14 February 2001 Senator Cochran Stresses Need for Missile Defense System Missile Defense is needed in a world where some nations actively spread missile technology to regimes that are unfriendly to the United States, according to Senator Thad Cochran (Republican of Mississippi). "If there were no missiles, there would be no need for a missile defense system," Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services said in a February 14 speech to fellow lawmakers. "The Australian Foreign Minister noted last week that until now, a lot of the debate has been directed at the United States," Cochran said. "I frankly think an awful lot of the debate should instead be directed not only toward those countries that have got or are developing these missile systems but the countries that have been transferring that missile technology to others," he added. Cochran, who authored the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, acknowledged that "not every nation welcomes our NMD plans." "France still has not embraced the concept, and Russia and China continue their opposition," he said. But that opposition "shouldn't change our plans to deploy missile defenses," he continued. Implementing Missile Defense, he said, "threatens no nation, although it will create an obstacle" for those who would threaten America. "Those who mean us no harm have nothing to fear from this purely defensive system," Cochran said. "Those who do mean us harm will learn that the United States will no longer commit itself to continuing vulnerability." Cochran observed that some opponents of Missile Defense deployment "point to diplomatic initiatives and political change as evidence that the threat is diminishing." But despite North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's effort to present a more open face to the world, "little has actually changed with respect to North Korea's proliferation activities," Cochran said, citing recent testimony by Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet. "The Bush administration's resolve to deploy missile defenses is an essential first step in modernizing our national security assets," he said. Following is a transcript of Senator Cochran's February 14 speech from the Congressional Record: National Missile Defense System U.S. Senate February 14, 2001 Mr. Cochran: Mr. President, I take this time to respond to those who are suggesting we put off, or even cancel, the deployment of a national missile defense system. One reason the critics of the program are giving for delay is the alleged opposition of our allies, particularly those in Europe. Earlier this month at the Munich Conference on International Security, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a forceful case for deployment of a defense against strategic ballistic missiles. He explained the rationale for our missile defense program, and he also made it clear that this administration intends to deploy such a system as soon as possible. He told those attending the conference that deploying a missile defense system was a moral issue because "no U.S. President can responsibly say his defense policy is calculated and designed to leave the American people undefended against threats that are known to exist." Former Secretary of State Kissinger, who negotiated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, also spoke at the conference. He said a U.S. President cannot allow a situation in which "extinction of civilized life is one's only strategy." The response from our European allies was very encouraging. For months, critics have been saying that our allies firmly oppose our plans to deploy missile defenses and would never go along with them. But the Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, said: Now the Europeans have to accept that the Americans really intend to go ahead....... Now that the question of "whether" it's going to happen has been settled, I want an engagement inside NATO between the Americans and other allies about the "how" and the "when." With respect to the threat, Secretary General Robertson said: The interesting point is that there is now a recognition by leaders--American, European, and even Russian--that there is a new threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles that has got to be dealt with. The Americans have said how they're going to deal with it. The Europeans are being offered a chance to share in that. Robertson also added: The concept of mutually assured destruction is obsolete. The old equation no longer works out: Russia and the United States in a balance of terror. Now there are groups and States acquiring missile technology and warheads with great facility. We are living in a dangerous new world. Germany's views are also changing. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, addressing fellow Social Democratic Party members, said recently, "We should be under no illusions that that there will be no difference of opinion with the new American leadership under President George W. Bush. First and foremost, it won't be about the planned National Missile Defense program but about trade policy issues. Differences over NMD are not the decisive factor in the German-American relationship." German Foreign Minister Fischer said that NMD "above all is a national decision for the United States." In Moscow this week, he said, "in the end, the Russians are going to accept it somehow." Here in Washington last week, Britain's Foreign Secretary said, "On the question of what happens if national missile defense proceeds; if it means the U.S., feels more secure and therefore feels more able to assert itself in international areas of concern to us, we would regard that as a net gain in security." And the Prime Minister of Canada, who just a few months ago had joined Russian President Putin in calling for preservation of the ABM Treaty, said last week after consulting with President Bush, "Perhaps we are in a different era." The Australian Foreign Minister noted last week that until now, a lot of the debate has been directed at the United States. I frankly think an awful lot of the debate should instead be directed not only toward those countries that have got or are developing these missile systems but the countries that have been transferring that missile technology to others. . . . If there were no missiles, there would be no need for a missile defense system. Dr. Javier Solana of Spain, former Secretary-General of NATO and now the director of foreign policy for the European Union, said "The United States has the right to deploy" an NMD system. Of the ABM Treaty, the so-called "cornerstone of strategic stability," Dr. Solana said, "It is not the Bible." The words we now hear from our European and other important allies are signaling changed attitudes. I think they have been influenced by the Bush administration's willingness to confront the NMD issue squarely, to consult fully with our allies, and to make clear a determination to protect this nation and its allies from long-range ballistic missile attack. The best ally is a strong one, and the actions of the Bush administration are an overdue reassurance that the United States will indeed be a strong alliance partner. Of course, not every nation welcomes our NMD plans. France still has not embraced the concept, and Russia and China continue their opposition. But this shouldn't change our plans to deploy missile defenses. Our action threatens no nation, although it will create an obstacle for those who would threaten the U.S. Those who mean us no harm have nothing to fear from this purely defensive system; those who do mean us harm will learn that the United States will no longer commit itself to continuing vulnerability. Another reason for proceeding as soon as possible to deploy missile defenses to protect the United States was highlighted last