28 March 2014
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to lead off this panel on NATO enlargement and the new security challenges facing NATO. I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important and, as events would have it, extraordinarily well-timed conference. I look forward to an excellent series of presentations from my colleagues and a spirited discussion to follow.
This is my second trip to Lithuania, having thoroughly enjoyed my first visit as a tourist roughly 20 years ago. I am also proud to say that my family roots are in Lithuania, in Kaunas, Ukmergës and Panaveþys. And I cannot think of a more critical time to return than now – both to celebrate ten years of NATO membership and to reiterate the commitment to our collective security that is at NATO’s heart.
Along with my colleague John Shimkus, I am proud to chair the Baltic Caucus in the House of Representatives. John has a commitment in his constituency this weekend and cannot be here today, but he joins me in sending a message of solidarity and resolve to the people of Lithuania and their neighbors in Latvia and Estonia: America stands with you as a bulwark against the type of lawless aggression and violation of territorial integrity and national sovereignty committed by the Russian government and its military and clandestine forces.
During the decades in which you were held captive by the Soviet Union, the American people never forgot the plight of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and we recognize your active concern now. I know that Vice-President Biden was here recently and his visit was intended to transmit that message to you, your countrymen and to the Kremlin. More importantly, American and other NATO air assets have reinforced the Baltic Air Policing mission and deployed to Poland in recent weeks as tangible demonstrations of Alliance solidarity.
Russia's lawless action in Ukraine over the past few weeks has served to rouse us from a false sense of complacency – that the historically anomalous peace that Europe has enjoyed in the postwar period was durable, irrevocable and self-perpetuating. The reality is that peace requires constant vigilance and sacrifice. And NATO, sometimes cast as a relic from an earlier time, remains the vital guarantor of peace on this continent and will be essential for European security for decades to come.
Sixty five years ago next week, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington. At the time, much of the Continent still lay in ruins and Stalin had already begun to draw the iron curtain across the European heartland. To borrow a phrase from NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, from the beginning, the new organization had two purposes – to keep the Americans in and the Soviets out.
NATO more than met these challenges and the western democracies remained united through four decades of the Cold War. This was achieved despite the inherent difficulty of maintaining an alliance joined by a common purpose, but whose members differed from each other in so many fundamental ways.
At Cold War’s end, many questioned whether an alliance founded to defend against a nation and a system that no longer existed was still relevant. But, even as the Communist bloc dissolved, older forces – nationalism, expansionism and intolerance – reasserted themselves in Yugoslavia and in pockets of the old Soviet empire. And, it was in Yugoslavia, that NATO went to war as an alliance for the first time; and it was there that the more contemporary and expansive vision of NATO was born. In Afghanistan, where NATO has been engaged in its first Article 5 deployment since 2001, this more globalized operational concept has reached its fullest expression and, as an American citizen, let me again express my personal gratitude to our Alliance partners for rallying to our side in the terrible days after the 9/11 attacks.
This concept of collective security stands at the heart of NATO’s mission – that 28 nations can pursue their own destinies, but are prepared to take action in defense of freedom and security within their own region and, when appropriate, outside of it.
The current crisis in Ukraine provides yet another challenge for NATO, but one I know the Alliance will meet. As President Obama noted in his speech earlier this week in Brussels, “we have made a series of decisions to help underscore the importance of NATO and collective defense” in response to Russia's forced and illegal annexation of Crimea.
In fact, there is much NATO has already done to show its seriousness in the face of this latest spate of Russian aggression. This includes sending extra jet fighters to as part of the Baltic Air Police mission here, as well as rotating air defense units to Poland. NATO has also deployed early warning aircraft to patrol the Ukraine border, and the Alliance has been conducting naval and ground exercises in the Black Sea region.
In addition, NATO soon will be holding a ministerial meeting, and President Obama has asked the U.S. delegation to work closely with the NATO Secretary General’s office to evaluate other steps that can be taken to bolster confidence among all NATO members. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, James Stavridis, has identified a number of useful recommendations for NATO to consider. These include:
- Ordering the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe to conduct planning and present options in response to the situation;
- Using the NATO-Ukrainian Commission and existing military partnerships with the Ukrainian military to share information, intelligence and situational awareness with authorities in Kiev.
- Providing advice to Ukrainian armed forces to prepare and position themselves in the event of further conflict;
- Bringing the NATO Response Force, a 25,000-man sea, air, land, and special forces capability, to a higher state of alert; and
- Developing NATO contingency plans to react to any further invasion of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, has suggested that “this is also the time for NATO to consider lifting its self-imposed restriction on deploying substantial combat forces to allied territory in the east – a unilateral promise extended to Russia in 1997 when Moscow behaved far more co-operatively.”
While Vladimir Putin’s decision-making has been unpredictable and reckless, he is unlikely to provoke a military confrontation with the world’s strongest alliance. Nonetheless, NATO must take whatever additional steps are necessary to insure that the people of Lithuania who sleep as free people tonight, can be confident they will awaken as free people tomorrow and every tomorrow thereafter. The same goes for Latvia, Estonia and the other NATO states within or alongside Russia’s Near Abroad.
It is NATO’s security guarantee that drives most aspirants to seek membership and which is central to the Alliance’s ability to deter aggression. Because this guarantee is so important, it is vital that NATO thoroughly vets the applications of all potential new members to the Alliance. Thus, enlargement issues have been crucial to NATO over the past two decades.
