[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. Mircea Dan Geoana, Ambassador of Romania; H.E. Alexandr Vondra, Ambas- sador of the Czech Republic; and H.E. Ernest Petric, Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia. Senator D’AMATO. First of all, let me welcome my Co-Chairman, Congressman Smith, and Rep- resentative Christensen and ask if they have any opening remarks. Let me also extend our thanks to the ambassadors from the three countries, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovenia for being here. We are deeply appreciative and it’s good to see all of you again. Ambassador, good to see you. I’m going to ask my Co-Chairman for his opening remarks, and then Congressman Christensen.
In this lead up to the NATO summit in Madrid, it is critically important that the Member States construct—and prepare for agreement at the summit—a clear process for accession to NATO by pro- spective countries. Regardless of which countries will be designated at Madrid to begin negotiations for accession, other emerging democracies must be assured that as soon as they meet the criteria, such as that set forth in the NATO Participation Act of 1994, that they will be on track for the accession talks.
Mr. Chairman, Slovenia is one of the best candidates for NATO membership in terms of meeting relevant criteria, including its respect for human rights. As part of Yugoslavia, Slovenia was never a member of the Warsaw Pact, and it is a trailblazer in this new era. Perhaps Slovenia’s route to NATO membership can serve as a model for its fellow countries in the former Yugoslavia. Slovenia’s eco- nomic reform and transition advanced smoothly, and its citizens enjoy the highest per capita income of 63
63 Page 64 65 60 any of the transition countries. Slovenia also creates useful geographic links between Hungary, another leading candidate, and the rest of the Alliance. Like the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary, Slov- enia has already been designated as eligible to receive assistance under Section 203(a) of the Partner- ship For Peace assistance provision.
I am happy we have before the Commission today, Mr. Chairman, the Czech Ambassador, a man who is known to the Commission from his days as a Charter 77 activist when the Commission was raising his case and others with the hard line Communist s in Prague. I would say, parenthetically, I remember meeting with members of Charter 77 in Prague, though several were not able to attend because they had been arrested by the secret police during that particular Helsinki Commission trip. Mr. Ambassador, you and other human rights monitors are to be commended for the work that you did, and I hope no one ever forgets how much Czech economic prosperity derives from the efforts of those like yourself who struggled to restore democracy to the Czech Republic. Because of people like you and President Havel, your country is on track for NATO membership today.
Of course, that does not mean that the Commission does not have some human rights concerns about the Czech Republic. Frankly, Mr. Ambassador, I am disappointed that Czech officials have not shown greater sensitivity to some of these issues, given the firsthand experience as dissidents that so many people in the Czech Republic in parliament have had. I hope to hear from you on these issues this morning and, regardless of the Madrid outcome, the Commission will be interested in seeing these problems ultimately resolved.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps none of the candidates under consideration for NATO membership have come as far in such a relatively brief period of time as Romania. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity in the context of this hearing to congratulate again President Emil Constantinescu, the Democratic Convention of Romania, and most importantly, the people of Romania who all shared in the victory last November when Romania experienced its first democratic and peaceful change in government since 1937.
President Constantinescu and Prime Minister Victor Ciorbea have courageously initiated a tough economic reform program aimed at taming inflation and promoting growth. These initiatives are al- ready being implemented, and the Romanian people will find it necessary to move forward with strength and perseverance in order to see their country continue to develop a vibrant and expanding market economy. We in the United States applaud these efforts and stand ready to assist in any way we can. President Constantinescu’s war on corruption, efforts to streamline and depoliticize the bureau- cracy, strengthen local government and reform the judicial system will substantially enhance the con- solidation of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Romania. On the military front, Romania was among the first countries to join the Partnership For Peace program, has actively participated in the NATO-led efforts in the former Yugoslavia, and has recently assigned troops to the international contingent seeking to restore stability in Albania. For that we are very grateful.
Romania continues its efforts to enhance civilian administration and oversight of the military and has engaged in a number of successful joint exercises with the United States military and with our allies as well. Following on the heels of an important bilateral treaty with Hungary signed in Septem- ber of last year, Romania recently initialed a similar treaty with the Ukraine. 64
64 Page 65 66 61 In short, Mr. Chairman, the dark days of the Ceausescu era seem the distant past as Romania moves forward, invigorated under new leadership, toward her rightful place among the vibrant and thriving democracies of Europe. This progress during President Constantinescu’s short tenure is very impressive, and deserves every ounce of encouragement, support and review in light of the upcoming Madrid summit. Frankly, I hope that Romania is in that first tier when Madrid is concluded. I join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming the Ambassadors of the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovenia, and look forward to hearing the concerns and interests presented on behalf of their govern- ments. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for convening this important hearing, and yield back the balance of my time.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Congressman Christensen?
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. No.Mr. RATIU. Right. My name is Ion Ratiu.
Senator D’AMATO. And your colleague is here? Mr. RATIU. My colleague is here, he is Senator Dumitrescu. Senator D’AMATO. And we welcome you. And so when members of the movement for human rights who have been imprisoned and who have stood up are here saying, let us move forward, I think it is important that we recognize that. Secondly, let me suggest that Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovenia in no way could consti- tute or should constitute a military threat to the Soviet Union or to Russia. That is just nonsense for anyone to say, oh, you will create problems because Russians view this as a threat. I think they may 6565 Page 66 67 62 look upon it somewhat jealously, because people are making their own choice, and will not have more in the way of defense, in the defense of their choice of freedom, their choice of government, their choice individual rights to be exercised, and I believe that should be the goal that we should set. So, I am tremendously encouraged by the progress that has been made. I’m not—again, I want to be associ- ated with the remarks of Congressman Smith as it relates to all of the countries, and there’s no need to be repetitive. And, therefore, I will now ask for our statements from our Ambassadors.
I now call upon Ambassador Geoana. Mr. Ambassador.
Amb. GEOANA. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by thanking the Com- mission for organizing this hearing, and commending the activity of the distinguished members of the Helsinki Commission, in particular you, Mr. Chairman, and also Co-Chairman Smith, also I would like to welcome Congressman Christensen. Thank you for being today with us, Mr. Congressman. I would like also to pay a special tribute to our friends, the dedicated staff of the Helsinki Commission. At present, Romania is a credible candidate under serious consideration for early NATO mem- bership. The Helsinki Commission and U.S. Congress have merit in this. The Commission has been paying close attention to Romania. It had at times directed justified criticism towards several Roma- nian governments. It has also recognized the long way Romania has come. Criticism and praise, they have been generally well-grounded and beneficial for us. Romania, a country having had the legacy of one of the toughest Communist regimes, would not have come so far and so fast without the strong encouragement of and support by our American friends. We want to join not only the most successful Alliance in history, but also a family of nations we belong to, by sharing and believing in the same principles and philosophy of a society based on funda- mental freedoms and human rights, free enterprise and ownership and the rule of law. Romanians also see in the expansion of NATO the expression of a strong and enduring American commitment for Europe. Romania wishes to join NATO and does not come empty handed to the Alliance. She brings in strategic and economic assets, human resources, the readiness to share burdens, and proven ability to provide security. Romania is integral to an enlarged Alliance if the new NATO is to be geographically and strategically balanced, and able to spill over security and stability.
