08 February 2000
MISSILE DEFENSES WILL NOT ELIMINATE NEED FOR NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
(Defense Secretary Cohen says nuclear weapons needed to prevent potential blackmail) (1,050) By Jacquelyn S. Porth Washington File Security Affairs Correspondent Washington -- Defense Secretary Cohen says the United States will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence to ensure that neither this nation nor its allies will ever be in a position of being blackmailed. Cohen told members of the Senate Armed Service Committee on February 8 that nuclear deterrence is needed, even if a National Missile Defense system is deployed in the future, "to tell any nation that would seek to threaten the United States that they could expect a retaliatory strike that would destroy their country." Cohen's comments came as he was responding to comments by Committee Chairman John Warner (Republican, Virginia), who pointed out that the secretary had spent considerable time explaining to European allies in Germany on February 6 why the United States is researching and testing elements of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system that would defend the continental United States from a limited ballistic missile attack. The secretary said he continues to evaluate a number of factors that he must consider before making recommendations to President Clinton on whether or not to deploy an NMD system. These factors include the threat to the United States, technological feasibility, cost, as well as arms control and diplomatic considerations. Cohen said the threshold "will soon be crossed" when the possible threat of a ballistic missile attack will dictate the need for an NMD. He said funding -- $1.9 billion -- had been added to the new fiscal year 2001 defense budget that would allow the president to proceed with a system if he decides to do so later this summer. On the technological side, the secretary said program experts are awaiting the outcome of test results in the coming months. The last NMD test in January failed in its final few seconds, but Cohen expressed confidence in the science and technology of the proposed system. He said an upcoming test in April will help determine "how fast the technology has matured." On the diplomatic front, he said President Clinton and others must calculate the impact of an NMD program on U.S. relations with European allies and Russia because a limited NMD system would require amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Both Russia and China have been vocal in criticizing NMD, Cohen said. He said he had sought to explain in a variety of forums abroad that "what we contemplate in the way of a National Missile Defense system...in no way constitutes a threat to the Russian strategic systems, that it will not result in any decoupling from our European friends, it will not diminish their strategic systems." He said he had made a dedicated effort to meet with European allies and lay out exactly what the United States intends to do if it goes forward with NMD. During a hearing that was scheduled to consider the Clinton administration's FY 2001 defense budget, several committee members questioned either European defense spending levels or the level of European commitment in Kosovo. "Many members in this committee have spoken in the past about the need for the Europeans to do more as far as defense spending is concerned," Cohen said. "You should look with some anxiety and some criticism at the level of spending that's taking place in Europe." He went on to say, "I come to you to ask you for additional funding. You will, in all probability, support that, if not more. But then you look across the Atlantic and you look at their budgets and they're cutting their budgets. And I have tried to convey to our European friends that ultimately that has a political consequence. You cannot expect the American people to keep supporting our forces to make sure that they are the most modern and capable while you continue to see your budgets reduced." Cohen also said he has sought to convey to the Europeans that if they are going to bolster their defense capabilities through the European Security Defense Initiative (ESDI), for example, they need to ensure that their capabilities are completely consistent with NATO obligations. This message needs to be conveyed repeatedly, at the highest levels, he said. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry Shelton, who also testified at the hearing, expressed his concern about "the slow pace of civil implementation in Bosnia and the glacial pace of progress in Kosovo." U.S. military personnel in those two locations are neither trained nor equipped to "police the large civil societies in both Bosnia and Kosovo or perform other functions that are normally associated with an executive, a legislative or a judicial branch of government," he said. The military official then stressed the importance of continuing "to press the international community and the donor nations to meet their obligations" there. Senator Warner captured much of the sentiment of the discussion on defense burdensharing when he told Cohen and Shelton, "you've heard, far beyond my expectations, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle express their concerns and a growing concern throughout this committee about the failure of our allies, the European Community, other international organizations, to pull their share." Cohen urged consistency, however. "We can't on the one hand continue to pound on the door of the Europeans to do more, and then when they undertake to do more by setting up an ESDI, say that we think that that is somehow going to break the trans-Atlantic link." There are ways preserve that trans-Atlantic link," he said, "and that's the reason why we have to have openness, transparency, to integrate the EU (European Union) with NATO planning, with meetings that we have in Brussels and so forth, so we don't see any drift away for Europe to create a separate, independent, autonomous military capability which is not linked to the NATO umbrella." Cohen also made the point that "we ought to encourage the Europeans to do more, as we have, and then when they undertake to do it -- praise them -- just to make sure that it doesn't drift off into something that would be inimical to our own interests." (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
