|
Disarmament DocumentationUS Withdrawal from ABM Treaty, December 13: Announcement & ReactionThis section includes:
Announcement by President Bush'Remarks by President Bush on National Missile Defense, The Rose Garden, The White House, December 13, 2001', White House transcript. I've just concluded a meeting of my National Security Council. We reviewed what I discussed with my friend, President Vladimir Putin, over the course of many meetings, many months. And that is the need for America to move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Today, I have given formal notice to Russia, in accordance with the treaty, that the United States of America is withdrawing from this almost 30-year old treaty. I have concluded the ABM Treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks. The 1972 ABM treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union at a much different time, in a vastly different world. One of the signatories, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. And neither does the hostility that once led both our countries to keep thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, pointed at each other. The grim theory was that neither side would launch a nuclear attack because it knew the other would respond, thereby destroying both. Today, as the events of September 11 made all too clear, the greatest threats to both our countries come not from each other, or other big powers in the world, but from terrorists who strike without warning, or rogue states who seek weapons of mass destruction. We know that the terrorists, and some of those who support them, seek the ability to deliver death and destruction to our doorstep via missile. And we must have the freedom and the flexibility to develop effective defenses against those attacks. Defending the American people is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief, and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defenses. At the same time, the United States and Russia have developed a new, much more hopeful and constructive relationship. We are moving to replace mutually assured destruction with mutual cooperation. Beginning in Ljubljana, and continuing in meetings in Genoa, Shanghai, Washington and Crawford, President Putin and I developed common ground for a new strategic relationship. Russia is in the midst of a transition to free markets and democracy. We are committed to forging strong economic ties between Russia and the United States, and new bonds between Russia and our partners in NATO. NATO has made clear its desire to identify and pursue opportunities for joint action at 20 [19 NATO members plus Russia]. I look forward to visiting Moscow, to continue our discussions, as we seek a formal way to express a new strategic relationship that will last long beyond our individual administrations, providing a foundation for peace for the years to come. We're already working closely together as the world rallies in the war against terrorism. I appreciate so much President Putin's important advice and cooperation as we fight to dismantle the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan. I appreciate his commitment to reduce Russia's offensive nuclear weapons. I reiterate our pledge to reduce our own nuclear arsenal between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons. President Putin and I have also agreed that my decision to withdraw from the treaty will not, in any way, undermine our new relationship or Russian security. As President Putin said in Crawford, we are on the path to a fundamentally different relationship. The Cold War is long gone. Today we leave behind one of its last vestiges. But this is not a day for looking back. This is a day for looking forward with hope, and anticipation of greater prosperity and peace for Russians, for Americans and for the entire world. Text of Diplomatic Notes of Withdrawal'Text of Diplomatic Notes sent to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine on December 13, 2001'; US State Department text, Office of the Spokesman, December 14. The Embassy of the United States of America has the honor to refer to the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems signed at Moscow May 26, 1972. Article XV, paragraph 2, gives each Party the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. The United States recognizes that the Treaty was entered into with the USSR, which ceased to exist in 1991. Since then, we have entered into a new strategic relationship with Russia that is cooperative rather than adversarial, and are building strong relationships with most states of the former USSR. Since the Treaty entered into force in 1972, a number of state and non-state entities have acquired or are actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It is clear, and has recently been demonstrated, that some of these entities are prepared to employ these weapons against the United States. Moreover, a number of states are developing ballistic missiles, including long-range ballistic missiles, as a means of delivering weapons of mass destruction. These events pose a direct threat to the territory and security of the United States and jeopardize its supreme interests. As a result, the United States has concluded that it must develop, test, and deploy anti-ballistic missile systems for the defense of its national territory, of its forces outside the United States, and of its friends and allies. Pursuant to Article XV, paragraph 2, the United States has decided that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. Therefore, in the exercise of the right to withdraw from the Treaty provided in Article XV, paragraph 2, the United States hereby gives notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty. In accordance with the terms of the Treaty, withdrawal will be effective six months from the date of this notice. Remarks by Secretary of State PowellPress briefing by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, December 13; US State Department transcript. Secretary Powell: I might say a word about the President's announcement this morning concerning the ABM Treaty. As you know, we gave notification to the Russian Federation this morning, and we have now received a reply from President Putin [see below]... A couple of points I would like to draw your attention to in President Putin's reply. Obviously, they still believe that the Treaty is a centerpiece, and prefer that we would have stayed in it. But I note in his reply two points, one that our withdrawal...is no threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. From my conversations with President Putin earlier this week, essentially it means that they had anticipated that this might come at some point, and had made their own analysis, and believe that their national security is not affected because of the size and quality of their strategic nuclear offensive capability, and their understanding of the nature of the missile defense program that we will be pursuing. And the second point I would make is that President Putin has now responded to President Bush's Washington-Crawford statement of reducing our strategic offensive inventory down to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads. President Putin has now indicated that he would like to go to the range of 1,500 to 2,200. So we are in the same range, and this will be a subject of negotiation and discussion, beginning with Secretary Rumsfeld's meeting with Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov next week. We will aggressively move forward to continue our strategic framework discussions with the Russians, for the purpose of bringing this into some legal form that the two presidents can consider for signature when President Bush visits Moscow sometime next year. The key point here is that an arms race has not been set off by the United States' indicating its intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Quite the contrary. The Russians have said they don't see this as a threat to their national security, and secondly, they are going to go ahead with very deep cuts in their strategic offensive forces. This is very encouraging, and we welcome President Putin's statement. ... Question: You say you are not...triggering a new arms race. ... [H]ow do you know that? And specifically, President Putin talked with the Chinese and the Indian leaders today. Has the United States done anything similar? Secretary Powell: In my conversations with President Putin, and in many, many conversations with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and his colleagues, it has become clear to me that they understand the nature of our missile defense program, that they have made an analysis of their own security requirements and needs, and do not believe that what we are doing is a threat to their national security. That is what they have said. If it is not a threat to their national security, then why would they engage in an expensive arms race, if they do not feel threatened? And the best evidence that they do not feel threatened, and are not engaged or planning to engage in such an arms race, is the fact that President Putin matched and went even a little bit lower than President Bush's range of strategic offensive warheads, and in his statement today said let's move forward aggressively to put this into a legal framework so the two presidents can bind the two nations at this lower level. That is not the basis of an arms race; quite the contrary. ... I...spoke to the Chinese Foreign Minister last night, and I brought in and had a long conversation with the Chinese Ambassador yesterday afternoon to explain why we were taking the action we were taking with respect to the ABM Treaty. And they will now analyze that, and I hope they will come to the same conclusion that the Russians came to, that this action is not intended against them; it is not a threat against their strategic deterrence. It will be a system that goes after those irresponsible rogue states that might come up with a couple of missiles and threaten us, and we have to be in a position to deal with that. So I don't see the basis for an arms race in anything that we have done. I see a basis for increased strategic stability, and I look forward to working with my Russian colleagues, as does Secretary Rumsfeld, in pursuing that. We spent 11 months, the first 11 months of this Administration, working with the Russians, discussing this with them at length, building a strong relationship, a strong relationship that could take this kind of a disagreement. As President Putin said to me the other day, we have a good strategic relationship that will more than survive this disagreement. Does he support or approve of what we have done? No, he has said he does not. But he has also said he doesn't view it as a threat to his nation, and it is not. And he is looking forward to codifying our mutual reductions. ... Question: Mr. Secretary, is the President's number of 1,700 to 2,200 set in stone, or could you match President Putin's offer? Secretary Powell: It was a pretty firm number. But let the discussions begin. We want to hear why they feel that particular range is appropriate. Obviously, our range fits within their range. So there is a way to square this circle. I don't know that it is a problem and I don't know that the two numbers have to be identical. The important point is that both sides have taken significant reductions, in our case something like 60 percent down or close to 70 percent down from where we are now. That's the detail. Or a little bit of a nuance that President Putin didn't put in his numbers. And we will just have to discuss with them how to go forward, two different ranges or can we normalize on a single range. But it is clear that the range they came up with is so close to ours that both sides believe that we are in the same ballpark with respect to what we need to preserve our strategic deterrence capability. ... Question: Don't you think that US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty would lead to disappearance of present mutual trust and understanding in US/Russia relations and would significantly worsen your dialogue on offensive nuclear arsenal reduction? Secretary Powell: No, quite the contrary. The dialogue is strong. President Putin and President Bush have met four times at four different summit meetings. They have formed a strong relationship, not just a personal relationship, but a relationship based on mutual interests that relates to values, democracy building, economic development, regional cooperation, the campaign against terrorism, and developing a new strategic framework. I have met many, many times with Foreign Minister Ivanov and my other colleagues, Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice, are in constant contact with their counterparts. So this will not fracture that. It is strong. Because it is strong, we will accept this disagreement and move on. As President Putin said to me, this is one disagreement less and we wish you had not moved in this direction but you have indicated for months you might move in this direction, and let's continue to build the relationship. So quite the contrary, it will not affect our ability to negotiate lower numbers, as reflected by President Putin's statement today committing to a negotiation to lower numbers. There will be no arms race. International Comment and ReactionStatement by Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, December 14: The Secretary-General has noted with regret the decision of the United States to withdraw unilaterally from the 1972 [ABM] Treaty... The ABM Treaty has served for many years as a cornerstone for maintaining global peace and security and strategic stability. He is concerned that the annulation of this treaty may provoke an arms race, especially in the missile area, and further undermine disarmament and non-proliferation regimes. He calls upon all states to explore new binding and irreversible initiatives to avert such unwelcome effects. (Secretary-General regrets United States decision to withdraw from ABM Treaty, UN Press Release SG/SM/8080, December 14.) Televised statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
