Disarmament Diplomacy

Documents and Sources

US Missile Defence Consultations: Selected Statements & Comment

Introductory Note

On May 1, President Bush announced that a team of senior officials would be embarking on a series of international consultations on US plans to proceed with the development and deployment of defences designed to protect United States territory, troops, allies, and possibly other interested parties, from limited ballistic missile attack (see last issue for the President's remarks). Regarding the duration of the consultation process, Secretary of State Colin Powell noted on May 18: "Consultations can't be a substitute for action. So we will take the necessary time to get the views of all who have an interest in this matter and factor those views into our consideration... At the time when we think there has been enough consultation and we've reached agreements with others, then we will act on those agreements or act on what we believe are our best interests at that time." (Powell says limit on US arms consultations, Reuters, May 18.)

On June 1, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice gave an upbeat assessment of the effect of the first four weeks of the diplomatic offensive, which, she said, was based on a simple premise: "[W]e must be free to defend our people, our forces, and our allies with missile defences. All responsible parties should have the right to do so. ... Across the board, the conversation is proving to be substantive, respectful and educational for all sides." (Rumsfeld, Rice discuss policy threats and challenges, US State Department (Washington File), June 1.) A very different perspective, focussing on US-European consultations, was provided by former US Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, who noted in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung newspaper: "The Europeans must speak their mind to the American government before it's too late. ... [NMD is]almost a religious matter [for the new administration]... We have to ask ourselves, in what way are we really threatened? It's people like Osama bin Laden who are dangerous, and they have no long-range missiles..." (Holbrooke says Europe must 'stand up' to US, International Herald Tribune, May 8.)

The following compilation provides a selection of key statements and comment emerging from the consultations.

Russia

Stephen Hadley, Deputy Director of the National Security Council, May 11: "We've had good, substantive discussions. This is a first step in a consultation process that will continue over the weeks ahead, including discussions and consultations between our two Presidents. ... [T]he fact that we're meeting and opening this dialogue between a new administration and Russian authorities is a sign of progress. ... The Russian side raised some serious and important questions. We began to give them some answers to those questions. ... We had a brief discussion about some of the Russian ideas. ... [I]t's something we want to talk about further with them. ... I think for Americans who lived through the Gulf War and saw the effect of SCUD missiles in that conflict, the threat has a certain reality and urgency that maybe is not shared. But that's one of the things we want to talk about and...try and see if we can reach a more common perspective on the threat." (Transcript - US National Security Council official in Moscow, US State Department (Washington File), May 14.)

Secretary of State Colin Powell, May 14: "It's the beginning of a process of consultation... We have a treaty with Moscow, and they have all the rights embedded in such a treaty to stay with it or abrogate it, and we have the same rights. And so what we want to do is speak to the Russians about how we can move to a strategic framework, which might be a framework, might be another treaty, we're not sure what it is yet. We're not foreclosing any option." (US wants ABM Treaty revisited, Associated Press, May 14.)

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexander Yakovenko, May 11: "The consultations were generally informative. Still, more questions are there than answers. The American side never cited any well-reasoned arguments that would have convinced us that it had a clear idea of how to solve today the problems of international security without relying on the ramified infrastructure of disarmament that has been built up..." (Russian Foreign Ministry transcript, May 11.)

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, Press Conference, Washington, May 19: "We have continued our consultations on the START/ABM problems that were opened in Moscow several days [ago]... We can note a certain degree of coincidence of our views, in particular as regards further deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. At the same time I will make no secret of the fact that we still have quite a few moot questions as regards 'the new strategic stability architecture' incorporating the development of the so-called global ABM system that the US side is talking about. I will tell you frankly that the arguments that have so far been presented to us cannot convince us or the majority of countries that it is necessary to scrap the entire structure of disarmament agreements and endanger non-proliferation regimes for the sake of potential threats. The 1972 ABM Treaty and all subsequent documents in the field of disarmament are an effective instrument which lends confidence and predictability to the strategic sphere. From our point of view, not only does this treaty not impede but, on the contrary, it facilitates the search for responses to modern challenges and threats to international security. At the same time, we have agreed to continue the dialogue on all aspects of strategic stability both at the political level and at the level of experts. For our part, we proposed to our American partners to set up two working groups to this end. One of them could assess potential threats and our interaction in the field of theatre missile defence, and the other could deal with the set of START/ABM issues. The American side said that our proposal would be carefully studied." (Russian Foreign Ministry transcript, May 21.)

