[Back]
[Index]
[Next]
|
[Back] |
[Index] |
[Next] |
Commissioners present: Hon. Alfonse D’Amato, Chairman; Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Co- Chairman; Hon. Jon Christensen, Commissioner. Witnesses: H. E. Ojars Kalnins, Ambassador of the Republic of Latvia; H. E. Jerzy Kozminski, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland; H.E. Alfonsas Eidintas, Ambassador of the Republic of Lithua- nia; H.E. Grigore Kalev Stoicescu, Ambassador of the Republic of Estonia
The Commission’s approach to this series of hearings is intended to focus specifically on how well the candidate states have implemented OSCE’s agreements and complied with OSCE’s prin- ciples. We’ll ask questions relating to other areas of candidate states’ policies and conduct that have been identified as critical to acceptance in NATO, but we are not competing with the committees having legislative jurisdiction in these areas who will examine those issues more thoroughly. Let me make it clear I am a supporter of NATO enlargement. I think, in principle, every candidate state should be included in NATO when they meet standards for accession. I do not believe that NATO 39
39 Page 40 41 36 enlargement should end with the Madrid announcement of the states invited to participate in accession negotiations. I believe that it’s important that the United States and our NATO allies make very clear that those states not invited to join in the first round that the door is not closed, that the process has not ended, and that we and our allies encourage them to press ahead to meet the standards so they can join when they are ready.
If we do not do this, we make a great mistake. We run the risk of cutting the legs out from under the reform movements just now taking control of some of the East European countries that have failed to reform their political, military, and economic systems fast enough to meet NATO member country standards. These reform governments must be given a clear, strong signal that when they meet the standards, they will be allowed to join. I could go on but I think, more importantly, I would like to hear from the Ambassadors of the countries and I know that my colleague, Congressman Smith, Co-Chairman and former Chairman, has a statement. He has been a champion for the freedom of the peoples who were once enslaved and who now we are so delighted to have an opportunity to welcome as partners in providing real security. Congressman Smith has a statement to make, and I’m going to ask that my full statement be placed in the record in its entirety.
Congressman Smith.
With the adoption of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act, the Congress has made clear that the human rights records of emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe interested in joining NATO should be evaluated in light of the obligations and commitments of these countries under the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Helsinki Final Act. I would note, Mr. Chairman, that all 27 states of the Partnership for Peace are participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. That membership has committed each state to act in accor- dance with all OSCE documents, including the Helsinki Final Act. NATO enlargement provides an excellent opportunity for countries desiring membership to dem- onstrate their commitment to the Alliance’s shared values, including respect for human rights as well as their ability to fulfill the military and political obligations expected of all member states. Prospec- tive members should meet the criteria set forth in the NATO Participation Act and other relevant legislation before they are admitted as full members of NATO. 40
40 Page 41 42 37 Mr. Chairman, the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, including those represented here to- day, have made tremendous strides in working to overcome the legacy of communism. The prospect of NATO membership has already given important impetus to the reform process under way in most of the countries in the region and has contributed to the resolution of a number of longstanding disputes. I commend the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland for the impressive progress they have made in such a short time.
It would be an injustice of historic proportions, Mr. Chairman, if we did not take advantage of the unique opportunity we have today to embrace those countries of the region committed to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Mr. Chairman, as we look to the upcoming Madrid NATO Summit and beyond, I am concerned about the lack of a genuine and transparent process to ensure that those emerging democracies that do not receive invitations in July to join NATO will be considered for membership as soon as they meet that criteria.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank you for your good leadership over the years we have traveled together, many of the captive nations when they were under that Communist domination and you have always been a champion for human rights and respect for the dignity of men and women everywhere and I want to thank you.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Congressman Christensen. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I’m anxious to hear their testimony. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you. Before I call our first Ambassador to testify, let me make this very clear: It is my opinion—and I believe it’s an opinion widely shared by not only my colleagues here on the Commission but in general by most of the members of Congress—that Russia should not have a veto over NATO enlargement, no state’s candidacy should be foreclosed, and under no circumstances should we yield to Russian oppo- sition to any state’s membership. Unfortunately, there are still leaders in Russia who view NATO enlargement and the inclusion of those countries who are formerly dominated by Russia as a victory for the West and a defeat for Russia. This should be viewed as a victory for enlightenment, for free- dom, for people’s rights, and for respect for their sovereign choices. NATO enlargement gives them the opportunity to provide collectively for their security in ways that they could not otherwise, in certain cases, achieve. I just think we have to understand that.Ambassador Kozminski from Poland, we are indeed delighted that you’re with us and we’d like to hear your testimony first.
Amb. KOZMINSKI. Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Commission, I must confess it is a new experience for me to appear before you in this way. My staff and I have observed many Congressional hearings but never before from this chair at the witness table. To be honest, it is not 41
41 Page 42 43 38 something I thought I would be doing nor would I want to set a precedent. But given the great accom- plishments of the Helsinki Commission, especially during the Cold War era, and in recognition of its strong support for NATO enlargement, I wanted to accede to this request and provide you with infor- mation on human rights developments in Poland.
Poland’s long and obstinate resistance to and ultimate victory over Communist rule was based exactly on a firm belief in and respect for political and civil liberties. That is why postulates of basic human rights were at the core of the Solidarity movement and the opposition’s struggle against an authoritarian regime. In those days, the Helsinki Committee was illegal in Poland and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was published by the underground press. The bloodless revolution in Poland of 1989, triggering the chain reaction in all of Central Eastern Europe, opened long-awaited opportunity to implement these principles and values.
The human rights dimension was a crucial part of the totality of the reconstruction of the state institutions. It served as a clear guidepost when Poland began to introduce a democratic system and free market economy, launching at the same time an independent foreign policy. Taking into account the magnitude of this unprecedented task, the enormity of the Communist legacy, the accomplishments are as impressive as they are successful. Although they are a tribute to the efforts and sacrifices of the Polish people, I would like to recognize here the role played by our friends, especially by the United States. So I would like to thank you and, through you, American taxpayers, noting that your assistance was really well used. Senator D'AMATO. Ambassador, I want to commend you on that enlightened observation and it is so refreshing to hear someone say—excuse me for my interruption but it is so unusual to hear someone say, “I want to thank the Americans and the American taxpayers who are putting up dollars and that they were well used.” That’s a wonderful thing. Very refreshing. So let me just commend you.
