25 January 1999
TRANSCRIPT: SECRETARY OF STATE ALBRIGHT ON RUSSIAN TV JANUARY 21
(Speaks of US decision to consider limited missile defense) (2190) Washington -- Secretary of State Albright has told a Russian television audience the United States has "good evidence" that the Russian enterprises against which it imposed sanctions "were, in fact, carrying on a relationship that is counterproductive" to all countries concerned about the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. The organizations were cited for supplying Iran with technologies that could be applied to the development of such weapons. The Secretary of State said during a January 21 interview on ITOGI Russian television that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction "is of concern to the United States. It's of concern to the countries in the region. Frankly," she added, "I think it should be of concern to Russia and Russia's citizens." Albright also defended the Clinton administration's decision to resume research on a limited missile defense system. She pointed out that "many different kinds" of "non-state actors" or countries that are not part of an arms control system, as the United States and Russia are, have been acquiring "weapons that we think are dangerous -- long-range missiles ... with the potential of delivering chemical or biological weapons. "So we believe that it is essential for the United States to think about how to defend ourselves against that." Albright added that the missile defense program is still in the research stage, and that any decision on potential deployment is "a couple of years" away, depending upon whether the concept is found to be feasible. "So we're a long from this," she noted. She also emphasized that the U.S.-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, originally negotiated and signed in 1972 "is the centerpiece of our security. It has been amended in the past, by agreement, and it's conceivable that it might have to be again by agreement. "But we put a lot of emphasis and store on the ABM treaty," she said. Following is the State Department transcript: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman (Moscow, Russia) January 25, 1999 INTERVIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT ON ITOGI (RUSSIAN TV) January 21, 1999 Washington, D.C. QUESTION: Welcome to Russia. Probably you will come to tough times, but many people think that there are tough times in our relationship. The relationship between America and Russia is, for example, more a cold peace than world friendship. Do you agree with this? ALBRIGHT: Good evening. First of all, thank you. I would like to say that I know that this program is serious, and a good opportunity to talk with the citizens of Moscow. I know that the past year was very difficult for you, and for the Russian state. I hope that this year will be better. And to answer your question -- Q: Yes, is it more a cold peace than world friendship? ALBRIGHT: No, I think that our relationship with Russia is a very important relationship to both countries. We have a very large number of issues that we have to talk about, and, I think, that we work on together. I would say that we agree on many, many issues together. We disagree on some, because we are both great countries with responsibilities. I think that it is a good relationship, and one that, I think, is central to both our countries. I very much agree with Foreign Minister Ivanov, when he also wrote about the importance of the relationship, and how we work and solve problems together. We disagree on some, there's no question. But I think that it's a useful and good relationship for both countries. Q: But I have to ask you about some points of disagreement. One of these points is the sanctions imposed by the United States for some of Russian enterprises. Russian security officials said that there are no evidences that these entities had some deals with Iran, or supplying them with modem weapons technologies. Which evidences, which facts do you have which allowed you to impose the sanctions? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, first of all, we have great concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is of concern to the United States. It's of concern to the countries in the region. Frankly, I think, it should be of concern to Russia and Russia's citizens, because one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with today is the proliferation of these kinds of weapons, and the difficulties of all our countries guarding against them. We have good evidence that these entities were, in fact, carrying on a relationship that is counterproductive, and not useful to your country, or ours, or the other countries who care about making sure that we are not threatened by these kinds of weapons. We have good evidence of it, and I believe that Mr. Kiselyev agrees with that. (NOTE: On January 12, 1999, the State Department issued a statement, headed "Trade Penalties Against Three Russian Entities," which included the following statement: "The U.S. Government has imposed trade penalties against three Russian entities for materially contributing to Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs. These three entities are NIKIET (the Scientific Research and Design Institute of Power Technology), the D. Mendeleyev University of Chemical Technology, and the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI). Based on existing authorities, including President Clinton's July 1998 Executive Order on weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the United States is banning exports to and imports from these entities, as well as U.S. Government procurement from and assistance to these entities.") Q: Mrs. Albright, Senator Warner from Virginia said once, in a live show, that America should make some steps in Kosovo -- with, you have information or even without information. Are you ready to take some actions by your own -- without information? ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, there is no question that Kosovo is a very serious problem, for all of us. This is not just the United States. Again, I've had conversations with Prime Minister Ivanov yesterday, because the Russian government also is concerned about some of the things that are going on in Kosovo, and the fact that Ambassador Walker, who is head of the OSCE (Kosovo Verification Mission sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), was not permitted to do his work. So this is not just the United States being concerned about what's going on in Kosovo. NATO is concerned about Kosovo. The United Nations is concerned about Kosovo. I think that the international community -- together -- needs to try to get a political solution, and to make sure that President Milosevic understands that he signed an agreement with Ambassador Holbrooke, to have a lower number of VJ, the Yugoslav Army forces, and the special police, and that he needs to live up to that agreement. The United States takes its positions and policies in conjunction with those of NATO, and the international community, and the United Nations. So I think we're very concerned. There's no question that Senator Warner is a respected member of the Senate, who is deeply moved by the kinds of things that are going on in Kosovo -- as are most Americans -- the slaughter that we saw on television a few days ago, the atrocities people found unacceptable. Q: But is it possible that some military action will be taken, as you told that Milosevic probably understands just the language of force? ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that there is that possibility. One of the actions that has been taken in the last week, by the NATO Council, has been to say that what's known as the activation order for air operations is on the table. That has been on the table. But we hope that President Milosevic will understand that there is no future in not living up to agreements, and that the people of Kosovo -- and they also -- need to become a part of this discussion, a political discussion, to develop the highest level of self-government and autonomy for the people of Kosovo. That's what we're all trying to do, is to get both parties to agree to work on some kind of a system that would provide the people of Kosovo some autonomy. Q: I would emphasize one more disagreement between our countries. My country and many people are very concerned with late things, which President Clinton described in his State of the Union. He spoke about the increasing of military spendings; and after that, that the nation should be ready to use chemical and biological attack. Mr. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, he moved it further and told about that America should develop its national missile defending system. And so, in spite of, Russia would be against it because it breaks the AMB treaty of 1972. What is your opinion here? What threatens America now? Why should you increase the military budget? Why should you build your "Reagan-style" national missile defense? ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, you've asked a lot of questions, and I'll try to answer them in order. First of all, what the President said about our military budget: Our military budget has been systematically lowered since the high peak of the '80s, and has been cut by something like 40 percent since its height. So when President Clinton speaks now about increasing some of the budget, it's not anywhere up to the levels of where it was. It's basically done because the people in the military are concerned about the some of the pay for the soldiers, sailors and airmen; some of the ways of just maintenance and readiness; and trying to have a military that is effective. Then, the second part of this: I think -- and it goes to the question you asked about our sanctions and Iran. President Clinton has said, and I have said many times also, that what we see as the biggest threat for us, as we move into the 21st Century, is the fact that there are a growing number of countries that are acquiring various technology, or pieces of technology, or parts to do with creating weapons of mass destruction. That's a really new threat. During even the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union worked out good arms control agreements. We might have disagreed on things, but we had a system that -- I think we actually all learned to understand that there were two rational actors, and that we were dealing rationally with the problem. What we see now are many different kinds of either non-state actors, or countries that are not part of the system, who are acquiring weapons that we think are dangerous -- long-range missiles, or even with the potential of delivering chemical or biological weapons. So we believe that it is essential for the United States to think about how to defend ourselves against that. A national missile defense program -- which, by the way, no decision has been made to deploy that -- this is research at the moment, and no decision is going to be made on that for a couple of years -- another year or so. Only after that, if it is feasible, it might be deployed. So we're a long way from this. But the reason for it is: I think our concern is that countries that are not part of an arms control system, the way the U.S. and Russia are, will use these various pieces in order to be a threat. The ABM treaty, we have believed -- as I know many Russians have -- is the centerpiece of our arms control, and it's very important to us. It is the centerpiece of our security. It has been amended in the past, by agreement, and it's conceivable that it might have to be -- again by agreement. But we put a lot of emphasis and store on the ABM treaty. So, the way that you phrased the question is: You make it all seem as if it were all decided, and that we were going to have a huge buildup, and that it was directed against Russia. None of that is so. Q: The last question. In spite of all the contradictions, it seems that you and Mr. Primakov, whom, of course, you're going to meet, you have some kind of personal friendship. If it's so, I remember just one case when you sang together. What was the song? ALBRIGHT: Well, we actually had a very good time. This was at a conference in Asia, and I think that many Russians know, "The West Side Story." We changed that, and we made it "The East-West Story." So we sang; we had a good time. I appreciate my personal friendship with Prime Minister Primakov, and also with Foreign Minister Ivanov. I think that personal good relations are important, as you try to deal with the kinds of difficult issues that Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers have to deal with. So, I'm looking forward to seeing my friends. Q: Thank you very much. ALBRIGHT: See you in Moscow. (End transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
