|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation Informal NATO Defence Ministers Meeting, Warsaw, September 24-25Informal meeting of NATO Defence Meeting, Warsaw, Poland, September 24-25; NATO website, http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2002/0209-wrsw.htm.
I. Opening Statement by NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, September 24This is the last meeting of Alliance Ministers before the Prague Summit [November 21-22, 2002]. It is therefore a critical opportunity to review the status of work on key aspects of NATO's transformation, on which your Heads of State and Government will take decisions in less than two months time. I cannot overemphasise the importance of our meeting to ensure the Prague agenda is on track. Two weeks ago at NATO Headquarters we commemorated the anniversary of September, 11th, 2001, when so many lost their lives in the horrifying terrorist attacks against the United States. It was an occasion to express once again our sorrow and to re-affirm our complete solidarity in the fight against terrorism. But if there is a time, in the face of loss, for grief and remembrance, there is also a time, in the face of menace, for planning and for strategy. As we approach the Prague Summit, we need therefore to think very carefully about the role of this Alliance in the future, not least in protecting our citizens from criminal terrorists and criminal states, especially where they are armed with weapons designed for massive and indiscriminate destruction. Our common aim must be to maintain the will and the capabilities to deter these 21st century threats where possible; to root them out and destroy them where deterrence has broken down; to defend our forces and our people from attacks of all kinds; and, in the worst cases, to make the best use of our military capabilities in dealing with the consequences of future aggression against us. NATO played the key role in defeating the threats of the Cold War and the instability that followed it. We must now transform our Alliance so it can play an equally pivotal part in the war against terrorism and the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. Of particular interest to Defence Ministers are decisions about NATO's future roles and capabilities. Prague will involve firm commitments to acquire the defence capabilities needed to deal effectively with today's threats, and to adapt our command structure so that together we are able to use those capabilities rapidly and efficiently. We have much work ahead of us. II. Press Conference by US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, September 25StatementThe world has changed for the better to be sure and our presence here in a free Poland is a clear indication of how much better. But as we learned on September 11th the world has changed in more ominous ways as well. We have most assuredly entered a new security environment, one that is dramatically different from the one that this alliance was formed to deal with some 50 years ago. It's a world in which terrorist networks, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction come together in a way that can cause unprecedented destruction to our cities, our people, and our way of life. This alliance has come a long distance since last September 11th. It is unified with respect to the global war on terrorism and its understanding of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks as the most serious threat to the alliance. The alliance is now grappling with those important changes and working to make sure that we and it are ready to meet the new security challenges that all of our nations face in this dangerous and somewhat uncertain period ahead. To be ready, NATO will need 21st Century capabilities. In that connection we did discuss the possible creation of a NATO response force that could give the alliance a capability to deploy and sustain a significant fighting force in a matter of days or weeks rather than in months or years. We also discussed reform of NATO's command structures and getting rid of unneeded bases and command structure and forces. Organizing them and arranging them to be reoriented to deal with 21st Century threats. Needless to say, with declining defense budgets in some NATO nations - not all, but some - we have a responsibility, all of us in NATO, to make sure that we avoid wasting the taxpayers' money and see that the dollars that are invested in contributing to peace and stability, actually have a relevant 21st Century purpose. Finally we discussed the way ahead in the global war on terrorism and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. As the president has made clear, our objective in the war on terrorism is to stop another September 11th, or worse a WMD attack, before it happens. Whether that threat might come from a terrorist regime or a terrorist network or some combination of the two is beside the point. We provided our allies with an intelligence briefing on the Iraqi threat that it poses to the world. The deputy director of Central Intelligence [John McLaughlin] presented a detailed discussion of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its support for terrorists. Questions and AnswersQuestion: Last year after the 9/11 attacks NATO for the first time invoked Article 5. Your response to that was initially [that] the mission defines the coalition. I know NATO got involved in some ways after that, but some people thought that was a blow to the relevance of NATO. If the United States decides to act with Iraq and NATO does not play a part in that, will that be another blow to NATO? Rumsfeld: First of all it was not a blow to NATO. Indeed, it was an example of NATO's cohesion and NATO's responsiveness after September 11th. It was an exceedingly unusual and bold action that NATO took. The coalition that exists for the global war on terrorism was announced by President Bush with other countries to follow, and they did. NATO followed almost instantaneously. Today there are 90 nations involved in that coalition. It is the largest coalition in human history. It is not a blow to anybody. It's a success story. Now with respect to the last half of your question, it's like, you know, stirring for troubled waters. The president has not made an announcement with respect to his conclusions as to what ought to be done with respect to Iraq. Therefore, one ought not to be surprised that there isn't a coalition. What he's decided to do is to go to the Congress of the United States. He's decided to go to the international community at the United Nations. He's decided to have me and Secretary Powell and others make presentations to our NATO allies. You can be certain that if and when the president decides to do something there will be other nations that will be assisting. ... Question: And could you tell us about progress of SDI [missile defence] program? Rumsfeld: ... With respect to the, I think you said SDI, the threat of ballistic missiles: if we've learned anything it's that the terrorist networks that exist in the world and terrorist states avoid attacking armies, navies or air forces and look for areas of vulnerability. They fashioned so-called asymmetric threats that don't require their going after armies, navies and air forces. That means that clearly ballistic missiles are a threat, cruise missiles are increasingly a threat, terrorism is a threat. We'll undoubtedly be seeing countries that are heavily dependent on technology such as the United States and the Western European nations. The attacks with respect to cyber attacks and that type of thing. So what we've seen is a growing understanding of that, that those are the kinds of circumstances we're going to have to face in the 21st Century, and as a result we're proceeding with our missile defense program and other countries are interested in discussing various aspects of it with us, and I suspect we'll see continued improvements in the ability to deal with those asymmetrical threats. ... Question: ... Did you get an increased sense at this meeting talking to Ministers that it would be easy to build a military coalition against Iraq if the UN doesn't? Rumsfeld: ...The President went to the Congress and he is urging that they consider this problem. He's gone to the United Nations and they've got extensive discussions taking place. The same nations that are in NATO are also in the United Nations. Those discussions are moving forward. I know of any number of nations that are deeply concerned about this problem as the President is. I know any number of nations who have in a variety of ways indicated not just their concern but their interest in assisting and helping the president and the world community to find a way for Iraq to be disarmed as they agreed to do under the UN resolutions. How that ought to be done, we've been trying political methods, we've tried economic sanctions, we've tried military activity in the Northern and Southern no-fly zones with our coalition partners, and none of them have worked. That is clear. The question then comes, what does the international community think ought to be done about that and what does the president ultimately think ought to be done about that. Those are decisions that will be made in capitals across the globe. ... Question: Are there linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq? And where are they? Rumsfeld: The deputy director of Central Intelligence briefed on that subject. I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes. ... Question: Russia is trying now to push very much the linking between the CFE [Conventional Forces in Europe] agreement and with enlargement. ... Rumsfeld: I don't see any linkage between NATO enlargement and CFE, and I don't know any NATO countries that do... Question: What is your response for Russia's willingness to tie those two things together? Rumsfeld: Statements were made by Russians, statements were made by others. The obvious conclusion is that there is no linkage between those two and that those countries will do what they will do if and when they end up entering NATO I think is the correct way to characterize at least the United States view. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |