|
12 June 2000
U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen held a joint press conference
with Swedish Minister of Defense Bjorn von Sydow in Stockholm June 12,
answering questions regarding the proposed U.S. national missile
defense system, the recent Russian proposal for a cooperative defense
project with the United States, and the International Criminal Court,
among other topics.
In their opening statements, the two defense ministers said they had
discussed the ABM Treaty, greater cooperation among countries
belonging to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) and
especially with Russia, peacekeeping operations, and the modernization
and restructuring of military forces.
Asked about the Russian defense proposal, Cohen characterized it as
"very vague. It has no concrete dimension to it at this point." He
added, however: "Now, if the Russians have a way to cooperate with the
United States and with NATO members to defeat and defend against
intercontinental ballistic missiles, then we certainly are interested
in learning more about it."
He added, "I will be eager to hear from them and also re-articulate
the nature of our system and why it will not pose any kind of a threat
to the Russian strategic systems."
Asked about a news report that the U.S. is concerned about legal
protection for U.S. troops in peacekeeping and foreign operations,
Cohen explained that the United States does not support the creation
of an International Criminal Court (ICC) that would be completely
independent and not accountable to the United Nations or any other
body.
"The notion that a non-signatory would be bound by an independent
court that is not accountable to the United Nations or to anyone but
itself, we think could pose a threat to U.S. troops," he said.
The United States has the largest number of forward deployed troops in
the world and has, moreover, a judicial system for dealing with
allegations of human rights abuse, Cohen said. "So, unless there can
be some measure of either U.N. authorization, some sort of filter, in
terms of the absolute power of a totally independent court, then we
cannot support that."
Following is a transcript of the press conference:
Stockholm, Sweden
June 12, 2000
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen:
Joint Press Conference with
Swedish Minister of Defense Bj��n Von Sydow at the Haga Palace in
Stockholm, Sweden
Minister Von Sydow:
Ladies and gentlemen, you are very welcome.
Secretary Cohen and I have met for some days, first in Brussels at the
EAPC [Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council] meeting on Friday, and then
in Vilnius at the Nordic-Baltic-U.S. Ministerial, and now in Stockholm
in a bilateral discussion. On the agenda has been a discussion, more
of an informational nature, with the secretary on ABM [Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty]. We have also discussed the development in the
relations between all countries in the EAPC context. The EAPC includes
all countries except the Former Republic of Yugoslavia as members; and
the Russians are back, as we found out, for instance, last Friday. We
have discussed whether we can give more substance to this important
cooperation.
We have also discussed bilateral relations, and we hope to be able to
increase our cooperation relating to peace support and peacekeeping
operations. We are doing pretty well in Kosovo and in Bosnia, but more
can be attained. We have also discussed the industrial and procurement
bilateral relationship and from the Swedish side, we are very positive
to the U.S. initiative, the so-called Declaration of Principles. The
U.S. outlines an open intention to increase the already high level of
military procurement from Sweden. We have also been invited by the
Americans to participate in, and to take part more fully, in the
discussions regarding the so-called revolution in military affairs. We
hopefully can cooperate more in that endeavor.
Finally, we have been discussing, in Vilnius, and now also in
Stockholm, the possibilities of finding ways to increase the
cooperation between all countries in the EAPC with military
capabilities in and around the Baltic Sea area. That involves, of
course, the Nordic countries, the Baltic States, Russia, the U.S., the
UK, Germany, Poland and others. We agree that we should start a
process, within the framework of the EAPC, to increase this
cooperation, and the secretary, speaking in Vilnius, was very clear
about that. His words stated how necessary and how important it is to
involve Russia in this process of making all parts of Europe more
secure and stable, thereby, of course, giving all these countries the
right to form their own respective security policies.
From the Swedish side, we continue to pay great attention to and to
devote great effort to starting this process. It was welcomed by the
others in Vilnius and now we have been discussing the details. We will
start a process to increase the cooperation between these countries,
countries in our part of the world, and hopefully it can lead to a
ministerial some time ahead. It will not take place this year, but
perhaps, hopefully, it can take place next year. The importance here
is, of course, the real cooperation, the real openness between all
these countries which share the common interest of having this part of
the world, as well as other parts of the world, enjoy a stable and
secure environment. In such an environment, democracy will be the
common way of stabilizing international relations as well.
