27 September 2001
Transcript: Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz at NATO Sept. 26
(Allies agree counter-terrorism must be major NATO priority) (3030)
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters in Brussels
September 26 that what came out of the just-completed meeting of NATO
defense ministers "was very important -- we all agree now that
counter-terrorism has to be a major alliance priority. This is
recognized as a newly important mission."
The meeting also provided "reaffirmation, not just of the commitment
to common defense, but the commitment to a common strategy. A strategy
...is not based on some single spectacular action or spectacular
series of actions but has to be a very broad campaign over a very long
period of time."
In response to a question, Wolfowitz said that if the United States
sees the need for collective NATO action "we'll ask for it. We don't
anticipate that at the moment." He was referring to the fact that
following the terrorist attacks on the United States, NATO for the
first time invoked Article Five of the Washington Treaty which states
that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies shall be
considered an attack against all.
"We are very appreciative of the way our NATO allies have stepped up
and supported us," he said.
As for the cost of an anti-terrorism strategy, "we should think about
the thousands of people who died... the hundreds of billions, even
trillions, of dollars of economic losses that we've suffered already.
It doesn't mean that you can solve all these problems by throwing
money at them, but we shouldn't say that we can't afford to do what we
need to do."
The strategy must be multinational and multifaceted, Wolfowitz said:
"economic instruments, diplomatic instruments, law enforcement,
intelligence, and as appropriate, the military. But it has to be a
sustained effort, and one that will be made up of many and different
coalitions for different purposes in different parts of the world."
The NATO allies also emphatically agreed that "this is not, and must
not be allowed to be perceived as, a campaign against Islam. That some
of the terrorists are Muslim extremists, who claim to be acting in the
name of religion, does not mean that is what the religion teaches. And
it is not what hundreds of millions of Muslims believe."
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PAUL WOLFOWITZ
(Press conference at Luns Press Theatre, NATO Headquarters, Brussels,
Belgium)
Thank you. We've just completed two very valuable sessions of the
informal defense ministers meeting. I'm here representing [U.S.
Defense] Secretary Rumsfeld, who would otherwise have been here, but
for obvious reasons, has had to stay in Washington. I also had
bilaterals with the Turkish defense minister, the British defense
minister, and the French defense minister. Later on this evening, I'll
be meeting with the Russian defense minister and the Italian defense
minister. Let me just summarize what I think are some of the main
points that have emerged in our discussions today, and then I'll be
glad to take a few questions.
First, it's obvious from this morning's discussions that NATO is
unified in solidarity with the U.S. in the war against global
terrorism. We are very appreciative of the way our NATO allies have
stepped up and supported us, and particularly that they have invoked
Article Five for the first time in NATO's history, and we are all
together on what needs to be done.
Secondly, on what needs to be done, I think we all agree that what is
needed is a global campaign. One that is multinational, one that is
multifaceted -- not just military -- but includes all the available
instruments to achieve results, including economic instruments,
diplomatic instruments, law enforcement, intelligence, and as
appropriate, the military. But it has to be a sustained effort, and
one that will be made up of many and different coalitions for
different purposes in different parts of the world. Not as we had ten
years ago, a single grand coalition for a very focused objective.
Third, I think we all agree now that counter-terrorism has to be a
major alliance priority. This is recognized as a newly important
mission. It's one we've been arguing for for a long time. And I'd say,
too, we believe the events of two weeks ago demonstrate very clearly
that if it's a matter of spending money -- we were debating $10 ten
billion [$10,000 million] differences in our defense budget -- if it's
a matter of spending money to forestall the horrible surprises that we
saw two weeks ago, that when we think about affordability, we should
think about the thousands of people who died. We should think about
the hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars of economic
losses that we've suffered already. It doesn't mean that you can solve
all these problems by throwing money at them, but we shouldn't say
that we can't afford to do what we need to do.
Fourth, very importantly, there was broad and emphatic agreement that
this is not, and must not be allowed to be perceived as, a campaign
against Islam. That some of the terrorists are Muslim extremists, who
claim to be acting in the name of religion, does not mean that is what
the religion teaches. And it is not what hundreds of millions of
Muslims believe. We have millions of Muslim citizens in the United
States. That's true of many of our Allies in Europe. There were
hundreds of Muslims of various countries killed in the World Trade
Center.
