NATO EXPANSION A TOP AGENDA ITEM FOR MADELEINE ALBRIGHT

(Secretary of State-designate Albright before SFRC) (870)
By Jane A. Morse USIA Diplomatic Correspondent

Washington -- NATO enlargement will be among the top items on the agenda for Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's nominee for U.S. Secretary of State.

During her confirmation hearing January 8 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Albright described the Clinton Administration's "vision of an integrated, stable and democratic Europe."

"The purpose of enlargement," she noted, "is to do for Europe's east what NATO did 50 years ago for Europe's west: to integrate new democracies, defeat old hatreds, provide confidence in economic recovery and deter conflict."

"I think that this is one of the biggest pieces of business that we have," Albright said in response to questions. "Some of it could be described as unfinished business at the end of the Cold War, and some of it in terms of developing this new framework (for the post-Cold War world)...."

But she explained that while the United States believes that it is very important to expand NATO, "at the same time we fully understand that one of our key relationships is with Russia.... We have to establish a relationship between NATO and Russia through a parallel system.... That is being negotiated at this time."

She emphasized that "the major goal" of NATO expansion "is to make sure that we do not create new dividing lines in Europe, because part of what we're trying to eliminate with the NATO expansion is to eliminate the artificial dividing lines of the Cold War. And therefore, having a charter in which we detail that relationship between NATO and Russia is very important."

Albright called for working closely with other nations and public and nongovernmental organizations to deal with emergencies. She reiterated Clinton's position that "The United States cannot and should not try to solve every problem, but where our interests are clear, our values are at stake (and) where we can make a difference, we must act and we must lead."

Regarding the deployment of U.S. troops to defend U.S. interests, Albright said it was one of the Clinton Administration's "most important issues," one "considered with the greatest care."

"The U.S. vital national interests where we would commit force if necessary," Albright explained, "have to do with the protection of our territory, our people, our economic lifeline, and our way of life and those of our allies. There one should not hesitate to use a mixture of force and diplomacy, and our military are trained better than any other military in the world to undertake that kind of action. There are cases where we have interests...there are regional conflicts sometimes, which, if left unattended, might turn into larger wars.

"I would never advise using American forces where other means are available, where there is not the support of Congress and the people, where there is... no exit strategy and where there is not the likelihood of the reality of winning," she said,

"To be effective, force and diplomacy must complement and reinforce each other," Albright said.

She added that the United States has "other options than using American forces. And one of the reasons that I, as Ambassador at the United Nations, worked hard in order to develop the peacekeeping mechanism was that so other nations could, in fact, share the burden or carry the full burden in operations that are important to us, where we do not have to participate, where it's done through the United Nations or a coalition of the willing.

Albright urged all Americans to reject "the temptations of isolation."

"By standing with those around the world who share our values, we will advance our own interests," she said.

She warned against further budget cuts for diplomatic activities, noting that with the fall of Communism, the United States must direct its energies towards "a variety of threats, some as old as ethnic conflict; some as new as letter bombs; some as long-term as global warming; some as dangerous as nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

"To cope with such a variety of threats, we will need a full range of foreign policy tools," including a well-equipped military and a "first-class diplomacy," Albright said.

But she warned the Committee that "a first-class diplomacy" won't come cheap. "We must invest the resources needed to maintain American leadership. Consider the stakes. We are talking here about one percent of our federal budget, but that one percent may well determine 50% of the history that is written about our era."

She also urged that the U.S. Congress appropriate the money needed to pay its dues to the United Nations.

According to State Department calculations, the United States owes a total of $1.234 billion as of December 31, 1996. That figure includes arrears of $217 million for the U.N. regular budge, $708 million for peacekeeping, and $309 million for other international organizations and U.N. specialized agencies.

However, Congress has appropriated $213 million that will be paid as soon as congressionally mandated certifications are completed. Upon payment of that amount, the United States will owe $1.021 million.