1 JULY 1997 • NUMBER 58 • ISSN 0966-9175

• Size of NATO Enlargement In Limbo as Madrid Summit Approaches

• Lockheed Martin Executive Serves as President of US Committee to Expand NATO

• Board of Directors Fact Sheet

• Organization of American States Proposes Pre-Notification of Arms Transfers

• United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

Size of NATO Enlargement in Limbo as Madrid Summit Approaches

By Tasos Kokkinides and Stephen W. Young

With the Madrid NATO Summit on 8-9 July just days away, the Alliance has yet to reach consensus on the invitees for membership. Lack of agreement on the Summit's central topic, coupled with Russian President Boris Yeltsin's refusal to attend, may hinder the success of what one NATO official hailed as the event "crowning the whole process of enlargement initiated at the Brussels Summit of 1994."

Transatlantic Friction Over Enlargement
The current level of disagreement over the Summit's central issue threatens to unravel what was to be a largely ceremonial meeting of NATO leaders to announce enlargement of the Alliance. The United States and most of its European allies are currently at loggerheads over the extent of NATO's enlargement to the east. Although NATO officials have downplayed the significance of the disagreement, the Alliance runs the risk of beginning the Summit without agreement on new members. Officials have already voiced fears that opening the Summit with this level of uncertainty will make the announcement of new members look like an "Oscar ceremony."

In an interview with BASIC Reports, one US official warned that delaying the decision on new members "will not be conducive to the kind of Summit we want to have...If the result of NATO's decision is in doubt, this will increase the disappointment of the countries that will be left out...Central European countries need to prepare themselves well in advance."

US announcement irks allies
When US President Bill Clinton endorsed a NATO enlargement limited to three countries on 12 June, the announcement caught the European allies by surprise. While a European NATO official maintained that the United States was surprised by the level of support within the Alliance for more than three new members, the US statement quickly met with a cold reception. Clearly irritated by the announcement, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that, "One individual statement is in no way an advance decision."

Led by France, a group of countries that includes Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Belgium, Luxembourg and Canada has formed a powerful lobby for the inclusion of Romania and Slovenia in the first round of enlargement. The day after Clinton's announcement, French President Jacques Chirac said that, "We will indeed support the candidacy of Romania despite the reticence expressed by the American government." France's outspoken support for Romania's candidacy will likely prolong the debate, delaying NATO's decision on new members until the eleventh hour.

Consensus-Building Proves Difficult
NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana held a first round of meetings with the ambassadors of the NATO 16, but met with no success in his efforts to forge an agreement on the expansion issue. The United States and Britain support a limited expansion that would include only the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. However, according to NATO sources, at least nine NATO countries support expansion of the Alliance to Romania and Slovenia as well, bringing the list of new members up to five.

Future Expansion Remains Unclear
The final communiqu‚ at the Madrid Summit will state that NATO will remain "open" for new future members. However, it will not specify countries, nor will it set a timeline for future accessions. According to the European NATO official, "people are not currently thinking about the second wave. They have enough on their plates." However, Alliance planners are facing an artificial deadline of 1999 for the integration of the first new members into NATO set by Clinton to coincide with NATO's 50th anniversary. The official also commented to BASIC Reports that, "nobody really knows how long it will take to integrate the new members."

Some partner countries, with little chance of making it to the first round, are not overtly upset about Washington's support for membership for just three countries. An official from one of the Baltic states, which will be excluded from at least the first round of enlargement, told BASIC Reports that, "It is in our interest to have as small a number of countries invited to start negotiations as possible...It will speed up the second round of enlargement...However, it is extremely unlikely that NATO would pursue a further round of expansion if countries such as Slovenia and Romania are included in the first round." They fear that immediate membership for Romania and Slovenia might jeopardize their chances for membership by bringing the membership debate to an abrupt conclusion.

Other countries that are stronger candidates for first round NATO membership _ but would be excluded by the enlargement proposal advocated by Washington _ are continuing their lobbying efforts in Brussels in hopes that their future on the Alliance can be solidified in Madrid. A Romanian official told BASIC Reports that at a minimum, Romania would like a commitment from NATO that it is a candidate for future membership as well as a more concrete pledge that NATO will invite Romania to participate in accession negotiations at the North Atlantic Council meeting in late spring 1998. He added that Romania would like to see language contained in the final Summit declaration setting a clear timeline for a second phase of the first round of expansion.

Slow Progress on NATO-Russia Discussions
Although Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin will likely be in Madrid to represent Russia, President Yeltsin has declined the invitation to attend the Summit himself. NATO planners had hoped that the first meeting of the Permanent Joint Council established by the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation" would take place in Madrid. However, an official at NATO headquarters in Brussels told BASIC Reports that, "It will not be appropriate to have a Council meeting if President Yeltsin does not attend the Summit."

