BIDEN: We and our allies face together opportunities and challenges in Europe. In July, you and your NATO counterparts will meet in Madrid to authorize the alliance to begin accession hearings with the selection of prospective new members, something that Senator Lugar has been deeply involved with, along with Senator Nunn, former Senator Nunn. And if I'm not mistaken, Senator Lugar has at least by implication suggested that this warrants a national debate, at least beginning here in this committee as to a discussion as to what the consequences of NATO expansion are and how should it take place. We'd like to hear from you about that.
If the accession negotiations succeed and if a sharing of NATO enlargement costs can be worked out that is fair to the American taxpayer, the admission of new members would cement the country's return to their historical Western orientation and would increase the security of the entire continent. But there are costs associated with that, and we should be straightforward with the American people and tell them what those costs may be in terms of actual commitments of financial costs.
But the new members must be brought into NATO with a sensitivity to the countries who are not invited in to NATO at first, or maybe at all, particularly Russia. The solidification of Russia's new democracy and free market system is essential to international security. Bit NATO's proposed charter with Russia is, I'm going to tell you now, the first question when my questioning period comes up -- the only question I'll ask you -- is to discuss with me NATO's proposed charter with Russia, along with enlargement of the alliance, a special relationship with the Ukraine and an expanded Partnership for Peace will be in all likelihood become cornerstones of a new European security architecture.
And I am eager, if not in total today, over the months to hear your views on these prospects and the nature of that architecture; something you know a great deal about, and something that I'm anxious to hear from you about.
Also essential to our relationship with Russia is the conclusion of arms control treaties allowing us to destroy weapons of mass destruction that we aim at each other and have aimed at each other for decades. Again, I want to give credit to Senator Lugar and former Senator Nunn and the Nunn-Lugar agreement, but where do we go from here? What is the status of the START treaty in the Duma? What should we be beginning immediately discussions on, a START III treaty? Where do you see this moving?
I look forward to working with you for prompt approval of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the Senate so that the United States can be at the table as a voting party to protect our interests when the treaty goes into effect at the end of April. Moreover, I hope you, Ambassador Albright, and your team will take steps to negotiate as I said, a START III agreement with Russia, once the Duma has ratified START II so that we can further reduce our arsenals.
..........................
ALBRIGHT: This summer, as part of our strategy to make that vision real, NATO will invite several of our democratic partners to begin negotiations to join the alliance. Our purpose is to do for Europe's east what NATO did 50 years ago for Europe's west -- to integrate new democracies, defeat old hatreds, provide competence in economic recovery and deter conflict.
To those who worry about enlargement dividing Europe, I say that NATO cannot and should not preserve the old Iron Curtain as its eastern frontier. That was an artificial division imposed upon proud nations, some of which are now ready to contribute to the continent's security.
What NATO must and will do is keep open the door to membership to every European nation while building a strong and enduring partnership with all of Europe's democracies, including Russia.
........................
BIDEN: In fairness, he came up and he said I assume we're not going to adopt such an open-minded rule. I assured him we weren't, and he left. He'll be back.
I have one question at this time, Ambassador Albright, as -- to state the obvious -- a great deal's happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union. And a lot of discussion -- I've mentioned it -- there's been a lot of discussion in academia and the press, in the State Department, in the foreign offices of other nations about an expansion of NATO, and the upcoming meeting in Madrid.
My question is that would you be kind enough to outline the likely scope or at least the direction the administration wishes to move in pursuing a proposed charter between NATO and the Russian Federation?
ALBRIGHT: Senator, I think that you've pointed out the massive change that has taken place since the end of the Cold War. It has been mentioned by people that I had studied the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. I sometimes feel more like an archaeologist than a political scientist because so much has, in fact, changed.
We believe that it is very important to expand NATO to deal appropriately with the new countries, the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. But at the same time, we fully understand that one of our key relationships is with Russia, and that Russia -- that we have to establish a relationship between NATO and Russia through a parallel system through this charter.
That is being negotiated at this time. The details of it are being elaborated. We will be consulting with you closely on it, but I just have to tell you that the major goal of this is to make sure that we do not create new dividing lines in Europe because part of what we're trying to eliminate with the NATO expansion is to eliminate the artificial dividing line of the Cold War.
ALBRIGHT: And therefore having a charter in which we detail that relationship between NATO and Russia is very important. At the same time as you mentioned in your statement, it's very important to us to have an enhanced relationship also with Ukraine. So, the basic thinking behind all three of those aspects is just to make sure that that there is no country group left out in terms of looking at a security network.
BIDEN: But can you tell us anything at this point -- and you may not be in the position to do this, but, if you could, I'd appreciate it -- what the basic outlines -- what are the -- you stated the rationale for the need for such an agreement. And that is to make sure no one's left out and no new artificial lines are drawn. But are there any bright lines that places from which the administration is starting -- their goals -- you stated the overall goals you achieve -- attempt to accomplish, but, at what stage is this process?
ALBRIGHT: Well, the process has -- was put into place during the summer when Secretary Christopher propounded this idea at a speech in Stuttgart
There are negotiations going on with our -- between our government and the Russian government beginning to look at the outlines of such a charter. And also NATO is very much involved, obviously, in putting the pieces together. I think that it would be premature at this stage for me to go into more detail than that. But the issue is basically one where we want to make sure that Russia does not believe that the NATO expansion is an adversarial idea against them.
