4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Tuesday, December 18, 2001
(News briefing in Brussels after meeting with NATO defense ministers.)
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon.
I believe you have been provided some copies of some unclassified remarks that I made.
I looked over here and see the photograph of Joseph Luns, who was secretary general of NATO 30 years ago, when I was an ambassador to NATO. I've seen a lot of NATO meetings, and I must say that the meetings today have been very good. I've -- there's no question but that there is a broad area of agreement among the countries and the ministers, and the discussions and conversations have been very constructive and useful.
Needless to say, I thanked all of our allies for their very strong support in the wake of the September 11th attacks in the United States. It is deeply appreciated by the American people. Needless to say, you're all aware that thousands of people from dozens of countries were killed, including many NATO nations -- people of all races, religions and walks of life.
The attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., are vivid reminders to us all that the world remains a dangerous place. Far from becoming less valuable, one would have to note that NATO, in the post-Cold War period, is taking on increasing importance as Western democracies face deadly new threats in the 21st century. We discussed a variety of ways to strengthen NATO for the challenges ahead by improving the capabilities that members bring to the alliance; by bringing in new members; and by addressing older missions, so that we can take on new ones in the war on terrorism.
We discussed the need to prepare for a full range of asymmetric threats, including terrorism, cyber-attacks, advanced conventional weapons, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and, certainly, weapons of mass destruction. Each of these pose a threat to the alliance and to the members of the alliance, and none can be ignored. In particular, I emphasized the threat posed by terrorist movements in terrorist states that are seeking weapons of mass destruction. I expressed our concern with the overlap between the listed states that sponsor terrorism and terrorist networks, given the fact that a large number of the so-called terrorist states have active chemical, biological and/or nuclear programs.
The nexus between states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks raises the danger that September 11th could be a preview of what could come if the enemies of freedom gain ability to strike our nations with weapons of increasingly greater power. I discussed the ways in which the ABM treaty is beginning to constrain our research and development with respect to missile defense, causing cancellation of several tests thus far this year, and, of course, why the president felt that it was time to announce the withdrawal by the United States from that treaty and his intention to continue working with Russia, as we began last evening in my meeting with Minister Ivanov, to continue working to find a framework for our relationship going forward -- one that emphasizes mutual cooperation, as opposed to mutual assured destruction.
I emphasized that President Bush and President Putin had both agreed that our differences over the treaty would not affect our other areas of cooperation. We discussed the progress that they have made, the two presidents, in forging a new security relationship that puts the Cold War animosities and hostilities behind us and embraces 21st century cooperation.
Russia and the United States are working together to combat terrorism, and as I'm sure you're aware, each of our countries has announced dramatic reductions of strategic offensive deployed nuclear weapons.
Last, I expressed the president's strong support for building a new NATO-Russia relationship and for finding ways to encourage political cooperation between Russia and NATO while preserving the integrity of the alliance's decision-making process and its ability to take independent action.
In closing, I would just say that there is no question but that the events of September 11th have had a significant effect on the world in the sense that, as I travel around and visit with leaders of many countries, I can sense different perspectives on their part and indeed different priorities. And I suspect we'll look back in five years and sense that a good deal has shifted on this globe, and that people will be fashioning new relationships, they will be rearranging their orientations in the world, and that NATO, as well as all of our countries individually, will have many opportunities to try shape -- to try to shape a considerably safer and more stable world.
I'd be happy to respond to questions.
Staff: Sir, right here. Charlie first.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Charlie Aldinger with Reuters. You warned your allies today that this could happen almost anywhere -- London, Paris, Rome, Berlin. Have you a commitment from the allies to provide military support no matter where the hunt for terror might take you, be it Iraq or Somalia or Sudan or anywhere else?
Rumsfeld: What we've decided in the United States was that every country is different, every alliance is different, and each nation and certainly the alliance have to think through their circumstance and decide in what ways it's appropriate for them to provide assistance.
President Bush and the United States have asked for the help of all nations on the face of the Earth to try to deal with this problem of terrorism. Some nations are helping in one way. Another nation may be helping in still another way. Some nations do it publicly. Some nations do it privately. Our attitude is that we need to deal with terrorists and terrorism and states that harbor terrorism, and we need all the help we can get. And we're delighted to have people give us the help they feel is appropriate, given the task that we have ahead of us.
I've said before that I really believe that the mission determines the coalition, and the coalition does not determine the mission.
Q: Are you confident -- are you confident -- that you would receive whatever military help you needed from Europe, no matter where you went in this war on terrorism?