Amb. KOZMINSKI. Thank you. It’s been something more than a political and financial support. Poland has been able to overcome the inherited macroeconomic disaster and to build a new economy with a dynamic private sector, increasing exports and foreign investments, with GDP rising more than six per cent per annum in recent years. Poland has established a parliamentary democracy based on a multiparty political system, free elections, and the rule of law with an independent judiciary. Neither the frequent successions of gov- ernments nor social and economic tensions and hardships have prevented Poland in any way from conforming with the norms of a free and democratic society. Of particular significance is the imple- mentation and strengthening of control mechanisms, including the Constitutional Tribunal, the Tribu- nal of State and the Ombudsman’s Office for Citizens’ Rights as well as the widespread growth of NGOs which now amount to 20,000. The influential Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights conducts investigations without government interference.
One of the pillars of a democratic country is freedom of speech and pluralism in independent media which contribute significantly to the building a better- informed, more tolerant and pluralistic civil society. The explosion of private competing nationwide and local TV, radio stations, as well as print and electronic media is a powerful engine supporting Poland’s young democracy. 42
42 Page 43 44 39 Critical steps were made to protect rights of minorities which constitute 4 percent of the total population. Apart from establishing favorable conditions to develop actively their distinct identities, minority organizations are not required to meet the 5 percent threshold of ballots cast to provide mi- norities with the adequate representation in the Parliament, something I believe is a special solution in the practice of democracies. The process of promoting the rights of Ukrainian, Byelorussian, German and Jewish populations is indeed of historic and moral dimension. It has been directly linked with the establishing of good, neighborly relations with all of Poland’s neighbors, including with Germany and Russia.
Of crucial importance is the fact that a new chapter of Polish-Jewish relations has been opened. The history of the Jewish community in Poland was long and rich but half a century ago it was over- shadowed by the tragedy of the Holocaust committed by the Hitlerite Nazis on Polish soil. We are all diminished by the horror of the Holocaust. Today in Poland, however, there is an active and growing Jewish community that constitutes an integral part of our civil society. The latest development is the important law signed by the Polish President on April 15 regarding, among other things, the restitution of Jewish communal property. This law also includes a provision to establish a foundation with the participation of representatives of the World Jewish Restitution Orga- nization.
The crowning act of the Polish transformation is the passage by the National Assembly of a new constitution on which a national referendum has been called for May 25th. A result of long debates to gain the broadest possible consensus, this highest law of the land clearly defines the separation and balance of powers and confirms categorically all human, political and civil rights and liberties. It confirms, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and conscience, the right of assembly, the right to organize and to strike, the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and the right of habeas corpus. The new Constitution also reiterates Poland’s commitments to fulfill all its international human rights obligations. It is noteworthy to mention the stabilizing role that Poland plays internationally in this respect. In the OSCE Review Conference on human rights held in Vienna in 1996, Poland found itself amidst a group of countries whose record was recognized. The protection of human rights re- mains also a cornerstone for Poland’s participation in the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the entry of Poland and other Central and East European countries into NATO both will reflect our successful transformation and will consolidate respect and promotion of human rights, which results from the very principles of the Euro-Atlantic community. In fact, the mere prospect of the Alliance’s membership has been a remarkable stimulus supporting the resolution of various issues in East Central and Eastern Europe including the rights of minorities as an important component of human rights.
Hence, one could say that NATO has managed to play its historic role in our region even before our countries have managed to become NATO members. I believe it’s yet another reason why NATO’s doors should be wide open today and in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I stand ready in the future to discuss issues of mutual concern with you and other distinguished Commissioners in our personal exchanges of views. Thank you again.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. 43
43 Page 44 45 40 At this time before I continue to take testimony, I’m going to turn to my Co-Chairman, Congress- man Smith. He has an 11:00 hearing at which he is going to be participating and so I’m going to let him pose his questions and make his statements at this point in time. Congressman Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask and I will submit in writing questions to each of our very distinguished Ambassadors. I want to thank you. I know mention was made by at least one delegation and I got some letters on this from people in my district. One of the things that the Helsinki Commission has done for years is invite Ambassadors and people of high rank from the countries that make up the CSCE or the OSCE now to give them an opportunity, a platform to make their case. So I do think it’s a very positive thing. Some people took it as a very negative thing that we were inviting some Ambassadors here. Judging by some of the letters I got, I want you to know that that’s not the case. As you know, the hallmark of our government—and it doesn’t always hold up under scrutiny though—is transparency. Absolute openness. If we have a disagreement, we put it out on the table rather than under the table and, in the long run, that always, I think, serves all interests involved. I do have a number of questions. As I indicated, I do regret I do have to go. But I would like to just say for the record, too, that Mr. Ambassador Kozminski, there are some of us who are very concerned frankly that recently Poland reversed itself on its pro-life initiatives that it had made under Lech Walesa’s government. I know that there was a tremendous amount of pressure placed on the government to reverse that and to adopt a pro-abortion perspective. Many of us believe that the most fundamental of all human rights is the right to life.It’s interesting that when the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which I signed or gave the speech in support of when I was Bush’s delegate to the United Nations, the Polish diplomat was very involved in helping to craft that and right there in the preamble is very strong affirmation language concerning the dignity and the respect that ought to be accorded to unborn children.
The recent reversal of Poland’s pro-life laws was seen by many of us as a step backwards in the area of human rights. Not everyone agrees that protecting the unborn is a human rights issue. I think, just like in the slavery issue, some day that will be seen as self evident and really a no-brainer. That birth is an event that happens to all of us is not the beginning of life and those unborn children are deserving of respect and the violence of abortion, whether it be what we’re discussing in the Senate and House, partial birth abortion where the brains are literally sucked out and shame on the United States for its lack of compassion and respect for those babies. But it was seen by many of us as a step back- wards when Poland adopted a very pro-abortion law, most recently the latter part of last year.
Again, I do have a number of questions that I would like to pose and I will do it writing to all of you distinguished Ambassadors. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Congressman. At this time, I’d like to recognize Ambassador Eidintas of Lithuania. I think it’s interesting. It wasn’t that many years ago when I sought entry into Lithuania at the invitation of your Foreign Minis- ter and then Prime Minister. The Russians at the border stopped us; they did not want to recognize the sovereignty of the people of Lithuania. It was a great battle, courageous, led by people power. I think it was Mr. Landsbergis who was then the President and it was a demonstration of the will of people to 44
44 Page 45 46 41 overcome the fire power of the armies. Just let me say that who would have thought, again within such a relatively short period of time, that we would be here and discussing the issue of your joining, of Lithuania joining NATO. Ambassador.
Amb. EIDINTAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for your legendary trip in 1990 which was a significant signal that many, many people and famous people support us in this difficult period.
