15 May 2001

State's Grossman Briefs on Missile Defense in Ottawa

"There are different threats out there today, and so let's consult about what to do about it," said Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman told reporters in Ottawa May 15, characterizing the main theme of consultations he held with the Canadian government.

A major new security challenge "is that we have a new threat, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems," he said.

"What we were talking about today was how do we take a system in which we have to deal with threats of 2001 and how do we combine non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, reductions in strategic weapons, and defenses, and how do we make those into a real deterrent system."

Grossman added that "one of the reasons that we have been consulting with people is to listen to their views about the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] treaty and how to go forward. But it's still an issue for the future. The key issue here is how do we define and develop -- and expand our minds, to use a phrase that I have used before -- a system of deterrence to meet the threats of the new world."

Following is a transcript of the press conference:

On-the-Record Press Conference
Ambassador Marc Grossman
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
WorldNet Studio
U.S. Embassy, Ottawa
May 15, 2001

Amb. Grossman: First of all, thank you very much for coming out and I appreciate you waiting for us. I apologize for keeping you waiting a minute or two. I would just like to speak for a minute or so and then we can go ahead and answer a couple of questions.

What I wanted to do is to give you a short report of why we were here today and what we did. The reason we are here is that, in his speech on the first of May, President Bush promised allied consultations on how to meet both the opportunities and the threats that face us in this new world, and Ottawa was one of the key allied capitals that we wanted to come to, to meet this commitment that the President made to consultations.

As you all have seen over the past few days, we went to NATO last week, actually a week ago today. We consulted in some of the European capitals. A team also went to Asia, to Japan, to Korea, to China, to Australia -- so, we tried very hard to meet the President's commitment to do real consultations.

I want to emphasize, if I could as well, that these really were consultations. We obviously made some presentations but we were very interested in what our Canadian colleagues had to say. We went over to the Foreign Ministry at about 1:00 and we made a series of presentations to Assistant Deputy Minister [of Foreign Affairs Jim] Wright, to Assistant Deputy Minister [of National Defense Ken] Calder, and other representative of the Canadian government. All of these presentations had two themes.

Theme number one, as I say, was consultations. That's what we were doing.

The second theme in all of these presentations was that the world of 2001 is not the world of 1972. The Cold War is over. Russia is not our enemy. There are huge pluses, there are huge advantages to this new world and lots of us are living these advantages. But there are some challenges as well. And the main new challenge, as we see it anyway, is that we have a new threat, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. We talked a little bit today about the fact that NATO countries really are pioneers in recognizing this threat, as both the Canadian side and the American side referred back to the April 1999 NATO Summit. What we were doing today was trying to talk with our Canadian colleagues about a new way to think about this new world, a new way to think about it together.

I will obviously let the Canadian side speak for itself about its views. If I could just characterize for you though how I have taken the alliance's views, the people I have spoken to over the past week or ten days, I'd give it to you this way. First, I think it is fair to say that all our allies have welcomed the consultations. I also think it's fair to say that allies will welcome lots more consultations and we are pleased to do that.

The Secretary of State will go to a NATO meeting at the end of the month, the Secretary of Defense will go to a NATO meeting in early June, the President will visit Brussels, NATO in the middle of June and also go to the U.S./EU Summit. And, this will continue our consultations on the subject.

I think also it is fair to say that allies welcomed the comprehensive approach that we are taking to this question. Which is to say that these challenges in the new world are going to be met by a combination of commitment to non-proliferation, commitment to counter-proliferation, commitment to strategic reductions of offensive forces by the United States, and also by the questions of missile defense. I also believe that allies recognize that this is a new world, that there are new threats out there, and I believe that allies also very much welcomed the outreach that Present Bush did to the Russians.

So, I will stop where I started, which is to say that we came here to do consultations today, we came to talk about this new world that we are all facing together, and to think a little bit about how we could manage this together.

And so with that I will be glad to take a couple of questions:

Q: CBC TV: What kind of involvement would you like...(unintelligible)

A: Well, I think that it's important to step back here and say that our purpose today was not to lay down a plan, our purpose today was not to seek involvement, our purpose today was not to seek in any way endorsement. What we were doing was consulting; that was our objective, and it was an objective that we met.

Q: CBC TV: (unintelligible)

A: No, as I was saying, we are not anywhere near that stage. What we came to do today was to consult about this new world and how it is that we, as NATO allies and great allies, are going to manage questions of deterrence in the future. I think part of the idea here is, if you don't mind my saying so, is to kind of expand everybody's minds a little bit and say: look, there are some questions that are going to come in the future, but the question for today is, how do we deal with the new threats and the new issues of deterrence.

Q: Reuters: How did the consultations go? (unintelligible)

A: Again, I will let the Canadian side speak for itself. I think the Canadian side did respond, as I would have expected, intelligently and responded in a serious way. But as I say, I will let them characterize their own views.

Q: Globe and Mail: (unintelligible) What's more important to the United States? (unintelligible) NORAD or Missile Defense? (unintelligible)

A: Well, you see, again, I think we are far from making those kinds of decisions. What we were talking about today was how do we take a system in which we have to deal with threats of 2001 and how do we combine non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, reductions in strategic weapons, and defenses, and how do we make those into a real deterrent system. So, I recognize that that is not as specific as you want to be but that is not what we came here to do today.

Q: National Post: (unintelligible) Allies (unintelligible)

A: Well again, I gave you two, I guess. One is that in the President's speech on May the 1st, he talked very clearly about his view of the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] treaty, which is to say we have to find a way to move beyond its constraints. The second thing I would say is that one of the reasons that we have been consulting with people is to listen to their views about the ABM treaty and how to go forward. But it's still an issue for the future. The key issue here is how do we define and develop -- and expand our minds, to use a phrase that I have used before -- a system of deterrence to meet the threats of the new world. I will take one more.

Q: Toronto Star: Consultation does not preclude acting either unilaterally or acting without the consent of (unintelligible) players like Russia and China (unintelligible)? How can we be sure, we Canadians, that you won't act unilaterally, because that seems to be the thing we hear over and over again...(unintelligible)?

A: I think you are jumping way ahead of yourself here. We have had a big conversation with the Russians. Part of the consultation team was in Moscow last Friday, and the Foreign Minister of Russia is coming to visit with us this Friday. We have also begun a conversation with the Chinese on this issue and, I think very interestingly, our Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs visited Beijing yesterday to talk about strategic stability and missile defenses. So I think that this conversation has gone on.

One of the challenges in doing consultation always on these kinds of things is, if you come to do real consultations, everybody says -- You see the Americans don't have a plan. If you turn around then and say -- Here's our plan, everyone says -- see, it is not really consultations. So what we did today was real consultations. We came here and we said - here's a challenge. The challenge is: 2001 is not 1972. Challenge number two, there are different threats out there today, and so let's consult about what to do about it. And that is, I believe, anyway, how allies ought to behave toward one another.

Thank you very much.