Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
May 7, 2003 -- Page: S5824

MRS. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I was interested in the previous discussion because I think they were talking about going back to NATO to discuss some contingencies that might occur and how they would be addressed. That is the subject of my view on this issue.

I support the entrance of these new countries, but I think we need to take a step back and make sure NATO is going to remain the greatest defense alliance that the world has ever known.

In 1999, when the Senate voted to ratify the addition of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, I said at the time that we needed to reassess the mutual threat to NATO nations to assure the strength of our alliance in that agreement.

Four years later, as we prepared for what became Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were disappointed, to say the least, to watch three NATO countries refuse to support the defense of our ally, Turkey. That was an initial signal that we have reached the point of stretching the alliance.

That Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are candidates for NATO is both a miracle and a testament to the effectiveness of NATO itself. They survived brutal totalitarian regimes during the cold war. Now they are free to fully join the world community as valued members of NATO.

But what is the state of the alliance they seek to join? The world has seen three NATO members refuse to support disarming Iraq. In the view of the United States, this was the same as the failure to come to the aid of a member country that has been attacked, a renunciation of our mutual agreement.

Now is the time to ask: What is the mission of NATO today? Is NATO going to protect the future or defend the past?

For NATO to remain relevant, we must agree on its fundamental mission. Our alliance should recognize that the concern threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have replaced the common threat of Soviet imperialism. After the most recent break in our bonds, it is essential to establish a new mission to counter a new threat. NATO has always been unified around a common purpose, but if it becomes nothing more than a patchwork quilt, we will be wasting our money and endangering our own national security by continuing to pay its bills and diverting our attention.

Fifty-four years ago this month, the United States pledged to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact. We were steadfast in our commitment. We based 300,000 troops in Europe continuously throughout the cold war and keep 119,000 troops there now. We have paid a quarter of NATO's costs, even though we are only one of 19 nations belonging to the alliance. Clearly, our commitment played a vital role in NATO's victory in the cold war.

After the cold war ended, we turned our attention to areas of the world that cried out for stability. We went to Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans, with varying degrees of success. We became central to peace negotiations in the Middle East. We focused more on our commitments abroad and less on our own national defense closer to home. All that changed on September 11, 2001, when terrorists and the countries supporting them tried to destroy the icons of democracy, capitalism and American power. Those attacks on our homeland marked the end of our policy of containment.

The global war we are fighting against terrorism and our forceful disarming of Iraq has forged new alliances unthinkable before September 11. Our relationship with Pakistan in the war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan is one example of this dynamic shift. But the war on terrorism has strained other longstanding, traditional alliances.

Many of our friends in Europe do not comprehend the impact September 11 had on America. They viewed what happened within our borders from arm's length, not acknowledging it as an attack on our country that required a firm response. This disconnect has caused a rift among NATO allies that would have been unthinkable before September 11. That split was manifested in the refusal to help disarm Iraq.

As we prepared for Operation Iraqi Freedom, our long-time allies, France, Germany and Belgium, countries we have been committed to defend from attack for over half a century, opposed us at every turn. Even today, they are thwarting the rebuilding of Iraq by refusing to lift the U.N.-imposed sanctions that would allow oil to be sold to pay for new infrastructure in that country.

A strong alliance cannot maintain its strength under such strain. It is imperative that NATO establishes a new, common mission or risk withering into irrelevance. If our purpose is a common defense, then we must form a consensus in defining our common threats. And those who agree should reconstitute a strong NATO.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we created a valuable template for how the world community can bond in this era of reckoning. We now should lead the effort to reconfirm a coalition of the willing to stand together against the common threat of terrorism to our democracies.

The seven invited countries have all demonstrated they are prepared to contribute if they join NATO. Every one of them supported the U.S.-led coalition to disarm Iraq. As the United States develops plans for the reconstruction and administration of postwar Iraq, we are consulting with all seven of these nations to determine how best to proceed in this process and how they can contribute. All have indicated a willingness to consider the requests of the United States or other international organizations to help restore Iraq.

Just this week, Bulgaria pledged to provide combat troops under international command. By doing so, Bulgaria has stepped forward--among the first of the world's nations--to internationalize the U.S.-led occupation. These seven countries are showing they are ready to do what it takes within their means to make the world more secure.

Madam President, I am certainly going to vote to support this round of NATO expansion because I do believe all of these prospective members have a clear understanding that NATO has new threats and new missions, and they will make a positive contribution to this alliance.

But I do hope we will take the lead in bringing to NATO a clear focus, a clear focus on the common threats that we all face, and the methods for defending against those threats. That is what it will take to assure that this great alliance will be a great alliance in the future and not just something we talk about in the past with great regard.