With these words, I give the floor to the secretary.
Secretary Cohen:
Thank you very much Minister von Sydow. I want to
thank Minister von Sydow for hosting this visit, especially on a
holiday, and to have key members of your staff and policy advisors,
military advisors, here this morning. It is a great privilege. Thank
you for arranging the magnificent weather over the weekend. (Laughter)
Let me say that the bonds between the United States and Sweden are
extremely strong. There are many Swedes, including the family of my
military assistant, Admiral Johnson, whose ancestors settled in the
United States during the 19th century. The forefathers of our
Ambassador Olson also came from Sweden.
My own state of Maine contains towns named Stockholm and New Sweden.
The population of New Sweden is 800. (Laughter) They are truly a hardy
group of people. Today, Sweden is an active participant in the
Partnership for Peace, working with the U.S. and more than 40 other
countries -- NATO and non-NATO members alike -- to create security and
stability in Europe.
Sweden's participation in 14 United Nations peacekeeping and peace
monitoring operations shows its commitment to helping resolve
conflicts and to promoting stability throughout the world. Sweden's
commitment of troops, police and military observers in the Balkans,
particularly in Kosovo, is an important contribution to European
stability.
Sweden, as the minister has just pointed out, is also committed to
working with Russia to improve European security, and we discussed
outreach to Russia, since, following my meetings here, I am leaving
shortly for Moscow.
Bjorn has briefed me on Sweden's ambitious program to restructure and
to reduce Swedish armed forces. While the plan reflects a substantial
peace dividend from the end of the Cold War -- an achievement made
possible by NATO's deterrence and the success of democratic and free
market forces -- it also prepares Sweden for continued participation
in peacekeeping and crisis management activities.
I am impressed by the quality of Sweden's forces and by the planned
emphasis on building the capability to deploy quickly and operate
smoothly with NATO and non-NATO forces. However, as I have said to
NATO partners, when restructuring and modernizing forces, it is
important to also maintain adequate defense budgets so that forces are
always prepared to meet future contingencies.
The end of the Cold War has produced progress toward a new Europe that
is more integrated, stable and prosperous. But even the new Europe
contains serious security challenges, particularly those in the
Balkans.
The U.S. is pleased to be working with Sweden through the Partnership
for Peace program to ensure that the new Europe is also a free and
peaceful Europe. With that, the two of us will take your questions.
Q:
Can you tell us what your view is about the U.S. proposal on
national missile defense, versus the Russian proposal on missile
defense?
Von Sydow:
We have listened to the arguments surrounding the program
and our comment has been that it is very important that this program
is made in an international regime. All capabilities relating to
nuclear, to biological, chemical warfare, these capabilities which are
deterrent capabilities; they, in our view, should be regulated in
international regimes. Otherwise, it may be so that we can foresee a
development of more instability which countries do not have a joint
context for the development and the doctrines surrounding these
systems.
Q:
Sir, by that do you mean only do NMD within the context of the ABM
treaty, an amended ABM treaty?
Von Sydow:
We are not a participant in that treaty. But we won't argue
for treaties or international regimes in general relating to all these
kind of systems, but we have stressed no detail in or how this
international regime should be attained.
Q:
Mr. Minister, are you at all concerned that, if the United States
proceeds with NMD, that it could have a destabilizing effect on
relations with Russia, particularly in this part of the world?
Von Sydow:
I think the experience during all the Cold War is that
these kind of systems -- deterrent uses, nuclear warheads and the
biological, chemical -- they are best handled within international
obligations and transparencies between not just those involved but
also the other world in general. So, definitely, we will strongly urge
all countries to also, when technology is changing and the security of
our world is changing, always to pay attention to adding or using the
international regimes for the new developments.
