WARNER: Secretary Cohen, I'd like to go back and reminisce just a bit about the days that we were privileged to have you here in the Congress and on this committee, and to express my concerns.
COHEN: That I was on the committee?
WARNER: Here's your old chair right here.
Express my concern because I have a very open mind on this. And I come from the school -- if it's not broken, why try and fix it? Because this NATO alliance has served this nation and served the world exactly as its founding fathers envisioned.
And as a matter of fact, I don't think -- they would agree, it exceeded the expectations when NATO was laid down.
Now let's go back over some recent history. And the reason why I think it's so valuable for our country to have you in this position -- you understand how to extrapolate public opinion into decisions in government. And you where here when our nation embarked into areas like Somalia. The first time we had serious casualties, it was -- Bring them home.
And you stood toe-to-toe with a group that was up here to defend the right of the president to decide when to bring them home and not the Congress.
In debate after debate, in the Gulf War, five votes enabled this Senate and this Congress, really, to stand behind a president's decision.
WARNER: Five votes indicating a very clear division of opinion, and I can go on and recount other situations, whether it's Bosnia or other areas.
Now, that staying power of the United States, the people of the United States, remaining with their chief executive, in making tough decisions.
You also remember in the '80s when we had to go to the floor repeatedly under the leadership of the chairmen, both Democrat and Republican of this committee, and fight tenaciously to hold the budget for NATO. You recall that -- tenaciously to hold, as we were bringing down force levels over there, to hold what we thought was the essential cadre of U.S. participation to preserve NATO.
Now, your department is looking at an entire review of our commitments worldwide, our forcestructure today and envisioned in the immediate future, and also the budget considerations.
And while you have not announced, of course, until I guess mid- May, what that report will be, it's likely to come down that we need to put more assets into research and development and procurement and modernization. And if there's a cost to be borne, recognizing the unlikely addition to defense budget, that will be borne by reduction of force levels.
And back home, all across this country, there's going to be the concern, we're bringing them down again in level? Now, against that background, you are coming forward and asking the American people, well, we're going to put another bill on the Department of Defense. We're going to add the cost of a NATO expansion.
We fought the battles in the '80s when the threat was absolutely clear from the Soviet Union, a threat not only to Europe, but to the vital security interests of this nation. And we're fortunate that threat has now been substantially lessened.
It's not gone, because the largest intercontinental ballistic missile force in the world is still under the possession of Russia. But it's been severely -- I mean, substantially diminished.
So there's no threat, and yet you're asking for increased spending in NATO. I do not see the staying power of this country behind that decision. I do not think America wants to foot that bill. And if we do go forward, and if our troops are involved in an engagement, and if we were to take casualties in one of these remote regions, would we not have a situation parallel to Somalia and the public underpinning of NATO being weakened by involvement in some area of the world which they simply cannot comprehend as being in the vital security interests?
You enumerated that NATO would -- and I copied these words down -- help stem the spread of nationalisms, tensions and things like that. That concerns me, because that extrapolates into the problems that I have seen repeatedly here, when the Congress, reflecting the will of the people, has had to struggle with decisions to support presidents and to support budgets.
WARNER: Mr. Secretary, I don't think they're ready to pay the bill. Tell me how I'm wrong.
COHEN: Would you like to repeat that question?
Let me see if I can address your concerns, Senator Warner. And let me say that you and I did indeed stand shoulder to shoulder on many issues in which there were some very difficult persuasive efforts that we had to undertake.
The difference between Somalia and NATO enlargement, I think, is rather stark and clear. Somalia was not in our vital national security interest. Europe is. The preservation of peace and stability throughout Central and Eastern Europe is in our vital national security interest.
If we start to contemplate what could happen; if we see a resurgence of nationalism; if we see a heightening of ethnic tensions; if we see religious groups that are engaged in controversy; if we see the spread of weapons of mass destruction with each country arming itself against an enemy, real or perceived; and if we find war starting to break out and then the pressure for NATO to become involved in a much larger war, I think that you can make a pretty strong case that taking countries who are eager, enthusiastic about joining in the participation of the greatest military organization the world has known is a very positive benefit to the American people.
And so democratic nations historically are always inclined, whenever there's not a perceived threat, to say let's just cut defense. Let's take the money from the Defense Department and put it into domestic programs. That historically has been true.
And what it requires is leadership. I come from a state, as does Senator Snowe, who's motto is "Dirigo -- I lead." And it's important that we lead. It's important that the United States lead in this effort to help spread the benefits of peace and democracy and stability to countries who qualify for admission into that great organization.
And yes, it's going to be difficult to persuade the American people that we have to prepare to defeat an enemy which they can't really see now. Instability is the enemy. Ethnic rivalries are the enemies, as such.
To the extent that we can reduce and eliminate them by bringing more nations who qualify and meet the standards...
WARNER: Ms. Secretary...
