State Department Noon Briefing
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001 - 12:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: I forgot my question. Can I ask about NMD? British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook this morning was talking at some length about how Britain would like to see a full dialogue with Russia before the United States takes a final decision on this, and I understand that Secretary Powell assured him of that yesterday.
Could you give us any details at all about how you intend to proceed with this dialogue, given the particular prominence it had with Strobe Talbott and the last administration?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is a formal mechanism decided yet. Clearly, as we work through these issues, as we work through any issues, we are working first and foremost with our allies, discussing them with friends and other interested countries. And I think the Secretary was quite clear in his discussion of this issue yesterday with you that we would be talking to the Chinese and the Russians as we went forward in developing our plans and developing the ideas of strategic stability that involved, obviously, questions of offensive weapons, of proliferation, of information, but as well, issues of defense.
So those will be subjects of discussion. The exact format, personnel or timing of those, I don't think we have anything new to say on that at that point. Obviously when the Secretary meets with the Russian Foreign Minister, which they expect to do in the near future - in the coming months, let's put it that way - then that would be a subject of discussion.
Q: Can I follow up on that? President Bush said before he was elected that he would proceed with NMD whether Russia agreed to amend ABM or not, and yet we have heard talk in the last couple of days that would tend to suggest that ABM - that the United States would not pull out of ABM.
Can you clarify that for us?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have said anything new on the ABM Treaty since the Secretary's confirmation hearings. I would refer you back to what he said then.
Q: Can I follow that, too? I was at the same session, and Mr. Cook, a self-admitted polite person, had nothing rash to say about National Missile Defense. Do you think now that the visit is over - he's going to come back, because Mr. Blair will be here in two weeks - even if you use the phrase "anchored in NATO," which I think I have heard a few hundred times in the last two days, can you please tell us if indeed there is any disagreement, any substantive disagreement, with the European allies on a National Missile Defense?
I can't figure out if what Mr. Rumsfeld said prevails, or what Mr. Cook said prevails, or what the Secretary's statement - I'm still a little confused. There is a lot of politeness going on.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, hold it. The phrase "anchored in NATO" is used in connection with European Security and Defense Identity.
Q: Oh, excuse me.
MR. BOUCHER: So you want to find out if I'm as polite on European Security and Defense Identity as he is on National Missile Defense?
Q: I can't think of the cliché for --
MR. BOUCHER: And the answer to the fundamental question is yes, we are as polite on European Security and Defense as he is on National Missile Defense. These are both issues on our security agenda, both issues that we expect to work in conjunction with our friends and allies, and in particular in conjunction with our British friends and allies. And the fact that they had extensive consultations on these subjects yesterday, that they were able to discuss how to proceed, and to work together, in fact - not just to think together, but to work together and to act together-- with the British as we proceed with these items.
So as the Secretary said yesterday, "anchored in NATO" is the phrase that we look for in terms of how the European Security and Defense Identity needs to be pursued. We welcome it; we welcome any increase in European capabilities; we welcome the Europeans having the ability to carry out actions where we might not be implicated, involved, or might not decide to get involved. And we will work with the British and other allies to make sure that this is done in a manner that adds to capabilities, doesn't duplicate them, and is anchored in NATO. That is clearly what we are doing with the British, and we will continue to do that.
Q: Does the US have a national missile - you haven't said anything yet about - just now whether there is a general agreement with the US
program - acceptance of it.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I am not going to characterize other views. I think he characterized his own views to you this morning.
Q: Okay, I'll try it this way. Is the United States standing alone in its pursuit of an ambitious, a multi-trillion dollar, so far unprovable, missile defense program?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q: When you say that both ministers decided how they were going to proceed with National Missile Defense and with ESDI, can you elaborate on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure I said it that way. I said that both ministers decided they would proceed together on these issues, that we will work together as we proceed on these issues.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