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Commission, it gives me great satisfaction today in front of such a distinguished audience to be able to speak of my country’s motivation to join North Atlantic Alliance. It is extremely significant that Lithuania is here today with our closest traditional regional partners, Latvia, Estonia and, I would like to stress, Poland. Whereas this is a very positive grouping of NATO candidates, unlike others which artificially separate us from Poland and other Central and East European states. Whatever the reason might be for today’s arrangement, I feel it’s a wise precedent. Lithuania’s sensitivity to such apparent technicalities may seem surprising but for us, it’s a matter of principle. U.S. policy never recognized our incorporation into the Soviet Union. Now, in striving for NATO membership, we do not want to be included in the group of former Soviet Republics. Our cultural and historic experience is firmly rooted in Europe, in Western tradition. Guided by the convic- tion that we shared the same values, face the same challenges, have the same vision of Europe’s future, we come today to the community of Western democracies.
Since regaining its independence, Lithuania has joined the effort to reinforce European security and cooperation. We consider the Helsinki Final Act an historic contribution to peace and cooperation in Europe. I can say with a great satisfaction that Lithuania enjoys good relations with all of its neighbors, Latvia, Belarus, Poland and the Kaliningrad region of Russia. We cannot afford disputes with our neighbors and this has been the consistent policy of successive governments. We have signed border agreements with Latvia and Belarus. Negotiations with Russia on the limitation of the border with the Kaliningrad region are almost finished. Poland and Lithuania extended mutual recognition of borders in the 1994 Lithuanian-Polish Treaty. We are working together very closely with our traditional border partners of Latvia and Estonia and our historical regional partner, Poland. The common goal of a democratic and indivisible Europe has helped Lithuania and Poland to overcome longstanding tensions and sensitivities. As a member of the international community, Lithuania has inherent rights as well as responsibilities. Yes, we can express concern about anti-democratic developments in Belarus and about a concentration of Russian military forces near our border in the Kaliningrad region. When we see a threat to our independence, we will make it known. But we strongly believe that only through dialog and negotiation can the nations of Europe find mutually acceptable solutions. Also, the involvement of the international community can safeguard the principles of re- spect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
Our deepening cooperation with all of our neighbors makes us optimistic about the future rela- tionship with them. The Russian people, for example, consider us as a good neighbor. I would like to point out that a recent poll conducted by the Center for International Sociological Investigation in 45
45 Page 46 47 42 Russia showed that 70 percent of the Russian people regard NATO membership for Lithuania as an internal matter for the Lithuanians and only 22 percent predicted a worsening of Lithuanian-Russian relations if Lithuania joins NATO. Because this Commission’s main concern is the preservation and advancement of human rights, I would like to take a moment to comment on the human rights situation in my country. Lithuanian legislation is in line with the European norms of human rights including guarantees for national minor- ity rights. Today no ethnic tensions are evident in Lithuania. All permanent residents of Lithuania have the opportunity to acquire Lithuanian citizenship. All citizens have the right to foster their culture, practice their religion, speak their own language. Lithuania has further guaranteed these rights by acceding to international human rights documents including them in treaty signed with its neighbors. The Constitution provides for state support of ethnic communities. National minorities have the right to their own educational institutions. Lithuanian public schools have complete programs of edu- cation or at least certain courses taught in Russian, Polish, Byelorussian and Ukrainian. Other groups, Jews, Armenians, Germans, Kurds, Tatars, and Greeks, have schools for instruction in their languages. In the current school year, almost 14 percent of all school children attend the schools with languages of instruction other than Lithuanian. Ethnic minorities comprise about 19 percent of Lithuania’s total population. National minorities also have their own media. There are 34 periodicals in Russian, eight in Polish, and many bilingual publications in a variety of languages. Lithuanian state radio and television have programs in Russian, Polish, Tatar, German, Byelorussian and Ukrainian. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities visited Lithuania only once in January ’93 and recorded no significant violations. Since 1990, Lithuania has been continuing and deepening democratic reform. Our Constitution enshrines basic human rights, free speech and freedom of assem- bly. We have had two peaceful changes of government after democratic parliamentary elections. The responsibilities of local governments have been increased. I would like to stress that democratic civil- ian control of the Lithuanian armed forces is assured. Only civilians may occupy the post of Minister of National Defense and the Commander of the Armed Forces is subordinate to this Minister. The government, the Minister of National Defense, and the Armed Forces Commander are accountable to Parliament. Last but not least, I would like to remind you that Lithuania has successfully carried out deep economic reform. We are now starting to bear the fruits of our efforts, as evidenced by the fact that our GDP is again growing and yearly inflation continues to fall. In conclusion, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. Lithuania shares the western values of democracy, rule of law, and free market. We share the vision of a peaceful and secure Europe in which NATO is an integral part. As members of NATO, we’ll make a lasting contribution to the peace, security, and prosperity in Europe and the larger trans-Atlantic community.
Thank you very much. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you. Ambassador Stoicescu of Estonia. Mr. Ambassador. 46
Amb. STOICESCU. Thank you, Chairman, distinguished members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to outline my country’s vision on the record of fulfillment of Estonian obligations and commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. It is also an unusual setting for us but, nevertheless, thank you for this opportunity.
Today’s hearings, in light of the NATO enlargement, for the sake of brevity, and keeping in mind the focus of the OSCE commitments, in my introduction I would not touch upon Estonian policy regarding enlargement and Estonia’s determination to join the Alliance. I can only assure you that this policy has not changed and is not going to change. But if there are any questions, I will be happy to answer to them. The liberation of the Baltic States, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the accession of many independent states with the CSCE all occurred just a short while before the Helsinki meeting in the spring of 1992 and influenced the decisions that were taken there. The challenges of change and the subsequent Stockholm Council Meeting gave Europe new instruments of preventive diplomacy as well as freer hands in crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. In December 1992 in Stockholm, Estonia was one of the first countries to invite a CSCE mission onto its territory. With the restoration of its independence, Estonia began confirming and updating its border agreements according to principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Estonia has no territorial claims or disputes with its neighboring countries. For Estonia, the Estonian-Latvian Sea Border Agreement high- lights the success of regional corporation and the importance that Estonia places on strengthening relations with all its neighbors.
Estonia looks forward to the conclusion of agreement between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation on the Estonian-Russian state border without any delays and linkage to irrelevant issues in this regard. The text of the agreement was already agreed, in fact, several times, in October and November 1996 and a corresponding joint protocol was signed by the heads of both delegations. There was also an agreement between the foreign ministers of the two countries reconfirming this agreement.