It is our belief, shared by many distinguished members of the United States Congress, as well as by many European NATO member states, the High Representatives of the OSCE, Mr. Karl Bildt, stated in Washington only a few days ago, that only NATO military force, repositioned closer to the Balkans, can deter the re-ignition of military conflict in Bosnia after the planned departure of SFOR troops. The inclusion of Romania in NATO would be both a deterrent for conflict in this hot spot of Europe, and a stimulus for other nations to follow our example.
The aspiration to integrate with the Alliance is a longstanding one. It is rooted in Romania’s tradition of looking to and siding with the West, in Romania’s culture and in the profile of the Roma- nian people. Americans are struck by the high percentage of Romanians who support integration with NATO, 95 percent, more than in any other Central and East European nation. In addition, 70 percent of the population is ready to support the ensuing costs. The figures reflect heightened awareness of what 66
66 Page 67 68 63 NATO is and what NATO means, as well as a strong belief that Romania is an indispensable nation to the new Alliance, in the new transatlantic security environment. The objective of NATO membership not only has deep roots in Romania, it has also already borne fruits. Firstly, on the domestic scene, the ever closer prospective of NATO membership rein- forced the willingness of the population to accept the side effects of an accelerated reform. Secondly, our foreign policy has been based on the understanding of the new responsibilities Romania, as a potential NATO member, is expected to assume. As Chairman D’Amato stated, a his- toric basic treaty was concluded with Hungary, and the follow-up to the treaty boosted the Romanian- Hungarian relations in an exemplary manner. At present, the two countries are developing an active partnership, and look forward to the visit of the president of Hungary, Mr. Goncz, to Bucharest later this week.
Joining NATO means that Romania will secure for some time the Eastern frontier of the Alliance. Romania has undertaken steps to ensure that this will be less of a frontier and more a stability anchor for an undivided Europe. To this end, Romania recently decided to ratify the CFE Flank Agreement. Also, at the beginning of May, Romania and its important neighbor, Ukraine, initialed a Basic Treaty expected to be signed and ratified in the near future. The treaty is a landmark for the new relations in a stable and peaceful Europe. Given the focus of this hearing, it is significant to note that both the Romanian-Hungarian and Romanian-Ukrainian treaty include provisions guaranteeing the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, at the highest existing standards. At the same time, the trilat- eral cooperation of Romania, Poland and Ukraine will further enhance the prospects for a sound re- gional development and anchor Ukraine to a region of stability.
To the South and South-East, Romania has traditionally had close relations with all Balkan na- tions. Complementary to good bilateral relations is Romania’s active participation in subregional ini- tiatives (like the Central and East European Free Trade Area, Southeast European Cooperative Initia- tive, Central and East European Initiative, the Black Sea Economic Operation, among others) as well as in the IFOR and SFOR. In addition, Romania has established a new pro-active regional diplomacy sending special envoys to the Balkan nations and to Albania, and appointing an ambassador at large for this region. Romania has developed particularly good relations with the two South-East European NATO members, Greece and Turkey. The three of us represent our region in the “Coalition of the Willing,” which helps restore order and peace in Albania—The Multinational Protection Force, under Italy’s leadership. I am pleased to also note that we welcomed Slovenia joining in the nine nations’ coalition.
In the field of democracy and human rights, since 1989, tremendous progress has been accom- plished. Three rounds of free and fair elections took place. A new comprehensive legislative frame- work has been adopted. A vibrant civic society has been flourishing. Romania is not a perfect democ- racy, if there is such a thing. However, democracy has steadily evolved and consolidated in Romania, and democratic institutions are fully functioning. A new constitution was adopted as early as 1991, consecrating the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.
Market economy operates with good prospects due to a bold program of economic reforms imple- mented by the Government of Romania and supported by international financial institutions. As a result, privatization has progressed at high speed, and foreign and American investments are coming and pouring in. The reforms are accompanied by a social safety network for the neediest. At a time 67
67 Page 68 69 64 when the United States Senate will be called upon to ratify the accession treaties, estimates indicate that Romania stands a good chance to be a flourishing, resourceful, and healthy market economy. Indicative of the situation of human rights is the recent decision of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe to cease the special monitoring of my country, and to state that Romania has fulfilled all commitments undertaken in the field of human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to national minorities. Similar conclusions were reached by the OSCE High Commissioner for National Minorities, Dr. Max van der Stoel, during his recent visit to Romania. As you are aware, Romania is one of the three or four European countries where national minorities are part of the ruling coalition. The participation of representatives of the Hungarian minority in the administration at the cabinet and local levels has already proved to be effective and beneficial to strengthening an inclusive democratic society where every individual enjoys the same political, economic, social and civic rights and opportunities.
At the same time, the administration has paid particular attention to the Roma minority, to its social and political integration to ensuring education and economic opportunities for members of this group. For example, as a result of state funded programs, the Roma children in Romania have the opportunity to study in their language with Roma speaking professors in primary and secondary school, as well as in college using handbooks as well as digests of Roma literature published in their language. While looking to the future, to Romania’s membership in NATO, we have drawn lessons from the past. On Holocaust Day, the president of Romania made a statement in Bucharest deploring the unforgivable genocide, acknowledging Romania’s share in this inferno, and honoring the memory of the Holocaust victims. Prior to this, at the beginning of April, several real estate properties formerly belonging to the Jewish community in Romania were restituted to their rightful owners through a Resolution adopted in fast track proceedings by the Government in Bucharest.
This step follows the adoption of a restitution legislation for individual owners, and opens a set of measures meant to address the issue of restoring rights over property formerly belonging to ethnic or religious communities in my country. At swearing in ceremony, Mr. Emil Constantinescu, the President of Romania, placed a particular emphasis on the protection of religious freedom and the need for an ecumenical approach of all wor- ship-related issues. The Romanian leadership has acted consistently along these lines. A meeting with leaders and representatives of all religious denomination in Romania recently convened by our Presi- dent gave new incentives and a fresh impulse to inter-confessional reconciliation and cooperation. Respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, tolerance, inter-ethnic and inter-confessional harmony are traits of today’s Romanian society, in spite of singular problems which arise from time to time, as it happens in any democracy.
In closing, I would like to use this opportunity to again express our appreciation for the help and guidance Romania has been offered by you, Mr. Chairman, and by Co-Chairman Smith, by members of the Commission, and the U.S. Congress, and also by the United States administration. This help has contributed to the tremendous democracy progress in my country. It has contributed to building trust that early NATO membership for Romania and other Central and East European nations who fulfill the criteria for admission would further consolidate respect for and advancement of the human rights. 68
68 Page 69 70 65 In concluding, I would like also to thank representatives of the Romanian-American community from New York, Washington, New Jersey and Ohio, who took the time to be here with us and support the Romanian case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Vondra.Amb. VONDRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, the distinguished members of the Com- mission.