December 13 The US Administration today announced that it will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty in six months' time. The Treaty does indeed allow each of the parties to withdraw from it under exceptional circumstances. The leadership of the United States has spoken about it repeatedly and this step has not come as a surprise to us. But we believe this decision to be mistaken. As is known, Russia, like the United States and unlike other nuclear powers, has long possessed an effective system to overcome anti-missile defense. So, I can say with full confidence that the decision made by the President of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. At the same time our country elected not to accept the insistent proposals on the part of the US to jointly withdraw from the ABM Treaty and did everything it could to preserve the Treaty. I still think that this is a correct and valid position. Russia was guided above all by the aim of preserving and strengthening the international legal foundation in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons. The ABM Treaty is one of the supporting elements of the legal system in this field. That system was created through joint efforts during the past decades. It is our conviction that the development of the situation in the present world dictates a certain logic of actions. Now that the world has been confronted with new threats one cannot allow a legal vacuum to be formed in the sphere of strategic stability. One should not undermine the regimes of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons. I believe that the present level of bilateral relations between the Russian Federation and the US should not only be preserved but should be used for working out a new framework of strategic relations as soon as possible. Along with the problem of anti-missile defense a particularly important task under these conditions is putting a legal seal on the achieved agreements on further radical, irreversible and verifiable cuts of strategic offensive weapons, in our opinion to the level of 1,500-2,200 nuclear warheads for each side. In conclusion I would like to note that Russia will continue to adhere firmly to its course in world affairs aimed at strengthening strategic stability and international security. (Russian Embassy in Washington, DC, http://www.russianembassy.org.) Note: on December 13, White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer issued a statement in response to President Putin's televised address. Fleischer noted: "The United States welcomes President Putin's statement. We agree with President Putin that 'the decision taken by the President of the United States presents no threat to the national security of the Russian Federation'. We have worked intensively with Russia to create a new strategic framework for our relationship based on mutual interests and cooperation across a broad range of political, economic, and security issues. Together, the United States and Russia have made substantial progress in our efforts and look forward to even greater progress in the future. The United States in particular welcomes Russia's commitment to deep reductions in its level of offensive strategic nuclear forces. Combined with the reductions of US strategic nuclear forces announced by President Bush in November, this action will result in the lowest level of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by our two countries in decades. We will work with Russia to formalize this arrangement on offensive forces, including appropriate verification and transparency measures. Russia's announcement of nuclear reductions and its commitment to continue to conduct close consultations with the United States reflect our shared desire to continue the essential work of building a new relationship for a new century." (Response to Russian statement on US ABM Treaty withdrawal, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, December 13.) Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, December 13: Russia can be unconcerned, with its defence systems... Maybe other nations should be concerned if the United States chooses to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty... (US withdraws from ABM Treaty, Associated Press, December 13.) Russian government spokesperson Sergei Yastrzhembsky, December 13: [The government] will voice regret about the withdrawal if it happens, but the reaction will be calm because we think that Russia's nuclear missile potential is sufficient to protect our national interests. ... We shall see whether the potential of increased cooperation and mutual trust is sufficient to overcome this... There inevitably will be situations in the future when our countries will disagree on some issues. (Putin - US ABM withdrawal a 'mistake', Associated Press, December 13.) General Anatoly Kvashnin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, December 13: From a military point of view, the problem of US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty can be solved... [It will. however,] lead to a change in the military-political situation and reflect negatively on strategic stability as a whole... This will untie the hands of a series of states and could lead to a new round of the arms race. Yabloko (Liberal) Party Deputy Vladimir Lukin, former Russian Ambassador to US, December 13: The US used our enormous help to conduct the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, then announced its position on ABM. It's a sign, and a bad sign at that. ... [To quote de Tallyrand,] 'It's worse than a crime, it's an error.' (Putin silent as leaders vent fury over ABM opt-out, Reuters, December 13.) Vyacheslav Volodin, Leader of the Fatherland All-Russia Faction in the Duma, December 13: [This move shows that the US is] a superpower that is trying to dictate its rules to the world. (Putin silent as leaders vent fury over ABM opt-out, Reuters, December 13.) Chinese Foreign Ministry statement, December 14: On December 13, President Jiang Zemin, who was paying a state visit to Myanmar, had phone conversations with