Congressional Documents

Mr. Chairman, as you are all well aware, the NATO Alliance has been a cornerstone of our national security strategy for almost fifty years. In recent years, the European and international security environment has changed, and this change must be tied directly into our national security strategy. To be the strong force for peace in the future that it has been in the past, NATO should is examining be looking for new concepts and new approaches to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. "NATO Enlargement" – expanding the Alliance’s initiative to embrace new partners – is fundamental to restructuring NATO for a new century. Every NATO country shares in the costs as well as the benefits of membership in the Alliance, and that will include NATO Enlargement. The Joint Chiefs and I endorse the President’s support for this initiative, because we are convinced that our strategic interests, and the interests of our European friends and allies, are better served with Enlargement than without it.

Too often in this century, we have been called upon to intervene in major conflicts on the European continent, at great price to our nation, in blood and in treasure. We learned, the hard way, that we can avoid war by joining hands with our friends, and extending a hand to yesterday’s adversaries, to turn them into tomorrow’s friends. In fact, no NATO country has ever been attacked in the nearly five decades of NATO’s existence.

We have lived through the most dangerous century in world history, and even today, in Bosnia, we can see the legacy of those earlier conflicts. That is why, in my view, we can only gain by encouraging deserving nations to join with us in the interests of peace.

But we must be sure that candidates for NATO membership are up to the task. From the military perspective, it is important that new members bring genuine military capability to NATO, though specific military standards are not required for admission. We must ensure that new members are "net contributors" and not "net consumers" of security. They must be able to conduct coordinated operations with other NATO members. be militarily interoperable with NATOThey must participate fully in the defense planning structuresprocess. and systems, And their military forces must reflect the shared values of our Alliance, particularly the imperative of civilian control which is so central to our democratic systems. Of course we do not expect new members, right away, to operate at the same levels as members of long standing. Nor do we expect them to bear alone all the costs associated with joining the Alliance. That is why I share the view of my NATO counterparts, expressed to me during two recent visits to Europe, that NATO expansion Enlargement must occur in a deliberate way. We must carefully and prudently assess the costs of bringing in new members, just as we weigh the benefits to us and to NATO as a whole. Part of that responsibility is to capture the military requirements of NATO Enlargement as precisely as we can, to provide an accurate basis for the costing experts. We are doing just that.

As General Clark will tell you in a moment, the major NATO commands are currently conducting a comprehensive study of the military requirements associated with NATO Enlargement. I share the view of Secretary Cohen that these requirements must be the foundation upon which NATO cost estimates are based. The results will be ready soon, but based on what I have seen so far, I am confident that the benefits of NATO Enlargement -- a more stable and secure Europe – will far outweigh the financial costs we incur. Just as we must assess our costs accurately, we are also obligated to apportion them fairly. As Secretary Albright said in testimony before your colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, the United States will insist that our allies pay their fair share.

And I would note that new members will pay the largest share. On balance, I am confident that the methodology we are using to project future costs is sound. Considering the alternative, the prospect of future instability and conflict, I see the tradeoff between the projected costs of Enlargement, and the value of a stable Europe, as very much in our favor.

I am also encouraged by the military performance of NATO candidates, in Partnership for Peace events, in military operations in the Balkans, and in other operations like Desert Storm. If these operations are any guide, they are well on their way to achieving levels of military competence and professionalism which will enhance NATO. And apart from their military value, these cooperative ventures suggest a willingness to share the risks of collective security that deserves our respect and support.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the choice before us is clear.

If we are to avoid the tragedies of this century in the next one, then we must embrace the lessons we learned at such great cost, to achieve the peace we owe to our children, and their children. One of those lessons is that peace is based on closer ties, politically, economically, and militarily – and NATO Enlargement serves those ends very well.