And, at the same time, to make sure that Russia does not veto membership by any new country within NATO. Because that decision has to be made by NATO members themselves.
BIDEN: Well, time is short necessarily. Let me just say that I understand you can't view any one of the initiatives that is underway. Whether it's a START II or hopefully a START III negotiation or the CFE Treaty and the flank issue -- and all these issues are a little bit like I said this -- putting a lot of pieces that are floating around in place. One can't be dealt with without the other.
And I realize that the concern that it would not -- we would not necessarily benefit, for example, if we expanded NATO in a particular way that resulted in the end of arms control agreements. And the cost to the United States, and the security be diminished rather than increased as a consequence of not moving on with the ratification of the START II treaty, or a START III treaty, and so on.
So, I can tell you as one member of this committee, I'm going to be keenly interested in what I think is, in the near term, the most important piece of the building of what will necessarily -- because so much has changed in the world -- this whole new, to use the phrase they use downtown a lot, architecture. This whole emerging foreign policy that began with the fall of the wall and the Bush administration as to what next?
What is it going to look like? And it's something that I'm intensely interested in, the committee is, and I hope that you will be available to us, especially at the front end of your new administration, to discuss openly with us -- and maybe it has to be, in some cases, in closed session, or maybe it has to be in a secure setting -- but what the game plan is.
Because quite frankly, it's -- there's going to be a lot of discussion here, and unless you bring us along -- was it Vandenberg said if you want us in on the landing, to paraphrase him, we must be in on the take-off?
Well, this is a big, big wide-bodied jet you're trying to take off the ground, and we'd better be in on it in order for it to be able to fly on -- so -- a terrible metaphor, but I think it's important you talk to us a lot about these things.
My time is up, and I thank the chair.
ALBRIGHT: Senator, I want to assure you that I will be because I think that this is one of the biggest pieces of business that we have. Some of it could be described as unfinished business at the end of the Cold War, and some of it in terms of developing this new framework, as you have put it.
...............................
BIDEN: All right. I don't any further -- I just think it's an important -- I think many of the points that the chairman raises are views that are held by me and others who were thought to have very divergent views.
I am a strong supporter of the United Nations. But the issue relating to reform internally of the United Nations and it being a source of first employment to many of the very small -- smaller countries and so on and the accounting practices, all of which you know much better than I do and you've worked to try to change and some of which you have changed. But there is this dilemma.
And the dilemma is that in one sense if we satisfied one instinct to reduce our contribution significantly, we diminish our opportunity in the minds of some to enhance another instinct, which is to be the most influential member of the United Nations.
And I just raise that, not so much to make a case one way or another, except to suggest that this is not always as clear as the debate appears to be when we -- those of us who hold public office -- conduct that debate and for other than this committee.
But I'm confident you understand that this is the new -- sort of a new mantra that is being repeated. And not just on the Republican side of the aisle about the United Nations, its efficacy, the cost of the United Nations.
You're also going to hear, as we discussed in my office in my view, over the next two to four years, new candidates for the house and senate in both parties raising the issue of the efficacy of contributions -- our financial contributions to NATO and the expansion of NATO.
Right now, we're all very much enamored with the notion that NATO and the expansion of NATO has great political appeal here in this country because of the various ethnic American groups that feel strongly about their ancestral homes being brought into the umbrella -- under the umbrella -- of NATO and membership.
I'm not sure how the American public's going to react if and when they find out the cost of that expansion may be at the expense of domestic programs in their view or other factors, and that's why I go back, and I'll end with this, go back to the point that has been raised publicly and privately by Senator Lugar that these issues -- these issues relating to both international organizations and the most important political military organization we're a member of, NATO, all have some financial implications as well as military and political implications for the taxpayers of this country.
................................
ALBRIGHT: Senator, Russia I think is obviously a very important part of our -- the way we have to think about foreign policy. They are -- continue to be a major power and their evolution in terms of democracy and market systems is very important to us.
They need to understand that an expanded NATO is not adversarial, and that our relationship with them and an evolving relationship between NATO and Russia is in everybody's interest. I do favor the expansion of NATO. We will be working on that with you this whole year and on, and I think it's one of the major foreign policy initiatives that will lead us into the 21st century.
SMITH: Do you feel that Russia would be concerned if NATO were expanded as far as the Ukraine and Lithuania and Estonia and states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union?
ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I think it's very important to understand that no nation that is not a part of NATO can veto other member -- other memberships. Ukraine -- we want to have an enhanced relationship with Ukraine. And we want to make sure that the Baltic republics have a sense of security, which is one reason why we are working with them to try to have them be a part of the European framework and they are being also assisted by the Nordic countries.
I think the issue here is to try to develop a security system which is not threatening to anybody in which Russia, Ukraine will have a way of dealing with an expanded NATO.
SMITH: I hope that's possible. It just seems to me that unless Russia is included, they are going to be -- they will feel threatened by it, especially if all of their former satellite states are cobbled up in NATO. Obviously, history teaches us that Russia can be expansive and their neighbors suffer as a result of that.
I hope you're right, and I look forward to seeing how it's possible to help Russia to be comfortable with this expansion.
ALBRIGHT: That will be our assignment.