IWS - The Information Warfare Site
News Watch Make a  donation to IWS - The Information Warfare Site Use it for navigation in case java scripts are disabled

27 March 2003

Grossman: NATO Importance Will Continue in Future

(Prepared testimony for Senate Armed Services Committee) (1880)

In prepared testimony presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee
March 27, the State Department's Marc Grossman reaffirmed NATO's
"continuing importance to U.S. security" but also said the recent
disagreement over defense support for Turkey "did damage the
Alliance."

Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, went on
to say, however, that he agreed with NATO Secretary General Lord
Robertson that the Alliance "would recover."

After discussing NATO's commitment to acquiring new capabilities, the
extension of membership to new members, and the establishment of new
relationships with Russia and Ukraine, Grossman turned to the question
of NATO's potential role in Iraq.

Following "a bruising debate about defense support for Turkey under
Article IV of the NATO Treaty" earlier this year, he said, "the
Alliance arrived at the outcome we sought. The Defense Policy
Committee directed military assistance to Turkey to address a threat
of attack from Iraq. That military assistance is now in place: NATO
deployed AWACs planes, Patriot missiles, and Nuclear, Biological and
Chemical defense teams."

In addition to the defense of Turkey, NATO could play a role in
post-conflict peacekeeping and stabilization, he said. "As I told NATO
Ambassadors last month, these ideas are still on the table."

"It would be wrong to draw the conclusion that we should stop pushing
NATO to change to address these new threats. If anything, we need to
redouble those efforts. And it would be wrong to conclude that the
trans-Atlantic relationship has been destroyed or even permanently
harmed," Grossman said.

"At the end of the day, it is to NATO that we will all return to seek
common ground and cooperation on the momentous issues facing the
trans-Atlantic community."

Following is Grossman's prepared statement:

(begin text)

U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.

THE FUTURE OF NATO

MARC GROSSMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

Washington, D.C. 
March 27, 2003

As Prepared

Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today. As always, it is an honor for
me to be here.

I came before this committee eleven months ago and outlined a vision
for the future of NATO.

Thanks to the strong support we received from you, Allied heads of
state and government, meeting in Prague in November, 2002, adopted
this vision and launched an historic transformation of the Alliance.

Speaking to students in Prague on the eve of that Summit, President
Bush promised that the Alliance would "make the most significant
reforms in NATO since 1949 -- reforms which will allow the Alliance to
effectively confront new dangers.

Let me answer the question in your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman
and Senator Levin, about NATO's continuing importance to U.S.
security.

For fifty years NATO has been the anchor of western security.

The end of Soviet Communism did not diminish NATO's importance.

* The democracies of NATO made and keep the peace in the Balkans. * In
1999, NATO stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. * NATO's just-completed
mission in Macedonia has also brought order to that new democracy.

NATO responded to September 11 by invoking Article V; an attack on one
member will be regarded as an attack on all. NATO sent AWACS to patrol
U.S. airspace, logging 4300 hours; 360 sorties, with 800 crewmembers
from 13 nations.

Thirteen Allies now contribute to Operation Enduring Freedom.

NATO Allies lead the International Stabilization force in Kabul.

German and Dutch troops replaced Turkish troops in ISAF, who replaced
British forces. Lord Robertson and some of our Allies would like to
see NATO take a larger role in ISAF. This makes sense to me.

NATO is the central organizing agent for Trans-Atlantic cooperation.
It represents a community of common values and shared commitments to
democracy, free markets and the rule of law.

NATO is key to the defense of the United States.

And so NATO must continue to lead and to adapt.

New Capabilities

Last year, we talked about the gap in military capabilities between
the United States and Europe as the most serious long-term problem
facing NATO.

At the Prague Summit in November, NATO's leaders decided to close this
gap.

The Prague Capabilities Commitment contains the ideas I presented to
you last year. European Allies agreed to "spend smarter," pool their
resources and pursue specialization. For example: -- Germany is
leading a 10-nation consortium on airlift. -- Seven nations are
participating in another consortium on sealift. -- The Netherlands is
taking the lead on precision guided missiles and has committed 84
million dollars to equip their F-16's with smart bombs.

This is a good start. Follow-through will be critical.

NATO's leaders also created at Prague the NATO Response Force. We need
NATO forces equipped with new capabilities and organized into highly
ready land, air and sea forces able to carry out missions anywhere in
the world.

NATO can and, in appropriate circumstances, should undertake military
operations outside its traditional area of operations.

The NATO Response Force will be a force of approximately 25,000
troops, with land, sea and air capability, deployable worldwide on
thirty days notice. NATO leaders agreed that the NATO Response Force
should be ready for exercises by October 2004 and mission-ready by
October 2006.

NATO also needs to streamline its command structure. When Allied
Defense Ministers meet in June they will consider a leaner and more
responsive, more modern command structure.