Cohen:
Could I add this footnote to the comment? That is precisely the
reason why President Clinton has advocated that we seek to negotiate
modifications to the ABM Treaty to take into account recent changes in
technology and capabilities being acquired by the other countries that
have been identified. And it's important that we try to, as best we
can, negotiate these kinds of changes in a constructive fashion.
Minister von Sydow also mentioned the need for transparency, and we
have yet to hear any transparent proposals coming from the Russians in
terms of what exactly they would have in mind now that it recognized
that new threats have emerged, and what they would propose in order to
counter them. The United States has spent the past year meeting with
our Russian counterparts to outline the kinds of changes that we
believe are necessary to defend U.S. and allied interests against
emerging threats and we would hope, in the coming days, that the
Russians would spell out with great detail and transparency exactly
what they have in mind or the kind of threat they now recognize.
Q:
You know, sir, you mentioned in your presentations that you saw a
lot of increased cooperation in the Baltic region. Could you spell out
a bit more specifically what exactly you have in mind, and whether you
see a special agenda for the Swedes in the future?
Cohen:
Well the Swedes do have a very ambitious agenda. Sweden has
been cooperating with the United States in establishing a consortium
of defense universities. Sweden has been taking the lead in
establishing a simulation network whereby allied, partner and other
voices can actually have training sessions over the Internet and save
time and travel expense and yet learn how to cooperate in terms of
planning and preparation, and other types of activities; so Sweden has
a very active role participating with the United States, with the
Baltic states, with NATO members.
As I have stated before, it is non-aligned but it is not disengaged.
It is very actively engaged in trying to promote greater stability and
security in the Baltics. We were together a day or so ago at a meeting
in Vilnius with your minister advocating that a number of changes take
place on the part of the Baltic defense establishments to modernize
their capability, but also advocating that they actively engage their
Russian counterparts. Sweden is playing a very active and constructive
role with more and more engagement on the part of EU members, non-EU
members, NATO and non-NATO, and it is very helpful.
Q:
President Putin made some pretty strong comments in an interview
recently against the U.S. missile plan and actually said Russia would
consider pulling out of arms control treaties because of it. Will your
talks in Russia focus more on convincing Russia of the merits of the
U.S. plans, or are you going to talk about their plans?
Cohen:
I think that we'll do both. The first thing that we want to do
is to explain to the Russians, as directly as we can, that the system
that the United States is now conducting research and development on
can and will not pose any threat to Russia's strategic systems. It is
limited in nature and limited in capability. The Russians can
overwhelm any defensive system very easily. So this is not directed
towards Russia. What it is directed to do is to provide protection to
the American people against a few dozen missiles that might be in the
hands of the so-called rogue nations, and that's what we have been in
the process of outlining to them for the past year.
Frankly, the Russian proposal is very vague. It has no concrete
dimension to it at this point. Now, if the Russians have a way to
cooperate with the United States and with NATO members to defeat and
defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles, then we certainly
are interested in learning more about it. Because of the vagueness of
the proposal, the fact that it was not even raised during the summit
but only in a press statement or interview with a journalist, leaves
much to be desired in the way of definitiveness.
I will also point out that there has been some reference to a quote,
"demarcation agreement or treaty," and according to that treaty, the
system that the Russians presumably have in mind will be designed to
deal with short-range and medium-range missiles but not long-range
missiles. So the system that they have proposed will not even provide
protection to most of the European members of NATO and no protection
at all to the United States. There is much to be determined by the
Russians in the coming days, and I will be eager to hear from them and
also re-articulate the nature of our system and why it will not pose
any kind of a threat to the Russian strategic systems.
Q:
I understand that some of the neutral countries or non-aligned
countries are interested in having a formal right in the
decision-making process within NATO. What is your view on that?
Cohen:
I think you can have a decision-making role in NATO if you are
a NATO member. If you are not a NATO member, then certainly your views
can be taken into account through an informal process, but one of the
legal aspects of being a NATO member is you get to decide. If you are
not a NATO member, then you don't. But we have a PJC [NATO-Russia
Permanent Joint Council] that is important to the Russians. We have a
NATO-Russia Founding Act in which there is a presidential commission
or council and there, the Russians have an opportunity to raise their
concerns. We have said on so many occasions they have a voice but not
a veto over the internal deliberations of NATO itself. So, in order to
have an effective decision-making role in NATO's interests and its
agenda, you must be a member of NATO.
