29 October 1997

TRANSCRIPT: JOULWAN INTERVIEW ON NATO ENLARGEMENT

(USIA electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda") (2070)



(In the following interview, which appeared in the October issue of
USIA's electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda," retired U.S.
Army General George Joulwan says bringing new active members into NATO
from the strategically relevant area of Central and Eastern Europe
will enhance the security of the United States and the alliance. The
retired Army general -- who until July was NATO's Supreme Allied
Commander in Europe (SACEUR) -- believes that Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic "will bring a fresh spirit and a vigor to re-energize
the alliance as it gets ready to enter the 21st century." Joulwan was
interviewed by journal Contributing Editor Jacqui Porth.)


QUESTION: Why do you believe that NATO is, as you have said, "the most
successful military alliance in history?"


JOULWAN: For many reasons. First of all, NATO proved its worth both as
a political and a military organization for what it did in its first
40 years, which helped bring about the end of the Cold War, the
collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, the reunification of
Germany, and the demise of communism in Europe.


Since 1989, the alliance has adapted itself to the realities that we
face in Europe today. The primary reality there is instability. And
NATO is adapting in a way that I think demonstrates its flexibility
and relevance to the 21st century. Nowhere is that more obvious than
in Bosnia. The alliance, through a series of summits, has taken on new
missions, has conducted both internal and external adaptation, and,
for the first time in its history, has committed forces to Bosnia to
enforce a peace agreement and bring stability to this very volatile
part of Europe.


Q: Can you talk a little bit about the internal adaptations?



JOULWAN: The internal adaptation of the alliance is most evident, I
think, in our military structure where Allied Command Europe, for
example, has reduced from four regions to three. It has reduced 25
percent of its manpower. And it has streamlined its command and force
structure.


We have also incorporated the European Security and Defense Identity
(ESDI) into our operations at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe). For example, the four star chief-of-staff to the
Supreme Allied Commander was always an American. It is now a German
four star general. The head of the combined and joint planning staff
is a three star Dutch officer. The head of the Partnership
Coordination Cell is a two star Danish officer. So the European
officers are playing more and more of a role in the command structure
of the alliance. And that internal adaptation of the alliance will
continue.


We are also looking at the concept of a Combined Joint Task Force,
where we would put command-and-control headquarters together that
could function either under NATO or non-NATO (auspices) -- for example
the WEU, the Western European Union -- for an operation that would be
primarily European. This adaptation is extremely significant as NATO
adapts to the realities of today and tomorrow.


Q: How is external adaptation proceeding, then?



JOULWAN: There are two main issues. One is the Partnership for Peace
(PFP), which grew out of the January 1994 heads-of-state summit. This
was an attempt by the alliance to reach out to former adversaries and
non-aligned states and see if we could work together to develop common
standards and procedures and doctrine, in order to conduct missions
together in the future. No one knew then that the theory would be put
into practice in Bosnia, but this military cooperation program was
high on my list of priorities. And it has been extremely successful:
27 nations now compose the Partnership for Peace Program; 25 of the 27
nations have liaison officers at SHAPE headquarters at Mons, Belgium.
This makes SHAPE the largest multinational headquarters in the world.
NATO and our partners conduct 15 major exercises together and are
involved as well in hundreds of seminars, working groups, and other
types of contacts. We are going from a period of confrontation in the
Cold War to an era, now, of cooperation and dialogue. And it's
working.


The other external adaptation is what we are doing with the Russians;
this was one of the highlights of my four years as SACEUR. We have had
a Russian deputy to SACEUR for Russian forces in Bosnia since October
1995. As a result of this arrangement, Russian forces are operating
side-by-side with American and NATO forces in Bosnia, patrolling the
strategic Posovina Corridor and interacting daily with one another in
communications, logistics, and tactical training. As a result of this
cooperation, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed in Paris last May
and offers great hope for the future.


Q: What military adaptations or changes must the alliance make to
embrace enlargement beyond what you have described?


JOULWAN: Fundamentally, what must occur is that, as soon as possible,
those nations accepted for membership must be brought into the NATO
integrated air-defense structure. That, to me, is a top priority.
Also, communications must be established and training intensified, in
order to quickly bring the new member nations up to NATO standards.


Q: How will new NATO members enhance U.S. security requirements?



JOULWAN: I believe the proposed new members, the Hungarians, the
Poles, and the Czechs, are located in a strategic part of Europe. It
is a vacuum that has existed between Germany and Russia for centuries,
and for centuries wars have been fought in this region: two world wars
in this century, alone, costing millions and millions of lives and
trillions of dollars in damage. So bringing these nations into the
alliance enhances not only U.S. security, but also NATO security.


