[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000, Book II)]
[September 1, 2000]
[Pages 1744-1749]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]
Remarks at Georgetown University
September 1, 2000
Thank you very much. When you gave us such a warm welcome and then
you applauded some of Dean Gallucci's early
lines, I thought to myself, ``I'm glad he can get this sort of
reception, because I gave him a lot of thankless jobs to do in our
administration where no one ever applauded.'' And he did them
brilliantly. I'm delighted to see him here succeeding so well as the
dean. And Provost Brown, thank you for
welcoming me here.
I told them when I came in I was sort of glad Father
O'Donovan wasn't here today, because I come
so often, I know that at some point, if I keep doing this, he will tell
me that he's going to send a bill to the U.S. Treasury for the
Georgetown endowment. [Laughter]
I was thinking when we came out here and Bob talked about the
beginning of the school year that it was 35 years ago when, as a
sophomore, I was in charge of the freshman orientation. So I thought I
should come and help this year's orientation of freshmen get off to a
good start. I also was thinking, I confess, after your rousing welcome,
that if I were still a candidate for public office, I might get up and
say hello and sit down and quit while I'm ahead. [Laughter]
For I came today to talk about a subject that is not fraught with
applause lines but one that is very, very important to your future: the
defense of our Nation. At this moment of unprecedented peace and
prosperity, with no immediate threat to our security or our existence,
with our democratic values ascendant and our alliances strong, with the
great forces of our time, globalization and the revolution in
information technology, so clearly beneficial to a society like ours
with our diversity and our openness and our entrepreneurial spirit, at a
time like this, it is tempting but wrong to believe there are no serious
long-term challenges to our security. The rapid spread of technology
across increasingly porous borders raises the specter that more
[[Page 1745]]
and more states, terrorists, and criminal syndicates could gain access
to chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons and to the means of
delivering them, whether in small units deployed by terrorists within
our midst or ballistic missiles capable of hurtling those weapons
halfway around the world.
Today I want to discuss these threats with you, because you will
live with them a lot longer than I will. Especially, I want to talk
about the ballistic missile threat. It is real and growing and has given
new urgency to the debate about national missile defenses, known in the
popular jargon as NMD.
When I became President, I put our effort to stop the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction at the very top of our national security
agenda. Since then, we have carried out a comprehensive strategy to
reduce and secure nuclear arsenals, to strengthen the international
regime against biological and chemical weapons and nuclear testing, and
to stop the flow of dangerous technology to nations that might wish us
harm.
At the same time, we have pursued new technologies that could
strengthen our defenses against a possible attack, including a terrorist
attack here at home.
None of these elements of our national security strategy can be
pursued in isolation. Each is important, and we have made progress in
each area. For example, Russia and the United States already have
destroyed about 25,000 nuclear weapons in the last decade. And we have
agreed that in a START III treaty, we will go 80 percent below the level
of a decade ago.
In 1994 we persuaded Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, three of the
former Soviet Republics, to give up their nuclear weapons entirely. We
have worked with Russia and its neighbors to dispose of hundreds of tons
of dangerous nuclear materials, to strengthen controls on illicit
exports, and to keep weapon scientists from selling their services to
the highest bidder.
We extended the nuclear nonproliferation treaty indefinitely. We
were the very first nation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an
idea first embraced by Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. Sixty nations
now have ratified the test ban treaty. I believe the United States
Senate made a serious error in failing to ratify it last year, and I
hope it will do so next year.
We also negotiated and ratified the international convention to ban
chemical weapons and strengthened the convention against biological
weapons. We've used our export controls to deny terrorists and potential
adversaries access to materials and equipment needed to build these
kinds of weapons.
We've imposed sanctions on those who contribute to foreign chemical
and biological weapons programs. We've invested in new equipment and
medical countermeasures to protect people from exposure. And we're
working with State and local medical units all over our country to
strengthen our preparedness in case of a chemical or biological
terrorist attack, which many people believe is the most likely new
security threat of the 21st century.
We have also acted to reduce the threat posed by states that have
sought weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, while
pursuing activities that are clearly hostile to our long-term interests.
For over a decade--for almost a decade, excuse me--we have diverted
about 90 percent of Iraq's oil revenues from the production of weapons
to the purchase of food and medicine. This is an important statistic for
those who believe that our sanctions are only a negative for the people,
and particularly the children, of Iraq. In 1989 Iraq earned $15 billion
from oil exports and spent $13 billion of that money on its military.
This year Iraq is projected to earn $19 billion from its legal oil-for-
food exports but can spend none of those revenues on the military.
We worked to counter Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and
missile technology, convincing China to provide no new assistance to
Iran's nuclear program, and pressing Russia to strengthen its controls
on the export of sensitive technologies.