President Vladimir Putin, May 9: "The experience of post-War history shows that one cannot build a safe world only for oneself, moreover one which harms the interests of others..." (Putin marks WW2 victory with message on missiles, Reuters, May 9.)

Former Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev, May 14: "We will continue to stand for upholding ABM in its present form and oppose US plans for a national anti-missile system. You must not destroy an old house before building a new one where it is more comfortable and safer to live. ... [We are now] certain the United States will proceed with construction of a national anti-missile system. ... As a missile specialist, it makes me laugh when the Americans say that on the basis of these first-generation missiles, Iran and North Korea could create intercontinental ballistic missiles able to reach US territory... [Russia had already offered to] create a joint group of missile specialists - academics and technology experts - to talk about missile threats in terms of science, not politics. There was no reply to this proposal." (Russian official calls US missile scheme laughable, Reuters, May 14.)

Note: on May 10, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexander Yakovenko announced the establishment of an interagency panel to coordinate the government's response to the US consultation process. The panel will be headed by Yuri Kapralov, Director of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Security Affairs and Disarmament. According to Yakovenko: "The missile defence problem is extremely complicated and it demands detailed discussion. That is why, on our side, an interagency delegation has been formed from leading specialists in the field. ... The American representatives will be presented with our concrete approaches aimed at strengthening strategic stability and they will also be given questions on their 'counter-ideas' to these..." (Moscow sets up missile panel, Associated Press, May 10.)

China

US Assistant Secretary of State for Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, May 15: "[The United States seeks] a dialogue with Chinese officials on security and stability that reflects today's world... China clearly shares with us an interest in promoting peace and stability in East Asia and the world. Curbing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction is a key element in the maintenance of peace and security. ... [Our aim is to pursue] non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, missile defence and unilateral reductions in American strategic forces. These reductions will sharply lower the number of such weapons... Although we clearly still have differences of opinion, our consultations on this subject constitute a good beginning to what both sides agreed would be a continuing dialogue on these important security issues. ... I stressed that our plans for a missile defence system would not be a threat to China. Rather, our approaches are intended to defend against threats or attacks from rogue states as well as from accidental or unauthorised launches." (Beijing rebuffs Washington on missile shield, Reuters, May 15; US envoy stymied at missile talks in China, New York Times, May 16; China slams US on Taiwan as Bush envoy leaves, Reuters, May 16.)

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Sun Yuxi, May 15: "China's consistent position is unchanged. We are opposed to the national missile defence system because it destroys the global strategic balance and upsets international security. ... China will not sit idly by and watch its national interests suffer harm. ... The US plan has met the opposition of many countries around the world because it harms their interests as well the interests of the United States itself... When you invent a new shield, you will invent new types of spear. It always goes like that. Therefore all new plans like this will not bring any benefit. It's just like lifting a stone and dropping it on one's own feet. ... [We are] more opposed to TMD...[and even] more strongly oppose calls by some people to involve Taiwan in TMD, which would violate China's sovereignty..." (Beijing rebuffs Washington on missile shield, Reuters, May 15; US envoy stymied at missile talks in China, New York Times, May 16; China firm on missile defense opposition, Washington Post, May 16.)

Government spokesperson Zhang Qiyue, Islamabad, May 12: "I believe that everywhere the [US] delegations go there are many questions raised and, as far as I can see, there are more questions than answers." (Pakistan criticizes US missile defense plans, Reuters, May 12.)

