ACCESSION NUMBER:379256 FILE ID:PO2208 DATE:02/14/95 TITLE:STATE, PENTAGON CRITICIZE PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY BILL (02/14/95) TEXT:*95021408.PO2 STATE, PENTAGON CRITICIZE PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY BILL (Christopher, Perry recommend veto of H.R. 872) (960) By Jacquelyn S. Porth USIA Security Affairs Correspondent Washington -- Secretary of State Christopher and Secretary of Defense Perry February 14 publicly criticized the proposed National Security Revitalization Act, pointing out the bill's flaws as the House of Representatives prepared to begin consideration of the legislation. Christopher described H.R. 872, as it is also known, as "deeply flawed" and indicated that he and Perry would recommend that President Clinton veto it if it is approved by Congress in its present form. He said the bill would "undermine" the ability of any president to safeguard U.S. security and command American armed forces. H.R. 872, which is an outgrowth of the Republican "Contract With America" has six main provisions: -- to establish an advisory commission to assess U.S. military requirements and address "the problems posed by the continuing downward spiral of defense spending;" -- to commit the United States to an accelerated development and deployment 1f theater and national ballistic missile defenses; -- to restrict deployment of U.S. military forces to operational missions which are in U.S. national security interests; -- to maintain adequate command and control of U.S. military personnel while participating in United Nations peacekeeping activities; -- to reduce the costs to the United States of U.N. peacekeeping and press for U.N. management reforms; and -- to reemphasize the commitment of the United States to "a strong and viable" NATO. At a State Department news conference with Perry at his side, Christopher focused his criticism of the bill on language pertaining to NATO expansion and U.N. peacekeeping. He said the bill would "unilaterally and prematurely designate certain countries" for NATO expansion. While NATO membership will expand over time, the secretary pointed out that new members "must be ready to fulfill their obligations" to the alliance just as "we should be ready to extend our solemn commitments to these new members." Under the present system for future expansion, Christopher said each potential new alliance member will be judged fairly on "the strength of their democratic institutions and their capacity to contribute to NATO's fundamental goals." That approach, he explained, gives each new European democracy "a strong incentive to consolidate their reforms." H.R. 872 would be "a prejudgment of the frontiers of democracy in Europe," Christopher said, because it would "draw a dividing line between Central Europe and the struggling new democracies like those in the Baltic states and Ukraine." The legislation would have a destabilizing effect, he said, "in the very region that we seek to bolster." The secretary said the bill would force the United States "to violate its treaty obligations to the United Nations by deducting from our peacekeeping assessments the cost of operations that we conduct voluntarily under a U.N. umbrella." He explained that H.R. 872 would require the United States to reduce its peacekeeping dues dollar-for-dollar by the costs of operations, such as enforcing the no-fly zone in Bosnia and humanitarian assistance to Iraqi Kurds, which are conducted voluntarily and support U.S. interests. If the United States deducts the costs of voluntary actions against its U.N. dues, the secretary said, it would have the effect of canceling the entire U.S. peacekeeping account, and other nations might follow the American example. This would end U.N. peacekeeping, he stressed, "leaving us with the unacceptable choice, in case of an emergency...between acting alone and doing nothing." President Clinton also took up the issue of peacekeeping in a February 13 letter which he sent to key Congressional leaders in anticipation of House consideration of H.R. 872. The United States must be prepared to pay its "fair share of the price of peace," he stated, "for it is far less than the cost of war." Clinton said it is in American interest "to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping works and to improve it, because peacekeeping is one of the most effective forms of burdensharing available." Perry, meanwhile, focused his criticism of the bill on its restrictions on the president's command and control authority and its language calling for accelerated development of a national ballistic missile defense system. He said the legislation places "unwise restrictions" on the president's ability to put American troops under "the operational control" of another country during a U.N. mission. Throughout history, the secretary said, 1residents have placed U.S. forces under the temporary control of foreign commanders. The United States would be forced to conduct more operations unilaterally, Perry warned, and lose its ability to "perform coalition operations" without such flexibility. On the issue of missile defenses, the defense secretary said the United States is already developing three systems aimed at the growing short-range ballistic missile threat: the Patriot 3 (1998 operational deployment), the Aegis system (1999 operational deployment), and the THAAD system (2001 operational deployment). But with respect to national defenses, he said there is "no significant threat" at the present time to the continental United States, and such a threat from countries such as Iran, Iraq or Libya remain about a decade into the future. The United States is still three years away from developing a national ballistic missile system and once there, Perry said, it would take another three years for the system to be deployed if that decision is made. For a $5,000 million to $10,000 million expenditure, he said the United States could defend itself against a "thin" strategic ballistic missile attack. The secretary said there is no national security reason for accelerating this program and he would resist congressional efforts to do so because the administration is already pursuing a "robust" national program. NNNN .
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