Having come to the United States as a new ambassador only a few weeks ago, and still remember- ing well the many hearings in the Czech parliament during my previous tenure, I must confess it is a new experience for me to speak before this Commission. Frankly, I do not remember either the U.S. or any other foreign representative testifying before the Czech parliament in a similar way. However, taking into account the important role of the Helsinki Commission in monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Helsinki Accords during the past decades, and also taking into account the impor- tance of NATO enlargement, I welcome this opportunity to discuss with you the Czech Republic human rights record.
It was the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act that inspired the foundation of Charter 77 as the leading pro-democracy movement in former Czechoslovakia just 20 years ago. Charter 77 persistently drew attention to the inconsistencies of the Communist legal system with its international obligations. The price the signatories of Charter 77 paid for their activities was not low, often imprisonment or at least tellers of joke. The moral and material support coming from abroad was essential for us in dissent during the most difficult times, and was instrumental also in the overthrow of the Communist totalitar- ian regime. Let me, therefore, use this opportunity to thank all our supporters, especially here in the United States, for their longtime support of the human rights activities and movement in Central and Eastern Europe and, of course, in my country in particular. Since then, the situation has changed fundamen- tally.
However, the commitments to share the fundamental values and principle of democracy, indi- vidual liberty and the rule of law remains as the endless task for all of us, even the accession of the Czech Republic into NATO is understood as a vitally important part of the very same determination to safeguard democracy and freedom. And the overwhelming public support for the Charter 77 first spokes- person and once also a prisoner, President Vaclav Havel, is the proof of its lasting legacy in the Czech political life now. By coincidence, President Havel is visiting the U.S. Senate just this afternoon. Let me use this opportunity to invite you to meet him personally in the afternoon. The Czech Republic emerged as a new independent and sovereign state on January 1st, 1993. After the peaceful dissolution of the former Czechoslovak Federation. The new state is firmly built on the principle of democracy, rule of law, market economy, and the protection of fundamental freedoms 69
69 Page 70 71 66 and human rights. The constitution of the Czech Republic adopted in December 1992 sets forth in Article 10 that was ratified and promulgated international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms to which the Czech Republic has committed itself are immediately binding and are superior law. The Charter Of Fundamental Rights And Freedom is an integral part of the Czech Constitution.
The constitution guarantees the division of legislative, executive and judicial powers. I would particularly like to stress the role of the constitution court as an independent guarantor of fundamental freedoms and human rights in my country. Non-governmental organizations, including the influential Czech Helsinki Committee and various other human rights groups, operate freely and are frequently consulted in the process of drafting new legislation. Independence of media is of vital importance to guarantee freedom of speech. There are 14 channels, two publics and two private, and more than 60 private radio stations broadcasting in my country. The national TV channel NOVA is privately owned partially by American investors. A wide variety of newspapers, magazines, journals are published without any government interference. Shortly, after its creation, the Czech Republic received full international recognition and became a member state of the U.N., the Council of Europe, and the OSCE. Prague is currently hosting meetings of high ranking officials of the OSCE. The national minorities in the Czech Republic are not very large, and with an exception of the Polish minority, do not make territorial coherent communities. The Slovaks account for 3 percent, Poles, Germans and Romas together for less than 1.5 percent of the population. However, the government has established a special commission for minorities on which all minorities have their representation. The commission advises the government on the minority policies and allocated the subsidies for minority periodicals, TV and radio programs, cultural activities and educational programs. In recognition of high standards of human rights protection and of the general progress made since 1989, the Czech Republic was elected as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1996. The representative of the Czech Republic has the privilege to serve as the chairman of the Commission’s 1997 session.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly touch upon the profound transformation of the Czech economy. The program of radical economic reforms launched in 1991 was aimed at the integration of the national economy into the global market through privatization, liberalization and deregulation. It introduced an essential legal and institutional framework of market economy and resulted in radical structure changes without any serious social tensions and hardships. Since 1991, the government has operated on a balanced budget. Over 65 percent of the Czech Republic’s GDP is currently generated by the private sector. A key element in the success of the Czech economic reform was a program of rapid privatization carried out by a variety of means, including the restitution of properties to their original and legitimate owners. Apart from its having a positive impact on the economy, the restitution was also undertaken as an item of moral obligation and justice to mitigate the wrongs committed in the past. Over half a century, the Czech people underwent the Nazi occupation, the Communist nationalization and oppression, and a Soviet-led invasion. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to correct all the wrongs that have been done. It is impossible to turn the clock back completely after 50 years. In spite of that, both the speed and the scale of the restitution carried out in the Czech Republic are unparalleled to any other Central and East European country. With regard to the victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution, parlia- ment in 1994 approved a law providing for financial payment for Czech victims on the basis of the so- 70
70 Page 71 72 67 called Auschland Doctrine. The Czech citizens are excluded from the compensation program under taken by Germany. Finally, in January of this year, the Czech–German declaration was signed, along with the mutual accord not to burden the future relations between the two countries with political and legal issues originating in the past. The document declares that a special fund will be established for the victims of the Nazi persecution.
My country supports the recent international accord to identify the state of the properties of the Holocaust victims. I’m glad to inform you that under the auspices of the President Havel a special commission for documenting the history of the Holocaust, including the issue of the Jewish property, was established in May of 1997. This commission is prepared to cooperate with the Holocaust Mu- seum and the religious organizations and churches. A recent decree of the government on the restitu- tion of certain church properties allows for the further transfer of the property of the Jewish communi- ties in my country. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me underline that the Czech Republic strongly supports the NATO’s enlargement. It will definitely bring more stability and security to Central and Eastern Europe which, in turn, will lead to a more stable political, social and economic environment in Europe, which, in turn, will lead to more—this development further consolidates basic freedom, provides for a better protection of human rights, and enables new members to sustain the final costs incurred by the enlarge- ment process. By participating in the NATO–led IFOR and SFOR operation in the Balkans, the Czech Republic has proven its ability to contribute to the security in Euro–Atlantic area. The fall of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union presented a unique opportunity to overcome the dividing lines created in Yalta. If this opportunity is lost, Europe and the United States is beginning the next millennium facing threats very similar to those they failed to deal with a century ago. Therefore, I strongly support your view, Mr. Chairman, that NATO must remain open also with regard to those countries which are participating during this hearing. Thank you so much.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Petric.Amb. PETRIC. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, thank you very much for giving me this op- portunity to appear at this hearing and, Congressman Smith, thank you very much also for your kind words about my country in your opening statement. Let me also use this opportunity to express my country’s thanks to this Commission which played, in the time of the breakup of Yugoslavia and war in parts of the former Yugoslavia, a very important and very encouraging role. At that time, if you have been following the work of this Commission, its impact was exceedingly important.