COHEN: ... that Secretary Albright has articulated, that redounds to our vital national security interest.
WARNER: Let me just sneak in my quick question to the secretary of state. You talk about a threat. When you go to a group of 12 nations and try and determine eligibility and select some, in my judgment, you're breeding that very instability between those selected and those not selected.
And indeed, some of the earliest confrontations, as occasioned by this expansion, could well be NATO having to come in to settle the instability between those selected and those not selected.
ALBRIGHT: Senator, we are well aware of what you are saying. And I think that the issue here is that we are developing other ways to make sure that those not selected are not left out. Besides, they want to be selected on the next round.
Therefore, there will be, in fact, a premium to them continuing in terms of living up to the criteria or standards that we have established. And we have, in fact, found, and Secretary Cohen alluded to this, that the very thought of membership in NATO has, in fact, helped to deal with some of the problems that have existed between countries.
So we see it as an incentive. And if I might also say to your question to Secretary Cohen, I consider it a unique opportunity that we have in our time to do what our predecessors did 50 years ago, sitting not in this room but in similar places -- thinking about how we structure a new system.
ALBRIGHT: I think we welcome this kind of a debate. This is one of the historic -- we have launched one of the historic debates of our time. And I think we are required to ask the kind of questions you are asking, and understand that we have an opportunity that others have not had, is to absorb the lessons of history of this century in Europe.
And there were times that Americans thought it was not worth getting involved with countries with unpronounceable names. And they later went there with hundreds of thousands of troops.
And what we want to do is avoid that, to absorb the lessons of the 20th century and make sure that our men and women do not have to go and fight. And this is, frankly, because you put it in money terms, the cheapest way to do it.
WARNER: May I say to the witnesses, and indeed, to our distinguished chairman and ranking member, we've had an excellent hearing. And we have framed this debate. And it will be a very important one. And in that context, Senator Levin asked about Romania.
I happened to have the privilege today of visiting, as I have with others, the minister of state foreign affairs later today. To what extent will the presidents be invited over to consult with our president of the various nations, for example, Romania? Is that likely to take place between now and the decision point?
ALBRIGHT: I have met with the same minister in the last couple of days. And there are a number of occasions this summer that President Clinton is going to be in Europe. And we are looking at the ways that various meetings can take place, have not yet exactly determined what, where, but there is a celebration of the Marshall Plan and a number of associated meetings.
We have no definitive answer.
WARNER: Well, I expressed earlier my concern and the difficulty of selecting those that will and will not be admitted, as you say, on the first round, and how that could be a source of friction, such friction being the very problem that could be created, as Secretary Cohen said, that we're out there to stop.
But anyway, I can see this -- and I think the extent that we have consultations between our president and the chief executives of these various countries, it would be helpful.
And I was going to bring up Dr. Kissinger's article. Mr. Chairman, I ask that it be put in today's record of this hearing. And that I want...
THURMOND: The entire article or parts of it?
WARNER: I wonder, Madame Secretary, would it be...
THURMOND: Do you want the entire article to go into the record?
WARNER: The entire article, yes.
THURMOND: Without objection, so ordered.
WARNER: It's a very definitive critique of this issue, and I think other members would benefit by it.
Would you be willing, Madame Secretary, to give the committee, as a part of today's record, a side-by-side of the various issues that he raises in here so that we can evaluate your responses so that I won't take time today?
I find the one the most difficult for me is that he asserts that there are grounds for making Russia a de facto member of NATO. I think you've answered that very forcefully. Have you not?
ALBRIGHT: I have, sir, and I'd be very pleased to do what you suggested.
WARNER: I thank you. It would be helpful if we did that.
And I hope, if I may say to my distinguished chairman and ranking member that in future hearings, we could have perhaps former secretaries of defense and state as panel members to address this issue. It's been found valuable in other forums, and I think it would be in this.
And lastly, I was reflecting on my question to my good friend, Secretary Cohen, about my concern of public opinion. I didn't mean to convey that I was like -- we haven't had a real good quote from you today other than the soldiers' pack -- I liked that, but what was the famous...
COHEN: What would you like? I mean...
WARNER: Well, I didn't ask you to roll one out here to finish up.
(LAUGHTER)
WARNER: Who was the Frenchman that said, oh, show me the way the crowd is going so I can leap in front and lead. I didn't mean my question to suggest that. Do you remember that quote?
COHEN: I remember that quote.
WARNER: Who was it, then?
COHEN: I can't recall the author.
WARNER: Oh, wonderful. But anyway, maybe for the record you'd put that one in. I'm not suggesting that any of us are trying to figure out where the public is going, and we're...
COHEN: It could have been Rousseau, but I'm not sure.
WARNER: Or Voltaire. But anyway, we shall figure that out together. But we -- we must
lead. I understand that. And this is a very, very bold initiative. And I have found today's
hearing beneficial in many respects, and I thank both of our witnesses, the chairman and
ranking members.