21 October 1997
(Many senators on Appropriations panel still undecided) (1000) By Susan Ellis USIA Congressional Correspondent Washington -- Even the strongest supporters of NATO enlargement, such as Senator Barbara Mikulski, asked hard questions of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Defense Secretary William Cohen as they testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee October 21. Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, said that while she supports an enlarged alliance, she believes the American people need to have three questions answered. First, how can a bigger NATO contribute to global stability; second, is it in the interests of the United States; and third, is the cost worth the investment. Mikulski's concerns over enlarging NATO beyond the original 16 members to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were echoed by the other senators at the hearing, most of whom appeared to be favorably disposed to the move, but as yet undecided about their vote on the accession protocol in the spring of 1998. Senator Arlen Specter (Republican, Pennsylvania) said, for example, "I, too, favor expansion of NATO. But who's going to pay for it?" Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Republican, Texas) asked "Is NATO expansion going to strengthen the alliance or be its unravelling?....Are we (the U.S.) responsible for the costs of new members in their purchasing (of military equipment) and buildup?" Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa) noted that in keeping with the expressed reasons for NATO enlargement -- to promote democracy and human rights and to encourage market-based economies -- it might make more sense for the prospective new members to join the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Senator Dale Bumpers (Democrat, Arkansas) was among several committee members who worried about the detrimental effect that strengthening NATO might have on U.S.-Russian relations. "I think (it) could possibly carry a very heavy price for the United States in the future," he said, in terms of gaining Russian cooperation in ratifying the START treaties, and even in promoting Russian extremism. Responding to the senators' security concerns, Albright told them that "a larger NATO will make us safer by expanding the area in Europe where wars simply do not happen. This is the productive paradox at NATO's heart: by making clear that we will fight, if necessary, to defend our allies, we make it less likely that our troops will ever be called upon to do so." Albright said the promise of NATO membership serves U.S. interests by giving the nations of Central and Eastern Europe "an incentive to solve their own problems. "A larger NATO will make America safer, NATO stronger, and Europe more peaceful and united," Albright said, adding that the moral imperative is as strong as the strategic rationale for America to support Europe's new democracies over the objections of Russia. She stressed that although Russia is opposed to NATO enlargement, "The record shows that Russia is adjusting and (it) in no way has changed our relationship with them." On cost, Albright said "The first and most important principle is that the amount we and our allies pay for a larger NATO must be a function of concrete military requirements." The Senate hearings and consultations with allies will focus "on defining the level of military capability we want our old and new allies to have in this changed security environment, and then making sure that they commit to that level." Albright said costs must be equitably shared, with the U.S. paying about 25 percent and its allies about three-quarters of NATO's costs, "And that will still be the case in a larger alliance, as old and new allies will pay 75 percent of the common funded costs." Albright said Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic "have pledged to increase the percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) they spend on their armed forces," and "there have been clear signs that all three have the political will to carry out that commitment." Asked about the disparity in costs quoted at various times for NATO enlargement, Defense Secretary Cohen said this is attributable to the assumptions made by three different groups studying the subject: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Department of Defense (DOD) and the private Rand Corporation. For example, "If...as the CBO assumes, you have a Russia that poses a significant threat, you would have to match their buildup with a corresponding buildup." Cohen said DOD and Rand are close in their estimates, and that "initial figures would run roughly 9,000 million to 12,000 million dollars in direct enlargement costs; 10,000 million to 13,000 million dollars for the new members' military structuring, and 8,000 million to 10,000 million dollars for current members. The current members' figure, he said, "is separate and apart from NATO enlargement. It's because they have to reconfigure their forces." If the three new democracies "were not involved with getting into NATO, they would have to reform their military system so they become more rapidly deployable, so they have greater mobility and sustainability in terms of preparing for the future," Cohen said. They would have to engage in "enormous costs" in any event, he added. "By joining a collective security architecture and institution, they will have to pay less. They will not have to spend money to compete against their neighbors." The "direct cost of enlargement" to which the United States must contribute, Cohen said, is the "9,000 million to 12,000 million dollar figure that has been cited." He estimated that "about 60 percent of these costs would be paid for out of NATO common budgets over the 10 years following accession, that NATO budgets would be increased accordingly, and that the U.S. would pay its standard 24 percent share of the NATO common budget. With these assumptions, the U.S. share of the direct costs of (NATO) enlargement would be about 150 to 200 million dollars per year," Cohen said.