Ambassador Sha Zukang, Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' department of Disarmament and Arms Control, April 29: "We have seen that the United States wantonly bombed Yugoslavia and that Yugoslavia had no means to retaliate. Once the United States believes it has both a strong spear and a strong shield, it could lead them to conclude that nobody can harm the United States and they can harm anyone they like in the world. There could be many more bombings like what happened in Kosovo... Even when national missile defence was not there they bombed the Sudan, they bombed Afghanistan and they bombed Iraq... It could lead to the development of a tendency of the use or threat of use of force more often than is necessary by the United States in the conduct of international relations. ... We will do whatever possible to ensure that our security will not be compromised, and we are confident that we can succeed without an arms race... We believe defence itself needs defence. It [NMD] is a defence system. It has many, many parts and most of them are vulnerable to an attack." (China looks to foil US missile defense system, New York Times, April 29.)

France

US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, May 9: "[Y]ou will have to let the French characterise what they said, but I guess I would characterise the tone of it as being very open to discussion. ... It was the kind of genuine consultation that takes place when we have not made firm decisions. ... We also hope that some of the things that people have heard here may lead to rethinking views. I cannot emphasise enough that the changes we are talking about in the world are really quite fundamental. It is in a way surprising that...12 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall we are still as wedded as we are to some Cold War concepts, but they are deeply engrained, it takes a lot of thinking, a lot of work to change them." (Transcript - DoD's Wolfowitz has consultations in Paris on missile defense, Washington File, May 11.)

United Kingdom

Unnamed official, May 8: "We would be happy as long as it [NMD] is in an agreed framework between the United States and Russia." (United States woos allies on missile defense plan, Reuters, May 8.)

Downing Street Summary of Missile Defence Briefing by the Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson, May 2: "Asked if we [the government] believed Britain had played a role in guiding President Bush away from a more unilateral approach, the PMOS [Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson, Alistair Campbell] said that...following the Prime Minister and president's discussions at Camp David in February, the President's stated public position [on consulting other states] was perfectly clear... [T]his was an issue which came up regularly in the Prime Minister's conversations with President Putin. Likewise with some of the European governments which had a different kind of relationship to the Americans... We were understanding of and sympathetic to the concerns that the Americans had, given it was the world's last remaining superpower. Put to him that in the end we would almost certainly go along with what the US asked us to do, the PMOS disagreed. Nothing was inevitable. ... It was a very big project and there were huge issues which flowed from it. We were - and intended to remain - America's closest ally. We understood where they were coming from." (Downing Street Summary, Lobby Briefing, May 2.)

Australia

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, May 12: "It [NMD] will proceed... The more people understand what is being talked about here, the more they think it makes sense... We've just made it clear to them that...we completely understand what they're saying on the need for a missile defence system, but there are other broad strategic issues which we think need to be on the agenda as well." (Australia backs US missile scheme, wants arms control, Reuters, May 12.)

Opposition Labour Party Leader Kim Beazley, May 8: "We feel that the proposals that are out there now...potentially involve breaching an international agreement which has been important for stability in the international system... Our advice would be that this system should not proceed. ... We believe strongly in the American alliance and strongly in the value of the joint facilities here. But we don't assume that because we believe strongly in that, that on every single piece of American strategy we necessarily have to be in agreement." (Australian Labor Party would oppose US missile plan, Australian Associated Press, May 8.)

Canada

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, May 16: "I think that it's important to step back here and say that our purpose today was not to lay down a plan, our purpose today was not to seek involvement, our purpose today was not to seek in any way endorsement. What we were doing was consulting; that was our objective, and it was an objective that we met. ... I think the Canadian side did respond, as I would have expected, intelligently and...in a serious way. ... So, I recognise that that is not as specific as you want [me] to be but that is not what we came here to do today." (Transcript - State's Grossman briefs on missile defense in Ottawa, Washington File, May 16.)

Defence Minister Art Eggleton, May 14: "Our position has not changed in that we want to know the specifics of the plan, because they are putting more options on the table, not just land-based and sea-based systems. ... We don't have the answers yet, so we're not inching anywhere till we get them..." (Canada not yet ready to endorse US missile defence scheme, Eggleton says, Canadian Press, May 14.)

