28 June 2002
Transcript: Wolfowitz Says Missile Defense Easier Without ABM Treaty
(Consultations on allied participation to begin in July) (2010)
The end of the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty now frees the
United States "to develop, test and deploy effective defenses against
missile attacks from rogue states like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran --
states that are investing a large percentage of their resources to
develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and offensive ballistic
missiles," says Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Moving ahead on the missile defense program and taking advantage of
new technologies "is an essential part of a strategy to provide the
range of capabilities necessary to defend against the broad spectrum
of new threats and challenges" of the 21st century, Wolfowitz told
members of Congress on June 27.
In an appearance before the House Armed Services Committee's combined
Procurement and Research and Development Subcommittees, Wolfowitz
pointed to the recent ground breaking in Alaska to make way for silo
construction to house missile defense interceptors. "These silos -- to
be completed by 2004 -- are part of a missile defense test bed that
could also give us, for the first time, a limited emergency capability
to protect our country against ballistic missile attack in a crisis,"
he said.
"Over time we hope to improve these initial defenses, building
additional silos there and possibly in other locations for operational
deployment of ground-based interceptors," he said. "Sea-based missile
defenses and a prototype Airborne Laser are also capabilities we could
look forward to by mid-decade. And we are moving forward with our
efforts to field defenses to deal with shorter-range missile threats,"
the deputy secretary added.
Looking toward future allied missile defense participation, Wolfowitz
said a U.S. interagency team will visit NATO countries in July "for
detailed discussions on missile defense to include ways in which
allied countries can participate" in the program. Similar
consultations will be held in Asia, he said.
Following is the transcript of Wolfowitz's remarks as delivered:
(begin transcript)
Chairman Hunter, Chairman Weldon, Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our Missile
Defense Program. Your committee has been a strong supporter of this
program in the past and we look forward to your continuing support as
we work through the FY03 National Defense Authorization Act.
Today, I would like to provide a brief update on our missile defense
policy as a backdrop to [Missile Defense Agency Director Lieutenant]
General [Ronald] Kadish's testimony. But first, I would like to take a
moment to reiterate Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld's concerns
about the missile defense provisions in the Senate version of the
bill. General Kadish will be prepared to address these issues in more
detail.
Let me begin by commenting on yesterday's action by the Senate. The
current Senate version of the authorization bill would permit the
president to apply up to $814 million in inflation savings to the
missile defense program to offset the cuts by the Armed Services
Committee. However, should those inflation savings not materialize, it
would severely delay the fielding of a contingency capability against
emerging medium and long-range ballistic missile threats and cripple
our efforts to development boost-phase defenses. If those inflation
savings are not available, it could also force the layoff of hundreds
of people -- the bulk of them engineers -- and thereby adversely
affect our ability to attract and retain the finest minds of our
nation to address one of its greatest technological challenges and
field an effective system at the earliest possible date.
The Senate bill continues to impose a number of burdensome statutory
restrictions that would undermine our ability to manage the program
effectively, divert management attention away from critical program
execution, and result in further unnecessary delays. We will continue
to provide Congress with all the information necessary to perform its
oversight function. Such statutory restrictions are unnecessary in
light of the steps we have already taken to increase accountability
and oversight over the missile defense program.
To succeed in missile defense we have streamlined oversight -- the
Director of MDA will regularly and frequently brief the Senior
Executive Council [SEC], which is chaired by myself and includes the
Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the
Service Secretaries. The Services and other oversight organizations,
including the test community, have full access into the program and
provide advice to the SEC on a regular basis. The end result will be
faster decision cycles while maintaining the highest standards of
oversight. Let me underscore that we remain committed to working with
Congress and sharing all relevant information to allow you to fulfill
your oversight responsibilities.
For these reasons, if missile reductions and restrictions similar to
those in the Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the bill are
included in the version of the bill adopted by Congress, the
President's senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill.
Six months ago, the president announced our intention to withdraw from
the 1972 ABM Treaty. The president took this step as part of a broader
change in our defense policy to reflect new threats we face along with
the fundamentally different relationship we have with Russia today.
Earlier this month, that withdrawal formally took place. As a result,
we are now free to develop, test and deploy effective defenses against
missile attacks from rogue states like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran --
states that are investing a large percentage of their resources to
develop weapons of mass destruction and offensive ballistic missiles
at the expense of the basic needs of their people.
The scope of this growing threat to the U.S. and our allies and
friends is compounded by the fact that the states that are developing
these terror weapons have close links to a variety of terrorist
organizations. States or even non-state actors could use container
ships to launch shorter-range missiles against our territory. As the
president stated in his State of the Union address, we must not allow
the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's
most dangerous weapons.