In 1994, 6 years after the United States first learned that North
Korea had a nuclear weapons program, we negotiated the agreement that
verifiably has frozen its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Now, in the context of the United States negotiations with the North, of
the diplomatic efforts by former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, and most lately, the summit between the leaders of
North and South Korea, North Korea has refrained from flight testing a
new missile that could pose a threat to America. We should be clear:
North Korea's capability remains a serious issue, and its intentions
remain unclear. But its missile testing moratorium is a good development
worth pursuing.
[[Page 1746]]
These diplomatic efforts to meet the threat of proliferation are
backed by the strong and global reach of our Armed Forces. Today, the
United States enjoys overwhelming military superiority over any
potential adversary. For example, in 1985 we spent about as much on
defense as Russia, China, and North Korea combined. Today, we spend
nearly 3 times as much, nearly $300 billion a year. And our military
technology clearly is well ahead of the rest of the world.
The principle of deterrence served us very well in the cold war, and
deterrence remains imperative. The threat of overwhelming retaliation
deterred Saddam Hussein from using weapons of
mass destruction during the Gulf war. Our forces in South Korea have
deterred North Korea in aggression for 47 years.
The question is, can deterrence protect us against all those who
might wish us harm in the future? Can we make America even more secure?
The effort to answer these questions is the impetus behind the search
for NMD. The issue is whether we can do more, not to meet today's threat
but to meet tomorrow's threats to our security.
For example, there is the possibility that a hostile state with
nuclear weapons and long-range missiles may simply disintegrate, with
command over missiles falling into unstable hands, or that in a moment
of desperation, such a country might miscalculate, believing it could
use nuclear weapons to intimidate us from defending our vital interests
or from coming to the aid of our allies or others who are defenseless
and clearly in need. In the future, we cannot rule out that terrorist
groups could gain the capability to strike us with nuclear weapons if
they seized even temporary control of a state with an existing nuclear
weapons establishment.
Now, no one suggests that NMD would ever substitute for diplomacy or
for deterrence. But such a system, if it worked properly, could give us
an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has
complicated the task of preserving the peace. Therefore, I believe we
have an obligation to determine the feasibility, the effectiveness, and
the impact of a national missile defense on the overall security of the
United States.
The system now under development is designed to work as follows. In
the event of an attack, American satellites would detect the launch of
missiles. Our radar would track the enemy warheads, and highly accurate,
high-speed ground-based interceptors would destroy them before they
could reach their targets in the United States.
We have made substantial progress on a system that would be based in
Alaska and that, when operational, could protect all 50 States from the
near-term missile threats we face, those emanating from North Korea and
the Middle East. The system could be deployed sooner than any of the
proposed alternatives. Since last fall, we've been conducting flight
tests to see if this NMD system actually can reliably intercept a
ballistic missile. We've begun to show that the different parts of this
system can work together.
Our Defense Department has overcome daunting technical obstacles in
a remarkably short period of time, and I'm proud of the work that
Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and their teams have done.
One test proved that it is, in fact, possible to hit a bullet with a
bullet. Still, though the technology for NMD is promising, the system as
a whole is not yet proven. After the initial test succeeded, our two
most recent tests failed, for different reasons, to achieve an
intercept. Several more tests are planned. They will tell us whether NMD
can work reliably under realistic conditions. Critical elements of the
program, such as the booster rocket for the missile interceptor, have
yet to be tested. There are also questions to be resolved about the
ability of the system to deal with countermeasures. In other words,
measures by those firing the missiles to confuse the missile defense
into thinking it is hitting a target when it is not.
There is a reasonable chance that all these challenges can be met in
time. But I simply cannot conclude with the information I have today
that we have enough confidence in the technology and the operational
effectiveness of the entire NMD system to move forward to deployment.
Therefore, I have decided not to authorize deployment of a national
missile defense at this time. Instead, I have asked Secretary
Cohen to continue a robust program of
development and testing. That effort still is at an early stage. Only 3
of the 19 planned intercept tests have been held so far. We need more
tests against more challenging targets and more simulations before we
can responsibly commit our Nation's resources to deployment.
We should use this time to ensure that NMD, if deployed, would
actually enhance our overall
[[Page 1747]]
national security. And I want to talk about that in a few moments.
I want you to know that I have reached this decision about not
deploying the NMD after careful deliberation. My decision will not have
a significant impact on the date the overall system could be deployed in
the next administration, if the next President decides to go forward.
The best judgment of the experts who have examined this question is that
if we were to commit today to construct the system, it most likely would
be operational about 2006 or 2007. If the next President decides to move
forward next year, the system still could be ready in the same
timeframe.
In the meantime, we will continue to work with our allies and with
Russia to strengthen their understanding and support for our efforts to
meet the emerging ballistic missile threat and to explore creative ways
that we can cooperate to enhance their security against this threat as
well.
