Statement Chairman Robert Wexler

Europe Subcommittee

Opening Remarks: “The Bucharest Summit and the Way Forward for NATO”

April 23, 2008

The Europe Subcommittee will come to order. I want thank Assistant Secretary Dan Fried and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs Dan Fata for appearing before us.  Today’s hearing comes on the heels of NATO’s Bucharest Summit where the alliance addressed some of  the most pressing security challenges facing the United States, Canada and our European allies. 

As a strong supporter of NATO, I was heartened to see that our allies joined together in the Summit Declaration reaffirming their support for enlargement and agreeing to further strengthen the collective capability of the alliance to meet the “existing and emerging 21st century threats.”  Despite the language contained in the declaration, I remain concerned that differences still exist between the US and some of our NATO allies – particularly on Ukraine and Georgia’s relationship with NATO, the Bush Administration’s Missile Defense plan, Energy Security and NATO’s relations with Russia as well as the alliance’s mission in Afghanistan.

From my perspective, one of the highlights of the Summit was NATO’s invitation to Croatia and Albania to begin accession talks.  To that end, I want to congratulate the Albanian and Croatian governments who have demonstrated their strong commitment to transatlantic security.

On a negative note – it was my hope that the negotiations would have led to a mutually-acceptable official name for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) prior to Bucharest. Unfortunately this did not occur and I strongly support the decision of NATO members to hold off on sending an invitation to FYROM until a mutually acceptable resolution to the name issue is reached between Greece and FYROM. 

As a strong supporter of Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia, I also cannot hide my deep disappointment that a MAP was not given to Kiev and Tblisi in Bucharest. While I appreciate the President’s show of support for both nations, including a visit to Ukraine prior to the Summit, I find it extraordinary – actually unprecedented -- that President Bush’s all out push for MAP for Georgia and Ukraine was rejected and a consensus position was not worked out prior to the Summit. 

In the lead up to NATO’s Foreign Minister meeting in December 2008, it is essential the United States follow through on the Bucharest Summit declaration, which states unequivocally that “Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members” and that the Alliance “supports these countries applications for MAP.” 

There is no greater test for the transatlantic alliance than ISAF operations in Afghanistan, which were deemed the Alliance’s top priority at Bucharest.   NATO and all of the nations contributing to ISAF took an important step forward in laying out ISAF’s Strategic Vision.  Some of the most important guiding principles of the ISAF plan include a firm and shared long term-commitment in Afghanistan, a comprehensive approach to NATO and UN efforts that will bring together civilian and military efforts, and increased engagement and cooperation with Pakistan.

One of the biggest difficulties the Alliance has faced in Afghanistan has been the lack of sufficient NATO forces to provide security -- this shortcoming has crippled economic and political gains placing the mission in jeopardy. In that vein, I want to applaud President Sarkozy for his decision at Bucharest to deploy an additional battalion of French troops to Eastern Afghanistan as well as the governments of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Poland and Czech Republic who have also committed additional forces. Even so, I remain deeply concerned that there are still not enough forces on the ground to halt the growing power of the Taliban and provide the necessary security for the Afghan people.  

Mr. Fried and Mr. Fata, it is clear that the Alliance has much work to do over the next year in the lead up to the 60th Anniversary of NATO -- to resolve the differences between members. However as a strong supporter of the transatlantic alliance, I remained convinced that new and old threats to both sides of the Atlantic can best be addressed if we collectively share this responsibility; and, to that end, NATO remains indispensable.