions in terms of visits that I made during that particular visit.
But that was, in effect, an out-of-area operation. It was not within the confines of NATO. And I'm curious as to whether or not you or Secretary Albright believe that we ought to revisit and make more specific the kinds of commitments that we would expect out of area -- particularly out of the Atlantic area -- for nations or states that are not included either in the current NATO membership or the first tranche that are brought in subsequent to the discussions that are going to be taking place very shortly.
ROBB: I think there's always a danger in trying to draw categorical, unequivocal lines in terms of when you will go into an area and when you won't. I don't think there's a great difference between Secretary Albright and myself in terms of looking at the world map and saying that the United States cannot do everything.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but we cannot be called upon to engage in a host of areas where humanity might cry out for it and pressure be place upon the United States and NATO to respond. I think we have to be very, very selective where we commit U.S. forces, and obviously, NATO as well.
Otherwise, we are going to run into the problem that all of you are concerned about is, how do we pay for all of this, and what does it do to the degradation of the military capability, which is it's primary mission?
So I think we have to be selective. You cannot rule out any area from the very beginning. You have to say, is this critically important? Have you had a failed state? Are the local authorities so overwhelmed that they can't control an enormous humanitarian problem?
Should the United States under those circumstances in conjunction with either NATO or a multilateral operation become involved on a temporary basis? I think you shouldn't try to prescribe those or proscribe those in advance, but you have to approach them at an ad hoc basis.
But ultimately, NATO is a military organization with a political dimension. And we have to keep that in mind, that its primary mission is a collective defense and not for out of area operations unless they pose a threat to that collective defensive.
ROBB: There is a certain irony in the fact that the first shots fired in anger by NATO were out of area.
Madame Secretary.
ALBRIGHT: Well, I would agree with the way Secretary Cohen has described the problem. And that is that we're going to be called upon, or the international community is called upon a number of times now to deal with a variety of problems.
On the NATO question specifically, I would make -- something that we all know is that those decisions were made by NATO as a group, by the North Atlantic Council -- by the NAC -- which is a sacred body, I think, in terms of decision-making.
But it also leads me to say that it's very important for us then to work on the variety of other ways that an international community can respond, which is why in other guises I have urged the evolution of peacekeeping operations so that they can be more useful, so that we don't have to participate in all of them.
Or for instance, there is endless creativity -- multinational forces, coalitions of the willing -- any number of ways now to deal with problems. But NATO has a decision-making process, and we respect that obviously.
ROBB: Madame Secretary, let me use that response to follow up. I made reference to the fact having just been in the area. I actually started out in the Near East and ended up in Bosnia. But I made a couple of stop en route -- one in Turkey, and one in Romania, which is very much interested in the question that is before this particular committee today.
But during the time that I was in Turkey, it became quite evident to me that their view of the whole process of NATO expansion will be colored at least in part by their success in becoming a member of the European Union.
And their belief certainly that the United States is playing a crucial role in helping -- though not a member of the European union -- to encourage other allies to grant accession to Turkey so that Turkey will be in a position to perhaps view more objectively the question of expansion -- whether it's 1-2-3 or more of the current non-NATO members in that first tranche.
ROBB: Would you like to comment on that progress of where things stand in that area? And whether or not that is the kind of linkage that we ought to be thinking about or concerned about?
ALBRIGHT: Well first of all I think we are all watching Turkey very carefully. Turkey is very important to us strategically. And has been and is a very close ally and plays a very important role in NATO.
We do believe that it is important for Turkey to stay westward oriented in having -- and have a variety of ties with Europe. Including a better relationship with the EU. And we have made that clear as you pointed out yourself we are not members and therefore we play a corrolary role.
But we are indicating our interest in having the EU not say categorically that Turkey cannot exceed at any given time. We don't accept the kind of linkage that you have described. And I think that it is a subject that has come up. But I do not, at least I hope it is not a serious linkage even in the minds of the Turks. Because I think they understand very much the value of NATO. And they -- the relationships we have through that. But I can assure you that we are looking very closely, generally, with our relations with Turkey and understand their importance to us.
ROBB: One exit question. Is is realistic to think that the first tranche will include more than the three states that conventional wisdom usually lists as the most likely accession members. There are obviously a total of 12. You've discussed some of the Balkan state situation in an appropriately delicate way.
You have talked other concerns, but is it realistic to believe that NATO will go beyond the three that meet most of the criteria that you have already discussed in terms of the first tranche?
ALBRIGHT: Senator, we are not in a position to state an answer to that because no decision has been made. And we are in the process of looking at what countries are eligible. But we have not -- I'm not in a position to answer that question.
ROBB: Other countries obviously in NATO are encouraging us with respect to certain potential accession. Thank you, Madam Secretary, Mr. Secretary. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.