Estonia is today a state governed by the rule of law functioning democratic institutions and a fully effective balance of powers between the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary. In our country, all the practical groundwork necessary for the successful integration of a large population of foreign origin such as the provision of residency permits and travel documents, etcetera, is in its final stages. The integration process has been a challenging undertaking, however. It has also not been the only undertaking which Estonia has been dealing with. In the last 5 years, the primary focus has been on reintegration with Europe. The Western values and trans-Atlantic structures of which integrating the non-Estonian population into our society has been one part of the huge dangers affecting all Esto- nians. The OSCE mission has fulfilled a highly praiseworthy role by offering advice, monitoring the integration process, and publicizing Estonia’s adherence to the advice that other states of the OSCE have given us. 47
47 Page 48 49 44 As I said, when I performed previously the duties of Ambassador to the OSCE for Estonia, I highly praise the role of the United States. Estonia has followed a consistent and close policy to integrate those residents who are not Esto- nian citizens. Since 1992, Estonia’s governments have held a firm position on the right of these people to choose their citizenship, to choose it voluntarily, and have maintained the belief that citizenship cannot be forced on anyone. For those people now living in Estonia but holding only documents of the former Soviet Union, consecutive governments have provided the means by which their legal status is defined and their human rights are persuaded. If people do not apply for Estonian citizenship or have not chosen which citizenship they wish to hold, they are still given a clear legal status in Estonia. Estonia’s constitution and legal acts such as the law on aliens provide the legal status for the preserva- tion of their human rights. Over 200,000 people have registered their mass support for this important legal provision by applying for the residency permits as specified by the law on aliens. On March 11, 1997, the govern- ment created an amendment to the law on aliens. According to this amendment, people who have applied for temporary residence permit before July 12, 1995, will be eligible for permanent residence permits starting in the summer of 1998. Residents without Estonian citizenship are entitled to take part in the political process.
Importantly, citizens of other states or those who have not yet chosen their citizenship have the right to vote in local government if they are permanent residents or have applied for their residency permits. Estonia is one of the limited number of states where such an opportunity exists. In addition to that, from the beginning of April 1997 a special advisor to the Prime Minister was appointed on inter-ethnic relations. The new advisor’s tasks include helping to resolve the problems of social integration of non- ethnic Estonians and matters related to the termination of the legal status of the Russian speakers.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure you Estonia will continue the process of the integration of non- Esto- nian citizens through a modern democratic process. I thank you very much. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Kalnins from Latvia. Ambassador.
Amb. KALNINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to speak on behalf of Latvia. This means a great deal to me personally because Latvia has had a longstanding relationship with the Helsinki process and with the Commission and the staff members who did a great deal in Latvia long before we established our independence. I want to take this oppor- tunity to thank all of you personally for the contribution that you made in that struggle. I’d also like to use this opportunity to express my condolences to the family and colleagues of Sam Wise. I had the privilege of working with Sam and I’d like to say here that he was a very true friend of Latvia and we will miss him. 48
48 Page 49 50 45 Senator D'AMATO. Yes, he was a true friend of freedom.
Amb. KALNINS. Yes. The restoration of independence in Latvia in 1991 was an event of enormous significance, not only to the people of Latvia but to Europe and the international community as a whole. While many viewed this period 6 years ago as the end of the cold war, for Latvia this finally signalled the end of World War II itself. We have restored our rightful independence, regained our sovereignty, and launched our first steps on the road back to the western community of democratic nations. From the outset, Latvia’s foreign policy priorities have been clear. Our cultural and historical identity compels us to return to the Europe of which we have always been an integral part. Our geopo- litical situation compels us to equally full integration into trans-Atlantic security structures as well as developing a good and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia.Toward this end, Latvia became a signatory of the Helsinki Accords and a committed member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Latvia’s relationship with the OSCE has been a special one for the Helsinki process played an invaluable role in promoting fundamental human rights in Latvia long before we became OSCE members.
The Republic of Latvia’s commitment to the Helsinki process came naturally for the principles, norms, and standards embodied in the Helsinki Final Act were also the guiding principles of our nation and government. Since 1991, Latvia has had two parliamentary elections and five governments and all have consistently demonstrated their commitment to the implementation of OSCE commitments.
During that time, we have established laws in a national framework for the observance and pro- tection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, worked actively with U.N. human rights agencies, and in 1995 became one of the first countries in the world to establish an independent national human rights office based on the recom- mendations of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights. Latvia’s laws on citizenship and naturalization were developed in consultation with various inter- national organizations including the OSCE and now offer the possibility of naturalization for nearly all of Latvia’s permanent residents. In addition, Latvia has no outstanding territorial claims nor disputes and looks forward to a conclusion of an agreement between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation on the Latvia-Russia state border. Latvia is grateful to the OSCE for the work of the OSCE mission which has been operating in Latvia since 1993. This mission has been invaluable in advising the government on citizenship and other issues and has played a critical role in monitoring the implementation of the Latvian-Russian Agreement concerning the disposition of the Skunda radar facility and the status of Russian military pensioners. We welcome the recent statement made by OSCE Chairman and office, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, Mr. Flavio Cotti, wherein he announced that the role of the OSCE mission in Latvia has been largely completed. We are now working with OSCE in reviewing ways in which the role of this mission can be transformed and adjusted to the realities. We believe that the successful completion of the work of the OSCE mission in Latvia serves as testimony to the effectiveness of the 49
49 Page 50 51 46 OSCE as an organization. It demonstrates that through OSCE involvement problems can be resolved in a constructive manner. Latvia has been living proof that the Helsinki process works. The success also demonstrates Latvia’s real commitment to OSCE principles and its readiness to become fully engaged in all aspects of new European and trans-Atlantic security structures. It is for this reason that Latvia seeks membership in the European Union and specifically the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If the goal of NATO enlargement is to increase security and stability in an undi- vided Europe, then it is the goal of Latvia to play an active and constructive role in building this new security architecture.
Latvia seeks to be a provider of security, not simply a consumer. Only by being an integral part of the European security structure can we contribute our fair share. We have already demonstrated out willingness and capabilities in this regard by contributing troops to the IFOR and SFOR operations in Bosnia and will continue to do so in the future. We are also active participants in all aspects of Partner- ship for Peace and welcome the expanded role envisioned for this program. Ultimately, however, we seek full membership in NATO. For Latvia and for Europe, there is no other alternative if European security, stability, and integration is sought. While we see no reason why Latvia and its neighboring states of Estonia and Lithuania cannot be candidates for the first round of NATO enlargement, we believe that practical cooperation between NATO and its Baltic partners after Madrid is even more important than the order of admission into NATO. It is our hope that the U.S. Congress and the Administration will focus on this critical post- Madrid phase of NATO enlargement. Latvia has been joined by other candidate countries in offering initiatives that ensure not only that the door to NATO remains open but that new linkages and deeper ties be established between NATO and candidate countries. Supporters of NATO enlargement have stated that Madrid should be the beginning and not the end of the NATO enlargement process. If this process has an end, that end should be a secure and undivided Europe. What is needed then is a clear understanding of the means that will enable all of us to reach that end. We need a roadmap and signposts that will tell us that we are moving in the right direction and that we are on the correct path to reach our goal.