And I think it's important to emphasize that five times in the last
ten years, the United States military has engaged with our NATO allies
in defense of Muslims who were victims of aggression, or who were
victims of war-induced famine. Starting with the defense of Kuwait in
1990-1991, the operation in Somalia, the operation in Northern Iraq
called "Provide Comfort," and then, of course, the two operations
conducted under NATO mandate in Bosnia and in Kosovo. I think our
record is very clear: that we welcome Muslims into the modern world;
that one of our most valuable allies, Turkey, is a Muslim majority
country, that in important ways can be a model for what hundreds of
millions of Muslims aspire to. And we should be very clear and careful
that this is not a war against a religion.
And finally, a personal observation. I remember going, ten years ago,
to the first post-Cold War NATO summit, in London. And I remember,
this was when I worked for then-Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney,
thinking at the time -- and many of us thought at the time -- maybe
NATO won't survive. Maybe those Americans who say that there aren't
any threats any more now that the Soviet Union has gone away, maybe
they're right. Maybe those Europeans who say, "We don't need the
United States, we can take care of ourselves," maybe they're right.
Ten years later, we find NATO is the indispensable instrument in
dealing with a crisis in the Balkans in Macedonia, and we find -- to
everyone's astonishment -- that Article Five of the NATO Treaty has
been invoked for the first time in NATO history because of an attack
on the United States. I think it is extraordinary and impressive, but
actually not surprising, that this alliance of many of the world's
greatest democracies, built on common interests and common values,
remains applicable in vastly different circumstances. And we are
deeply grateful to be a member of the NATO alliance, and deeply
grateful for the support we're receiving from our Allies.
With that, I'll be happy to try to take some questions. Yes, sir.
Q: The secretary general said that you didn't ask anything specific of
NATO at this time. Why not, and will you be asking specific things,
and when?
A: Well, we got something very important when NATO invoked Article
Five, and this gives us a very powerful basis for a variety of
individual requests we're making of individual countries. Many of
those are the kinds of requests that take place in intelligence
channels or military channels and we're not going to discuss them
publicly. But what we got from this meeting was very important --
reaffirmation, not just of the commitment to common defense, but the
commitment to a common strategy. A strategy, as I said, is not based
on some single spectacular action or spectacular series of actions but
has to be a very broad campaign over a very long period of time. And
in this campaign I think it's worth emphasizing that one of the most
important things is to acquire more information about an enemy, one of
whose principal means of operation is to hide and conceal. And that is
one of the reasons why it not so simple to lay out a very specific
campaign plan and lots of specific actions, and why many of the most
important things that we're doing are being done in intelligence
channels. But, we are getting great support from our Allies, and I
would say the meeting today was a very successful one.
Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Secretary, what did you stress upon the allies that they needed
to do? Was it to spend more money or implement DCI [NATO's Defense
Capabilities Initiative] further? Second of all, did you inform them
that the U.S. might not participate as heavily in the Balkans in the
future because of this war on terrorism?
A: I'd say, first of all, we weren't here urging the allies to do lots
of things because they've stepped up to the plate rather voluntarily.
I do think that -- and I made the point just now to you and I made it
in our meeting -- we all need to look at the issue of how we invest in
defense and look at issues of affordability in a different light. We
need to put counter-terrorism at the top of national security
priorities. I'm sorry, the second part of your question?
Q: About the need for troops in the Balkans . . .
A: Oh yes, right. It's a fact of life that when we start to deploy
forces around the world as we're doing today, we begin to strain some
of those things that they call in the Pentagon "low-density,
high-demand assets." That is to say the things that everybody asks for
when there is a crisis. It starts with reconnaissance and surveillance
capabilities, specialized units that do intelligence or medical
support or civil affairs. Many of those are the same units that are
important in our role in the Balkans, and indeed some of those are the
kind of units we're providing in support of Operation Essential
Harvest. And those are going to be in higher demand and the density
isn't going to increase rapidly. So we told the allies that we need to
plan on the possibility that some of those are going to be less
available.
But I think the important point to keep in mind is what the President
has said, and various cabinet officials have said, over and over
again. We came into the Balkans with NATO; we will leave with NATO. We
believe that what has been achieved in the Balkans is a great success
that demonstrates the invaluable role that this alliance has played
and I think the new role it has played in hopefully bringing about a
peaceful settlement in Macedonia is just one more affirmation of that.
So we want to see NATO succeed. I think that's the most important
point.