In response to this new strategic environment, the president called
for a new approach to deterrence that reduces our reliance on
offensive nuclear weapons and emphasizes defensive systems. The
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) further underscored the point that
relying solely on offensive nuclear forces is inappropriate for
deterring potential adversaries. As the president stated, "Cold War
deterrence is no longer enough. To maintain peace, to protect our own
citizens and our allies and friends, we must seek security based on
more than the grim promise that we can destroy those who seek to
destroy us."
Moving forward on missile defense, particularly by taking advantage of
new technological opportunities, is an essential part of a strategy to
provide the range of capabilities necessary to defend against the
broad spectrum of new threats and challenges we will confront in the
21st century. In short, by reducing an opponent's incentives to seek
or use missiles, defenses can contribute to our goals of deterring
missile attack, dissuading opponents from acquiring missiles, assuring
our allies and friends against missile threats, and defeating limited
attacks in the event of conflict.
With the ABM Treaty now behind us, our task is to develop and deploy
effective defenses against the full range of missile attacks --
whether from short-, medium-, or long-range weapons. Indeed, the
president is committed to developing and deploying a missile defense
system as soon as possible to protect the American people, our
deployed forces, as well as allies and friends against the growing
missile threats we face.
We will continue to move forward with a robust research, development
and testing program that is designed to take advantage of new
technologies and basing modes. Recent tests provide a foundation on
which to proceed. Development and testing will continue, but we will
also begin to deploy effective layered defenses against limited
missile attack. Just a few weeks ago, we broke ground in Alaska on
silos to house missile defense interceptors. These silos, to be
completed in 2004, are part of a missile defense test bed that could
also give us, for the first time, a limited emergency capability to
protect our country against ballistic missile attack in a crisis. Over
time we hope to improve these initial defenses, building additional
silos there and possibly in other locations for operational deployment
of ground-based interceptors. Sea-based missile defenses and a
prototype Airborne Laser are also capabilities we could look forward
to by mid-decade. And we are moving forward with our efforts to field
defenses to deal with shorter-range missile threats.
As these emerging long-range missile threats also endanger our allies
and friends around the world, it is essential that we work together to
defend against them, an important task the ABM Treaty prohibited. The
strategic rationale for providing missile defense protection to our
allies was clearly stated by [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld in
his remarks at the NATO Defense Ministerial earlier this month: "Rogue
states capable of delivering WMD to Western capitals could make
building future coalitions against aggression difficult, if not
impossible."
NATO's Defense Ministers noted, in turn, in their June Statement on
Capabilities, that "there is currently an alliance consensus on the
need to deploy theater missile defenses to protect our deployed
forces," and that "Alliance territory and population centers may also
face an increasing missile threat." As a result, Defense Ministers
concluded "the Alliance needs to examine options for addressing this
increasing threat in an effective and efficient way through an
appropriate mix of political and defense efforts."
The U.S. will be working with its NATO allies to explore options for
providing protection for alliance territory and forces against the
full range of missile threats. In July, an interagency team will visit
NATO capitals for detailed discussions on missile defense, to include
ways in which allied countries can participate in our missile defense
program. Similar consultations will be held with our Asian allies and
friends.
The end of the ABM Treaty also marks an historic milestone in our
strategic relationship with Russia. We are finally moving beyond the
Cold War. We no longer have a treaty that divides us by assuming that
our security is derived from our ability to destroy each other.
Instead, the U.S. and Russia are building a new relationship based on
common interests and values, rather than the threat of mutual
destruction.
Nothing reinforces this point more than the accomplishments of the
Moscow Summit last May, particularly the reductions in strategic
nuclear forces. Just as important, perhaps, is that President Putin
and President Bush agreed to look for ways to cooperate on missile
defenses, including expanding military exercises, sharing early
warning data, and exploring potential joint research and development
of missile defense technologies.
When President Bush emphasized moving forward on missile defense and a
new strategic framework with Russia in May 2001, some predicted dire
consequences for U.S.-Russian relations and the start of a new arms
race. In fact, the opposite occurred. As a result of hard work and
determination on both sides, relations with Russia -- and between
Russia and our NATO allies -- are entering a new a promising era. We
have agreed to cooperate on a host of economic, political, and
security issues of common interest, including missile defense. And we
have agreed to reduce our offensive forces to the lowest levels in
decades.
The U.S. has now departed from these Cold War artifacts -- the ABM
Treaty and the balance of terror -- and adopted a new approach to
deterrence and defense, and established a cooperative strategic
relationship with Russia. Further, we have fostered a security
environment and good relations with allies and friends that now allow
us to make substantial progress on the programmatic side of our
missile defense program as represented by our budget priorities. We
need to seize this historic opportunity if we are to meet new
challenges and make the word a safer place for all.
(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
|
|
|
