Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: NATO front lines to advance at untold cost.

URL: <a href="
http://www.fas.org/man/nato/congress/1998/s980428-3667.htm
">
PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON ACCESSION OF POLAND, 
HUNGARY, and CZECH REPUBLIC</a>
Indented text is not mine. Comments within brackets document changes to
original text. I may err.
(snip)
   (iii) any future United States subsidy of the national expenses of
   Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic to meet its NATO commitments,
   including the assistance described in subparagraph (C), may not exceed
   25 percent of all assistance provided to that country by all NATO
   members.
   At the end of section 3(2), insert the following new subparagraph:
Translation: The United States formally applies to all other current NATO
	     countries for funding to arm and train Poland's, Hungary's
	     and Czechoslovakia's troops should they be too poor to do it
	     themselves, which is likely.
(details of financial channels snipped)
(other snips)
   By the administration's own admission, `Enlargement will take place in
   a European security environment in which there is no current threat of
   large-scale conventional aggression and where any such threat would
   take years to develop.' This is from the administration's own
   admission. There is no current threat and any threat would take years
   to develop. In response to questions from many Senators, the
   administration reiterated this point when they wrote, `Current members
   and prospective new members face no imminent threat of attack.'
Which administration? Clinton? If CONVENTIONAL warfare isn't likely,
isn't expansion like cornering someone?
What do you EXPECT if you don't expect CONVENTIONAL warfare?
   This seems to be one of the few issues on NATO expansion where we can
   find wide consensus. There is no large-scale external threat,
   including Russia. They just don't exist. The administration's
   expectation for the role of an expanded NATO include:
Would you say the exist not to their face? If you did, I would call you
schizophrenic, because you would be talking to someone who doesn't exist. 
How is it that you can even be talking ABOUT a country that isn't?
   No. 1, helping to deter future threats; 
Ohhhh? So now, someone who doesn't exist is THREATENING you.
I'm going to have to look that one up in the DSM.
(snip)
 
   So we have to think about it in that context also; of Russia, and of
   them coming out from underneath the yoke of a Soviet Communist empire.
   Think about Russia, also, in terms of its history, when it has gone,
   also, through a century of invasions and decades of control by a power
   not necessarily of Russian being.
Oh? So now were talking about OTHER beings. Are they human?
   I learned a lot about what countries in this region had endured. Last
   year I attended the dedication of the National Czech and Slovak Museum
   in Cedar Rapids, IA.
Huh? Write clearly man. The National Czech and Slovak Museum is in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa?
...And the dedication was SO good, that you didn't need to visit the
country see the real thing.
   I am not convinced it is the most appropriate vehicle that we can use
   to get the goals of security, stability, political reform, and
   economic integration with the West sought by these newly free
   countries.
Boy are they in for a rude awakening--Led by a country where people are
famous for getting away with rape and murder. Where the stock market is so
overvalued that the Asian crash would look like Pluto in comparison to the
Moon, and all that would have to happen is for Germany to call their
portion of your national debt.
Economic integration? Hmmm. That sounds like a term Bill Gates would use. 
It's synonymous with Centralism, right? Isn't that what these countries
are running from?
Right. American expansion is not the most appropriate vehicle.
   To those who say that, well, we can have another cross-border invasion
   by a country in Europe against another country, even the
   administration admits this is not going to happen. This would not
WHICH ADMINISTRATION? CLINTON?
   happen for years. It would take years for anything like this to
   develop. You are not about to see any headlines exclaiming that
   Russian troops are marching toward Poland or Czechoslovakia.
Ah. So now you are a prophet. Your actions won't change this liklihood.
You're also forgetting the alternative you're leaving Russia.
   As I said, the first Clinton administration estimate was $27 billion
   to $35 billion--to $1.5 billion. So we go from $1.5 billion to $125
   billion.
You may be confused about how Russia will respond, and how threatening
Russia is, and you seem to be able to recognize that a variance of three
decimal orders of magnitude is HIGH.
   Where is it? How much of this will the U.S. taxpayers have to pick up?
That depends on whether you actually expand.
   The GAO issued a report late last fall, the title of which explains my
   concerns and the reason for this amendment. It says, `NATO Enlargement
   Cost Implications for the United States Remain Unclear.'
   Now, much of the uncertainty is because--a quote from the
   GAO report--`It will not be until June of 1998 that NATO will make
   decisions about whether or how much to increase the common budgets
   which would then be shared among current and new members. Until this
   has been done, the implications for the U.S. contributions to NATO's
   common budgets will be unclear.'
Translation: NATO will tell you how much NATO expansion will cost when
	     NATO knows it will expand, unless the senate waits.
(either a change from HARKIN as a speaker is undocumented at this point,
or he went into astounding remission)
(several paragraphs of SENSE snipped).
[Page: S3669]
   Mr. BIDEN.
(snip)
   But passage of the expansion of NATO for these three
   countries in no way affects the point of whether or not we give
   assistance to Romania or we give assistance to any other country
   questioned. Is that not correct?
 