Slovenia is hopeful to become a member of NATO in the first round of its enlargement and thus rejoin formally and institutionally the part of the world to which it has belonged throughout its history and with which lofty values it has incessantly shared. Slovenia considers NATO as the pillar of present and future European security, and a framework of U.S. presence in Europe which remains a guarantee for long-term stability on the European soil. 71
71 Page 72 73 68 Slovenia, historically and culturally a part of the Western world, and now a new and thriving democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, is willing and ready to contribute to NATO’s mission in Europe and the world. Slovenia is fully qualified for NATO membership, and we are repeatedly being told in the European capi- tals, as well as here in Washington, that Slovenia fulfills the membership criteria, which include an exemplary level of protection of human rights and rights of minorities. We are told that should the merits themselves be the prevailing element in NATO decision on enlargement, there should be no objections preventing Slovenia to be among those invited at the NATO summit in Madrid to join NATO in the first round. Slovenia is a stable, multiparty democracy with a new, vibrant, and growing economy, well on its way to joining the European Union among its first new members. It is a common and unequivocal conclusion reached by foreign governmental and non-governmental observers alike that human rights and rights of minorities, as well as democratic procedures, are fully respected in Slovenia. Amnesty International and other human rights promoting groups have literally no objections or critical remarks concerning Slovenia’s human rights performance.
The last United States Department of State Report on Human Rights states, inter alia, in its chap- ter on Slovenia: “The third multi-party general elections ... held in November, represent a further consolidation of a vigorous, open and democratic system ... Constitutional provision for an indepen- dent judiciary are respected by the government in practice. The police are under the effective civilian control. The country has made steady progress toward developing market economy. Privatization con- tinues and trade has been reoriented to the West ... The currency is stable, fully convertible and backed by substantial reserves. The economy provides citizens with a good standard of living. The govern- ment fully respected the human rights of its citizens, and the law and judiciary provide adequate means of dealing with individual instances of abuse ... Minorities are generally treated fairly in practice.” The constitution of Slovenia provides extensive protection of human rights, and the rights of minorities, including their constitutionally provided representation in the parliament. An ombudsman deals with human rights problems, including citizenship cases. At the peak of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia gave refuge to more than 80,000 mainly Muslim refugees, with hardly any international assistance. The overall number of refugees at that point amounted to 4 percent of Slovenia’s population. Slovenia gave citizenship to close to 200,000 non-Slovenes (Croats, Serbs, Muslims, Herzegovini ans, et cetera) who had residence in Slovenia at the time of the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Slovenia’s armed forces are under strict civilian control, and no doubts about this have been expressed either by NATO or any other observers. Slovenia has successfully cooperated in the Partner- ship For Peace Program, and continues to do so. It has successfully concluded an “individual” dialog with NATO. It has also offered several facilities at the disposal of NATO and SFOR, and is currently joining the operation of the Multinational Protection Force in Albania. Slovenia’s relations with its neighbors are good and productive. With Italy and Hungary, Slov- enia is developing an ambitious trilateral cooperation, including cooperation in the military as well as numerous other fields of mutual interest. Bilateral relations with Italy, Austria and Hungary are excel- lent. Italy strongly supports Slovenia’s early membership in NATO, as does Hungary.
Relations with Croatia are normal and were, to a certain degree, burdened only by practical prob- lems resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia and the fact that there was no fixed border between the 72
72 Page 73 74 69 two newly independent states before. Now more than 99 percent of the border is fixed and agreed upon, whereby, the remaining problems are dealt with by diplomatic and expert commissions. Slovenia has signed an association treaty with EU, and Slovenia is one of the partners in the CEFTA, the Central and East European Free Trade Association.
As of yet, no NATO member has expressed opposition to Slovenia’s early membership, nor raised objections as to Slovenia’s qualifications or merits. Several NATO allies, such as Italy, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece, and Iceland explicitly support Slovenia. Russia is not concerned about Slovenia’s NATO membership, and has never voiced its opposition to our candidacy.
Slovenia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact, and its early NATO membership would prove that NATO enlargement is not only directed eastwards, or towards Russia, but is sincerely meant as an effort to enhance the overall security and stability in Europe. Strategically and geopolitically, Slovenia’s membership would enable territorial linkage, landbridge, between Italy and Hungary, which would otherwise, assuming Hungary becomes a member, remain an isolated NATO “island.” Slovenia’s mem- bership would also expand stability towards the Balkans. Slovenia could be a useful asset for any future NATO activity in the Balkans, should such a need emerge. Slovenia’s armed forces are being built from scratch since its independence in ’91, and are not burdened with outdated Warsaw Pact hardware or mentality. All newly acquired military hardware has to be, as stipulated by law, compatible with NATO standards. Slovenia’s relatively highly developed economy (by statistical data on the level of “poorer” EU members) enables Slovenia to carry the costs of joining NATO. Domestic consensus about NATO membership is not questionable. In April, all political parties represented in the Sloven parliament signed a binding declaration unanimously sup- porting government policy of joining NATO, including the absorption of costs of NATO membership. To conclude, by its political stability and rooted democracy, including a high level of respect for human rights and rights of minorities, a relatively developed economy, good relations with all its neighbors, and a geopolitical position, Slovenia could be a clear asset to NATO. It would serve as a proof to other candidates, including the Former Yugoslav republic, that merits including respect for human and minority rights is the paramount element which really matters and opens doors into the North Atlantic community of Western democracies.
Slovenia also strongly supports the principle that the enlargement of NATO should remain an open and transparent process. NATO should not keep its doors shut to any prospective candidate that fulfills the criteria for membership and is willing and able to carry out the responsibilities stipulated by the Washington Agreement.
Thank you.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Let me note that I think that there’s no doubt that all three nations have made tremendous progress in human rights in the respect for minority communities, the ethnic communities within their country. I’m not going to get specific. There’s no doubt also that there still are some existing problems. We hope that enlightened leadership, and maybe economic progress that will be made, will make it pos- sible to deal in a more enlightened way with some of the various groups. 7373 Page 74 75 70 But there is one thing that I share with you that is not good, and I can’t say that you have made too much progress, right across the board, and that is the area of restitution. It makes little sense to have laws applied or enacted, and then to have administrative policies that defeat the intent of the law. You pass the law that says people who have lost their properties unfairly due to the Nazis or due to the Communist s will now have an opportunity to reclaim them. And I know this is not easy, it’s difficult. But then, to have those laws thwarted by the construction of arbitrary and difficult, if not impossible processes, that are administered by the finance department in one case, and I don’t want to personalize this, but you know we all know who I’m talking about, what government, it’s just not acceptable. It’s not acceptable. Am I getting through, Mr. Ambassador? Am I getting through? Okay. Now, you can say, we’re a sovereign country, we do what we want, that’s fine. But then don’t claim to the world that you’re adopting another process. Secondly, I find it absolutely repugnant that those people who fled persecution and came to the United States, notwithstanding that it was the United States who adopted a policy of denying dual citizenship, and it was this country, and we were at fault back in 1928, and that law has, at this point, been declared unconstitutional, but it is still looked upon as grounds and enforced by Czechoslovakia.
