|
Disarmament DocumentationNATO Defence Ministers' Meetings, December 18This section includes:
Defence Planning Committee & Nuclear Planning Group: Final CommuniquéFinal Communiqué, Ministerial Meeting of the Defence Planning Committee (DPC) and Nuclear Planning Group (NPG), Brussels; NATO Press Release (2001) 170, December 18. 3. In reviewing Allies' defence plans, we noted that the force structures and capabilities of Allies are generally sufficient to deal with possible conventional military attacks against Alliance territory. However, as set out in NATO's Strategic Concept, and as borne out by recent events, our forces also need to be able to deal effectively with a wider range of challenges, which may involve the deployment of sizeable forces outside Allied territory. In this respect, as well as in their ability to deal with the risks of a proliferation of NBC [Nuclear, Biological and Chemical] weapons and their delivery means, the forces of most Allies still have significant shortfalls. Measures to address these shortfalls have been identified in the Defence Capabilities Initiative and in our NATO defence planning process. However, there is now an urgent need to make more progress in the development of more deployable forces to undertake the tasks we have set ourselves in the Ministerial Guidance last year. ... 6. At our Nuclear Planning Group meeting, we reviewed the status of NATO's nuclear forces and addressed a number of related issues. Noting the fundamentally political purpose to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war, we reaffirmed the principles underpinning these forces as set out in the Alliance's Strategic Concept. Given new security challenges of an unprecedented nature, we have particular reason to reaffirm our complete trust in, and steadfast commitment to, the strength and validity of the transatlantic link in our Alliance, which guarantees equal security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. We emphasised again that nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO continue to provide an essential political and military link between the European and North American members of the Alliance. 7. We appreciated information by the United States Secretary of Defense on ongoing exchanges between the United States and the Russian Federation on a new strategic framework. We fully support developments that are designed to foster cooperation based on shared interests and to enhance strategic stability and non-proliferation cooperation. We welcome the results of President Bush's November 13-14 meetings with President Putin and expressed our expectation that the atmosphere of confidence and cooperation in matters of global security and strategic stability fully pervade the Alliance's relationship with Russia, including the exchanges on nuclear weapons issues. 8. Deterrence and defence along with arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation will continue to play a major role in the achievement of the Alliance's security objectives. We welcomed President Bush's decision to reduce over the next decade the number of US operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700-2,200 and President Putin's statement that Russia intended to reduce its strategic nuclear weapons 'in kind'. We reaffirmed our determination to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to contribute to the implementation of the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. We continue to support the existing moratoria on nuclear testing. 9. In these times of heightened security awareness, we take pride in the outstanding safety and security record regarding NATO's nuclear weapons. We reaffirmed our standing commitment to the highest standards of safety and security of these weapons and emphasized, again, that NATO's nuclear weapons are safe and secure in every aspect. 10. We expressed great satisfaction with the encouraging progress in exchanges with the Russian Federation on nuclear weapons issues under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, in particular on nuclear-related confidence and security building measures proposed by NATO. We agreed that a near-term focus of these discussions on nuclear weapons safety and security issues is in our mutual interest. Agreement by both sides on the value of these exchanges and on the desirability of meetings of nuclear experts is a constructive development towards improved transparency, predictability and growing mutual trust between NATO and Russia in this important field. North Atlantic Council: Final CommuniquéFinal Communiqué, Ministerial Meeting of the NAC, Brussels; NATO Press Release (2001) 171, December 18. 4. We exchanged views on missile defence and the global strategic environment. We took note of US and Russian statements that the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty presents no threat to the Russian Federation. The need to maintain strategic stability remains critically important. We welcomed that both sides have worked intensely and are continuing to do so to create a new strategic relationship based on mutual interests and cooperation across a broad range of political, economic, and security issues in order to contribute to global security and strategic stability. In this context, we welcomed the movement toward new, lower levels of offensive nuclear weapons made clear in both US and Russian statements. We look forward to continued consultations with the United States on these issues and welcome continued work within the Alliance on theater missile defence. Statement on Combating Terrorism'Statement on Combating Terrorism: Adapting the Alliance's Defence Capabilities', NATO Press Release (2001) 173, December 18. 2. The Alliance must adapt its capabilities to these changes in the conditions of security and stability. We fully endorse the recent statement on terrorism by Alliance Foreign Ministers. As Defence Ministers, we are especially concerned to ensure that the Alliance's military concepts evolve in keeping with our clearer appreciation of the menace posed by terrorism and that its defence capabilities are adequate for the demands they will face, including military responses to terrorism. ... 4. A...general re-assessment of the Alliance's defence posture and plans in the light of the events of September 11 has already begun. A new assessment of the threat posed by terrorism is being prepared; proposals for improving the Alliance's preparedness against terrorism involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons have been advanced; and the Allies concerned are examining the implications of terrorism for national defence plans in the context of NATO's force planning system. We are vigorously pursuing our efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means and intensifying our cooperation in the field of civil emergency planning. 