Q: If you could specify a bit, [NATO Secretary General] Lord Robertson
just predicted that the U.S. is going to ask for collective NATO
action. When are you actually going to do that?
A: We think we had a collective affirmation of support with what they
said with Article Five, and if we need collective action we'll ask for
it. We don't anticipate that at the moment.
Q: Sir, two weeks into the crisis, is the United States incapable of
telling its allies precisely what the findings are in regard to
evidence related to Osama bin Laden or other terrorists that you might
think were behind the attack? And have you considered, sir, how that
inability or the lack of that information may influence the ability of
the allies to hold popular support together in aiding the United
States, when it may appear that the evidence isn't there?
A: I think the evidence is there for the whole world to see. I think
many of the people in this room watched it live on television, watched
the two towers of the World Trade Center coming down. If you want
evidence I'll be happy to -- oh, I can't, I guess. The FBI controls
it. You can come and look at the Pentagon, as well, and think about
how small that is in comparison to what happened at the World Trade
Center.
There's no question what happened. There's no question the al Qaeda
organization has been convicted in courts of law for acts of terrorism
including the bombing of our embassies in East Africa. They've been
implicated in the millennium bombings that were headed off at the
Canadian border a year and a half ago. They're implicated in the Cole
disaster. It is absolutely clear that terrorism against Americans,
specifically against Americans, is at the top of their agenda, that
their leader has publicly called for killing Americans and there is no
question that some of the people involved in the horrible events of
September 11th are connected to al Qaeda. There's no question about
any of that.
It's also important to emphasize that there are things we don't know
about the events of September 11th and things that we don't know about
al Qaeda. The essence of this organization, as I've said before, is to
hide. A big part of our challenge is to find out that information, not
so that we can make our case -- our case is clear -- it is so that we
can find these people and so that we can hunt them down. As we do
that, it is important to keep in mind -- in part because there is so
much that we don't know -- that this has to be a broad effort. As the
president has said over and over again, it's not about one man or one
organization. It's about a network of terrorist organizations. It's
about the support and sanctuary and harboring they receive from some
states. And while we are going to try to find every snake in the swamp
that we can, the essence of the strategy is to try to drain the swamp.
Q: Could you elaborate a bit on the concept you outlined today of
shifting flexible coalitions? What types of coalitions are you
envisioning, and have you worked out countries might participate in
those coalitions?
A: I'm happy to state the general principle, which is that this is a
worldwide problem. It's not focused in one country. It's not a single
organization. It's multiple organizations. There are some countries
that will be very active with us, we think, in going after problems
that affect them more directly, and perhaps less willing to help us
with problems that are more remote. We'll take that help. There'll be
some countries that will be willing to help us privately and secretly
and not willing to acknowledge it publicly. We'll take that help.
There will be some countries that will be willing to join with other
countries openly and some that will say "Not on your life if we have
to be identified with someone else." So to be effective, we have to be
flexible. We have to be adaptable. We need cooperation from many
countries but we need to take it in appropriately flexible ways.
Q: You said "some states" in the plural. Can you give us an idea
whether Iraq is in the frame too, or are we just talking about
Afghanistan or other states as well? And also, is there a lot more
work that needs to be done before any kind of real military action can
happen?
A: Let me take the second part first. I think it can't be stressed
enough that everyone that's waiting for a military action, because
they think that's the definition of a campaign, needs to rethink this
and understand. I keepsaying, we keep saying, a broad campaign. We've
taken actions already, including an action the president announced on
Monday, of going after freezing financial assets and getting other
countries to freeze financial assets. We've been taking action since
September 12th in running down these networks in the United States and
overseas. And yes, we contemplate that our military will be called on
to take action as well. But since generating information about targets
is a crucial part of it, we don't believe in just demonstrating that
our military is capable of bombing things. The whole world knows that.
What we want to do is be effective.
Q: And concerning the first part of my question?
A: The president's been clear about this. All of us have been clear
about this. There is a list, and the State Department can give it to
you, of states that are on the list for supporting terrorism. I think
the basic point is that the penalties for that kind of behavior in the
past were serious, but they were modest in light of what happened on
September 11th. Things that were viewed as bad, but in some way
tolerable, I think have ceased to be tolerable. And we have to take a
whole new approach to that. But fortunately, I think there are also
signs that some of those countries are viewing their own actions in a
different light now that they see what they lead to, and what kinds of
consequences it might draw them into. So we're hoping that September
11th was a wake-up call for some of the bad guys as well.
Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
