STATEMENT OF HON. ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, COUNSELOR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. BRZEZINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In my initial comment I will not retrace the ground that was covered by your discussion with Secretary Albright on Tuesday. It was an excellent discussion and many cogent arguments were reviewed regarding the issue of NATO enlargement.

In my brief comments, I would like to touch merely on the historic and geopolitical significance of NATO's enlargement, as I see it. In my view, that enlargement has truly global significance. It is central to the step by step construction of a secure international system in which the Euro-Atlantic alliance plays the major role in insuring that a peaceful and democratic Europe is America's principal partner.

Hence, NATO's enlargement is about America's role in Europe, whether America will remain a European power, and whether a larger, democratic Europe will remain organically linked to America.

It is about Europe's historically important self-definition, whether its scope and security are to be confined to the lines drawn arbitrarily in 1945, thus to a rump Europe with NATO increasingly anachronistic in the post cold war era, or whether NATO's membership should correspond to the aspirations of the democratic European nations.

It is about Russia's relationship to Europe, whether NATO's enlargement helps a democratizing Russia by foreclosing to it the revival of any self-destructive imperial temptations regarding Central Europe.

Let me also note parenthetically that NATO and the European Union have creatively resolved the old question of disproportionate German power in Europe. The progressive expansion of NATO can similarly resolve the question of disproportionate Russian power in Europe. It is noteworthy also in this connection that public opinion in key European countries is favorable to expansion.

Moreover, so far, all of the apocalyptic predictions of the critics of NATO expansion have failed to come to pass.

In brief, to me, NATO expansion is not principally about the Russian threat for, currently, it does not exist, though one cannot exclude its reappearance and, hence, some insurance against it is desirable.

Second, to me, NATO expansion is not primarily a moral crusade, meant to undo the injustice the Central European people suffered during the half century's long Soviet oppression, though one cannot ignore the moral right of the newly emancipated and democratic Central Europeans to a life no less secure than that enjoyed by the West Europeans, or, I may add, ourselves, as well.

For me, the central stake in NATO expansion is the long-term, historic, and strategic relationship between America and Europe. NATO expansion is central to the vitality of the American-European connection, to the scope of a secure and democratic Europe and to the ability of America and Europe to work together in promoting international security.

The expansion of the Euro-Atlantic alliance will bring into NATO counsels new, solidly democratic, and very pro-American nations. That will further deepen the American-European kinship while expanding Europe's zone of peace and democracy.

Such a more secure Europe will be a better and a more vital partner for America in the continuing effort to make democracy more widespread and international cooperation more pervasive. That is why NATO's enlargement, in itself a vivid testimonial to the dynamism of the democratic ideal, is very much in America's long-term national interest.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brzezinski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BRZEZINSKI

I would like to comment very briefly on the historic and geopolitical significance of NATO's enlargement. In my view, that enlargement has global significance it is central to the step-by-step construction of a secure international system in which the Euroatlantic alliance plays the major role in ensuring that a peaceful and democratic Europe is America's principal partner.

Hence

• NATO's enlargement is about America's role in Europe—whether America will remain a European power and whether a larger democratic Europe will remain organically linked to America;

• it is about Russia's relationship to Europe-whether NATO's enlargement helps a democratizing Russia by foreclosing the revival of any self-destructive imperial temptations regarding Central Europe.

(Let me note in passing that NATO and the EU have creatively resolved the old question of disproportionate German power in Europe; the progressive expansion of NATO can similarly resolve the question of disproportionate Russian power in Europe. It is also noteworthy that public opinion in key NATO countries is favorable to expansion. Moreover, so far, all the apocalyptic predictions of the critics of NATO expansion have failed to come to pass.)

In brief, to me NATO expansion is not principally about the Russian threat, for currently it does not exist, though one cannot exclude its reappearance and hence some insurance against it is desirable.

Secondly, to me NATO expansion is not primarily a moral crusade, meant to undo the injustice the Central European peoples suffered during the half-century long Soviet oppression, though one cannot ignore the moral right of the newly emancipated and democratic Central Europeans to a life no less secure than that enjoyed by the West Europeans.