Russian President Putin and US President Bush respectively upon request. President Putin and President Bush briefed President Jiang on the latest developments revolving around the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. President Jiang elaborated on China's position on the question to President Putin and President Bush, stressing that it is of great importance to maintain [the] international arms control and disarmament regime in the current situation, and [that] China stands ready to work with the other countries in the world to make its due efforts to uphold world peace and stability. (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn.) French Foreign Ministry statement, December 14: France formally takes note of the United States' decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, which has been a crucial element in the strategic stability of recent years. Beyond Russian-American bilateral relations, the need to continue guaranteeing strategic stability in a new global context remains a challenge to us all. That assumes, in particular, binding international rules and instruments, both bilateral and multilateral. These are the objectives France will pursue in its discussions with its partners. (Statement by French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, December 14; Foreign Ministry website, http://www.france.diplomatie.fr.) Statement by New Zealand Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Matt Robson, December 14: The US decision signals that it is moving toward the implementation of the proposed National Missile Defence system. While we acknowledge the ABM Treaty is an imperfect instrument for nuclear disarmament, our fear now is that the US decision holds the potential to see a new form of arms race, spaced on 21st century technology, on earth and in space. It is important for all of the nuclear powers to now actively strengthen disarmament and non-proliferation measures through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the nuclear powers to abolish their nuclear arsenals, so we can eventually eliminate the scourge of nuclear weaponry. New Zealand will continue to pursue our nuclear disarmament policies with our New Agenda partners and to make our views known to the nuclear powers. (Withdrawal from ABM Treaty a backward step, New Zealand Foreign Ministry, December 14; New Zealand Government Executive website, http://www.executive.govt.nz.) Statement by Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, December 13: Sweden has pointed out repeatedly that a unilateral decision to go ahead with missile defence plans may potentially lead to a new arms race and have adverse effects for disarmament and non-proliferation. Sweden has welcomed the consultations between the Bush administration and other countries, and had hoped that a constructive solution would be found to the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. In this context, the consultations with Russia and China have been particularly important. I call upon the USA to continue consultations so as to achieve a joint solution, a solution that makes a positive contribution to disarmament and non-proliferation. Having said that, it is unacceptable that China is using the American missile defence plans as an argument for expanding its own arms programmes. What is needed instead is for all parties to strive to reinforce the work of international disarmament. (US plans to withdraw from ABM Treaty may have serious consequences, Statement by Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, December 13; Foreign Ministry website, http://www.regeringen.se.) US Comment and ReactionJoseph Biden, Democratic Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, December 13: I'm at a loss to understand what the urgency of having to pull out of the ABM Treaty is. I'm at a loss to understand how the tests that they believe they have to conduct now are necessary to determine whether or not a system is feasible. ... The thing we remain least vulnerable to...is an ICBM attack from another nation with a return address on the nation firing that [missile], knowing that they will, in fact, be annihilated and obliterated. ... [This move may impel China to develop a] considerably larger [arsenal] than it would have... [This will] put incredible pressure on India and Pakistan and eventually will begin - mark my words, within five years there'll be a debate in Japan about whether or not they should be a nuclear power. ... About eight months ago they [the Bush administration] were [also] talking about weaponizing space. God help us when that moment comes... (Senior Senate Democrats criticize Bush ABM Treaty withdrawal, US State Department (Washington File), December 13; US withdraws from Abm Treaty, Associated Press, December 13.) Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (Democrat), December 13: [Losing the ABM Treaty is] a high price to pay for testing that's not required this early in the schedule for missile defence. ... [Our withdrawal] could rupture relations with key countries and governments around the world. It presents some very serious questions with regard to future arms races involving other countries, and sends the wrong message to the world with regard to our intent in abiding with treaties. (Senior Senate Democrats criticize Bush ABM Treaty withdrawal, Washington File, December 13.) Carl Levin, Democratic Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, December 13: [Our withdrawal will] likely lead to an action-reaction cycle in offensive and defensive technologies, including countermeasures. That kind of arms race would not make us more secure. (Senior Senate Democrats criticize Bush ABM Treaty withdrawal, Washington File, December 13.) Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, December 13: This announcement fulfils the President's stated commitment of America's defence. The world has changed since the ABM Treaty was signed in 1972 and formed the cornerstone of our nuclear deterrent. ... The Senate supports a missile defence system... By stating our intention to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, the President is moving forward with the necessary steps to build one... (Senior Senate Democrats criticize Bush ABM Treaty withdrawal, Washington File, December 13.) House Majority Leader Richard Armey (Republican), December 13: I applaud the President for opening a promising new chapter in our nation's strategic history. The threat of attack from rogue states and organizations grows every day. The President understands that America must be prepared to defend against new threats from new enemies of freedom. (Senior Senate Democrats criticize Bush ABM Treaty withdrawal, Washington File, December 13.) © 2001 The Acronym Institute. |