ACCESSION NUMBER:379256
FILE ID:PO2208
DATE:02/14/95
TITLE:STATE, PENTAGON CRITICIZE PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY BILL (02/14/95)
TEXT:*95021408.PO2
STATE, PENTAGON CRITICIZE PROPOSED NATIONAL SECURITY BILL
(Christopher, Perry recommend veto of H.R. 872) (960)
By Jacquelyn S. Porth
USIA Security Affairs Correspondent
Washington -- Secretary of State Christopher and Secretary of Defense Perry
February 14 publicly criticized the proposed National Security
Revitalization Act, pointing out the bill's flaws as the House of
Representatives prepared to begin consideration of the legislation.
Christopher described H.R. 872, as it is also known, as "deeply flawed" and
indicated that he and Perry would recommend that President Clinton veto it
if it is approved by Congress in its present form. He said the bill would
"undermine" the ability of any president to safeguard U.S. security and
command American armed forces.
H.R. 872, which is an outgrowth of the Republican "Contract With America"
has six main provisions:
-- to establish an advisory commission to assess U.S. military requirements
and address "the problems posed by the continuing downward spiral of
defense spending;"
-- to commit the United States to an accelerated development and deployment
1f theater and national ballistic missile defenses;
-- to restrict deployment of U.S. military forces to operational missions
which are in U.S. national security interests;
-- to maintain adequate command and control of U.S. military personnel while
participating in United Nations peacekeeping activities;
-- to reduce the costs to the United States of U.N. peacekeeping and press
for U.N. management reforms; and
-- to reemphasize the commitment of the United States to "a strong and
viable" NATO.
At a State Department news conference with Perry at his side, Christopher
focused his criticism of the bill on language pertaining to NATO expansion
and U.N. peacekeeping. He said the bill would "unilaterally and
prematurely designate certain countries" for NATO expansion. While NATO
membership will expand over time, the secretary pointed out that new
members "must be ready to fulfill their obligations" to the alliance just
as "we should be ready to extend our solemn commitments to these new
members."
Under the present system for future expansion, Christopher said each
potential new alliance member will be judged fairly on "the strength of
their democratic institutions and their capacity to contribute to NATO's
fundamental goals." That approach, he explained, gives each new European
democracy "a strong incentive to consolidate their reforms."
H.R. 872 would be "a prejudgment of the frontiers of democracy in Europe,"
Christopher said, because it would "draw a dividing line between Central
Europe and the struggling new democracies like those in the Baltic states
and Ukraine." The legislation would have a destabilizing effect, he said,
"in the very region that we seek to bolster."
The secretary said the bill would force the United States "to violate its
treaty obligations to the United Nations by deducting from our peacekeeping
assessments the cost of operations that we conduct voluntarily under a U.N.
umbrella." He explained that H.R. 872 would require the United States to
reduce its peacekeeping dues dollar-for-dollar by the costs of operations,
such as enforcing the no-fly zone in Bosnia and humanitarian assistance to
Iraqi Kurds, which are conducted voluntarily and support U.S. interests.
If the United States deducts the costs of voluntary actions against its U.N.
dues, the secretary said, it would have the effect of canceling the entire
U.S. peacekeeping account, and other nations might follow the American
example. This would end U.N. peacekeeping, he stressed, "leaving us with
the unacceptable choice, in case of an emergency...between acting alone and
doing nothing."
President Clinton also took up the issue of peacekeeping in a February 13
letter which he sent to key Congressional leaders in anticipation of House
consideration of H.R. 872. The United States must be prepared to pay its
"fair share of the price of peace," he stated, "for it is far less than the
cost of war."
Clinton said it is in American interest "to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping
works and to improve it, because peacekeeping is one of the most effective
forms of burdensharing available."
Perry, meanwhile, focused his criticism of the bill on its restrictions on
the president's command and control authority and its language calling for
accelerated development of a national ballistic missile defense system. He
said the legislation places "unwise restrictions" on the president's
ability to put American troops under "the operational control" of another
country during a U.N. mission. Throughout history, the secretary said,
1residents have placed U.S. forces under the temporary control of foreign
commanders.
The United States would be forced to conduct more operations unilaterally,
Perry warned, and lose its ability to "perform coalition operations"
without such flexibility.
On the issue of missile defenses, the defense secretary said the United
States is already developing three systems aimed at the growing short-range
ballistic missile threat: the Patriot 3 (1998 operational deployment), the
Aegis system (1999 operational deployment), and the THAAD system (2001
operational deployment). But with respect to national defenses, he said
there is "no significant threat" at the present time to the continental
United States, and such a threat from countries such as Iran, Iraq or Libya
remain about a decade into the future.
The United States is still three years away from developing a national
ballistic missile system and once there, Perry said, it would take another
three years for the system to be deployed if that decision is made. For a
$5,000 million to $10,000 million expenditure, he said the United States
could defend itself against a "thin" strategic ballistic missile attack.
The secretary said there is no national security reason for accelerating
this program and he would resist congressional efforts to do so because the
administration is already pursuing a "robust" national program.
NNNN
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