In addition, these countries have militaries that in time will provide
a valuable resource for the alliance, and they have demonstrated that
they are willing not only to share our values and ideals within the
alliance, but also to share the risks by providing forces to Bosnia.
Moreover, I believe that these nations will bring a fresh spirit and a
vigor to re-energize the alliance as it gets ready to enter the 21st
century.


Q: Is NATO enlargement a military necessity?



JOULWAN: I think so. I believe that bringing this strategically
relevant part of Europe into the alliance will promote stability and
enhance the opportunity for investment in Eastern and Central Europe.
By so doing, we also will make progress toward democracy. After all,
George Marshall's vision of 50 years ago included not only Western
Europe, but Eastern Europe and, at that time, the Soviet Union as
well. So this is much in line with Marshall's dream a half century
ago. Indeed, in my opinion, stability in Central Europe provides
security for Russia's western flank.


Q: You touched on this briefly, but could you further define the
military implications of NATO membership for Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic?


JOULWAN: I believe that this will enhance the security of the three
nations, obviously, but in speaking to the political and military
leadership of all three nations, they indicated to me that they also
intend to contribute a great deal to the alliance, both politically
and diplomatically, as well as militarily. After extensive discussions
with the leadership of these nations, I am convinced that they are
going to be full, active, and contributing members.


Q: Critics of NATO enlargement have suggested that adding new members
could fatally dilute the nature of the alliance. What is your view?


JOULWAN: That is a point that needs to be debated over the next year
or two. But the alliance expanded in 1951. We had 12 nations when
General Eisenhower was the first Supreme Commander. We expanded over
the next 30 years to 16 nations. So there has been expansion in the
past. I believe there are very solid strategic reasons to include
those nations that were agreed upon at Madrid (in July): Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic. An additional 12 nations have applied
for membership, and so the alliance and the sovereign nations involved
need to continue the dialogue and then the political decision must be
made on how much further the expansion should be.


Q: Is NATO enlargement needed to solidify the Atlantic Community
relationship?


JOULWAN: I believe that enlargement is a follow-on to the events that
occurred in 1989 and 1990. We cannot deny membership to those nations
that have sacrificed a great deal over the past 40 to 50 years in
their search for freedom and that also can contribute a great deal to
the future security of Europe.


Q: Do you think the NATO members will be able -- individually and
collectively -- to address the defense burdensharing issue
sufficiently to satisfy members of the U.S. Congress who may be
opposed to NATO enlargement?


JOULWAN: I think that cost is an issue that must be addressed.
Personally, in my conversations with the political as well as the
military leadership of all three nations, they have said that they
intend to pay their fair share of NATO enlargement. As I said, from my
vantage point, when I was Supreme Commander, I made it very clear that
the requirements, as I saw them, included integrated air-defense,
communications, and training. What planes or ships or tanks a nation
buys is up to that nation itself.


We don't have total interoperability within the alliance now, among
the 16 nations. Not everyone has the same tank; not everyone has the
same fighter plane. But we have agreed on common principles and
standards and procedures. And these nations that we are talking about
are demonstrating that they understand those procedures in Bosnia
today.


And so the costs need to be addressed, but I really believe that they
have been overestimated by certain reports. Also, I don't know how you
can put a price tag on the risk you run by having a conflict of some
sort, or even war. So I think that the costs that we're talking about
are manageable.


Q: Are there any other military changes or adaptations the alliance
needs to make to embrace enlargement, other than the internal and
external ones that you mentioned?


JOULWAN: No, I believe that the structure has adapted. We have an
Atlantic Partnership Council now that includes all the (PFP) partners.
So as they come in as new members, I believe the political structure
can accommodate them. Now they may have to expand the table and they
may have to expand the building, but I believe in my own discussions
and interactions with these three nations that they will be very
contributing nations to the alliance, and to what the alliance stands
for. I was very impressed that these nations understand the values and
ideals of the alliance that we have known for so many years, and,
indeed, in many respects, they remind us of what the alliance is truly
all about.


Q: The U.S. Senate debate on NATO enlargement is coming very closely
timed to the debate on withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Bosnia.
Do you have any concerns, or do you anticipate any problems, with the
possibility of the two being linked?


JOULWAN: Politically, I think it's going to be an issue. I would hope
that the issues related to Bosnia can be resolved before June of 1998.
But these are political decisions that need to be made. The
Stabilization Force, or SFOR, is there for 18 months because that was
a political decision by the alliance of which the United States is a
key member. If the United States or international community wants the
date changed then the alliance needs to say what the new mission is
and clearly lay it out. I think the sooner that's done the better. Or,
we withdraw the force in June of 1998. That decision should be made
politically, and very soon -- I would say no later than December.


But the issue of enlargement is a strategic issue as well, and I would
hope that it would be debated on its own merit because these are
decisions that will affect the future security of the United States
well into the 21st century. And we need to get it right. And it needs
to have the unified support of the American people, the Congress, and
the North Atlantic alliance.