Foreign Minister John Manley, May 3: "[W]hen we consider the global implications of a missile defence system, we need to look at it from the perspective not only of what we would like the world to be - which is a world in which there are no nuclear weapons - but also from the perspective of the world in which we live, which unfortunately is still a dangerous place. ... I think that when you look at the question of ABM, for example, we all agree ABM is one of the fundamental building blocks of the existing security system. But what a flawed system! Thousands of nuclear warheads. Thousands... I think that one of the positive indications that we have [from the Bush administration] is [the prospect of] a sharp reduction in the number of those warheads, a sharper reduction than most people were anticipating in START III, for example. So I think that Canadians should have an informed and thorough debate about this, but it should be in the context of global realities." (Evidence to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, May 3.)

Unnamed official, May 14: "If we don't support NMD, it's the end of NORAD [the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defence Command]. So we will play a role to try to safeguard the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and work with our European allies on that, but, in the end, Canada will support the United States." (Canada to back missile shield, The National Post, May 14.)

Denmark

Under Secretary of State Grossman & Danish Foreign Minister Mogens Lykketoft, Press Conference, May 9:

"Grossman: 'One of the things that I told the Minister was that the NATO Alliance is a great Alliance because we believe in deterrence, we believe in consultation, we believe in collective defence, and we believe in meeting new challenges and opportunities.'

Lykketoft: 'I think many of you came here with totally false expectations, namely that we came out of that door to tell you some kind of conclusion. This is not the case... We are not ready to take any decision on a project that has not been described in any detail yet. We want to know much more, we want to know the whole international security policy environment in which this is going to be presented. We want to know much more about the political circumstances. Of course, what is of concern to us, I think to very many Europeans, is that this should not create a new arms race. ... I have underlined again...that we think it is extremely important in the long-term perspective that development[s] between the United States and China are stable and friendly... I have also underlined that we are not expecting to take any decisions...soon, but when we at some point are going to take decisions...about [the] Thule [radar facility], this will be a common process including the Greenlanders together with the government of Denmark.'" (Transcript - Under Secretary Grossman with Danish Foreign Minister May 9, Washington File, May 10.)

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Affairs, addressing the Danish Parliament, April 29: "We will deploy defences as soon as possible... [W]e believe that the ABM Treaty will have to be replaced, eliminated or changed in a fundamental way." (Bush team vows to speed up work on missile shield, New York Times, April 30.)

European Union (EU)

Senior foreign policy official Javier Solana, Prague, May 31: "We are very attached in the EU to the non-proliferation and arms control regimes and we don't want to see these regimes changing without something to replace them. ... We are open to discussion with our American friends on new possibilities for deterrence in the 21st Century..." (EU's Solana - no spat on missile shield at NATO meet, Reuters, May 31.)

Russian Foreign Ministry reaction to EU Parliament resolution, May 28: "The recent session of the European Parliament adopted a resolution expressing concern that US NMD initiatives might lead to a new arms race and undermine international security. It also stresses the need to hold consultations with all interested countries before the US starts deploying a NMD system and calls on the US not to pull out unilaterally from the ABM Treaty. Russia fully shares the assessment and the concern of the European Union countries... Russia is willing to cooperate with any states or groups of states in the search for ways to promote global stability and security..." (Foreign ministry Statement, Document 998-28-05-2001, May 28.)

Germany

Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, May 10: "Our German colleagues have presented us with some very serious and important questions. We are going to go home and think about them... [O]ne of the central themes of our discussions was how do you move forward with what the President is talking about in a way that is cooperative rather than confrontational, in a way that enhances stability rather than generating new tensions and new arms races of various kinds. I think that those have been the most serious questions we have been thinking about before we got here, but I would say, of the many questions that we were asked, many of them revolved around that core." (Transcript - Defense Dept.'s Wolfowitz briefs in Berlin on missile defense, Washington File, May 10.)

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, May 11: "Dialogue means exchanging opinions and can only function if each side is ready to take the other side's views seriously and nothing is decided in advance." (France, Germany seek NMD dialogue with US, Reuters, May 11.)

Unnamed German official, May 10: "We agree that there has been a fundamental upheaval in [the] security and political landscape... The overriding theme is the end of a bipolar world and the creation of a new multipolar structure. ... The German position on NMD is still open. We have the impression that this administration and this President are determined to go ahead." (Bush team meets on missile defense, Associated Press, May 10.)

