USA: PENTAGON REASSURES SENATE OVER COST OF NATO EXPANSION

Описание: (21 Oct 1997) English/Nat

The Clinton administration is trying to reassure lawmakers that expanding NATO won't put a strain on U-S military budgets.

On Tuesday, the Secretaries of State and Defence told a Senate panel that adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic is affordable.

The administration now estimates the U-S share of the expansion cost will be no more than two-point-six (b) billion dollars, but the Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

It says American costs could go as high as 19 (b) billion dollars.

The Secretaries of State and Defence did their best to assure a Senate panel that the price tag on NATO expansion won't break the U-S budget.

Madeleine Albright and William Cohen told the Senate Appropriations Committee that not only is the cost of adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic affordable, but that it may be less than predicted.

The Clinton administration has estimated the cost at between 27 (b) billion and 35 (b) billion dollars over 13 years.

Using those figures, the American share would be an estimated two to two-and-a-half (b) billion dollars.

SOUNDBITE: (English)
"NATO is a collective defence alliance. We need to know that at moments of crisis each member will be able to deliver on its commitment to help defend new allies. The president, Secretary Cohen, and I have been making these points loud and clear to our current and future allies, and our message has been received. And, I'm confident today that the costs of a larger alliance will be real but affordable, and that NATO will emerge from this process with its military capabilities as strong as ever."
SUPER CAPTION: Madeleine Albright, U-S Secretary of State

Defence Secretary Cohen tried to erase fears that the western alliance is taking on three broken down militaries.

He told the panel that expansion costs will probably be lower than predicted because the capabilities of the three prospective members are stronger than anticipated.

SOUNDBITE: (English)
"The numbers that we had that would go from the 27 to 35 billion may be too high, and the Europeans may be correct in this regard - that we have overestimated."
SUPER CAPTION: William Cohen, U-S Secretary of Defence

Most committee members said they favoured NATO expansion, but expressed doubts about the cost to the U-S.

Senators from both parties pointed to a Congressional Budget Office estimate that puts the cost much higher than administration estimates.

SOUNDBITE: (English)
"CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it'll cost 61 to 125 billion with the US share at 5 billion to 19 billion. Who's right? How much will it cost, and again who's going to pay?"
SUPER CAPTION: U-S Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa

SOUNDBITE: (English)
"What is the basis of these cost estimates? How can we differ between 35 billion and 125 billion?
SUPER CAPTION: U-S Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican, Texas

But Albright said the key issue is not dollars but a strong defence.

SOUNDBITE: (English)
"The deciding factor will be bang, not buck. If we can integrate these nations into the alliance, maintain NATO's capabilities and acquire the new ones we need at a lower cost that will be good news. But we must also be wary of false economies and spend no less than we need to keep NATO strong."
SUPER CAPTION: Madeleine Albright, U-S Secretary of State

Most committee members said they favour NATO expansion, provided the costs are shared equitably.

However a few are undecided, not only on costs but on the wisdom of adding members to the western alliance.

Find out more about AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/HowWeWork
Twitter:   / ap_archive  
Facebook:   / aparchives   ​​
Instagram:   / apnews  


You can license this story through AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/you...