That’s wrong. Absolutely wrong. If people fled communism or fled the Nazis and went to any other country, it’s okay. They can still make claim for restitution. But if they came to the United States, they can’t? Why is that? On one hand, you say, we want to be your allies, your friends, your paisanos—that’s supposed to make you laugh a little, loosen up, loosen up, relax—but, on the other hand, you apply a standard which discrimi- nates against those people who sought sanctuary in the United States. Now, that’s not a very friendly policy.Now, I just have to tell you that. I guess I’m not supposed to say that because we’re supposed to be diplomatic, and everything is supposed to be hunky dory, you know, wonderful. But, you know, I can’t. I didn’t take this job to make believe that everything is right and is a beautiful, beautiful thing, when that is not right. That is—you know, I don’t understand it. And something has to be done. I find it personally offensive. And I would say to you that Congressman Smith has taken S.Con. Resolution 19, and had it included, and I commend the congressman for addressing this problem, in the authorization bill that will be coming before the Senate and the House—has it passed that?
Mr. SMITH. This week it’s scheduled to come before the House. Senator D’AMATO. And this week will be passed as it relates to the State Department reauthoriza- tion, in which he addresses this. You cannot do this kind of thing. It is wrong. Now, I mentioned it to one, but it applies across the board. So let us try in the spirit, and I understand that you are the ambas- sadors here, but bring this message back. It’s not a threatening one, it’s one of sadness. It is sad at this point in time that we look back on history and see all of the torment that people went through, the martyrdom, the killings, the mass executions, that all of our people have suffered—your people. Your people, your citizens who fled persecution. By gosh, let’s not say that we’re going to make restitution on one hand, but keep others because they went to a different country, and in this case the United States, from having an opportunity to make 7474 Page 75 76 71 claim. Let’s see to it that the laws that you have enacted are followed and that you don’t have some powerful political group or force that keeps them from being lived up to. And that’s something that we all have to work at in every country, and no country is perfect, including the United States. So I don’t want to say that, you know, everything is right here. We’re always—we’re struggling to see to it, to assure our citizens that their rights—we’ve had our share of problems. But it’s something that I think is important and, again, as it relates to people who came here for sanctuary, they certainly shouldn’t be placed in a different category than people who went to Canada, or who went to England, or who went to France, or who went to any place else. So I address that not in the spirit of personal confrontation, but in the spirit of a personal chal- lenge. A challenge to each and every one of us to try to do better so that we deal in a more enlightened way with those past wrongs to see if we cannot make whole or in some way make up to those people and bring about restitution where it is called for.
Chairman Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with you in expressing that concern. We have, at previous times, expressed our concerns about the citizenship law in the Czech Republic and our hope is that there would be some movement on this. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Petric mentioned that there is a human rights ombudsman that helps resolve citizenship problems, and my hope would be that, Ambassador Vondra, your government would see the worth and validity of such a ombudsman. Because not only are there problems relating to restitution and properties, but the citizenship law remains a problem and a sticking point with many of us. I think the law is particularly onerous and disconcerting when it comes to the status of orphans, and those who are in foster care. Many of them are Roma. There have been reports that have come to my desk, and the desk of other members of the Commission that continually underscore that these are the stateless children. There is a very difficult process; four ministries—Justice, Interior, Labor and Education—that are involved with the process of citizenship. Our hope would be that perhaps through the idea of an ombudsman or very vigorous oversight by the government, this problem could be recti- fied. No one should be without a country or a state, and particularly an orphan who has a difficult time—even if his or her orphanage becomes the legal guardian—to become a state person. The next thing you know, they are being deported. I join with Chairman D’Amato in raising these two issues in the spirit of friendship and concern, and I would hope that there would be some movement on that. Perhaps you would want to respond, Mr. Ambassador? Amb. VONDRA. Well, I was thinking, Mr. Chairman, Czechoslovakia was mentioned during this comment, so I would like to use the opportunity to respond in the Czech name. I think that there are two major areas which were raised by Mr. Chairman and by Co-Chairman. One is the restitution, and the second the citizenship law. Let me start with the restitution, which I think is a rather complex problem. And I think that nobody is going to argue that there is the ideal solution, that there is the ideal situation. But, I would like to stress that the Czech—in the balance, the Czechoslovak government and the parliament took into account the seriousness of this problem, and perhaps it was just the Czech society which started this process. 7575 Page 76 77 72 Maybe, to stress one specific issue, now we are all speaking about the restitution, but when we started with the legislation, it was the first in the whole area of the Central and Eastern Europe, it was 1991, with a special bill with regards to the individual persons. The title of the bill or of the law is not on the restitution, it’s an act on extrajudicial rehabilitation. So the feel of it from the very beginning was based on the knowledge that really there is no way how to correct every wrong committed in the past, but there is the strong will, strong political will to mitigate these wrongs with regards to both the individual people and to some communities. And during the past 5 or 6 years, the Czech parliament has adopted two special laws. One was 1991, and the second was in 1994, on the restitutions with regards to the individuals. With regards to the communal property and that’s mostly about the Jewish property, we approved the two special decrees issued by the government in 1994, and a third one was issued just a month ago. And according to these decrees, more than 100 of the Jewish property, including the famous Jewish museum, was returned into the hands of the Jewish community. There are the basic elements of the restitution program in my country. There is no doubt that the legislation which started the process in the whole Central and Eastern Europe was the pioneer legislation. And I’m not going to advocate it is 100 percent fine. But now it seems to me that thanks to the fact that we started with the process, we drafted the legislation, we approved it, we are paying the tax, because of the wideness of the range with which the whole legisla- tion is dealing. Because we have the legislation, not only for the communities, we didn’t establish only the foundation to have some compensation, we had the legislation program of natural restitution, ac- cording to which many properties were returned to many individuals. And this, I think, is still unique. Of course, there are those who are feeling discriminated against because of the range, and not being granted, and I know that it’s partly about the Czech citizens living in the United States because of the problem of this so-called Treaty on Naturalization signed in 1928. But that’s somehow—and even more, I think that my government and the Czech parliament is reacting to that discussion.
Let’s take the examples. First of all, 2 years ago, the constitutional court abolished this condition for permanent citizenship to obtain the property back. You are discussing one specific case, not per- sonalized, but we know who is touched by that. I read all the records. I can’t state here 100 percent comfortable with the development with regards to that one person. And I sent this to Prague because I am here, the ambassador, to fill the duties. But I would like to stress one thing, it’s the decision of the ministry of finance which is just now in the court. So let’s await the decision of the court. That’s the legitimate approach. And my personal feeling, but of course I cannot prejudge the decision of the court, is that there will be some develop- ment. And, even more, the constitutional court which discussed 2 years ago the condition on the per- manent residency did not discuss the condition on the citizenship yet. So let’s give the chance to the court.
So we are, to sum up this problem, we are doing many things. We did many things. We are doing many things. We are reacting. But, again, there is not any ideal solution after all what has been done in the past. And maybe let’s say also one thing, that a Czech Republic or the former Czechoslovakia was a country which was occupied by Germany. It was not the part of....
