No. 13. (25/04/97)       NATO enlargement is part of a gradual process
                                     (Senator Lugar expects Senate fo ratifiy plans)

By Jacquelyn S. Porth
USIA Security Affairs Writer

Washington - Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) says he expects the Senate will ratify alliance plans to enlarge NATO, but warns that ratification "is not a certainty."

Members of Congress must quickly "come up to speed" and educate themselves on the whole NATO enlargement issue as the July Madrid summit approaches because until now the subject has only been addressed in Congress in a "low-key" manner, Lugar told an April 11-12 conference in Norfolk, Virginia sponsored by Old Dominion University and the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT).

Participants included some 400 government officials, civilian analysts, and military officers from the United States, Canada, and a host of European countries.

Lugar, who is the second highest Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he expects the Senate to take up retification of NATO arrangements in 1998. He stressed that a great deal of preparation is required because some members are "NATO purists" and cannot understand why the alliance should be, in their view, diluted and why additional security and financial obligations should be undertaken.

"NATO is at a crossroad," Lugar said. Investments today in Europe's future "will make a dramatic difference to our security," and NATO's decision to enlarge is a key element of the strategy designed "to create a ruly undivided Europe where all marked democracies are secure, at peace, and cooperate economically."

He stressed that U.S. and European security will be greatly affected by Russia's success or failure at becoming "a fully democratic state, aat peace with its neighbours and cooperating with Europe." The dilemma for the West, Lugar said, is whether Russian concerns about NATO enlargement can be managed and that country's internal transformation bolstered without slowing down or halting alliance plans.

NATO enlargement and improved NATO-Russian relations "need not be incompatible," Lugar said, despite continuing Russian opposition. It is in the interest of the United States to achieve both, he added, noting that the March 1997 Helsinki summit offered some hope that Russia is ready to move forward and accept NATO's offer of cooperation.

While the first set of new nations will be invited to enter into negotiations to become alliance members this summer, they will not actually join NATO until 1999. Lugar said new members will be given securuty guarantees from NATO, and in turn they must undertake "reciprocal obligations," including embracing shared political values, reforming their militaries, and operating with military equipment and doctrines that are compatible with NATO.

NATO enlargement should involve a parallel effort to draw Russia closer to the transatlantic community, according to Lugar. As the alliance purses a deepening relationship with Russia, he said, it should not provide compensation or concessions to Russia because a Russian- NATO relationship has merits on its own.

A Russian-NATO charter which is being negotiated, Lugar explained should reflect Russia's commitment to lasting peace in Europe and a shared commitment without geographic dividing lines or spheres of influences. It should deal with democratic values and reaffirm the right of nations' sovereignity and the concept of conflict prevention. It also should maximize transparency.

NATO seeks neither to contain nor isolate Russia, he said, urging the Russian government to examine it own geographical position and accept "the hand of cooperation that NATO has offered." If Russia cannot do that now, Lugar stressed the alliance should not "slam the door" after he Madrid summit. At the same time, Russia should not expect "the negotiating climate or its leverage to improve over time," he said, because "the West will move on" with its process to adapt.

It will also be important for the alliance to deal with the potential "have-not" nations who will not be part of the first wave of NATO enlargement invitees, Lugar said. Ukraine, too, wants its own accord with NATO, he noted, which would run in parallel with the NATO- Russian charter.

In response to questions from journalists following his conference presentation, Lugar said alliance members should be "vigorous" in their efforts to thing through both the NATO-Russia and NATO-Ukraine charters. It is imortant, he added, for the United States to paricipate in their formulation.

Lugar said he would welcome more Presidental leadership on the NATO enlargement issue because President Clinton is so effective when he takes he lead on subjects such as the current U.S. effort to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Clinton's leadership on enlargement "is essential," Lugar said, as did another conference participant, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Enlargement is ulimately about America's role in Europe and whether it will remain a European power, Brzezinski said. U.S. public opinion on NATO enlargement is quite favorable Brzezinski stated quoting poll results reflecting 62 percent in favor and 29 percent against. In the United Kingdom, he noted, 66 percent are in favor of enlargement; in Germany, 61 percent; and in France, 56 percent.

Such positive percentages coult change during the course of the ratification debate, Brzezinski warned, and pointed out the United States has "a very special responsibility" to lead by example as parliamentary debate unfolds in 15 NATO parliaments. He said a two-thirds vote is needed in the U.S. Senate and achieving that will require a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats. In remarks following his public presentation, he said, "the trick is to hold the coalition together."

While there is no powerful Congressional opposition to enlargement now, Brzezinski harbors "no illusion" that this will remain the case throughout the ratification process, predicting that there will be "some dimmunition" of support.

So far Clinton has been involved in only a limited way, Brzezinski said, and he suggested that the enlargement issue canot be borne by the secretary of state alone.

Brezinski also urged the establishment of a more formal Executive-Legislative consultative process on enlargement to include a standing caucus as has been in existence on arms control. He also suggested that the National Security Council may want to create a special bipartisan advisory commission on enlargement.

Enlargement should be viewed as "a slow and gradual process, stretched out probably over two decades or so," he said, "and loosely related also to the expansion of the EU (European Union) - not mechanically or synchronously, but certainly also not unrelated." Brzezinski also urged that no nation be excluded in advance: not the Baltic states, Rumania, Bulgaria, Ukraine or even eventually Russia, if it meets the required criteria for membership.

No one knows, he observed, where "the process of building Europe will stop." The enlargement process could accelerate after the first new wave of members or it could stall out, according to Brzezinski. But, he said, his view is that continuing enlargement is important because "the regional cooperation of an enlarging Europe tied to the U.S. remains in everyone's interests and, certainly, the interest of global stability."

This also means, he said, "that Europe has to be there" because "we cannot create Europe for the Europeans - and no one European nation can insist that it is the self-designated surrogate for a non-existent Europe. An equal partnership has to be (made) between America and Europe, and hence the emergence of a politically defined Europe is an historic imperative."

Later one of the co-hosts of the symposium stressed that no nation is dictating the course of the enlargement process. U.S. Marine Corps General John Sheehan, who is serving as SACLANT commander as well as commender-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command pointed out that the alliance is enlarging because NATO's 16 nations and the new applicants have made the political decision to do so.

"At the end of the day all Parliaments will vote," he said, "that is part of the democratic process." Enlargement is not just about U.S. security, Sheehan explained, but it is "a real opportunity to have a security zone in Europe" and add to "the world's security at large."

The military official also noted that new membership brings with it "tremendous obligations." When new members join the security apparatus, Sheehan explained, it will not be "a free lunch." Asked how long it might take to integrate new members, he ventured that it might, in some cases, take a couple of years change he nature of existing officer corps. Changing radio equipment within an alliance "is easy," he explained, but changing the thought process of new members "takes time."

(USIA Wireless File, 17th April 1997)