In November of last year, U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Thomas Siebert stated, and I quote, “For my government, the question of NATO membership for the Baltic States is not if but when. We are firmly committed to helping them prepare for NATO membership and take this commitment very seriously.”
Latvia also takes this commitment very seriously and welcomes this pledge of support. It would only add to the question of when the equally critical question of how. That is why it is of crucial importance that regardless of who receives the first invitations in Madrid that: 1) Latvia be provided a clear perspective for its future membership, 2) a framework be established for relations between can- didate countries and the Alliance after Madrid and 3) that clear and uniform criteria be established for membership. The security and stability of Europe must be based on engagement, inclusion, and inte- gration. Since 1991, Latvia has been fully engaged and it is up to the West to include us in all future security arrangements so that the full integration of Europe can be successfully completed. 50
50 Page 51 52 47 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Let me ask this question of all of you. I’m not going to include Poland in this. Three of you. As it relates to the question of the various ethnic groups that are in your country. I think some progress, it’s fair to say substantial progress, has been made but how big a problem is it? Do you see outside forces contributing? Is it maybe the fear of the Russians that you will become part of NATO? How big is that fear on the part of the Russians? Does that exacerbate the problem and what do you see and what are you doing to deal with this? I’m talking about the Russian ethnic communities within your countries.Mr. Ambassador.
Amb. EIDINTAS. Yes. We have not very large ethnic Russian community in Lithuania. It’s 8 percent of the population. More than 90 percent of them are citizens of Lithuania so they are equal as Lithuanians and others in all respects. There’s no problems indeed and they are pretty well integrated in Lithuanian community.Senator D'AMATO. You’re saying of the 8 percent, 90 percent are Lithuanian citizens.
Amb. EIDINTAS. Yes. From those eight. Senator D'AMATO. Yes. OK. Amb. EIDINTAS. So they are citizens and indeed we’re trying to solve all the problems which appear. They have schools, as I said in my statement. I cannot feel any possibility of foreign involve- ment or activating this community against Lithuania’s law or government. Everything goes pretty well in this area in our country and even some small groups, just former Communist party members, are not connected with some foreign or Communistic movement forces in CIS countries. But it’s a very small group so it doesn’t matter.Senator D'AMATO. You are making progress, real progress.
Amb. EIDINTAS. Yes. I think that our citizenship laws which provide the possibility to acquire citizenship to them from the first day of the independence. We made a great step integrating the people and most of them speak Lithuanian. It’s also very positive. They can be invited to governmental posi- tions, to administration. So I cannot see any problems in this field.Senator D'AMATO. I think it’s just important for two reasons. No. 1, not to create an opportunity to be in opposition, joining NATO. No. 2, maybe even more importantly is the fact that repression that all of the captive people lived under and various nationals lived under for so many years is something that we don’t want to inflict upon others. Now that the dynamics have switched, I think we should learn by the past experiences of how it was to be repressed and how those who are most victimized are people who were within their own country didn’t have their rights and were treated as non-citizens.
So it’s very difficult, I think, at times when people have lived under injustice to be forgiving but it is so important that the country’s government move in that direction so that we can as we move into this new century with a whole new and different attitude, one of respect and support of the minority 51
51 Page 52 53 48 communities, the ethnic communities, respect for their rights because we saw our own rights being trampled. Ambassador Kalnins, is there anything you’d like to add to that? How real is the Russian concern, do you feel, in terms of a threat to them, to their security when your country joins NATO?
Amb. KALNINS. I think when you talk about Russian concern, you have to distinguish between Russians in Moscow and Russians in Latvia. The Russians in Latvia have no concerns. Thirty percent of the population is ethnic Russian and about 40 percent of them are citizens already. The rest all have an opportunity to acquire citizenship. Not all choose to do so, but all have basically the same civil rights, human rights, that citizens do. But what we’ve noticed is that most of the Russians in Latvia have no interest either in returning to Russia or going anywhere else. Economically, they’re doing very well. I think they’re very comfort- able in Latvia. They enjoy the same rights. For example, in Riga there are more Russian language high schools than Latvian language schools and about 150 Russian language schools in Latvia as a whole. We teach middle education in eight different languages in Latvia. All of the major minorities are represented. We have very active minority organizations and associations so that you really don’t hear complaints from the groups within Latvia. The complaints seem to come from people outside, who have a different motivation and, although there hasn’t been a poll taken, my guess is that if you were to poll all the residents of a country like Latvia, regardless of their ethnicity, they would all welcome the security that an organization like NATO would offer.Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador. Amb. STOICESCU. Thank you, Chairman. You have asked first how big a problem is this. It is not a big problem. There are indeed certain difficulties we have inherited—the beginning of the ’90s from the past and this is a time-consuming process of integrating the population of foreign origin into our society. Still, the situation in Estonia is stable, as you know, even in areas mostly populated by Rus- sians. I may also put it that the difference in the standard of living that is seen on one side and the other side of the River of Narva is quite eloquent and, according to opinion polls, less than 2 percent of the population of foreign origin would prefer to leave the country and even of these, less than 2 percent, the majority not for Russia but rather to go to a Western country and it is more than obvious that there are no political needs they would ask for but rather everyday needs as do have many Estonians. We are in a deep process of transformation of radical reforms that affect our entire population, notwithstanding ethnicity or citizenship. The economic rights are the same for the entire population.You also asked if we do have kind of a fear of Russian interference. I don’t know how to answer. We are a small neighboring country of Russia and it all depends on how Russia will develop on the path to becoming a more or less democratic country or not and on that will depend the situation not only in the Baltic area but far beyond. So the consequences will be far larger than just affecting Esto- nia. 52
52 Page 53 54 49 What are our prospects in this sense? You asked what will you do with them. Well, I explained in our presentation that our policy is the policy of integrating these people into the Estonian society. The aspect of language teaching is very relevant. I can bring you examples of how many language training centers that are functioning now in Estonia, about 30, about possibilities of having free of charge consultations for elderly people, for instance, for pensioners before passing the oral test. They don’t have to pass the written test for naturalization and so on and so forth. So it’s one thing that we call in one name a policy of integration. Thank you.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Kozminski, the Helsinki Commission in the past has voiced its concern regarding the retention of the Communist era criminal defamation law. I understand that your Congress has been in the process of making revisions to that law. When do you see that happening? That is the law that really imperils free speech and makes it possible to bring criminal charges against people for being critical of various government policies. I understand that the president is pushing to end that law, to terminate that law. When do you believe that will take place?Amb. KOZMINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess that you are probably referring to article 270 of our Polish Criminal Code. Actually, right now there is a session of Polish Senate which is discussing the issue, and certainly, I cannot predict what is going to be the result of the proceedings but in general, I might say that the lower chamber of Polish Parliament (which is Sejm), has adopted a new criminal code. It has not entered into force yet because it’s now to be finally confirmed by the Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament) and then by the President.