Hungary

Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi, comments following NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Budapest, May 30: "The US government is consulting with allies, with Asian countries and with Russia. This will be a major issue at the US-Russian Summit in Slovenia. No one is saying there are no dangers. We need to see if the international instruments in place are adequate." (Powell, Ivanov meet in Hungary, Associated Press, May 30.)

India

US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, May 11: "We were delighted [with our discussions], we are looking forward to a congenial and indeed robust relationship as we move into the 21st Century with India...[T]he missile defence we envisage is one which is directed only against a handful of rogue states, and only against a handful of missiles. Indeed, if carried to its fullest...a missile defence that works would make unnecessary some states producing, manufacturing ballistic missiles as a response to a threat from a neighbour..." (US 'delighted' with nuclear talks in India, Reuters, May 11.)

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, May 11: "We welcome every move toward lightening the shadow of the nuclear terror under which we live today. It is in this context that we have welcomed President Bush's suggestions for steep reductions in nuclear arsenals and a move away from further development of offensive nuclear technologies. We welcome his offer of consultations with allies and major powers on a new framework of security. ... We do believe that a credible minimum nuclear deterrent is a basic security umbrella which we owe to our people." (India lauds Bush disarmament vision, mum on shield, Reuters, May 11; US 'delighted' with nuclear talks in India, Reuters, May 11.)

Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, May 11: "What we are endeavouring to work out is a totally new security regime which is for the entire globe and that we believe is possible only through consultation." (India lauds US disarmament plan as talks begin, Reuters, May 11.)

Italy

Under Secretary of State Grossman, May 11: "We wanted very much to come as soon as we possibly could...because of the importance...of consultations with the Italian government... Rome is a key capital in our tour. I think it's fair to say that allies have certainly welcomed this consultation. They would like to have more consultation, and we are prepared to do that. I think generally allies recognise that this is a new world, that we do have new threats and we do have new opportunities." (Transcript - State's Grossman briefing in Rome on missile defense, Washington File, May 11.)

Japan

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, May 15: "Japan shares the US concern that the spread of ballistic missiles poses a serious threat to national security... We support the stated US intention to fully discuss the matter with Russia and China in particular." (Koizumi on US side over defense shield, Asia Times Online, May 16.)

Kazakhstan

President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, May 18: "Any state has the right to defend itself as it sees fit. But such one-sided decisions [as NMD] could launch a new arms receives that Russia is weak and China is also unable to respond. ... Russia's weakness is not a permanent condition. And China, too, will respond to unilateral American steps." (Kazakhs take strong issue with Bush's missile project, New York Times, May 21.)

South Korea

Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, May 10: "We've talked about a strategic framework of which missile defence is just an element. I think some of the elements will have a great deal of attraction to our friends here in Seoul, such as non-proliferation and counter-proliferation, and, certainly, the willingness of our President to lower our nuclear arsenal, unilaterally if necessary. The question of missile defence I was fortunate enough to have the time to explain. This is not an umbrella or shield which makes the world 100% safe from missiles. But it is a system which will be able to protect ourselves and our allies from a handful of missiles and, therefore, greatly increase the difficulty for any potential enemy in an attack on us. I think that at present we hope that the government of the Republic of Korea understands the new situation in the world. And I believe they do..." (Transcript - Armitage in Korea to discuss 'strategic framework', Washington File, May 10.)

Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, interview with the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper, May 10: "This is a US plan, but if we are successful, it could be made available to our allies... We think if we are successful and have sufficient technology to stop a limited number of missiles, then we can offer countries who might be faced by rogue states who purchase or manufacture missiles an alternative to making their own missiles. They could have a limited defensive shield. It ensures stability and doesn't cause an arms race." (US shield to be offered to allies - Armitage, Reuters, May 10.)

Netherlands

Under Secretary of State Grossman, May 9: "[A]s we talked about today on a number of occasions with the Dutch government, both at the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry, the government here has really paid a lot of attention to theatre missile defence. And I think I took the impression from the Minister of Defence that they would continue to do so. So, in a way, recognition of the threat, recognition that this is an Alliance problem, and recognition that everybody has something to contribute, is, I think, one of the positive aspects of the message of today." (Transcript - State's Grossman press availability in The Hague, Washington File, May 9.)