New Members

We also spoke last year of our determination to extend NATO membership
to the new emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.

At the Prague Summit, NATO leaders invited seven new
democracies--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia,
and Slovenia--to join NATO.

This invitation followed an intensive program of preparation under
NATO's Membership Action Plan. The Alliance worked with the aspirants
to encourage political, economic and military reform.

Since Prague, the seven invitees have been working with NATO on
preparing the accession protocols for joining the Alliance. In
Brussels yesterday, NATO Ambassadors signed the protocols to begin the
formal process of admitting the invitees into the Alliance. We will
transmit the protocols to the Senate for its advice and consent. We
hope you will support them.

The accession of these seven countries to NATO will directly benefit
U.S. interests.

These are strong Atlanticists. They are Allies in the War on Terror.
They have contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom and to the
International Security and Stabilization Force in Kabul.

(Reference Military Contribution Charts)

At Burgas, Bulgaria provides basing for U.S. transport aircraft
supplying Operation Enduring Freedom. Bulgaria also sent an Nuclear
Biological and Chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan.

Estonia sent a team of explosive experts to Afghanistan.

Lithuania deployed special operations forces to Afghanistan last year,
and this year provided a team of medical personnel.

Romania has an infantry battalion serving in Kandahar and military
police unit and transport aircraft serving Kabul.

Slovakia deployed an engineering unit to Kabul.

Slovenia has provided assistance with demining in Afghanistan.

They support the position of the United States on Iraq.

All of the invitees have committed to spending at least two percent
GDP on defense, and as you can see, all seven already spend a higher
percentage of their GDP than almost a third of the current NATO
membership.

(Reference Defense Spending Chart)

Their publics strongly support NATO.

On March 23, Slovenians went to the polls to support NATO membership.
The Yes vote won with 66%. In Romania, Bulgaria and the three Baltic
states, support for NATO stands at above 70%.

Together the invitees will also contribute as many as 200,000 new
troops to the Alliance -- approximately equal to the number added by
NATO's last enlargement in 1999.

What of future enlargements? The door to NATO should remain open. In
his speech at Warsaw University in 2001, the President stated that,
"all of Europe's democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea all
that lie between should have the same chance for security and freedom
and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe -- as Europe's
old democracies have".

We welcome the continuing pursuit of membership by Albania, Croatia
and Macedonia. We will continue to consult closely with these nations
on their Membership Action Plan programs as well as with others who
may seek membership in the future.

New Relationships

During my appearance here last February, I noted the agreement between
NATO and Russia to establish the NATO-Russia Council.

Work on establishing the Council went on through the spring and
culminated last May in a summit meeting in Rome attended by President
Bush, President Putin and NATO heads of state and government to
formally establish the NATO-Russia Council.

Over the past six months, NATO and Russia have been working on
projects in key areas such as combating terrorism, peacekeeping, civil
emergency planning and non-proliferation.

NATO is also engaged in developing a parallel partnership with
Ukraine. Unfortunately, this relationship has faltered due to the
authentication of a recording in which President Kuchma authorized the
transfer to Iraq of the Kolchuga system.

NATO also continues to develop a broad web of partners throughout
Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. When NATO inaugurated
Partnership for Peace nearly a decade ago, we could not have imagined
that we would one day rely on our Central Asian partners to help
defeat an enemy of the Alliance.

IRAQ

Today we are at war in Iraq. Is there a role for NATO?

Last December, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz presented in
Brussels ideas for possible NATO participation in Iraq. In addition to
the defense of Turkey, he suggested that NATO play a role in
post-conflict peacekeeping and stabilization. This could include WMD
security and destruction. As I told NATO Ambassadors last month, these
ideas are still on the table.

In February, the Alliance went through a bruising debate about defense
support for Turkey under Article IV of the NATO Treaty.

The most important point is that the Alliance arrived at the outcome
we sought. The Defense Policy Committee directed military assistance
to Turkey to address a threat of attack from Iraq. That military
assistance is now in place: NATO deployed AWACs planes, Patriot
missiles, and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical defense teams.

This disagreement did damage the Alliance. It is my view, however, as
Secretary General Robertson himself said afterwards, that this was a
hit above the waterline and that NATO would recover.

It is essential that NATO continues to knit together the community of
European and North American democracies as an Alliance of shared
values and collective security.

It would be wrong to draw the conclusion that we should stop pushing
NATO to change to address these new threats. If anything, we need to
redouble those efforts. And it would be wrong to conclude that the
trans-Atlantic relationship has been destroyed or even permanently
harmed.

At the end of the day, it is to NATO that we will all return to seek
common ground and cooperation on the momentous issues facing the
trans-Atlantic community. [End]

Released on March 27, 2003

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)