However, the concept of freedom of expression which has been made public in recent days has been preserved in this new bill. Let me say what is a source of some misinterpretation surrounding the discussion about this. There is a provision which has to do with a restriction related to defamation and not with a restriction related to the freedom of expression. This article which is now being discussed does not restrict nor penalize the exercise of freedom of expression. Rather, it’s directed against ex- treme situations of defamation. However, in practice there is no criminalization of public criticism made in non-abusive language, even if it may offend the state, its organs or any sector of the popula- tion.
But as a matter of fact, under the Communist system, this particular article was directed to penal- ize open criticism of public and political authorities. It had, for example, a notion of “political system,” which was not to be criticized. Of course, it’s not valid any more because this would question the very core of the freedom of expression, that is, if we didn’t have the right to criticize the system.
So at present, I would say that prerequisites and notions used in this code such as public insult, scoff, and degrade, are rather interpreted and conceived as synonymous to defamation. I might add the second point, namely that the construction of this regulation is deeply rooted in European traditions, and this concept is best reflected, as I understand it, though I’m not an expert in it, in one of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as in the case law develop- ment by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.
It also might be interesting to remember that in Europe there are cases like, for example, those examined by the European Court of Human Rights, which are on the brink of defamation and restric- tion of freedom of expression. But when the European Court of Human Rights does examine such 53
53 Page 54 55 50 cases, it tends to recognize that the requirements of protection of reputation have to be somehow balanced against the interest of an open political discussion. Thus the practice is that acceptable criti- cism is wider with regard to politicians than in relation to private persons. I believe this is the same spirit which is going to prevail in Poland and which does prevail in Poland.
Senator D'AMATO. Very good. I think it’s important to make those distinctions and to indicate what the practice is now but I do think you need some recodification because there will be people who’ll be looking to see if this law is still on the books and asking what could be the potential for misapplication or misuse of this law.
Let me say this, Mr. Ambassador. I want to note that the fact that Poland is right now engaged in very active negotiations with the Jewish community concerning the conditions around Auschwitz and I understand that those negotiations, while not yet concluded, are going very well, and I want to com- mend you for your effort and for the effort of the Polish government in undertaking this. Let me say that your effort has been observed and will continue to be observed and we applaud you for moving forward in that spirit.
Amb. KOZMINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe it’s really an important long-term pro- gram. It was launched a year ago by the Polish President during his visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum here and the first agreement was hammered out between the President of Poland and Mr. Miles Lerman, Chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Council, to go ahead with a long term program which was called “Auschwitz Program” and which is now the subject of discussion between, on the one hand, Polish national and local authorities and, on the other, by representatives of Jewish organiza- tions such as the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, International Council of the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Ronald Lauder Foundation and, of course, United States Holocaust Memorial Council, as well as Yad Vashem and World Jewish Congress.
So these are the partners of the process. A month ago there was a meeting of representatives of those organizations in Warsaw in which they did discuss the principles, how to go ahead with this program and they agreed the most important prerequisites as well as the most important guidelines for the future, and I believe that this process is getting its dynamics.
Senator D'AMATO. Well, let me commend you for this effort and urge you to continue. It has been noted. We are cognizant of it and I think it is important and it’s a contribution to, I think, dealing with so many of the hurts that have existed for so long and it makes a very positive contribution. Let me ask all of you one last question. How serious do you think the Russian opposition to your country’s joining NATO is? How serious? Does it come from just Moscow? Do you view them as determined to block? Is there a real fear that somehow this is perceived as a loss to them and a victory, as I mentioned initially, for the WEST?
Ambassador, we’ll start and go right across.
Amb. KALNINS. I think, based on polls that I’ve seen of public opinion in Russia, it appears that most Russians don’t have an attitude about NATO as such and perhaps have even less an attitude about whether the Baltic States were to join or not. It would seem that the objections do come largely from Moscow for various reasons. When I think about that, I think back 10 years ago when we were strug- gling for independence and we were told then by the Soviet government that the idea of Baltic indepen- 5454 Page 55 56 51 dence was totally unacceptable, out of the question and, as I think someone once said, over our dead body. Well, 10 years have passed. The Baltic States are alive and well. The Soviet Union is no more. I think the degree of Russian objection to Baltic membership in NATO is perhaps directly related to the degree of support that the Baltic States get in the WEST or inversely related to that. I think that certain politicians in Moscow believe that if there is a lack of support for the Baltic States in the WEST that perhaps this process can be stopped, but if it’s made known that this is inevitable, that the Baltic States are indeed an integral part of Europe and that this is not a threat to Russia because we seek to establish normal ties. Economically, we all have a lot to benefit from these ties. I see no reason why it can’t be accepted very quickly in Russia that this is just a natural course of European integration.
Senator D'AMATO. Ambassador Eidintas. Amb. EIDINTAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned in my testimony that according to polls 70 percent of the Russian people regard NATO membership of Lithuania as an internal matter of the Lithuanians. It’s very important because Russia is under great change and we are optimistic that it will go along the democratic way.On the other hand, Lithuania and Russia signed in July 1991 a treaty, and in one article of the treaty Russia agreed that Lithuania is a sovereign country and Lithuania is capable, has the right to choose the system of collective security that she wants. So formally, it’s done so, Russia is not against Lithuania choosing the security system which we want. We want to be a NATO member so it’s done.
But today’s Russian Government opposes our right and its motivation I think is inappropriate for us. Motivation on the part of the former Soviet Union, former Republics of the Soviet Union. Because of U.S. nonrecognition policy—thank you very much for that—Baltic states were never recognized as a part of Soviet Union. We are not part of former Soviet Union, so we have arrived and we have all political parties’ solution to go into that direction, and our opponents, of course we will discuss with them. We’re working very closely with Russian government and with the Kaliningrad region, so I think that we will find common understanding and they will not fear our membership in NATO.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Kozminski. Amb. KOZMINSKI. Thank you. My colleagues have already mentioned the difference between society and politicians. I do recognize the same difference as I’m looking at public opinion polls coming from Russia. Secondly, talking about elites, about politicians. I would say there is probably a combination of various components in their motivation. I would distinguish two.The first has to do NATO enlargement can be an important factor in internal debates, or even our struggle. Second, what is important, there are some politicians who really would like to keep the prospect open—“just in case,” the prospect which has to do with the security vacuum existing in Central and Eastern Europe. These are the politicians who are still clinging to the previous notions of the past. Thirdly, I believe and I think it’s also shared by our aspiring countries that the NATO enlarge- ment, though it might be surprising to some, may open a new chapter of better relations between Poland and Russia and between Central and East European countries and Russia. Why? 55
55 Page 56 57 52 On the one hand, it would certainly bring closer the zone of stability, security, harmony and prosperity to Russian borders. Second, NATO enlargement also would scuttle the hopes to derail the process. It would remove the only contentious point which does exist in relations between those coun- tries. And it would also scuttle the hopes of those politicians, to whom I referred to possibly regain some time in the future Moscow’s control over its former satellites. Well, we know that such ambitions do not pose any danger today. However, they might influence future policy.
