|
OPENING
REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN DUNCAN HUNTER
Hearing on Combating
the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction |
This morning
the committee meets to examine what steps that
the United States should take to combat the
spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Since September
11, the Administration has identified the
nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction as they key threat facing this
country in the 21st century. That threat
arises from the intersection of two trends.
First, terrorists are increasingly ambitious
in their tactics, seeking ever-higher number
of casualties to dramatize their cause.
Second, technology and globalization are
making it easier for weak states and terrorist
groups to acquire the means of inflicting mass
casualties.
Therefore, the
question before us is: what should we do as a
nation to prevent these two trends from
resulting in a horrendous attack on innocent
men, women, and children?
For a long
time, this committee has focused its efforts
on the Cooperative Threat Reduction and
Nuclear Nonproliferation programs of the
Departments of Defense and Energy. While those
programs have a role to play, the country
needs an approach that employs every tool at
its disposal.
The
administration has developed just such a
comprehensive strategy. Announced in December,
2002, it has three pillars:
•
counterproliferation to deter and defense
against the use of weapons of mass
destruction;
•
strengthening nonproliferation regimes to
prevent their spread; and
•
consequence management to respond to their
use.
Almost
immediately, the administration began fleshing
out that strategy. It initiated multi-pronged
diplomatic initiatives to constrain the North
Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. It took
action to eliminate a regime with a history of
using chemical weapons. It brought initiatives
before the United Nations calling on states to
improve their domestic controls on exports of
sensitive technologies; and, it sought to
criminalize the international trafficking in
weapons of mass destruction and their
technologies. Finally, it launched the
multilateral proliferation security initiative
to increase international cooperation and
interdict shipments of weapons of mass
destruction and associated technologies.
Clearly, the
increased attention to weapons of mass
destruction got the attention of some
traditional rogue states. This winter, Libya
renounced its pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction and began cooperating with
American and British personnel to end its
nuclear and chemical weapons capabilities.
Facing American diplomatic and economic
pressure, backed by a willingness to use
military might against rogue dictators,
Khadafi realized that his country would be
safer, and more prosperous, if it gave up its
WMD programs. With Libya’s decision to begin
the process of rejoining the civilized world,
the Bush Administration’s strategy is paying
off, resulting in a safer planet, and a safer
United States.
Success in
Libya proves that our strategy must be
comprehensive and combine diplomatic,
political, economic, and military means to
combat the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. However, while the progress in
Libya is an encouraging first step, we still
face monumental challenges in applying every
policy tool at our disposal if we are to
succeed in denying this dangerous capability
to our adversaries.
I look forward
to hearing our witnesses’ thoughts on where we
are today in this effort as well as what
further steps should be taken to achieve this
goal.
|