Rumsfeld: Charlie, I think I've answered that. I think that every country has to look at a situation and make their own judgment as to what ways they feel they can be helpful, given a specific task. And every country has a somewhat different circumstance, and we have been delighted to have the help of literally dozens and dozens and dozens of nations.
The fact that NATO, for example, in this instance, for the first time in its history invoked Article 5, and that the countries have stepped forward and offered troops and offered lift and offered ships and offered intelligence and have been participating in freezing bank accounts and in increasing law enforcement -- all of that has contributed greatly to applying pressure on the al Qaeda and on the Taliban, and is leading to the progress that we're achieving in Afghanistan, and we're deeply grateful for it.
Staff: (Off mike.)
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, a question of (inaudible name and organization) from the Netherlands. You talked this morning about the asymmetric threat for NATO, which the alliance should address. Does that require a total new focus of NATO and perhaps even a rewriting of the strategic concept?
Rumsfeld: No, I think not. I think that the reason that we are not attacked by armies, navies, and air forces is because we have effective armies, navies, and air forces. It's perfectly logical that we are going to be attacked, therefore, by people who will look for vulnerabilities. They'll look for vulnerabilities, for example, in our dependency in various types of communications.
They'll look for vulnerabilities by using cruise missiles or ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction.
That requires that we address those threats that run across that so-called asymmetrical spectrum, but it does not suggest that it allows one to simply forget more basic threats. It requires that NATO and each country, I think, recognize that we do face different technologies and different capabilities. And we need to see that we're arranged to deal with that full spectrum of capabilities, regardless of where they come from -- the threat comes from.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Jamie McIntyre from CNN.
You seem to have come here today delivering a wake-up call of sorts. Your theme seems to be that NATO is unprepared to face the growing threat of terrorism. To what extent do you think that's true, and what concrete things would you like to see the alliance do to compensate for that or to correct that? For instance, increased spending on military or whatever.
Rumsfeld: Well, I would say it would not be an accurate characterization of our meetings at all that I came to deliver a wake- up call. These are thoughtful people; they know what's going on in the world. They recognize the threats. They know what happened on September 11th. They know how they're arranged individually and collectively to deal with those, and they -- it didn't require my calling them -- all of these things -- to their attention.
We had discussions about various ways to deal with it, and you're quite right; one of the points of discussion was the so-called DCI initiative here at NATO and the need for additional funding, so that the NATO nations increase their defense budgets in a way that will enable our countries individually and collectively to contribute to the kind of deterrence that will contribute to a peaceful and stable world. Without a peaceful and stable world, none of our economies will prosper; our people will not prosper. And it is that -- it is the defense capability of our countries in our alliance that creates that stable world and is the underpinning of our economic opportunities.
Q: Peter Mueller from NATO -- (inaudible). Mr. Secretary, at the end of the last century, the out-of-area discussion was going on. Now, in this century, we should look for a global goal. Now my question is now, how far in your opinion, is NATO able to go global?
Rumsfeld: It's an interesting question. I well remember all the talk of NATO not doing anything out of area for a good many years. And it is also quite true that a problem like terrorism is global. And we face that in the United States when we receive those attacks and recognize the reality that it is not possible to defend against terrorism in every place, in every location, against every conceivable technique of terrorist activity.
That means that you have no choice but to take the battle to the terrorists, wherever they may be.
And so I think the answer to your question is, it really isn't out of area, if you will. The only way to deal with a terrorist network that's global is to go after it where it is. The only alternative choice is to sit there and think you're going to take the blows, one after another. And given the increasing power of weapons and the reach of weapons today, that would be foolhardy and dangerous and self-defeating. So I think that the definition of what is in or out of area has really been changed because of the reach and power of weapons today.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Nora O'Donnell with NBC News. Can you give us an update on the war in Afghanistan? Over the weekend we saw some of the heaviest bombing to date in Tora Bora. That has lightened a bit. What has changed? And are we any closer to getting Osama bin Laden?
Rumsfeld: The effort continues. Neither he nor Omar or several of the other senior Taliban or al Qaeda leadership have been located.
We have reduced the number of areas within Afghanistan where they're likely to be. Those areas are being attacked from the ground by Afghan forces, with the support of coalition forces. They are being attacked from the air. And additional prisoners have been taken today, additional ground has been covered, and progress continues to be made. But the task is still ahead of us, and it should not be considered that it will be accomplished in a short period of time. It's going to be tough, dirty, hard work.