This is why the NATO enlargement, in conclusion, may open a new chapter of better relations between our countries—Joining NATO and having joined NATO—and Russia.
Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Stoicescu. Amb. STOICESCU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you asked how serious is the Russian oppo- sition, it’s good to hear that a high representative of the United States asked either for advice or our opinion from small Estonia, but it’s a very serious question, I must say. Senator D'AMATO. Oh, it’s a serious question. It is. Amb. STOICESCU. It is a crucial question, I believe, and what I can say is that they—I mean the Russians, will never like the idea of enlarging NATO. But they will live with it, I think, within a large NATO, including the Baltics, including Poland, including other countries. I believe they are enough pragmatic besides being emotional to adapt themselves to new emerging realities as they evolve. It’s not easy to run repeatedly against a wall when the door is open. The elite in Moscow will also change in time, both the military and the political ones.Clearly, to say the last word, they do not have valid arguments to oppose in fact our own freedom of choice.
Senator D'AMATO. I want to thank all the Ambassadors. Let me make this clear before we end. I believe and this Commission will take a formal vote and I will submit a report to all of the members at a subsequent meeting so that there is no doubt about it that I am totally committed and would hope to see all of the nations that you represent admitted in the first round. It is important that we send a message, a clear message, that we will not allow a handful of political leaders and/or military leaders to derail the process of freedom and of security and one that brings about human rights and protects the dignity of men and women. This is what we are about. I would note that all of you in your own way have stated very clearly that we were not cowed by the opposing military forces. They were real and I want to tell you it’s not easy when you see someone who’s got a submachine gun that he’s carrying and he tells you no, you cannot go here or there. I just saw a little bit of that when I went to Lithuania. Things were improving because people had begun to move en masse. So it would seem to me that the friends of democracy should at this time be more determined. I wonder sometimes how it is that it seems that we could be less determined when we have come so far from where we were before—when the wall of opposition was so formidable and you actually saw the tanks. We knew of the oppression and we knew of the people who were martyred and killed. Of the 5656 Page 57 58 53 people who were jailed and tortured, for fighting for their independence and their right to conduct their own country as they saw fit, as opposed to living under foreign domination. It sometimes seems to me that we forget very easily. So we have a handful of leaders saying oh, no, we will be opposed to this. Well, if we had bowed to that kind of opposition in the past, I suggest we would have no freedom, no rights for all of the people who now have opportunity and are living in freedom, regardless of what the makeup or composition of that community was. I remember, again going back to the late ’70s and the ’80s, marching for independence and people basically thought, they said, what are these characters doing? It was a well-kept secret that the United States never recognized the Baltic nations’ incorporation into the Soviet Union. But if you asked the average citizen, he wouldn’t have known that. They didn’t know that.
So we’ve come a long way and now is not the time to be less vigilant. It is the time to redouble our efforts to go forward. So I want you to know that this is the first of a series of hearings that we will be holding with respect to this process and I believe that now is the time to go to those in our government and to our allies and to be very strong and to see to it that some of our allies support your member- ship—because I’m concerned about them, as well. They’ve always had a happy facility of looking the other way. They’ve always said, don’t rock the boat.
They didn’t want Poland to rock the boat. When the people of Poland were fighting for their freedom, I remember Lech Walesa’s words so well and I’ll paraphrase him. He said, you were asking, “What are those crazy Poles doing? Why are they doing this?” He said, “Well, it’s easy for you because you are free. So here we are, we’re not free and yet you will criticize us for so-called rocking the boat and creating problems.” That should be a great lesson. It is so easy for those who have their freedom, who have their security, to say, oh, my gosh, we shouldn’t be creating instability because these people now want to join NATO and, after all, this may imperil our relationship whether it’s with the Russians or someone else. I never heard of that. Well, I did hear of that but it’s not something that we should be signing on to and so I urge you to carry that message as well. This is not the time to shrink back. I have to tell you I would probably set up a diplomatic revolu- tion if I mentioned some of our so-called—yes, our allies who are always worshipping at the altar of political expediency, generally to keep trade and keeping business relationships, etcetera, going. What’s the difference? Sure, they have their freedom. They have their security. So why disturb any existing relationships or their comfort factor? So I would hope that we would reinvigorate all of our communities, both the ethnic communities here and our allies, to say that this is not a time to shrink from our obligations. If we had, we would not be here today, your people, your countries would not enjoy the freedom that we have today. We should never take that for granted. I am probably preaching to the wrong group, and I am not really preaching. I’m just suggesting that we look at our collective experiences—if we reflect back over a time, none of the gains came easily. There were lives lost, there were great sacrifices, and now is not the time to retreat. I thank each and every one of you for coming. I thank your countries and your leaders for moving forward in this endeavor and we look forward to seeing your countries in NATO. The Commission as a commission and as individuals, and I know I speak for all of my members, all of my colleagues in a bipartisan way to say that we look forward to working with you to accomplish this goal. 57
57 Page 58 59 54 In the fullness of time, I think it will provide the kind of security, both economically and in terms of guaranteeing the freedoms of all of our people through this collective security pact that is the highest form of organization to guarantee individual rights and also responsibilities. Thank you again. We stand in recess.
(The hearing was concluded at 11:42 a.m.) 58We have invited official representatives of states to present their own positions to the Commis- sion to help meet the Commission’s responsibility to the Congress and the American people to oversee implementation of the Helsinki Accords and subsequent Helsinki process documents, with a particular emphasis on human rights and humanitarian affairs. Congress and NATO have both recognized the significance of candidate states’ compliance with OSCE principles in various official documents. The Commission’s approach to this series of hearings is intended to focus specifically on how well these candidate states have implemented OSCE agreements and complied with OSCE principles. We will ask questions relating to other areas of candidate states’ policies and conduct that have been identified as critical to acceptance into NATO, but we are not competing with the committees having legislative jurisdiction in these areas, who will examine those issues more thoroughly and with greater expertise.
Let me make it very clear that I am a supporter of NATO enlargement. I think that, in principle, every candidate state should be included in NATO when they meet the standards for accession. I do not believe that NATO enlargement should end with the Madrid announcement of the states invited to participate in accession negotiations.
