publics of the Soviet Union. That is why I say, Senator, that the current expansion, as planned, puts that second expansion irrevocably on the agenda, presents us with a problem that we can neither avoid nor solve, and to no benefit to ourselves.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Biden.

Senator BIDEN. Gentlemen, in the 24 years I have been here I have called on both of you to ask for your advice. I respect you both a great deal. I think on almost every issue, certainly with you, Mr. Ambassador, we have been in agreement.

But I think you are dead wrong here. Let me tell you why. I think you are unintentionally disingenuous when you assume a dynamic situation in Eastern Europe and a static situation in Russia. Thank God you are not doing planning from this perspective regarding what the future of the United States and Europe will be. All of the criteria you lay out assume a static situation in Russia. All the criteria you set out assume a dynamic situation in Eastern Europe.

Second, you ended, Professor Mandelbaum, with the comment: what purpose for NATO if not to contain Russia?

Well, Ambassador Dean can tell you the purpose. It was not merely to contain Russia. It was to harness Germany; it was to bring stability in Europe; and it has never, never, never only been to contain Russia.

Now if you accept the proposition you stated, then we should not only not expand NATO, we don't need NATO. We don't need NATO.

Third, this idea that all of a sudden all of these arms control agreements have been put on hold because of expansion is a perversion of recent history. They were on hold before they got anywhere, before there was any serious discussion of expanding NATO. There wasn't anybody who believed it was going to happen. I visited Russia on several occasions; sat in the Duma; went and spoke to those folks. Mr. Ambassador, they were going nowhere fast. The reason is one of the arguments you have presented. From the Russian standpoint, they need START III, not START II. They cannot afford START II.

It didn't have a damn thing to do with all due respect-with NATO expansion. Also, this idea that we must have clear aims, clear strategy, and candor about costs. If the costs are as you stated, I am the only one who has stated from the outset that there will be no expansion of NATO. We will not vote for it-flat out.

I spent one entire week-and the Polish Ambassador is sitting back there and probably remembers that week-embarrassing people on occasion, sitting with them and saying, “if you think you get a first class ticket without paying your 35 percent, forget it." Our State Department folks sat there and thought oh, my God, what is he saying?

Well, it is real simple, real basic. If you are correct and if the 15 European members of NATO have not gotten the message that they have to pay 50 percent of the cost and the expanding countries 35 percent, then there will be no vote here. You don't have a thing to worry about. Nothing will expand. I promise you that.

It will not happen.

The last point regards the projection of force, Mr. Ambassador, that was part of a 1991 NATO agreement before there was any discussion-any discussion-of NATO expansion. They are not meeting their agreement-"they," meaning the 15 European nations currently in NATO. They are not doing it. But it is not because of NATO expansion.

Now, I could not agree with you all more if the costs are as you state, misrepresented and likely to be unmet. I agree with you. Expansion of NATO is a dead letter.

But I find it fascinating to go back to this notion of the rationale for NATO in the first place. It is true that no one feels a threat. I sat in every Eastern European capital. No, that's not true. I didn't get to Romania. But I listened to them, all the leadership, opposition as well as elected leadership. None of them feels any threat from Russia right now. None. Zero. None.

So if it is the Russian threat that propels the rationale for NATO, let's save ourselves $120 billion now. I'll tell you what I am more worried about. I am more worried about Germany and France 20 years from now. They have not yet established a degree of political maturation after over 100 years of being nation-states, where they are at peace with one another without the United States playing an integral role in Europe. That is what I worry about. I think that is a more real prediction and I'll bet you, if a differing view, our grandchildren will read that the more likely scenario than the amputated Russian bear lumbering across Europe to attack, is that Germany and France are at it again 30 years from now-maybe not in open war but in open conflict.

you have

So all these false premises create false choices. The choice between knowing now exactly how all of Central Europe and Eastern Europe are going to mature, or, without that precise knowledge now, doing nothing. You sound like the former general and revered figure in America today, General Powell. He is the reason why we did not get to the point that you and I think we should have gotten to in the Balkans. He said unless he could be guaranteed that no American would be killed or guaranteed that we could put 500,000 forces there, America should do nothing.

That is a prescription for paralysis.

You point out that if the rationale for NATO relates to a Russian threat only, we should not expand. Well, we should not have NATO, I would respectfully suggest, if that is the only rationale for its existence. We could save a lot of money.

Second, what I am curious about is how we got to the point where anyone is thinking about permanently stationing troops in the Baltics or permanently stationing troops in Romania. You are correct, Ambassador, that if there is an open threat, we will have to do that. But, guess what? If they are not part of NATO, what do you think we are going to do?

What do you think we are going to do? Are you all taking the position similar to what the Brits took in 1937, 1938, and 1939, which said by the way, if there is a threat, we are not going to respond?

If there is a threat to Romania, if Russian troops are massing on the border, or to the Balts, we are going to do one of two things. We are either going to capitulate or Europe will respond. All the

President is saying is wherever we have new members coming in, we will put infrastructure in place, no permanent stationing of American forces, to accommodate the very thing that we would have to accommodate if this threat becomes a reality.

So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the Duma, because of its reaction-and by the way, I read every word of what you write, Doctor, every word; I can probably quote some of it from memory-that the Duma didn't go along with these arms control agreements because of expansion. Malarkey. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that if we are going to bring in a country to NATO, it means that we would have to permanently station troops there. That assumes that we would not react if, in fact, there was a threat to them anyway.

So look, I think there are problems with expansion. But I think the idea of the Russians eventually becoming part of NATO, relies on their definition of NATO as an OSCE. It is not a NATO like you and I define NATO.

No Russian leader that I am aware of has said-and it would be wonderful if I could stand corrected on this; I will not say it again and make the "mistake" again-no Russian leader has said they are willing to subordinate Russian forces under the command of an American general as required by the way NATO is now constructed. They have said a redefined NATO, i.e., OSCE, is something they could think about.

So I just think it is real important for such impressive people for whom I have such great respect, not to raise the bar here in a way that creates a problem. It's a little bit like saying to me that if, in fact, in 1949, you couldn't tell me exactly whether or not Germany could ever become a member of NATO, we should have no NATO because we would be isolating Germany like we did after World War I. We are going to put new NATO members in that position. I think I have talked too much and I apologize.

Senator WELLSTONE. Let's hear from the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Have at it.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. If I could respond, Mr. Chairman, certainly no one could accuse Senator Biden of lacking candor.

Let me confine myself to three points by way of clarification and rebuttal. First, I do not take the position that the only justification for NATO is containing Russia.

Senator BIDEN. What is the justification?

Dr. MANDELBAUM. The only justification for expanding NATO is containing Russia. But there is a continuing a continuing justification for NATO, which I have set out in my 1996 book, "The Dawn of Peace in Europe," and I would be happy to supply you and other interested members of the committee with a copy.

Senator BIDEN. Can you summarize in a paragraph what the rationale for NATO is?

Dr. MANDELBAUM. The rationale for NATO is three-fold: to keep the United States engaged in Europe; to prevent the Germans from having to pursue an independent policy; and to serve as an insurance policy in case things go wrong in Russia.

Let me add, since you ask me, Senator, that does not require any particular level of force or any particular level of expenditure. I remind you that in 1949, when the NATO Treaty was first signed,

it was envisioned as a guarantee pact, not as an integrated military force on the continent.

I certainly favor keeping that guarantee in place indefinitely, and I think that the military force we need in Europe, if any, to carry it out really depends on the nature of the threat, which depends on Russia. So we should be flexible on that as the founders of NATO intended.

Senator BIDEN. With all due respect, how is that different? I'm sorry. We should debate this later, I guess. I'm sorry.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. I would be happy to return and I have presumed on the chairman's patience. Could I have one more minute, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Sure.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. I would like to comment on the widespread assertion that NATO is a school for democracy, that being a part of the Western military alliance fosters democracy.