For me, the central stake in NATO expansion is the long-term historic and strategic relationship between America and Europe. NATO expansion is central to the vitality of the American-European connection, to the scope of a democratic and secure Europe, and to the ability of America and Europe to work together in promoting international security.

The expansion of the Euroatlantic alliance will bring into NATO counsels new, solidly democratic and very pro-American nations. That will further deepen the American-European kinship while expanding Europe's zone of peace and democracy. Such a more secure Europe will be a better and a more vital partner for America in the continuing effort to make democracy more widespread and international cooperation more pervasive. That is why NATO's enlargement-in itself a vivid testimonial to the dynamism of the democratic ideal-is very much in America's longterm national interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Brzezinski. Dr. Kirkpatrick.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK, SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR, FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENSE STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC Ambassador KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for inviting me today to testify before this distinguished committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for coming.

Ambassador KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the subject of today's hearing is exceedingly important and that the Senate's decision on NATO enlargement today is even more important. I have followed this issue with substantial interest since the end of the cold war made it a practical policy option.

I begin with a question: why should we enlarge NATO? I believe that the case for admitting Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to membership in NATO is not only strong, but that it is essentially the same as the case for organizing NATO in 1947-to provide a security shield behind which the free institutions of these more geographically vulnerable European democracies can strike deep roots and thrive, to deter aggression, and to discourage conflict.

Of course, there are differences between 1939, 1947, and 1997. There is no one major threat to peace and security throughout the region today. But if the threats of aggression, subversion, and conquest are less clear now than they were after World Wars I and II, the new democracies' appetite for democracy and peace is great

er.

More people understand the benefits of freedom and long to share in them, and long for a place in the prosperity and security of the West. More associate that freedom, prosperity, and security with joining NATO-and the European Union, which, unfortunately, is not an issue that we are free to resolve by action of this Senate or any other American forum.

I believe, these candidates that have been proposed for membership in NATO, will strengthen that institution. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary share a history and a civilization with the countries of NATO and were engaged in parallel patterns of democratic development when first Adolph Hitler and then Josef Stalin's expansionist policies abruptly strangled their evolution.

The people in each of these countries share our culture. They have demonstrated their vocation for freedom with heroic efforts to throw off foreign domination and regain control of their own histories. This took place again and again during their tragic evolution of this century.

Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary can be incorporated into NATO, I believe, without creating any serious disruption and without requiring a reorientation of NATO's operations. They will "fit" in NATO. Their inclusion will not require qualitative changes in its purposes, culture, or mode of operation. NATO has been and, after their inclusion, will be, a military alliance of democratic nations united in the determination to preserve their free societies from aggression-by force, if necessary.

The Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary applied for membership in the European Union and in NATO years ago. Hungary actually applied for membership in the European Union before Soviet forces had departed their country. They have met all the stated requirements, and have cooperated in all proposed projects, including Partnership for Peace. They have demonstrated their seriousness. Moreover, 4 years have passed since President Clinton said in Prague, "Let me be absolutely clear: the security of your States is important to the security of the United States. The question is no

longer whether NATO will take on new members, but when and how."

Yet to this day, no country that suffered under Soviet dominance has been admitted into either NATO or the EU.

The post cold war period has seen the emergence of numerous threats to the development of a democratic Europe. Resurgent antidemocrats have won power in some States and threaten peace in others. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Slovakian Prime Minister Vladimir Mecias are examples.

Milosevic sponsored and encouraged Serbian aggression and "ethnic cleansing" against Slovenia, Croatia, and BosniaHerzegovena, in that order. He has attempted to destabilize Macedonia and repeatedly violated democratic norms and the human rights of the Serbian opposition. He has undermined democracy in Serbia and outside it. The violent attacks he sponsored have devastated two States-Croatia and Bosnia, and have destabilized the region.

This aggression could happen because he is not a democratic president, although he is, in fact, elected. This reminds us that not all elected presidents are democratic presidents, governing within a framework of law and constitutional rule.