And now the citizenship law. In this area, I would like to stress that my government does not identify itself with the conclusion expressed in some document of this Commission. You know, my 76
76 Page 77 78 73 government has examined the concern which has been presented by your Commission, by other orga- nizations, as Council of Europe, the OSCE and others, and this has led to the amendment of the Czech citizenship law in April 1996. At that time, I was the deputy minister in Prague, and was personally involved in amending. And there is some special amendment which is establishing the possibility to waive the condition of the so-called clean criminal record. This condition is not extraordinary. All citizenship laws in Europe have established this condition. All 300 Slovak citizens who sought that waiver were permitted one. And you know, to know something about—to discuss this problem of the citizenship law—it will need to understand the complexity of the problem of the division of the country. And I would like to show one thing only, and that’s about the substance of the problem. During the past 5 years, almost 400,000 Slovak citizens obtained Czech citizenship. Please, this is in a country which has 10 million inhabitants, no more. It’s not the power. And almost half a million foreign citizens obtained Czech citizenship.
So, and even we are reacting, as I stress, there is this amendment. To sum up this problem, I would like to state very clearly, this amendment is meeting the approval of the Council of Europe. The Coun- cil of Europe considers this law satisfactory and that’s also the opinion of the various NGOs, both abroad and in my country. I personally discussed all the human rights, both abroad and in my country, both in the government and in the opposition, as well as in the various NGOs, and I don’t think it is a problem.
So, thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. Just to respond very briefly, and then I have one brief question for Ambassador Geoana.Human Rights Watch issued a report, “Czech Republic Children Harmed By Czech Citizenship Law,” and they make a number of very constructive suggestions on how the problem could be recti- fied, and they have a number of statistics. As a matter of fact, they say, there may be as many as 1,400 stateless children in Czech institutions today. And that’s....
Amb. VONDRA. Lie.
Mr. SMITH. It’s a lie? Amb. VONDRA. It’s not true. It’s not true. That’s the position of some people who are giving you information. That’s not true. There are not any person who would not have the citizenship. And all who are looking for the Czech citizenship, they have the citizenship. Mr. SMITH. How do you respond to the suggestion that an ombudsman be established to handle these questions? In the state of New Jersey, we have a public advocate because, despite our long history of democracy, there are always people who are wronged, and need a way, particularly when it’s a class action case, of finding a way to find a remedy. It seems that might be one way of helping to resolve this as you make this transition, so I hope you would consider that. Let me ask a question of Ambassador Geoana. Control of the military by a civilian is one of the most important aspects of an emerging democracy so that it’s out of the hands of a person wearing stars on his lapel. After the November 1996 election, Victor Babiuc became the Minister of Defense. What 7777 Page 78 79 74 kind of parliamentary oversight is there with regards to the military? What interface exists? As you know, there’s an absolute tug-of-war between the U.S. executive branch and Congress, which is very constructive. Even though at times the incoming and outgoing rhetorical displays between the two are numerous, the process is very, very good because things are put on the table. This leads to transparency in the military and we keep a good handle on what the military is and is not doing. Amb. Geoana. Thank you so much. This is an important element of our overall strategy of reform of the Romanian society and the Romanian army. And it goes beyond the NATO membership issue. It is a—we’re not doing and implementing civilian control and parliamentary control merely for the sake of NATO membership. We’re doing it for the sake of transparency and normality in a tiny democratic society. We have undertaken a serious set of measures in this respect. We have started with what we call to civilize the armed forces. So since 1994, the MINISTER OF DEFENSE was a civilian, Minister Babiuk, who was recently appointed after the elections, is also a civilian minister. And we continue to have this. There’s a Deputy Defense Minister as well.
I would like just briefly to note that recently the Chairman of the Joint Chief Of Staffs of the Romanian Army was replaced, he’s a young general. He was trained in the U.S. and the U.K. So we hope that this fresh blood will further strengthen the reform within the military. The Romanian parlia- ment has two commissions in each chamber, in the lower house and in the senate dealing with armed forces. They are, I would say, in full control, not only over the budgeting process for the military, but also in terms of overseeing how the military is doing in terms of fulfilling its tasks.
In our system, we have also a body which is similar to the National Security Council over here and it’s chaired by the president in which the speaker of the house and the president of the senate and also the MINISTER OF DEFENSE, and also the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are members, full members, of that committee. So, when and if there is, let’s say, a problem in terms of making major decisions with respect to our military forces—our participation into Albania, by the way, it was de- cided in this format.
I would say that we have come a long way. We were among the first ones to implement civilian control and oversight over the military, and also our friends in the Pentagon are saying that Romania has accomplished a great deal. There’s lots of things to be done. But we are definitely on the right track, and parliamentarian and civilian control over the military is an important element and a reality in Romania today.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I’m sure my time has expired, but I want to thank our three ambassadors. I want also to acknowl- edge Father George David from St. Basil’s Romanian Catholic Church in Trenton, who actually made the trip down today. During the heyday of the Ceausescu regime, I very often turned to him for insights as to what was going on in Romania. I’m very happy to acknowledge his presence and also he brought several of his parishioners with him. Senator D’AMATO. Congressman Christensen. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. I just want to ask Ambassador Geoana a couple of questions. I’ve got a cold so I apologize for the nasally sound. During your testimony you talked about the protection of 7878 Page 79 80 75 religious freedom and the need for an ecumenical approach of all worship related issues on page 4 of your testimony. Are you familiar with the recent press release for the Baptist Union of Romania? I wanted to find out what was your understanding of that issue, and if it’s being resolved? According to the president of the Romanian Baptist Union, is it Pastor Talos, is that proceeding as the press release states, or what’s your understanding of the situation there, and with the various Baptist believers who are beaten, it sounds like, by a group of people that were intoxicated?
Amb. GEOANA. Yes, I also have received, and I have just in front of me the press release from Mr. Talos. I was checking in Bucharest this morning. The situation is totally under control. The people are having some local functions, public functions, were released from their jobs , including the head of the local police station, and also the teacher of the local school had some influence in instigating the people under the alcohol influence for doing such gestures. Once again, this is something we deplore, and we very vigorously, let’s say, react upon the thing. I stated that Romania is not a perfect democracy, and these incidents are happening, unfortunately, and perhaps will continue to happen. The problem is to act swiftly and to implement law immediately and to ensure this new spirit of the Romanian society. The most encouraging sign and perhaps also a fact of this incident in Romania was the fact that the president of Romania convened three days ago a large, if you want, religious oriented meeting with all the heads of religious denominations in Romania, with the Orthodox Patriarch, with the Byzantine Greek, let’s say, Bishop, with the Baptist church, with Jewish community, even with the small Moslem group that we have, 3,000 people of Moslem religion in Romania, and we have launched back home a major national reconciliation program. This is the word, the key word, of the new leadership of Romania, reconciliation with ourselves, with our past, with our differences, and to learn from the American experience that diversity makes strengths and not weaknesses.