A US official predicted that the first meeting of the Joint Permanent Council will not take place until September, just before the deadline established in the Founding Act. This extended timeline may also provide the Russian Duma with more time to ratify the agreement.

Specific rules and procedures for the NATO-Russia Permanent Council have yet to be finalized, but may be decided before the NATO Summit begins. In an interview with BASIC Reports, a Russian official confirmed that there are "two or three substantive disagreements" about the Council that remain unresolved. According to the official, the first meeting of the Council could take place in July after the Madrid Summit or in September.

According to the European NATO official, transparency issues will be of particular significance in the Permanent Joint Council's deliberations. NATO and Russia must determine the extent of transparency and procedures for information-sharing. The official told BASIC Reports that, "NATO is still unsure on how to release information to the partners." "We also need to make sure that what we agree and discuss in one forum does not contradict decisions in other forums," he added.

NATO, Russia to Discuss Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear issues will play a leading role in the Council's work. NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea told BASIC Reports that the High Level Group (a subgroup of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group), is tasked with developing ideas and proposals on nuclear issues that will be discussed with Russia. Areas for consultation and cooperation listed in the Founding Act include "nuclear safety issues," "nuclear weapons issues, including doctrines and strategy," and "preventing the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons." Shea said that specific proposals could focus on a range of issues, including: concerns about the dismantling of old Russian nuclear submarines, environmental consequences of nuclear testing, and the decommissioning of nuclear warheads.

At the signing of the Founding Act, President Yeltsin referred to the removal of warheads from missiles aimed at NATO countries. While his statement was later amended in press reports to refer to the more symbolic step of de-targeting, the mention of de-alerting had already sparked the interest of NATO officials.

In response to the original statement referring to de-alerting, NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea suggested that Yeltsin's proposal would be an excellent topic for discussion by the Joint Council. Western and Russian officials have indicated that de-alerting issues, including the removal of warheads from missiles, are part of a multi-step process that begins with de-targeting. According to Russian officials, they would pursue the next steps only as part of a negotiating process with NATO. In an interview with BASIC Reports, Shea confirmed that the Council will consider this type of issue as a topic for discussion.

NATO-Ukraine Charter
In Madrid, NATO leaders will also sign a "Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine." The Charter defines areas for consultation and cooperation between the Alliance and Ukraine. By going beyond the parameters of NATO's Partnership for Peace Program in a number of areas, it may provoke a negative reaction in Moscow. In particular, the Charter lays out plans for armaments cooperation, defense cooperation between Ukraine and its neighbors, and Partnership for Peace exercises on Ukrainian territory that would pull Ukraine closer to NATO.

Other Issues on Summit Agenda
NATO officials are keen to stress that discussions at the Madrid Summit will not be limited to enlargement and relations with Russia and Ukraine. Rather, the agenda will also include the future of operations in Bosnia and the process of NATO's internal adaptation.

With regard to internal adaptation, issues to be addressed include: implementation of the Combined Joint Task Forces, development of the new NATO military command structure, and enhancement of relations with the Western European Union. Since it is unlikely that the Summit will yield decisions on all of these complex issues, some officials are already bracing themselves for disappointment in certain areas. One European NATO official told BASIC Reports that "The ideal Summit would be one which would complete NATO's internal adaptation." However, he also noted that "it may be counterproductive to rush things. There is still work to be done."

NATO leaders will also be reviewing NATO's New Strategic Concept, the NATO strategy document adopted in 1991 when the Soviet Union was still in existence. In Portugal in June 1997, NATO ministers agreed "to examine the Strategic Concept to ensure that it is fully consistent with Europe's new security situation."

Lockheed Martin Executive Serves as President of US Committee to Expand NATO

Editor's note: BASIC has learned that a small group of prominent political and business leaders has established the US Committee to Expand NATO with the express purpose of advocating enlargement of the Alliance in the US Congress. The Committee's mandate is to "promote the admission of certain Central European countries to NATO, thus enhancing the likelihood that such countries will develop democratic institutions and market economies." Working out of the offices of the American Enterprise Institute, the self-described bipartisan Committee will focus its lobbying efforts primarily on the US Senate.

According to a Committee publication obtained by BASIC, the Committee was established as a non-profit corporation in November 1996. The work of the Committee is overseen by a Board of Directors, with Lockheed Martin Corporation executive Bruce Jackson acting as President. A list of the Committee's board of directors and their affiliations are reproduced below as they were provided to BASIC by the Committee.

Board of Directors

Fact Sheet

Jenne Britell, Former CEO of Homepower, Inc., advisor to various public and private organizations and institutions active in Central Europe, and holder of senior positions with Republic New York Corporation, Citicorp, and Dime Bancorp. A former Trustee of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA-CREF) and the Women's Campaign Fund, currently President and General Manager of G.E. Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.