It is no accident, Mr. Chairman, as the Marxists like to say, that in democratic Czechoslovakia, the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic was peaceful, and that the separation of Yugoslavia was violent. The difference was not in the preference of the presidents because the President of Czechoslovakia also preferred that that country remain united. The difference was the respect of those presidents for democratic decisions.

There was in the Czech Republic no will to conquest in the government. The Czech Republic is a democracy, prepared to accept the democratic self-determination of Slovakia. Serbian rulers were not committed to democratic methods and were not prepared to accept the democratic self-determination of the component States of former Yugoslavia. The result was, first, instability, and then aggression and war, which continues to this day.

There is, finally, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, only one reliable guarantee against aggression. It is not found in international organizations. It is found in the spread of democracy. It derives from the simple fact that true democracies do not invade one another and do not engage in aggressive wars.

Numerous studies establish beyond reasonable doubt that the best system, the only reliable basis for collective security, is that all the governments in an area should be democratic governments. Therefore, what reinforces democracy reinforces peace. That is the reason that the top priority for the United States and NATO should, today, be to preserve and strengthen the new democracies in Eastern and Central Europe, and in Russia as well.

Preserving and strengthening democracies in Central and Eastern Europe should be the United States' central goal and top foreign policy priority in Europe, in my opinion. Membership in NATO will help to achieve those goals and strengthen the alliance.

Enlargement of NATO will assuredly expand the zone of security, to quote the distinguished Senator who testified before me. It will

expand the zone of security in Europe and will shrink the zone of insecurity and instability.

Unfortunately, I believe that it is necessary for the United States to take a leadership role on this issue, perhaps because we have had the opportunity to observe the inadequacy of a purely European security framework policy to achieve these desired goals. It is not graceful and perhaps not appropriate for an American to emphasize the inability of the European Union and the WEU or any of the purely exclusively European military groups to protect peace and provide collective security to Europe. Their failure is manifest, but more so because, at the time the Serbs took up arms against Slovenia and Croatia, then-President of the EU-and it was the EC, then-Mr. Poos, of Luxembourg, said, and I quote, "This is a European problem that will be solved by Europeans. There is no role here for Americans."

I think President Bush was quite ready to have the Europeans take that turn.

But everyone knows what happened. Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton were more than willing to stand aside while first Europe, then the United Nations and Europe worked on the problem. Unfortunately, what that experience provided was additional and timely evidence of the inadequacy of purely, European security arrangements to deal with the problems of Europe.

And UNPROFOR, under Secretary General Boutros BoutrosGhali's command provided, I think, definitive evidence on the inability of the United Nations to mount an effective military operation in Europe or, indeed, virtually anywhere else.

The passive, inadequate response of the EU, the United Nations, the OSCE, and the Western European Union testify to the ineffectiveness of a collective defense based only on these organizations. NATO has a different and a better record, though it, too, was tarnished in Bosnia by its association with UNPROFOR. I think it has reestablished its credibility.

I think we have seen clearly the inadequacy of a U.N. response, which I emphasize only because we hear rather frequently that peace can be defended by the United Nations and peace can be restored by the United Nations. I believe that certain lessons of great relevance to European security leap out of the Yugoslav experience: that membership in the U.N. cannot be regarded as a reliable guarantor of European security-we have seen that very clearly, beyond any reasonable doubt; that global institutions cannot necessarily provide reliable solutions to regional problems; that diplomacy may not be able to forestall aggression, whether or not that diplomacy is directed from the U.N.; that "peacekeeping" is not an adequate response to the determined use of military force; that the "peacekeeping" rules of engagement that the U.N. has invoked and imposed in former Yugoslavia may make peace keepers hostages without deterring aggressors or assisting victims; that effective force is often necessary to repel force.

NATO can be, and indeed, is, that effective force, Mr. Chairman. Why should we act now?

Czech President Vaclav Havel, a man of unusual foresight and courage told the "Economist” magazine about a year ago that he feared the spirit of Munich was returning to Europe. I quote, "I do