The upcoming NATO Summit in Wales provides an ideal opportunity for all of us to pause and examine what has worked well, what can be improved, and what will provide the best way forward for an Alliance that has served countries in Europe, Canada, the United States, and elsewhere exceptionally well over six and a half decades. On the question of NATO enlargement, I have been impressed by the carefully-considered and well-developed criteria for membership that has steered the Alliance since its creation.
I believe the set of standards required for aspirant nations to join NATO stands as an excellent model, benefitting both prospective new members and the Alliance as a whole. NATO’s Membership Action Plan, or MAP, has lived up to its name, providing useful advice, assistance and support to help aspirants navigate a course tailored to their unique circumstances and national security needs.
During the 25 years since the end of the Cold War, nations of Central and Eastern Europe have sought independence, democracy, and partnerships with NATO and the United States. We have rewarded a select number of countries that have demonstrated a commitment to values we all hold sacrosanct – including adherence to human rights, good governance, and the rule of law – with membership into the world’s strongest defense alliance. In return, these new members have added considerably to NATO’s spirit of collective security, which continues to serve as the cornerstone for stability throughout most of Europe and much of the world.
This “entrance exam” for NATO membership, if you will, is not an easy one, nor should it be. By demanding that all aspirants meet a set of stringent prerequisites prior to being invited to join the Alliance, we not only ensure the continued durability of NATO, but also help to strengthen the political, military, and legal structures in each of these countries. Let me give you a few examples.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Allies have provided focused and candid feedback on that country’s reform efforts, promising Bosnia an opportunity to join the MAP process once it adequately addresses its immovable defense property issue. Until Bosnia’s leaders can prove they are serious about making key changes consistent with policies adopted by all members of NATO, they will remain outside the Alliance. This leverage, to me, makes good sense.
Montenegro, by comparison, must scale a different set of reform hurdles before it will be offered membership. Namely, the government needs to implement legislation that strengthens its judicial and law enforcement institutions to effectively combat corruption and organized crime in the country. Montenegro also must demonstrate further progress in intelligence reform, defense modernization and public support for NATO within the country, which, as we have seen in other countries, is not always a given.
Macedonia faces a very different challenge on its road to membership. At the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, the Alliance issued an invitation, provided that nation first resolves the issue over its name with Greece. NATO’s success as a consensus organization depends on members being able to forge mutually acceptable solutions to their differences. Through the assistance of a UN Special Representative, Macedonia and Greece have been working toward this goal.
Meanwhile, the Republic of Georgia -- the site of Russia's first territorial aggression this decade -- has made strides in its reform efforts, including meeting NATO’s requirement for running a well-administered presidential election, as it did last year. Georgia’s contributions to NATO operations, including through ISAF in Afghanistan, have shown that the country is a capable and committed operational partner ready to build a consensus with the Alliance for granting it a MAP.
It is important to emphasize that NATO membership remains open to any European country which both desires to join and is able to meet the Alliance’s conditions for acceptance. This applies to the countries I just mentioned, like the Republic of Georgia, as well as Ukraine. And this is true now, just as it has been in the past and we can expect it will remain so in the future.
Ultimately, it is up to the people and the government of Ukraine to decide whether they wish to contribute to collective security through NATO and pursue NATO membership, or another type of affiliation. And, should Ukraine make such a decision, it will be up to NATO to establish the specific requirements for membership and decide if the Alliance believes Ukraine, or any other aspirant, for that matter, has met the necessary conditions.
I think it remains imperative that we adhere to these principles for membership that have served both Allies and aspirants so well. The demanding requirements established for entrance into NATO – based on a set of shared democratic values – have greatly enriched the Alliance, as well as its individual members. The same conditions should continue to apply toward any new nation wishing to join now.
I believe the United States and NATO should continue to support an “open door” policy, engaging with each new prospective member as a means of encouraging political, legal and defense reforms for the betterment of one and all. In the end, our Alliance is only as strong as its weakest link, yet by acting together our collective strength has proven to be far greater than the sum of its individual parts.
Russia's actions in Georgia and now, Ukraine, make NATO more relevant to our collective security and to a Europe that is whole and at peace than at any time since the Cold War. Those unlawful actions by Russia, as well as the broadly expansionist themes espoused by Putin in defense of its territorial aggression will demand strong countermeasures by all peace-loving nations. The bolstering of NATO's presence, training, intelligence support and coordination in Russia's near abroad are a good start, but I believe more will need to be done to deter further violations of sovereignty.
Stronger sanctions than have thus far been agreed to by the U.S. and Europe are necessary now, to discourage overt Russian military action in Eastern Ukraine or covert actions to destabilize Ukraine further. I know this will not be easy, and the pain it will inflict in the west will be difficult to distribute equitably among all allies. But Russia must be made to feel real costs for its belligerence, and I do not believe we have yet reached that point. Should the present level of sanctions be the sum total of our reaction to this violation of international law, I fear that we would encourage rather than deter further Russian aggression in Ukraine and beyond.
Economic support for Ukraine must expand, along with our efforts to help establish a firmer foundation for the rule of law and anti-corruption efforts. Eastern Europe -- indeed all of Europe -- must diversify its energy resources and reduce reliance on Russian gas. This will have the twin merit of making Europe less dependent on Russia economically, but in forcing Putin to tap the human potential of the Russian people and not just it gas reserves.
We all hope that Mr. Putin will reverse his land grab in Crimea and desist from further provocations. But hope is not a strategy, and history has taught that only a strong and unified defense can protect against the belligerence of those who believe they are a law unto themselves. It is not a happy birthday for NATO, but the events of the last month have demonstrated the Alliance's continued vitality and central importance. After 65 years, it wears its age well.
Thank you.