week in testimony presented to the Senate by the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. He said, "we cannot underestimate the catalytic role that foreign assistance has played in advancing . . . missile and WMD programs, shortening the development times, and aiding production." He noted that it is increasingly difficult to predict those timelines, saying "The missile and WMD proliferation problem continues to change in ways that make it harder to monitor and control, increasing the risks of substantial surprise." Director Tenet went on to say, "It is that foreign assistance piece that you have to have that very precise intelligence to understand, and sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't." Because of the difficulty monitoring foreign assistance, Director Tenet added that "these time lines all become illusory." He also noted that it is a mistake to think of nations who aspire to obtain missiles as technologically unsophisticated: "we are not talking about unsophisticated countries. When you talk about Iraq and Iran, people need to understand these are countries with sophisticated capabilities, sophisticated technology, digital communications." And the danger does not stop when one of these nations acquires the technology that is now so freely available. Mr. Tenet warned about what he termed "secondary proliferation": There is also great potential for secondary proliferation, for maturing state-sponsored programs such as those in Pakistan, Iran and India. Add to this group the private companies, scientists and engineers in Russia, China and India who may be increasing their involvement in these activities taking advantage of weak or unenforceable national export controls and the growing availability of technologies. These trends have continued, and in some cases have accelerated over the past year. The Director of Central Intelligence added, "So you know, the kind of technology flows that we see from big states to smaller states and then the inclination of those people who do the secondary proliferation I think is what's most worrisome to me." Some who oppose missile defense deployment point to diplomatic initiatives and political change as evidence that the threat is diminishing. For example, they point to recent efforts by North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il to present a more open face to the world. But according to the Director of Central Intelligence, little has actually changed with respect to North Korea's proliferation activities. For example, he testified, Pyongyang's bold diplomatic outreach to the international community and engagement with South Korea reflect a significant change in strategy. The strategy is designed to assure the continued survival of Kim Jong Il by ending Pyongyang's political isolation and fixing the North's failing economy by attracting more aid. We do not know how far Kim will go in opening the North, but I can report to you that we have not yet seen a significant diminution of the threat from North to American and South Korean interests. Pyongyang still believes that a strong military, capable of projecting power in the region, is an essential element of national power. Pyongyang's declared military-first policy requires massive investment in the armed forces, even at the expense of other national objectives ..... [T]he North Korean military appears, for now, to have halted its near decade-long slide in military capabilities. In addition to the North's longer-range missile threat to us, Pyongyang is also expanding its short- and medium-range missile inventory, putting our allies at risk. Similar claims about diminishing threats have been made about Iran. A year ago, those who oppose missile defense were suggesting that because of the election of reform-minded leaders we need no longer worry about that country obtaining more capable missiles. Here is what the Director of Central Intelligence had to say about Iran in his testimony last week: Iran has one of the largest and most capable ballistic missile programs in the Middle East. It's public statements suggest that it plans to develop longer-range rockets for use in a space-launch program. But Tehran could follow the North Korean pattern and test an ICBM capable of delivering a light payload to the United States in the next few years ..... Events in the past year have been discouraging for positive change in Iran. Prospects for near-term political reform in the near term are fading. Opponents of reform have not only muzzled the open press, they have also arrested prominent activists and blunted the legislature's powers. Over the summer, supreme leader Khamenei ordered the new legislature not to ease press restrictions, a key reformist pursuit, that signaled the narrow borders within which he would allow the legislature to operate. I hope that reformers do make gains in Iran, although senior CIA officials have testified that Iranian "reformers"--such as President Khatemi--are enthusiastic about acquiring ballistic missiles. I hope Iran will one day be a thriving democracy. But that day has not arrived, and our security policy cannot be based on hope. We need missile defense not just because of the capabilities of particular countries, but because of the larger problem: The proliferation of missile technology has created a world in which we can no longer afford to leave ourselves vulnerable to an entire class of weapons. Remaining vulnerable only guarantees that some nation will seize upon this vulnerability and take the United States and our allies by surprise. The Bush administration's resolve to deploy missile defenses is an essential first step in modernizing our national security assets. Because of the neglect our missile defense program has suffered over the last eight years, we now face a threat against which we will have no defense for several years. Because of decisions made by the previous administration, the only long-range missile defense we have in the near-term will be the ground-based system planned for initial deployment in Alaska. Additional resources must be provided so that other technologies and basing modes can be developed and tested. But now, we must move forward as fast as we can with the technology we have today. We must not prolong our vulnerability by waiting for newer and better technology. Therefore, it is important that the administration immediately begin construction of the NMD radar at Shemya, AK. Construction of the national missile defense radar at Shemya, AK, should begin immediately. Construction of this radar was to have begun this May, but last September President Clinton postponed the decision to proceed, citing delays with other elements of the system and a lack of progress in convincing Russia to modernize the ABM Treaty to permit NMB deployment. However, construction of the Shemya radar is the so-called "long-lead" item in deployment of the NMD system; it is the step that takes the longest and must begin the soonest. Delaying construction of the NMD radar means delaying deployment of the entire system, and we cannot afford more unnecessary delays in this program. There is still time to recover from the delays caused by President Clinton's postponement last fall. The radar design is complete, the funds have been appropriated, and any missile defense system we build will have to begin with an X-band radar at Shemya. So we should get on with it. Beginning construction of the Shemya radar will be a demonstration of the determination of our government to fulfill its first constitutional duty, which is to provide for the security of our Nation. It will send an unmistakable signal to all--friend or potential foe--that the United States will not remain vulnerable any longer to those who threaten us with ballistic missiles. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File