11 January 2001 Rumsfeld Says He Favors NMD by Jacquelyn S. Porth Washington File Security Affairs Writer Washington -- Donald Rumsfeld, President-elect George W. Bush's choice to be Secretary of Defense, says he supports a missile defense program that will protect not only U.S. territory but American allies as well, and he opposes the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court signed December 31 by President Clinton. Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Ford administration, had a lengthy, but easy confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 11. He told the panel that ballistic missile defense and America's security posture with respect to space and intelligence will receive high priority during his tenure, and warned that the United States must be better prepared for growing threats posed by bioterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and vulnerabilities of critical information systems and space assets. The nominee characterized the world as "dangerous and untidy" and affirmed the importance of alliances. The United States is not alone in the world, Rumsfeld said, and has "some enormously important allies in Asia and Europe and friends in other parts of the world." Whatever decisions the U.S. makes in the future, he said, "We also need to make darn sure that we're dealing with our allies in a way that they are brought along." Rumsfeld said the United States should deploy a missile defense system "when it is technologically possible and effective." He also said that officials of the new administration have not yet had the opportunity to meet and discuss Bush's intention to deploy a missile defense system. "I know of no decisions that have been made by him or by me with respect to exactly what form that might take." Rumsfeld said he expects to conduct closer consultations overseas about plans to pursue a missile defense program encompassing both national and theater missile defenses that could require the United States to amend or abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. (http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abmpage.html) "Once the Russians understand that the United States is serious about this and intends to deploy," he said, "they will...accept that reality." He suggested the ABM Treaty is "ancient history" and that the U.S. doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)" is not necessarily well fashioned for the road ahead. The nominee has been following the subject of ballistic missile threats for a number of years. In 1998, he chaired the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (see http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bm-threat.htm). Since the release of the Commission's report, Rumsfeld says the threat from emerging ballistic missile capabilities has become even broader, more mature and rapidly evolving. In his comments about Asia, Rumsfeld described North Korea as "an active, world class proliferator." It is in the interest of the United States and its Asian allies, and in "our anti-proliferation interests across the globe that North Korea stop proliferating, stop threatening South Korea, and begin to behave rationally to its people and stop having them die of starvation," he said. Rumsfeld -- who is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, four-term member of Congress and White House chief of staff -- plans to undertake a complete review of U.S. military strategy, armed forces and defense capabilities as soon as he is confirmed by senators, who are clearly eager to approve him. The review will look at subjects ranging from the U.S. nuclear posture to whether or not the U.S. continues to be ready to conduct two major, near-simultaneous theater wars. Asked about his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), signed but not ratified by the United States, Rumsfeld said he is concerned about the ongoing reliability and safety of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the verifiability of the CTBT. But he also said that he would study the position of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili who issued a new report January 4 on various aspects of the Treaty. (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/01010510.htm) Rumsfeld discussed the need for deterrence and conflict prevention. He said the United States doesn't want "to win wars, we want to prevent them." The United States wants to be so powerful and forward-looking, he said, "that it is clear to others that they ought not to be damaging their neighbors when it affects our interests, and they ought not to be doing things that are imposing threats and dangers to us." When asked about the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, Rumsfeld expressed his discomfort with the Clinton administration position on it. He noted that President Clinton had signed the Treaty but did not forward it to the Senate for ratification. But even without U.S. ratification, he said, the president's signature conveys standing and a U.S. obligation to support and not undermine the Treaty. While pointing out that he is not an international lawyer, Rumsfeld said it is his view that the Treaty poses a potential risk to U.S. military personnel who "could be doing the bidding of the United States government and the United States Senate and be hauled before an international court for war crimes." Committee members submitted many written questions in advance of the hearing. His written responses span a range