So, we are acting extremely swiftly when something like this happened, and I’m particularly pleased to see that the new spirit of tolerance and ecumenical approach has happened. And I’m happy to state that among the Romanian-Americans being here with us in the audience from Ohio, they came especially for the hearing, we have Pastor Clintock is a Baptist pastor having activity also in Romania, and we are working very closely with all religious groups in American and in Romanian for really establishing a new atmosphere.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. In reading this press release, it talked about that the Romanian president was disapproving of the practice of aggressive proselytizing. What would be his definition of proselytiz- ing?
Amb. GEOANA. As it is stated a little bit below, we believe and the president believes that every individual in Romania has the right to choose its own religious affiliation, and also he has, as a group, as an individual, should be given full right for promoting their own religious ideas, but not at the detriment of the others. So when we speak about proselytes, and when we’re speaking in general, be it from the Protestant groups or be it from the Orthodox church, which sometimes, as it’s stated over here, also had a tougher approach, or be it with the reformats of Hungarian origin, or be it with Byzan- tine Catholics in Transylvania and in Romania. So, the president is addressing and asking all the heads of the religious denominations to refrain from aggressive acts which might be interpreted as pros- elytes. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Was this an isolated incident, do you think, or are there other things like things going on? 7979 Page 80 81 76 Amb. GEOANA. This hasn’t happened in years in Romania. So it’s a local incident. We deplore it and we think....
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. They said in their press release that it was incited by Orthodox priests. Is that your understanding? Amb. GEOANA. From what we’ve heard, this might have been the case. An inquiry was ordered by the ministry of interior in Romania. We’re waiting for the results. But from the administrative standpoint, as I said, the local police chief and the local teacher that had some role were destituted immediately. For the role of the Orthodox priest over there, we have to wait and see until the inquiry is finished, and afterwards to see how the Patriarch of Romania will react upon this. Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for your testimony today, Ambassador Geoana. I really appreciate it. Amb. GEOANA. Thank you. Senator D’AMATO. I’m wondering, Ambassador Petric and Ambassador Geoana, if you’d like to comment with respect to the impact of a possible renewal of conflicts in Bosnia, Herzegovina, that whole area. What impact would it have on your country? What would be the—well, what impact would there be? How do you see that playing out?Amb. PETRIC. Slovenia is, I would say, out of the zone of instability, and the impact on us of renewed fighting southeast from Slovenia would be indirect only, meaning a new wave of refugees. It would mean deteriorating the already rather meager economic relations which are there now, and which we’re building slowly with Bosnia, Serbia, and others. It would probably mean, also, in case of foreign investment, a kind of bothersome image for foreign investments to come to the region because of insecurity. So there would be negative impacts.
We believe that in spite of the fact the Balkans is loaded with problems like Bosnia, not to name the others, the only way to handle it is to have a foreign presence there, as it is now, SFOR. We are not sure whether the circumstances will not require that SFOR or another form remains there for some longer time, and we believe that the most important thing is to give these people a chance with all kinds of development programs to turn towards activities which are oriented to peace. I was mentioning the positive involvement of U.S. Congress in the area, I’m proud to say that last year we had in Slovenia staged together with you a prayer breakfast, to which the Romania president at that time joined, and so believe that a lot of activities are necessary there. Although we had some hesitations, we also strongly support now the Southeast European Cooperation Program launched by the U.S. administration, and we believe that enlarging NATO, bringing Slovenia and Romania and other countries in the region, if they fit, into the Western community, would be a very clear signal to Croatia and to the others, that you can make it, that you can achieve your goal, which means reintegra- tion into Western Europe.
So we believe that being too, I would say, narrow-minded, in a way, by thinking we must get out of Bosnia next year and not let those countries which are close to the Balkans involve us in NATO and other European structures those countries which are close to the Balkans. That would be the wrong signal. That will probably ask for more trouble, and probably we soon have a need to intervene again in a few years. 80
80 Page 81 82 77 I don’t know whether I was clear enough. I understood that your question concerns what impact a return of the war in Bosnia would have on Slovenia. Yes, it would have a negative impact. However, the war would not involve Slovenia. We have no problems, either with Serbia, or with Croatia, or with Bosnia, except succession problems. We came to an agreement on how to share the debt of former Yugoslavia; that’s decided and done. We still have not come to an agreement on how to divide the assets. That can last for a long time—The discussions that are going on.
To conclude, Slovenia is out of the critical zone, but could be used as an important player in the region and also as a convenient departing position, as I said in my opening statement, for future NATO involvement in the area if NATO action will be required.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Ambassador Geoana? Amb. GEOANA. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of preoccupation for us. We consider the situation in Bosnia has to be taken very seriously until the withdrawal of the SFOR in next June. And we have to think of various forms of making sure that the tragedy over there won’t start again. Senator D’AMATO. What happens when SFOR—let’s suppose there is a withdrawal next June, what do you think takes place?Amb. GEOANA. First of all, I think that some form of international presence in Bosnia is needed. If this will be with or without American participation, this is something we have to figure out. We believe that Europeans also have a role and should play a role in this, and I also believe that the countries in the region, and Romania is the largest country in that region, we have a duty and a respon- sibility, perhaps and hopefully within NATO, to play a role. We have to identify a set of military, economic and human rights measures, a sort of network of decisions, complementary decisions, of trying to help the populations and the people of Bosnia of not being tempted to start all over again. Once again, I think that only military solutions without economic and human right will never work. This is the experience of Romania. Perhaps this is the experience of Albania today. Romania is present in Bosnia, Romania is present in Albania, Romania has expressed its willingness to participate in the peacekeeping operations in the former republic—the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in Cyprus. I believe that America and Europe, they need strong allies in that region. We can take part of the burden and we can be part of the answer to the problems of that region.
Senator D’AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. Chairman Smith, if you have any....
Mr. SMITH. I simply want to thank our three very distinguished ambassadors for their presenta- tion. I sense that Ambassador Vondra perhaps bristled a little bit at being here. We had the same kind of reaction from the ambassador from Poland, but I want to assure you that the entire exercise is helpful, as the Congress is getting more, not less, involved, since, to a large extent, the Congress holds the purse-strings with regards to NATO. As a matter of fact, our Subcommittee on International Opera- tions and Human Rights oversees the operational account of the U.S. budget for NATO, and that also will be considered on Thursday. I think it’s a matter of accountability, and sovereignty doesn’t negate accountability. And I know sovereignty is important. And we have problems in this country as well. And, in a way, we often showcase our problems to the exclusion of what’s positive in this country. So I can understand some of 8181 Page 82 83 78 the sense of not wanting to be put on the spot. But it is only because we care about the disenfranchised. When Charter 77 was the leading light in Czechoslovakia, every opportunity we had in bilaterals, multilaterals with the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, Chairman D’Amato and I, and Steny Hoyer, and Frank Wolf, and others raised that issue until we were blue in the face, because we just felt the people in Charter 77 and the interests that they represented were being disenfranchised, and we had an obligation as human beings to do so. So that’s where we’re coming from. And I wanted to assure you of that.
