Andrea Joy Campbell: “there are three problems with this resolution. The first is that the NATO treaty is defensive only, and by this…”

“there are three problems with this resolution. The first is that the NATO treaty is defensive only, and by this resolution we expand NATO's purposes to permit actions outside of the defensive area of the NATO members. Secondly, the mechanism for approval of such actions in this resolution is referred to as ``a case by case consensual alliance'' decision, which, to me, is incompatible with the constitutional requirement that the use of force, in a context that a normal understanding would call war, would have to be done by resolution of both Houses of Congress. Third and last, because of the timing of this resolution, particularly that it was introduced on February 11 during the Kosovo war, I believe that it is open to the misinterpretation as a ratification, admittedly posthoc ratification, of the use of force under the NATO aegis in that context. I draw specific attention now to the text of the resolution that supports each of these three points. On page 4, the resolved clause says that the new NATO strategic concept ``articulates a concrete vision'' establishing that ``defense of shared interests and values'' is ``as important for peace and stability as maintaining a vigorous capability to carry out collective defense.'' I pause in my quotation for a moment. So whereas the original NATO treaty deals with collective defense, this resolution says it is equally important that we prosecute shared interests and values. What are those shared interests and values?…”