of topics from when the U.S. should use military force to how the U.S. should respond to peacekeeping requests. Some of his responses follow: National Missile Defense (NMD): "I believe it would (be) good to examine alternative and complementary architectures to the NMD system currently under development. In doing so, a number of factors would need to be considered, including the urgency of the ballistic missile threat to the United States, U.S. forces deployed overseas, and our friends and allies, as well as the technical feasibility, costs, and deployment schedule for potential alternatives." Theater Missile Defense (TMD): "In light of the widespread deployment of ballistic missiles today, I believe it is imperative that the Department (of Defense) develop, test, procure and deploy TMD systems ... in a timely and efficient manner." ABM Treaty: "I am aware that concerns have been expressed by some of our allies about NMD and the prospect of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. I believe these concerns can be addressed through close consultations. In the long run, I believe that deployment of an effective NMD system can strengthen U.S. and allied security. For example, the failure to deploy appropriate defensive systems could also have adverse effects including: Paralyzing our ability to act in a crisis or deterring other countries from assisting us; Providing incentives to U.S. friends and allies to develop nuclear capabilities; Putting the U.S. in a position where its only option may be pre-emption; and Moving the U.S. to a more isolationist position because of an inability to defend against ballistic missiles... The task is to persuade the world of the truth that deployment of a NMD system will strengthen global security and stability." Nuclear reductions: "The president's advisers plan to undertake a review of how best to pursue President-elect Bush's goal of further reductions. Logically, this could involve traditional arms control tools, innovative unilateral initiatives, or some combination. In any case, an approach to any nuclear reductions would need to be developed in the context of a number of inter-related factors. These include decisions on the ABM Treaty and National Missile Defense as well as measures relating to tactical nuclear weapons, the evolution in Russia's unilateral strategic force posture, and the outcome of the planned Nuclear Posture Review." CTBT: "The President-elect has opposed the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), but has stated that he would continue the current (nuclear) testing moratorium....I believe the new administration is likely to undertake a review of this matter....History teaches that nations that are determined to cheat, do so and I don't not see how the CTBT can be effectively verified." Space policy: "The United States is increasingly dependent on its civil, commercial, and defense and intelligence space assets. With that dependence comes vulnerability to hostile acts. The nation needs a capability to deter attack on space assets, and systems to defend satellites in orbit, the ground stations that control them, and the electronic links between them....In light of U.S. dependence on space assets, the vulnerability of the assets to attack or disruption, and the fact that others have the means of doing harm to U.S. interests in space, it would be contrary to U.S. security interests not to develop, test, and deploy the means of deterring attack on and defending space systems." Military Force: "A decision to use military force, whether unilaterally or in coalition with other nations, should reflect important U.S. national security interests. The U.S. structure of alliances and its diplomatic ability to build informal, but effective regional coalitions provides the president with a variety of options to bring military power to bear in a specific situation where U.S. interests are involved. U.S. military forces can best be used when the military mission is clear and achievable and...there is a reasonable exit strategy." Peacekeeping: "Clear criteria for the use of U.S. military forces should be established prior to U.S. participation in specific peacekeeping operations. There should be clear objectives, a coherent strategy to achieve them, a reasonable chance of success, acceptable command-and-control arrangements, and an exit strategy. When the main burden of the U.S. presence shifts to infrastructure and nation-building, however, we are into missions that are not appropriate for the U.S. military." NATO expansion: "The key factor in considering future NATO expansion is whether or not expansion will enhance U.S. and NATO security. I believe it is important that the broadening of NATO membership preserve the alliance's capacity for effective collective action." European defense: "...the ESDP (European Security and Defense Policy) could pose a resource-diversion risk to NATO, and in doing so, undermine the ability of NATO to undertake effective collective defense. The U.S. and our NATO allies need to ensure that any ESDP would not diminish the effectiveness of the NATO alliance." Rome Treaty: "I oppose the Treaty. The Rome Statute has deficiencies that expose U.S. personnel to certain risks. We must be concerned about the exposure of U.S. personnel to politically motivated prosecution. I favor rejecting the assertion of the ICC's (International Criminal Court) purported jurisdiction over non-party states." (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File