7. There is much yet to do, however, on both a conceptual and a practical level. This work should include: ... further efforts by the Senior Defence Group on Proliferation, in consultation with other relevant NATO bodies, to improve the Alliance's capability to cope with the possible use by terrorists of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials; ... US Defense Secretary Remarks on Washington/Crawford Summit'Statement by US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, at the NATO Nuclear Planning Group', December 18; NATO website. In recent months, the United States and Russia have made significant progress in building a new strategic relationship - one that puts Cold War animosities behind us, so we can focus on the new dangers and challenges that both countries will face in the 21st Century. An important expression of that new relationship is the broad agreement by both countries that the time has come for substantial reductions in strategic offensive weapons. The US and Russia are no longer adversaries; we no longer need the large nuclear arsenals of the Cold War era. At the Washington/Crawford Summit, Presidents Bush and Putin confirmed their respective commitments to implement significant reductions. And President Bush told President Putin that the United States intends to reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic warheads to a range of 1,700 to 2,200 over the next decade. President Putin has since indicated his intention to reduce to between 1,500 and 2.000. President Bush will visit Moscow this spring. In weeks and months ahead, we will work together to find new ways to enhance transparency and predictability of the strategic nuclear force reductions both the US and Russia have pledged to make. As we work to reduce our nuclear arsenals, we must at the same time prepare for the full range of asymmetric threats we will face in the period ahead. Of particular concern is the fact that terrorist networks and terrorist states are seeking weapons of increasing power and range - asymmetric capabilities that could allow them to hold our people hostage to terror and blackmail. Among our vulnerabilities to terrorism, cyber attacks and cruise missiles, we must add our vulnerability to missile attack. The rogue states of the world see this vulnerability - and they are investing enormous sums to acquire the weapons necessary to exploit it. That is why President Bush has declared his intention to develop and deploy ballistic missile defenses capable of protecting the American people, our friends, allies and forces around the world from limited ballistic missile attack. We have put in place a robust and flexible research, development and testing program designed to examine the widest range of promising technologies. That program has begun to bear fruit. Earlier this year, on July 14, we held a successful test of a ground-based mid-course system. Two weeks ago, on December 4, we again held a successful ballistic missile intercept test. These intercepts show that, notwithstanding the delays of the past decade, the capability to defend against ballistic missiles is within our grasp. Ballistic missile defense is less a problem of invention than it is a challenge of engineering. But, as we have warned for some time now, it was inevitable that our testing program would eventually 'bump up' against the constraints of the ABM Treaty. That happened on October 25, when I denied the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization permission to conduct four test activities, each of which some lawyers would have argued would have been a violation of the treaty. That is why, last week, President Bush decided that the time had come to give Russia our formal 6-month notice of withdrawal. The Russian government has told us that, while disappointed, it accepts the US decision. Indeed, President Putin himself stated that he has 'complete confidence that the decision taken by the President of the United States presents no threat to the national security of the Russian Federation.' I believe that this shows that the US-Russian relationship has matured to the point that we can agree to disagree agreeably on the ABM Treaty, without allowing those differences to affect progress in other areas of our relationship. The US and Russia are cooperating in the war on terrorism. We are expanding our two countries trade and investment ties, and working to bring Russia into the WTO. And we have broad agreement that the time has come for both of our countries to make substantial reductions in strategic offensive weapons. I know it is hard for some to imagine a US-Russia relationship without the ABM treaty. Not long ago, it would have been hard for some imagine the US and Russia working together in Afghanistan - but there we are. The world is changing. Not only must we change with it - we must lead the change. Russia and the US are working to do just that as we transform our relationship for a new century. US Defense Secretary Remarks on Terrorism and WMD'Statement by US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, at the NATO North Atlantic Council', December 18; NATO website. When we met here six months ago, I recounted a story about Vice President Cheney's appearance before the US Senate Committee in March, 1989 for his confirmation hearings as US Secretary of Defense. During those hearings, a wide range of security issues were discussed - but not one person in the Senate hearing room uttered the word 'Iraq'. Yet within a year, that word was in every headline and on everyone's lips. Saddam Hussein had invaded and occupied Kuwait, and was threatening Saudi Arabia, and the US and coalition forces were preparing for war in the Persian Gulf. I cited that fact as a valuable lesson in the reality that we must prepare for surprise. I added that I often wondered what word might come to dominate my term in office that wasn't mentioned during my confirmation hearings. We now know. At this table six months ago, I suspect not one of us imagined that, by the time we would next meet, the World Trade Towers would lie smoldering, the Pentagon would have come under attack, coalition forces would be at war in Afghanistan, and, for the first time in the history of this Alliance, Article V of the NATO Charter would have been invoked, and we would have, among other things, NATO AWACs flying over the United States... Yet here we are. And in my confirmation hearing only eight months earlier, the word that was not mentioned once was, of course, 'Afghanistan'. ... Afghanistan is not the only country where terrorists operate - and al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist network that threatens us. Terrorist networks function in dozens of countries, often with the support of terrorist regimes. As President Bush said this month in his