I believe that it is very important that the United States, and our NATO allies, make very clear to those states not invited to join in the first round that the door is not closed, that the process has not ended, and that we and our allies encourage them to press ahead to meet the standards so that they can join when they are ready.
If we do not do this, we are making a great mistake. We run the risk of cutting the legs out from under the reform movements just now taking control of some of the eastern European countries that have failed to reform their political, military, and economic systems fast enough to meet NATO mem- ber country standards. These reform governments must be given a clear, strong signal that when they meet the standards, they will be allowed to join. We must not create in eastern Europe a gray zone between NATO and Russia where the old “spheres of influence” and “balance of power politics” could give rise to lasting political instability, poverty, and isolation. Also, this means that any NATO - Russia “charter” must not create a group of “second class” NATO members whose security guarantees are diluted and undermined. 59
59 Page 60 61 56 Ambassador Kalnins from Latvia, Ambassador Eidintas from the Republic of Lithuania, Ambas- sador Kozminski from the Republic of Poland, and Ambassador Stoicescu from Estonia are here this morning to present their governments’ positions on NATO enlargement. I extend to each of you a warm welcome and say that we look forward to hearing your views.
While we will ask direct questions concerning OSCE compliance and implementation during the course of this morning’s hearing, and these questions will address matters that are sensitive and some- times controversial in the domestic politics of your countries, this does not mean that we are critical of your bids to join NATO. It does mean that we are very serious about candidate states actually meeting standards. I am personally a supporter of including each of your countries in NATO. I think that Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia should each be included in NATO.
This morning, you each have the opportunity to explain to this Commission, to Congress, and to the American people why your country should be invited to join NATO. We are very interested in hearing these explanations directly from official representatives of candidate countries. Finally, before we do hear from each of you, I want to address the question of Russia and her security concerns. NATO enlargement does not threaten Russia’s security. An eastern Europe with- out NATO would threaten Russia’s security by preventing Russia from changing its thinking about NATO and about European political and economic relations.
An eastern Europe without NATO would become a black hole of unrest, poverty, ethnic conflict, and extremism of worst kinds. This would likely keep Russian policy locked into Cold War, if not Czarist, patterns, drawing continuous overt and covert intervention in the affairs of the states in this area, pushing Russia to rebuild its military machine and deploy it westward, and triggering U.S. and allied reaction. NATO expansion is good for Russia. The sooner the Russian foreign policy elite recognizes that fact, the sooner Russian energies can be focused on successful political and economic reform in Rus- sia. Russia should be pleased that one of its strategic flanks will be secured by a strong defensive alliance.
Russia should take note that the political, economic, military, and foreign policy changes NATO is demanding of successful candidate states will build stable, democratic, free market countries that will not themselves engage in aggression against Russia and that will not allow themselves to become participants in some other state’s aggressive designs.
The Russian foreign policy elites should climb up in the Kremlin’s towers and look hard at the situations on Russia’s other borders. Is it truly in Russia’s best long term interests to make eastern Europe unstable and economically backward? After the experiences of Afghanistan and Chechnya, does Russia really think that the main threat to its independence and territorial integrity comes from NATO? I have a question for Russia’s leaders - when you get into trouble, who can you call upon for help? Recent reports of closer relations between Russia and China should not lead to the conclusion that Russia has a friend or an ally in China. 60
60 Page 61 62 57 The only nations Russia can count on for help are the nations with the capacity to help. The only nations with that capacity are the developed nations of the West, the most powerful of whom are NATO members, and Japan. For that help to be available, Russia needs to press ahead with the same agenda of reforms that the NATO candidate states are now addressing. It would be far easier to convince the western publics that Russia deserves help if it is a democratic, rule-of-law state with a free market economy. Russia should not have a veto over NATO enlargement and no state’s candidacy should be fore- closed. Russia needs to find leaders who can discard Cold War thinking and stop seeing NATO en- largement as a “victory” for the west and a “defeat” for Russia. NATO enlargement is good for the United States, good for NATO’s current member states, good for the candidate states, and, finally, good for Russia. Perhaps the best part of this enlargement process is not the military security guarantees that go with it to successful candidate states, but the leverage that the enlargement process exerts for basic changes in each candidate state that will result in better, safer, more prosperous lives for each of their citizens. In closing, I want to briefly say something to those Americans who can trace their roots to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia. Thanks in part to the hopes and beliefs that you would not let die even when times were very bad, and to your hard work in the American political system, these countries are free and independent again, something the “realists” of ten years ago would have said couldn’t happen, and would never happen. Keeping the faith, making sure that the U.S. never recognized the incorpora- tion of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union, making sure that we supported Solidarity, making your voices heard here in Washington, those were key events that helped pave the way to where we are today. Thank you for your efforts and know that the futures of these countries could have been much worse but for your active support for freedom and human rights in each of them. Now, I will turn to my distinguished Co-Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, for any remarks that he might wish to make. 61
I join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming the distinguished ambassadors of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Estonia, and recall our visit to the Baltic states in February 1991 in an effort to support the new democratic leaders following the Soviet crackdown in January of that year. I was honored to return in the fall of 1991 as part of the first delegation to visit the Baltic countries following resumption of U.S. diplomatic relations. I look forward to returning to Warsaw in July of this year to attend the Sixth Annual Meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly which is being hosted by the parliament of Poland. I would also note that the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is located in Warsaw, and that Poland will assume the OSCE chairmanship next year.
I want to emphasize at the outset that NATO enlargement is not a zero-sum game—not for those countries which have expressed an interest in joining the Alliance, nor for those who do not wish to consider membership. The enlargement of NATO is indeed part of a process supporting the growth of democracy and the rule of law in the new Europe—a process, the length and breadth of which will be largely determined by the efforts of the new democracies themselves. That process includes the expansion and strengthening of other transatlantic and European organizations such as the Organiza- tion for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, whose current 55 member States encompass Europe and the territories of the former Soviet Union, as well as the United States and Canada. The countries represented here today are OSCE participating States. Significantly, the genesis of this process, the 1995 NATO Study on Enlargement, requires that prospective members will have to have demonstrated a commitment to, and respect for, OSCE prin- ciples. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has been the driving force of the work of the OSCE and its predecessor, the CSCE, in the more than two decades since Helsinki. Respect for individual and human rights is the cornerstone of democracy, without which there can be no real peace and security, and, I submit, without which there can be no long-term economic growth and develop- ment as well. In the exhilarating days following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the OSCE member States met in Paris to create a Charter for a New Europe. Pledging to build, consolidate and strengthen de- mocracy as the only system of government for our nations, our leaders reaffirmed their commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people, and decreed that their protection and promo- tion is the first responsibility of government. Mr. Chairman, it is therefore not only appropriate, but critical, that we examine the human rights records of those counties seeking NATO membership, and I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. 62