Sheila Burke, Former Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Finance. Currently serves as Executive Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Landon Butler, Former Deputy Assistant to the President in the Carter Administration; coordinated the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty and SALT II Treaty ratification efforts and for liaison with organized labor. Currently Vice-chairman of Poland Partners, L.P., a venture capital fund investing in Poland and President of Landon Butler & Company.

Julie Finley (Treasurer), Former Co-chairman of the Dole for President National Finance Committee. Currently board member and trustee for numerous philanthropic organizations and Chairman of the D.C. Republican Committee.

Dave Gribben, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs in the Bush Administration and former Chief of Staff for Congressman Dick Cheney and for Senator Dan Coats. Currently Vice President for Government Relations for The Halliburton Company.

Stephen J. Hadley (Secretary), Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Bush Administration and former member of the National Security Council staff in the Ford Administration. Currently a partner in law firm of Shea & Gardner.

Bruce Jackson (President), Former staff officer in the Office of Secretary of Defense (Nuclear Forces & Arms Control Policy.) Served as co-chairman of the Dole for President National Finance Committee and on the Platform Committee of 1996 Republican National Convention. Currently Director of Strategic Planning, Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Sally A. Painter, Former Deputy Director, Office of Business Liaison of the Commerce Department in the Clinton Administration. A member of the Board of Advisors of the Democratic Leadership Council. Currently Director of Government Relations, International for Tenneco Corporation.

Paige Reffe, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Advance in the Clinton Administration and former Chief of Staff to Congressman and Senator Tim Wirth. Currently a partner in law firm of Cutler and Stanfield.

Peter Rodman, Former Deputy Assistant to and Special Assistant for National Security Affairs in the Reagan and Bush Administrations and former Director of the State Department Policy Planning Staff. Currently Director of National Security Programs at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom.

James Rowe, Former Chief Counsel and General Counsel for several House and Senate committees, including Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice. Former Vice President, Washington, for NBC Inc. Currently Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs for Harvard University.

Paula Stern, Former Commissioner and Chair of the U.S. International Trade Commission and Senior Legislative Assistant to Senator Gaylord Nelson. Currently President of the Stern Group, an economic analysis and trade advisory firm in Washington, D.C.

Gregory F. Treverton, Former Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and former member of the National Security Council Staff in the Carter Administration. Currently Director of the Center for International Security and Defense Policy at RAND.

Robert Zoellick, Former Undersecretary of State and White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Administration and former Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Currently serving as the Vice President for Housing and Law at Fannie Mae.

Organization of American States Proposes Pre-Notification of Arms Transfers

Editor's Note: On 5 June 1997, the Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution on confidence-building measures at the OAS Summit in Lima, Peru. An excerpt of the draft resolution considered at the Summit follows. The OAS includes all countries in the Americas, with the exception of Cuba. Cuba was barred from participating by a resolution passed in 1962.

TWENTY-SEVENTH REGULAR SESSION OEA/Ser.P
June 1, 1997 AG/Com.I/doc.22/97 rev.1
Lima, Peru 3 June 1997
Original: English

DRAFT RESOLUTION MUTUAL CONFIDENCE IN THE AMERICAS

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

. . . RESOLVES:

1. That the Permanent Council, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security consider the desirability of approving a legal framework on the issue of advance notification of major arms acquisitions covered by the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, as a means to achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the member states, in accordance with Article 2(g) of the OAS Charter.

2. If the Permanent Council decides on the desirability if a legal framework then it will draft it with the goal of adopting such a legal framework at the next Summit of the Americas to be celebrated in Santiago, Chile.

3. To appeal to the international community to support this effort.

United Nations Register of Conventional Arms

Country submissions to this year's UN Register were due on 30 April 1997. The details contained in the submissions are for the calendar year 1996. As of 25 June 1997, 65 countries had deposited their Register returns at UN Headquarters in New York. The export return submitted by the United States is reproduced below.

Attachment A

REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONAL ARMS TRANSFERS

(according to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/36 L)

EXPORTS

Reporting country: United States of America

Calendar year: 1996

Original language: English
Background information provided: Yes

Note: In addition, during calendar year 1996 transfers to Taiwan took place as follows:
I. Battle tanks 107
III. Combat Aircraft 9
IV. Attack Helicopters 8

Note: Columns on "Intermediate Location (if any)", "Comments on the Transfers", and "Remarks: Description of the Item", which contained no data, were removed to improve the readability of the table. The full table is available in the pdf version of this document.

The Editor would like to thank Katherine Joseph for her assistance in preparing the above tables for publication.

Back to BASIC Publications home page