Senator BIDEN. No straw men. I didn't say that.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. Well, this is widely said, Senator. I don't impute it to you, but I believe it is false. I believe there is no evidence for it.

To give you an example, Germany, West Germany became a member of NATO in 1954, 9 years after the end of the war, when democracy was fully established. So many things are now imputed to NATO. In fact, such great claims are made for the democratizing benefits of NATO for which, as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that I sometimes think that one of the great miracles of history is 150 years of democracy without NATO membership in the United States.

But I would like to say for the record that I believe these three countries are democracies. They are civilized, Western countries. They do not need NATO membership to behave properly. They have a wide range of problems, all of which stem from 40 years of communism, all of which they will deal with successfully, none of which has anything to do with NATO.

Senator BIDEN. Why does Germany need NATO, then?

Dr. MANDELBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Ambassador, I think you ought to have some time, too.

Ambassador DEAN. It would be difficult to respond to all of the issues that Senator Biden has raised.

Senator BIDEN. Oh, we'd be here at midnight.

Ambassador DEAN. Yes, we would, or something close to it.

Senator BIDEN. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador DEAN. However, I did not hear anything in what he said which would do anything other than strengthen my point of departure, which was that NATO, in its present form, is adequate to these tasks without enlargement.

Senator BIDEN. I agree. We have not gotten to that. I was just pointing out the criticisms you made of expansion. We have not gotten to the next piece.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. Wellstone.

Senator WELLSTONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, when that light turns red, I am not going to pay any attention to it, either.

Senator BIDEN. You have to be here 25 years to do that, Paul, or be the Ranking Member, one of the two.

Senator WELLSTONE. Then, Joe, I will do it proportionally and still won't pay any attention to that light.

The CHAIRMAN. Just try.

Senator WELLSTONE. Seriously, there are just a couple of specific points I want to pick up on that went back to my question earlier. As I understand the position that you all have taken-and, first of all, I am just trying to find out as somebody who is trying to work his way through this and trying to decide what is the right position to take, that is, the why of this, why are we expanding NATO-I think what I understood your testimony, what I think you have said is that it does not really make sense if you are trying to think about it from the point of view of expanding democracy or stability in these countries; and that probably the reason for expanding would be for containment; but then the question is who are we trying to contain. Am I correct or not correct, just in terms of what you said?

Ambassador DEAN. Yes.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. Yes.

Senator WELLSTONE. The second point is cost and we will come back to that. I think that is a big issue in our country. I think we all agree on that. Senator Biden has made it crystal clear that, in fact, if some of the estimates of cost severely underestimate what we are going to be faced with, or the European countries are not going to be paying, then that is going to become a big concern in our country.

But I still want to focus now on this. If there does not seem to be a clear reason to do this, let's then go to the downside of it beside cost. I want to go back to Russia because I keep feeling that what happens in Russia is going to crucially affect the quality of our lives and our children's lives for better or worse. I want for it to be better. I want the forces of democracy to triumph there.

There are two points. You said, Professor Mandelbaum, that you did not agree at least I thought I heard you say this, but you did not get a chance to comment on it-with the analysis of opinion, at least among the political class, the positions that President Yeltsin has taken, and so on and so forth, in regard to expansion. Could you spell that out a little bit more because the testimony prior to your testimony was very different.

Dr. MANDELBAUM. Yes, Senator. I am delighted to hear that you will have a panel in which people who are genuine experts on Russia will come and tell you this.

What I would say is what I believe is a fact is that no one in Russia favors NATO expansion, period.

Now there are many things you can say about this. You can say that they can't stop it, which is true. You can say that they will get used to it over time which may be true. We simply don't know. You can say that NATO expansion is so important that it is worth paying whatever price we have to pay with the Russians in order to secure it. Of course, I don't agree with that because I don't think