   Mr. HARKIN. Well----
 
   Mr. BIDEN. I respectfully suggest the answer is yes.
You can say that NATO expansion will occur, and not mention the cost,
sure. It possible that all the other members will contribute to make your
share of the cost nothing. Why would they? Germany and the U.S. formed the
goal. 
   Mr. BIDEN.
   The Senator from Virginia is on the floor, a strong opponent of
   expansion. He knows that the Armed Services Committee has no
   obligation to send foreign military sales which we subsidize to Greece
   or Turkey, yet he votes for it. But it has nothing to do with NATO,
   zero. Nothing to do with NATO, zero. It is not part of NATO's common
   budget, common budget.
My premier said "A loonie is a loonie is a loonie". In that context, he
meant that splitting dollars on different sets books doesn't change where
your money comes from or where it goes.
(several rambling paragraphs snipped from Biden)
[Biden]
   The reason why the numbers, which I will go into in great
   detail later, range from $125 billion to $1.5 billion is that we are
   counting the wrong things.
No. It's because you don't know WHAT to count, NATO does, and you're
about to vote before they've counted--June at the earliest.
   So, that is the issue. With all due respect, my friend is mixing
   apples and oranges here when he refers to the DOD saying we might in
   the future decide to spend more money. It has nothing to do with any
   obligation we are taking on as a consequence of expanding NATO.
The Apples are NATO member applications for money to meet expansion
requirements, and the Oranges are the senate. Mix them and you might in
the future decide to spend more money. Do you speak for the DOD?
(snip)
   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thought I heard the distinguished Senator
   say that treaties override the Constitution of the United States.
 
   Mr. HARKIN. Portions.
 
   Mr. BYRD. Did I hear him correctly?
 
   Mr. HARKIN. Portions.
 
   Mr. BYRD. No, treaties don't override the Constitution of the United
   States. Under the Constitution, treaties are a part of the law of the
   land, the supreme law of the land. They don't override the
   Constitution of the United States.
 
   Mr. HARKIN. I will not argue constitutional principles with the
   Senator from West Virginia.
 
   Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will take that out of his written speech.
 
   Mr. HARKIN. I will not argue constitutional principles with the
   Senator from West Virginia, I know that. But treaties under--I forget
   the article--treaties become the law of the land.
 
   Mr. BYRD. Yes; but they don't override the Constitution.
 
   Mr. HARKIN. Under the Constitution, they become the law of the land.
 
   Mr. BYRD. They become part of the supreme law of the land. I thank the
   Senator for yielding.
 
   Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the correction of the Senator from West
   Virginia.
 
   Back to my point; the Senator from Delaware is right. If this
   amendment had been in effect 40 years ago, we couldn't have been in
   Greece.
(snip)
   Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
(snip)
 
   So, I ask my friend from Iowa, is it not true, if the amendment he has
   submitted is agreed to, that we will limit credits for foreign
   military sales to these three countries and therefore limit the
   opportunity of American defense manufacturers to sell to these three
   countries, meaning that they will be pushed to buy from other
   producers elsewhere in the world?
(snip)
   Mr. HARKIN.
   Again, I must respectfully say to my friend from Connecticut, this is
   a whole new vineyard, this debate about jobs. I thought this was about
   democracy and markets and peacekeeping. Now we are talking about jobs.
   I find this debate now is veering off course a little bit.
(And he was right, so I snipped it)