defense policy speech at the Citadel, 'Every nation knows that we cannot accept - and will not accept - states that harbor, finance, train or equip the agents of terror. Those nations that violate this principle will be regarded as hostile regimes. They have been warned, they are being watched, and they will be held to account.' ... The Nexus of WMD and Terrorism It would be a grave mistake for us to conclude, in the wake of September 11, that terrorism is the [only] new threat to our democracies. Just as none of us expected terrorists to attack New York and Washington, other unexpected threats will surely emerge to surprise us in the years ahead. We cannot know for certain who will threaten us, or where and when they may strike. But we can know our vulnerabilities. We need to prepare, as an Alliance, for the full range of asymmetric threats: new forms of terrorism, to be certain, but also cyber-attacks, attacks on space assets and information networks, advanced conventional weapons and 'access denial' capabilities, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. All of these are emerging dangers. None can be ignored. It should be of particular concern to all of us that the list of countries which today support global terrorism overlaps significantly with the list of countries that have weaponized chemical and biological agents, and which are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - and the means to deliver them. Three months ago, terrorists hijacked civilian airliners, turned them into missiles, and used them to kill thousands of innocent people. Can any doubt for moment that if terrorists or the regimes that support them possessed real missiles, armed with weapons of mass destruction, they would hesitate to use them? The terrorists and their state sponsors have demonstrated both their ingenuity, and their ruthless disregard for innocent human life. As we look at the devastation they unleashed in the US, contemplate the destruction they could wreak in New York, or London, or Paris or Berlin with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. We need to face the reality that the attacks of September 11 - horrific as they were - may in fact be a dim preview of what is to come if we do not prepare today to defend our people from adversaries with weapons of increasing power and range. President Bush is committed to addressing all asymmetric threats. US Defense Secretary Press ConferenceUS Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Press Conference after NAC Ministerial, December 18. Question: You warned your allies today that this [kind of massive terrorist attack] could happen almost anywhere - London, Paris, Rome, Berlin. Have you a commitment from the allies to provide military support no matter where the hunt for terror might take you, be it Iraq or Somalia or Sudan or anywhere else? Secretary Rumsfeld: What we've decided in the United States was that every country is different, every alliance is different, and each nation and certainly the Alliance have to think through their circumstance and decide in what ways it's appropriate for them to provide assistance. President Bush and the United States have asked for the help of all nations on the face of the Earth to try to deal with this problem of terrorism. Some nations are helping in one way. Another nation may be helping in still another way. Some nations do it publicly. Some nations do it privately. Our attitude is that we need to deal with terrorists and terrorism and states that harbor terrorism, and we need all the help we can get. And we're delighted to have people give us the help they feel is appropriate, given the task that we have ahead of us. I've said before that I really believe that the mission determines the coalition, and the coalition does not determine the mission. ... Question: You talked this morning about the asymmetric threat for NATO, which the Alliance should address. Does that require a total new focus of NATO and perhaps even a rewriting of the strategic concept? Secretary Rumsfeld: No, I think not. I think that the reason that we are not attacked by armies, navies, and air forces is because we have effective armies, navies, and air forces. It's perfectly logical that we are going to be attacked, therefore, by people who will look for vulnerabilities. They'll look for vulnerabilities, for example, in our dependency in various types of communications. They'll look for vulnerabilities by using cruise missiles or ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction. That requires that we address those threats that run across that so-called asymmetrical spectrum, but it does not suggest that it allows one to simply forget more basic threats. It requires that NATO and each country, I think, recognize that we do face different technologies and different capabilities. And we need to see that we're arranged to deal with that full spectrum of capabilities, regardless of where...the threat comes from. ... Question: What elements do you think should construct the strategic framework with Russia in the future that you are going to negotiate with them? Secretary Rumsfeld: Well, for one thing, we both, Russia and the United States, as well as all the countries that have been interested in arms control over the years, are interested in transparency and in predictability. Each of our countries has said that we're going to go from thousands and thousands of strategic deployed offensive nuclear weapons...over a period of a decade. Now as you do that, it's in both of our interests that we do it in a way that we have transparency and predictability, that we communicate with each other... [T]here are several ways the United States could reduce those weapons. We may start down one path, thinking that it's the most efficient, cost effective and the most efficient way to do it, and then, at some point, two, three years down the road, we may get a phone call saying that one of our weapon categories is no longer safe or reliable, in which case...you would shift gears, and you would take that less reliable or less safe weapon out and leave one of the other ones that you might've planned to take out. Now that's the kind of thing that you'd want to know about the other party. And so we certainly want to be talking about those types of things. And I think one other thing: since our missile defense system is clearly not designed to be capable of dealing with the kinds of numbers of weapons that Russia has, I think, as we go along, we would very likely have ways that we would continue to communicate with them about the nature of our limited missile defense system, as we get to the point where we fashion one and begin to deploy it... Source: Transcript - Rumsfeld Urges NATO To Prepare For New Threats, US State Department (Washington File), December 18. © 2001 The Acronym Institute. |