New Zealand

Foreign Minister Phil Goff, Moscow, April 23: "While New Zealand understands the stated American wish to protect itself from nuclear attack from a rogue state, we believe the best security against any nuclear attack is to fulfil the objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty." (New Zealand urges US to drop plan for nuclear missile shield, Agence France Presse, April 23.)

Pakistan

Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf, May 12: "We are against any action that re-initiates a nuclear and missile race." (Pakistan criticizes US missile defense plans, Reuters, May 12.)

Poland

Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, May 14: "Our conversations here were conducted in a very productive spirit. Our Polish colleagues have asked some serious and important questions. We have learned a lot from these discussions, and we look forward to continuing them ... It is obviously going to be up to the decision of different countries how and to what extent they feel threatened, to what extent they feel there is something that we can do together to protect against that. It is really a very open concept..." (Transcript - US official briefs in Warsaw on missile defense, Washington File, May 14.)

'Shanghai Five'

Communiqué issued by the 'Shanghai Five' group of states (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan), Moscow, April 28: "The [Foreign] Ministers reconfirm their support for safeguarding and abiding by the 1972 ABM Treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability and a basis for reductions of strategic offensive weapons... [The Ministers] are against any attempts to undermine the treaty which would lead to unpredictable consequences for the cause of peace and security [and] start a chain reaction of proliferation of missiles and missile technologies." (Russia, China, Central Asians attack US plan, Reuters, April 28.)

Turkey

Under Secretary of State Grossman, May 11: "We presented our point of view, but we were very, very interested in what the Turkish side had to say. ... What we were here to do...is talking to people about the new concept of deterrence... We are far from a specific architecture. We are far from a specific cost. We are far from asking any allies to do anything specific. ... In many ways Turkey and the NATO Alliance, as you will remember from the 1999 Summit, have been pioneers in thinking about these questions of weapons of mass destruction." (Transcript - State's Grossman at Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Washington File, May 11.)

NATO

Note: see below for communiqués and related documentation from NATO Ministerial meetings held in May and early June.

Under Secretary of State Grossman, NATO Headquarters, May 8: "[W]e tried in our presentations today to talk a little about a comprehensive approach, an approach on which we will work with friends and allies, to deal with this new threat. Not just about missile defence but about a comprehensive approach, a cooperative approach... I think that one of the things that I was struck with by in the conversation today was: while by no means everybody agrees on every single piece of the threat...there was a general recognition that the world has changed. ... I want to be clear here, I didn't say that there was any specificity. But there was a general recognition that we needed to do much, much more together in the areas of non-proliferation." (Transcript - State's Grossman press availability May 8 at NATO, Washington File, May 9.)

NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, May 8: "I very much welcome today's briefing by a US delegation on the latest administration thinking on missile defence and new concepts of deterrence. This is just the beginning of a thorough process and I particularly appreciate the commitment to consultation in the North Atlantic Council before any decisions have been made. The meeting was both friendly and constructive, auguring well for future meetings. As the US team made clear, we have entered a thinking process in which we are not just exchanging information, but truly considering together the new challenges we face and how best to deal with them. All of NATO's nations have an opportunity to shape the Alliance's approach. The US team also stressed that they are committed to adding to the security of all allies. The determination to have a genuine dialogue with other concerned parties, especially Russia and China, was also widely welcomed." (NATO Press Release (2001)060, May 8.)

Lord Robertson, Press Conference following NATO Foreign Ministers' Meeting, Budapest, May 29: "[We] discussed...US thinking about the role of deterrence and missile defence. The challenges to NATO security are something that all Allies will face together. Secretary Powell did not come with a specific plan to be supported. Rather he emphasised that the US wanted to share its thinking before decisions are made, and this desire was warmly welcomed. This NATO 'thinking process' will continue for some time to come." (NATO website, http://www.nato.int)

Lord Robertson, Vilnius, May 30: "I'm refuting completely the allegation that there was a row in NATO yesterday and that somehow America was marginalized by the European allies. That is completely and totally wrong... America is sharing its thinking on missile defence with the allies, but it has no plans, it has no proposals. Therefore there could have been no rebuff by the European allies of the American proposals." (Robertson denies NATO quarrel over missile defense, Reuters, May 30.)