And also, Ambassador Petric, you have to know probably your most aggressive supporter is Congressman Jim Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota, who continually when we talk about NATO enlargement says, why not Slovenia. And makes a very persuasive case. And his voice is being heard, I can assure you, on the House side especially. But I want to thank you for your very fine testimony, and again this is in the spirit of cooperation and just trying to do what’s best for NATO and for human rights and peace.
Thank you.
Senator D’AMATO. In closing, I’d like to make several observations. I don’t think there was any doubt coming into this hearing of the strong commitment and feeling, basically, in the Congress and by this COMMISSION as it relates to the Czech Republic, and Slovenia, as it relates to being part of the enlargement in the first round of NATO. That is our feeling. I would be less than candid if I didn’t say that last February, if one were to look at the Chairman’s remarks as it related to Romania, there were some very real questions.I would say that there has been extraordinary progress as it relates to the implementation of human rights, respect for it, the opening up of the society, the creation of the rule of law in its practical sense and application, not just on paper, and that Romania has made great progress in meeting the legitimate hopes and aspirations of its people and people who want freedom. I’m particularly pleased and hope that this progress continues as it relates to the respect for the minority community, and the Hungarian community. And that seems to have been moving in the right direction.
So, I am very strongly supportive, because I think it is essential that the group, those of you who are here today, your countries that you represent, Mr. Ambassadors, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and Romania, that it is important that there be that integrated approach. It will make NATO much more effective. It will add to your security. I believe it will, in the fullness of time, bring about even greater progress in the area of democracy, in the area of human rights, in the area of respect and mutuality for each other and for those other countries in the region, and particularly the very vexing problem that still remains in Bosnia and that area. It is essential that you be part of NATO in dealing with this problem in the fullness of time, because you have all been candid in your expressions that this is not a situation that is going to be dealt with quickly or easily. It is complex. It is difficult. And I think it will require a united European approach in terms of the European communities being there, whether the United States has a presence or a more limited presence or not, that is something in the fullness of time we will be looking at.
So I just think it is essential to the stability of that region, and I want to commend all of you and thank all of you for coming. And, again, make no mistake about it, I am very strongly supportive of Romania being included in that first round as well as the Czech Republic and Slovenia. Thank you so very much.
We stand in recess. [Whereupon at p.m., the commission adjourned.] 82
NATO is scheduled to announce at its July 8th and 9th summit meeting in Madrid, Spain, which candidate states will be invited to engage in negotiations leading to accession of these states to the Washington Treaty by 1999. Each of the states that have expressed interest in consideration for accession are participating states in the Organization For Security and Cooperation in Europe.
We have invited an official representative of each state to present their government’s position to the Commission 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 docu- ments, 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.
As I said at our first hearing, 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.
We must, with our allies, establish a clearly defined process for achieving membership. If we don’t, 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 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. 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, 83
83 Page 84 85 80 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. Ambassador Geoana from Romania, Ambassador Vondra from the Czech Republic, and Am- bassador Petric from Slovenia 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 may address some matters that are sensitive and sometimes 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 the established standards, including their OSCE commitments. I am personally a supporter of including each of your countries in NATO. I think that the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Romania 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. I want to re-emphasize what I said at our first hearing, addressing the question of Russia and her security concerns. NATO enlargement does not threaten Russia’s security. An eastern Europe without NATO would threaten Russia’s security. An eastern Europe without NATO could become a black hole of unrest, poverty, ethnic con- flict, and extremism of the worst kinds. This would likely attract overt and covert Russian intervention in the affairs of the states in this area, pulling Russia into rebuilding its military machine and deploying it westward, and triggering U.S. and allied reaction. Neither the U.S. nor Russia want that to happen.
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, and more prosperous lives for each of their citizens.
One of the countries whose Ambassador appears before us today is proof of the effectiveness of this leverage. Last year, Romania had a government composed of former Communists and showed the influence of extreme nationalists. The Commission was very skeptical about Romania’s declared candidacy for NATO membership.
Then, last fall, Romania had a national election, and established a pro-reform democratic gov- ernment. Since then, that government has embarked on a crash program of privatization and reform intended to address all of the shortcomings we felt would prevent Romanian accession to NATO. While that program is still very new, there is every sign that not just the government, but the Romanian people, are serious about pressing through with it to a successful conclusion This is a very significant fact, but it is not enough, in my view, to push Romania into automatic membership in the first group of states to join NATO. There is still a chance that reform might fail. The same elements in Romanian society that kept the previous government in power are still there, and 84
84 Page 85 86 81 have not changed their views on their neighbors, on national minorities, or on human rights. So there is still a risk that Romania may not move firmly into the column of Western democracies. However, I strongly urge the United States and our NATO allies to take another, closer look at Romania for early NATO membership. I believe that Romania’s reform efforts show enough promise and Romania’s new political leaders have demonstrated both enough political will and popular support to justify in part this new look.
My call for more serious consideration of Romanian candidacy is based in part upon another major consideration. NATO remains a military alliance. A quick look at the map of eastern Europe would show that an enlarged NATO that stopped with Hungary and Slovenia would leave a huge opening for trouble.
Without a firmly established process for accession for states that aren’t selected at Madrid, the area Winston Churchill called the “soft underbelly of Europe” could become NATO’s—and the West’s— weak southeastern flank. A military alliance with obvious vulnerabilities fails its first test—to deter aggression. With a solidly pro-Western Romania in NATO, the historic Danube valley is closed as an aggressor’s invasion route. Without Romania, the heart of Europe lies open to attack at the end of a broad, inviting road.
When we think about Romania—and later Bulgaria—in the context of NATO enlargement, these facts on the ground cannot be forgotten. Now, I will turn to my distinguished Co-Chairman, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, for any remarks that he might wish to make. 85
Accession to NATO is not an end in itself, but rather part of a larger, long-term process which, for those countries involved, includes accession to European and other international organizations as well. All of the countries who have expressed an interest in being considered for accession to NATO are participating states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. Our leaders met in Lisbon, Portugal in December of last year and, reaffirming the OSCE principles set forth in the Helsinki Final Act, adopted a Declaration on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-first Century. Significantly, the NATO Alliance specified in its enlargement guidelines that prospective members will have to have demonstrated a commitment to, and respect for, OSCE norms and principles. I believe therefore, Mr. Chairman, that it is both appropriate, and required by our mandate, that the Commission review the human dimension aspects of NATO enlargement, and provide a unique forum in which prospective candidates can make their cases. Each candidate comes to the NATO table as an equal. Each will set their own timetable and make their own arguments for accession based on their unique circumstances. Each prospective mem- ber has a great deal to contribute to the future success of the Alliance. I believe it is important to point out that, having made the decision to expand, NATO is indeed looking for significant contributions from all new members, regardless of when they join—there will be no two-tiered or second class status. Mr. Chairman, I believe the end result of this process is a “win-win” outcome for all of us. NATO enlargement is not only good for the United States and its NATO allies, but it is equally good for all prospective members, as well as for those countries who choose not to join. The positive societal and economic changes that will emerge in each country as the process moves forward will create a safer and more prosperous environment for all of our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. 86