Q:
Mr. Minister, I have a question about Sweden's non-aligned status.
As an EU member, how do you reconcile non-alignment with participation
in the European Security Defense Policy? Isn't that a forum? Doesn't
it bring you into a type of military alliance with the other European
countries?
Von Sydow:
I think we definitely have a role in the complexities in
today's Europe. Sweden has no deficit in security. I think that is the
basic assumption for our non-alignment but active role in EU and also
as a partner with NATO. We think we can play an important role from
that position and the secretary has been kind to outline that taking
part, for instance, in Kosovo and in Bosnia. But also here in this
part of the world, we are trying from our position to give an
opportunity for all countries here around to take what can be a shield
in more cooperation. So, for us, it's a good mixture.
Q:
Sir, can you get a little more specific about how Sweden would
cooperate in the revolution in military affairs?
Von Sydow:
I think from a technological point of view, we have good
pre-conditions. We have an industrial base which can give examples and
also actual capabilities for medium-sized economies and countries to
also develop these high technological capabilities. They cannot,
surely not, be on the global, grand strategy level but they can be on
a lower level, operational level or tactical level. They can then no
doubt be of a technological and personal capability level that is
competitive toward U.S., can perform with their economy, technology
but also with their wider responsibilities. That is a part of our
present restructuring and we are very pleased by the U.S. now to be
invited to take on a more vocal collaboration on technology but also
in doctrine. How do we use these new technologies in today's world and
tomorrow's world?
Q:
There's a news report this morning that the U.S. is seeking
protection for U.S. troops in peacekeeping and foreign operations from
being bound by human rights violations in the U.N., and I know that
Sweden is a powerful voice in the U.N. Could you both give your
perspective views -- maybe why the U.S. deserves such protection and
where Sweden falls on this subject?
Cohen:
Yes, this is about the International Criminal Court. We have
not supported participating in supporting the creation of an
International Criminal Court. But due to the fact that it is
completely independent, we have seen how independence can be
translated into something that is without restraint, certainly in our
own experience.
What we wish to do is to say that those parties who are signatories to
it certainly are bound by it, but the notion that a non-signatory
would be bound by an independent court that is not accountable to the
United Nations or to anyone but itself, we think could pose a threat
to U.S. troops. We have the largest amount of troops in the world that
are forward deployed. We have 100,000 troops forward deployed in the
Asian theater. We have 100,000 throughout Europe. We have forces
deployed in the Gulf. And the notion that any one of those troops
could be hauled before the International Court on charges, when in
fact we have a judicial system for dealing with allegations of abuse,
human rights abuse, would seem to put our forces certainly in jeopardy
from our perspective. So, unless there can be some measure of either
U.N. authorization, some sort of filter, in terms of the absolute
power of a totally independent court, then we cannot support that.
Q:
A couple of months ago, there was quite a big story in Sweden where
former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Casper Weinberger, said there had
been submarines in Swedish water during the Cold War, NATO submarines.
Have you been discussing this during the meeting? Could you share your
views on this, please?
Cohen:
We did not discuss this during the meeting but I can only tell
you that, based on all the information that I have, there were no U.S.
ships in Swedish waters.
Q:
Then why did Mr. Weinberger say that?
Cohen:
You'll have to ask him.
Q:
He specifically said it was NATO submarines, not U.S. submarines.
And the U.S. Government has answered the question from Sweden. You
were very clear in pointing out exactly what you said. But that was
never the issue. The issue was not U.S. submarines; the issue was NATO
submarines. It was NATO's responsibility, Mr. Weinberger said. Would
you be willing to try to help us clear up this?
Von Sydow:
I can just inform you that has not been discussed here and
that we have gotten a message also from the United Kingdom and the
message is the same. There has been no U.K. submarine intrusion into
Swedish waters in the said way as Mr. Weinberger has said.
Thank you.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
