02 May 2001

Gephardt Concerned about Missile Defense Policy

Richard Gephardt, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, says he is "concerned" about President Bush's approach to strategic nuclear and missile defense policy.

Following Bush's speech on missile defense May 1, the Missouri Congressman released the following statement:

I am concerned that the President's approach to strategic nuclear and missile defense policy may have the effect of undermining our nation's security rather than enhancing it.

By announcing his intent to move forward with as yet unproven, costly and expansive national missile defense systems, the President is jeopardizing an arms control framework that has served this nation and the world well for decades. Initial reactions from our allies and other nations suggest that this approach is likely to increase threats to the U.S. and decrease global stability, as exhibited by the likely consequences: Russia's preservation and China's construction of large stocks of nuclear weapons to counter U.S. missile defenses; an end to transparency and verification of other nations' nuclear arsenals, which has preserved strategic stability and advanced U.S. interests; and the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as other nations follow America's lead in taking unilateral steps that may serve their own immediate interests. Furthermore, at a projected cost of more than $100 billion, the missile defenses proposed by the President will sap resources from other vital defense priorities.

Unfortunately, the Administration's disregard for reducing and eliminating threats appears to be a recurring -- and disturbing -- theme of its first 100 days. In its short time in office, this Administration has backed away from negotiations with North Korea on a ballistic missile agreement, and proposed significant cuts in programs to secure and dismantle Russian nuclear weapons. It has sent confused signals about renewed UN weapons inspections in Iraq, and suggested that it may lift sanctions against Iran and Libya, allowing them to generate hard currency to support weapons development and terrorism.

A truly comprehensive strategy to address weapons of mass destruction must include identifying the threats, reducing them at their source, preventing them from spreading elsewhere, and improving our defensive capabilities against them. This cannot be done unilaterally - the nature of these threats requires that we cooperate with nations that share our interests and collectively confront those that do not. And while a technologically proven national missile defense system may serve to address one particular manifestation of the threat, a singular focus on this course could very well undermine our ability to develop and fund a multifaceted strategy against weapons of mass destruction."