Q: (Off mike) -- daily newspaper, the Czech Republic. What elements do you think should construct the strategic framework with Russia in the future that you are going to negotiate with them?
Rumsfeld: Well, for one thing, we both, Russia and the United States, as well as all the countries that have been interested in arms control over the years, are interested in transparency and in predictability. Each of our countries has said that we're going to go from thousands and thousands of strategic deployed offensive nuclear weapons -- in our case, down to 1,700 to 2,200, and in the case of Russia, I believe they said from 1,500 to 2,200 -- over a period of a decade.
Now as you do that, it's in both of our interests that we do it in a way that we have transparency and predictability, that we communicate with each other, that -- for example, there are several ways the United States could reduce those weapons.
We may start down one path, thinking that it's the most efficient, cost effective and the most efficient way to do it, and then, at some point, two, three years down the road, we may get a phone call saying that one of our weapon categories is no longer safe or reliable, in which case -- and we had, say, for the sake of argument, to rely on that -- in which case, you would shift gears, and you would take that less reliable or less safe weapon out and leave one of the other ones that you might've planned to take out. Now that's the kind of thing that you'd want to know about the other party. And so we certainly want to be talking about those types of things.
And I think one other thing: Since our missile defense system is clearly not designed to be capable of dealing with the kinds of numbers of weapons that Russia has, I think, as we go along, we would very likely have ways that we would continue to communicate with them about the nature of our limited missile defense system, as we get to the point where we fashion one and begin to deploy it -- which, of course, we're not at that stage at the present time.
Q: Mr. Secretary, (inaudible name) from the Arab Television MBC.
I would like to ask you a question about the issue of expanding the military campaign and security. Would you need a new Security Council resolution or, if you have to conduct the operation, you can do it without -- based on the previous Security Council resolution? And if you can --
Rumsfeld: Are you referring to the United Nations Security Council?
Q: Yes. Yeah.
Rumsfeld: The short answer is that every provision of the United Nations provides for self-defense. So nothing is needed by way of additional authority. Every nation has the right to defend itself.
Q: Can I just ask you about the level of cooperation? We are looking that Yemen authorities, authorities of Sudan are conducting operation against activists -- suspected people of al Qaeda and they're -- are you cooperating with these government? Are you happy with them?
Rumsfeld: Well, there are, obviously, a number of countries that have active al Qaeda cells, and Yemen is one. Sudan is, obviously, one. Somalia used to be a location where senior al Qaeda officials spent time. There are a number of other locations around the world where that's the case.
There's no question but that the coalition forces across the globe that have decided that terrorism is bad and evil and dangerous and has the potential of killing tens of thousands of human beings -- innocent human beings -- have cooperated by trying to freeze bank accounts, by trying to improve exchanges of intelligence, by increasing their law enforcement, by arresting people, by interrogating those people, by gaining more knowledge and more information that leads us to arrest still additional people -- and that is taking place across the globe. And the effect of that is to put pressure on these networks.
Now am I happy with it? I'm -- we're doing a lot better than we were before September 11th. Would I like to see more bank accounts frozen? You bet. Would I like to see more countries get more energy into their law enforcement? You bet I would. I would like to create a world that is inhospitable for terrorists and for nations that harbor terrorists.
Staff: Sir, last question.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Bret Baier from Fox News. Are U.S. troops in Pakistan, hunting for Osama bin Laden? And if so, what is their role there? You've said the U.S. will chase down bin Laden wherever he goes.
Rumsfeld: The government of Pakistan has been -- I have a practice of trying not to characterize precisely what other governments are doing, because it seems to me it's for them to characterize what they're doing, and there are sensitivities.
So I can say this: that the government of Pakistan has been enormously cooperative. They have been a terrific help in this effort. There is no question but that the president of Pakistan has deployed a large number of Pakistan Army forces along the Pakistan-Afghan border. The reason, obviously, is because those borders are porous, and we are putting a great deal of pressure on the Taliban and the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, which is causing them to move and flee and run and hide. And one of the places they can flee to is Pakistan. And needless to say, the president of Pakistan has a minimum of high regard for that possibility. He does not want those forces coming into his country, and therefore he is doing a good job.
Getting a little closer to your specific question, there's no question but that there's a good deal of communication between his army forces along the border and our forces in Afghanistan.
Q: But are U.S. troops in Pakistan?
Rumsfeld: I think I'll leave that to the Pakistanis to handle.
Staff: Thank you, sir.
Rumsfeld: Thank you very much.
U.S. Government Website