Lord Robertson, Opening Statement, NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting, Brussels, June 7: "I think this meeting will bear out the fact that last week's news stories of an Alliance divided [over missile defence] were, in reality, a pure fiction. We are here today to talk, to consult, to share our thinking, and to work together toward a better future. No more, no less than that. Today, we have already heard a briefing by US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld [see below] on his thinking as he works through a far-reaching defence review. This takes in missile defence, nuclear strategy, and many other topics. ... We welcome this commitment to consultation in NATO, and have no doubt that it will continue, and deepen still further." (NATO website.)

Secretary of State Powell, Budapest, May 29: "I didn't take a poll around the room but I think I can safely say there is recognition there is a threat out there. Some people see it as more immediate than others. ... I made it clear to them that this is a real consultation that President Bush wants...and not a phoney consultation... At the same time I made it clear to them that we know we have to move forward. We can see the threat. The threat is clear and we have to deal with that threat. We'll do it in a way that I think will enhance overall strategic stability and it'll take us time to persuade [others] of that proposition. But I think we'll be successful at the end of the day." (US smoothes allies, Moscow on missile plan, Reuters, May 29; Powell fails to persuade NATO on Antimissile plan, New York Times, May 30.)

Unnamed US State Department official, Budapest, May 29: "Clearly not all allies are on the same page..." (Powell fails to persuade NATO on Antimissile plan, New York Times, May 30.)

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Press Conference following NATO Defence Ministers Meeting, June 7: "I feel that we were able in the briefings to raise the discussion to a new level of detail and certainly I suspect that as a result of the meetings here there is a better understanding of the approach that the United States is in the process of engaging in... I must say that I was pleased with the generally very favourable comments that we received... There are certainly members of NATO that don't [share our threat perception]. Well, certainly, everyone is important in NATO. But there are any number that do see the common threat. The important thing about the threat is that it is not debatable. It exists... and it is growing. And it seems to me perfectly fine for people to have different views, different policies, and different opinions on things. But not on facts. ... What we must not do is politicise facts because they are uncomfortable. (Transcript - Rumsfeld press conference following NATO Ministerial, Washington File, June 7.)

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, Budapest, May 29: "I stressed the importance of multilateral agreements in controlling levels of armaments. They are important for our safety." (Powell fails to persuade NATO on Antimissile plan, New York Times, May 30.)

French Defence Minister Alain Richard, Brussels, June 7: "We are in a listening phase. There are still many questions open." (US shows missile defense film to sceptical allies, Reuters, June 7.)

German Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping, Brussels, June 7: "Missile defence is at best now a collection of ideas with a political will behind it... [T]he principle of arms control and non-proliferation must not be changed." (US shows missile defense film to sceptical allies, Reuters, June 7.)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Budapest, May 29: "The logic of the Cold War, which was based on mutual vulnerability, has lost its legitimacy. The new realities of the new age require new solutions. The Alliance has the right and duty to defend itself... Consultations that have started on this issue within the Alliance are in our view a symbolic expression of the transatlantic relationship and the confirmation of the United States' continued commitment to Euro-Atlantic security." (NATO website.)

Note: on April 23, a meeting of Russian and NATO non-proliferation experts was held in Moscow. A Russian Foreign Ministry statement (Document 724-23-04-2001, April 23) summarised the deliberations as follows: "The main attention was devoted to questions of non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. The Russian side showed in a well-reasoned way the absence of changes in the strategic situation that would justify deployment of missile defence systems for the territory of a country, prohibited by the ABM Treaty of 1972, and emphasised the need for observance and strengthening of this Treaty rather than 'adapting' it to plans for a national ABM. ... Both sides pointed out the importance of taking political and international legal measures to ensure the non-proliferation of missile weapon delivery vehicles and related technologies. All interested states and organisations, above all the UN, the Russian experts noted, should participate in the elaboration and implementation of such measures."

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.