An effective NMD could play an important part of our national
security strategy, but it could not be the sum total of that strategy.
It can never be the sum total of that strategy for dealing with nuclear
and missile threats. Moreover, ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear
weapons, as I said earlier, do not represent the sum total of the
threats we face. Those include chemical and biological weapons and a
range of deadly technologies for deploying them. So it would be folly to
base the defense of our Nation solely on a strategy of waiting until
missiles are in the air and then trying to shoot them down.
We must work with our allies and with Russia to prevent potential
adversaries from ever threatening us with nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons of mass destruction in the first place, and to make
sure they know the devastating consequences of doing so. The elements of
our strategy cannot be allowed to undermine one another. They must
reinforce one another and contribute to our national defense in all its
dimensions. That includes the profoundly important dimension of arms
control.
Over the past 30 years, Republican and Democratic Presidents alike
have negotiated an array of arms control treaties with Russia. We and
our allies have relied on these treaties to ensure strategic stability
and predictability with Russia, to get on with the job of dismantling
the legacy of the cold war, and to further the transition from
confrontation to cooperation with our former adversary in the most
important arena, nuclear weapons.
A key part of the international security structure we have built
with Russia and, therefore, a key part of our national security, is the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by President Nixon in 1972. The ABM
Treaty limits antimissile defenses according to a simple principle:
Neither side should deploy defenses that would undermine the other
side's nuclear deterrent and thus tempt the other side to strike first
in a crisis or to take countermeasures that would make both our
countries less secure.
Strategic stability, based on mutual deterrence, is still important,
despite the end of the cold war. Why? Because the United States and
Russia still have nuclear arsenals that can devastate each other. And
this is still a period of transition in our relationship.
We have worked together in many ways: signed an agreement of
cooperation between Russia and NATO, served with Russian troops in
Bosnia and Kosovo. But while we are no longer adversaries, we are not
yet real allies. Therefore, for them as well as for us, maintaining
strategic stability increases trust and confidence on both sides. It
reduces the risk of confrontation. It makes it possible to build an even
better partnership and an even safer world.
Now, here's the issue. NMD, if deployed, would require us either to
adjust the treaty or to withdraw from it, not because NMD poses a
challenge to the strategic stability I just discussed but because by its
very words, NMD prohibits any national missile defense.
What we should want is to both explore the most effective defenses
possible, not only for ourselves but for all other law-abiding states,
and to maintain our strategic stability with Russia. Thus far, Russia
has been reluctant to agree, fearing, I think, frankly, that in some
sense, this system, or some future incarnation of it, could threaten the
reliability of its deterrence and, therefore, strategic stability.
Nevertheless, at our summit in Moscow in June, President
Putin and I did agree that the world has
changed since the ABM treaty was signed 28 years ago, and that the
proliferation of missile technology has resulted in new threats that may
require amending that treaty. And again I say, these threats are not
threats to the United States alone.
[[Page 1748]]
Russia agrees that there is an emerging missile threat. In fact,
given its place on the map, it is particularly vulnerable to this
emerging threat. In time, I hope the United States can narrow our
differences with Russia on this issue. The course I have chosen today
gives the United States more time to pursue that, and we will use it.
President Putin and I have agreed to
intensify our work on strategic defense while pursuing, in parallel,
deeper arms reductions in START III. He and I have instructed our
experts to develop further cooperative initiatives in areas such as
theater missile defense, early warning, and missile threat discussions
for our meeting just next week in New York.
Apart from the Russians, another critical diplomatic consideration
in the NMD decision is the view of our NATO Allies. They have all made
clear that they hope the United States will pursue strategic defense in
a way that preserves, not abrogates, the ABM Treaty. If we decide to
proceed with NMD deployment we must have their support, because key
components of NMD would be based on their territories. The decision I
have made also gives the United States time to answer our allies'
questions and consult further on the path ahead.
Finally, we must consider the impact of a decision to deploy on
security in Asia. As the next President makes a deployment decision, he
will need to avoid stimulating an already dangerous regional nuclear
capability from China to South Asia. Now, let me be clear. No nation can
ever have a veto over American security, even if the United States and
Russia cannot reach agreement, even if we cannot secure the support of
our allies at first, even if we conclude that the Chinese will respond
to NMD by increasing their arsenal of nuclear weapons substantially,
with a corollary inevitable impact in India and then in Pakistan.
The next President may nevertheless decide that our interest in
security in 21st century dictates that we go forward with deployment of
NMD. But we can never afford to overlook the fact that the actions and
reactions of others in this increasingly interdependent world do bear on
our security. Clearly, therefore, it would be far better to move forward
in the context of the ABM Treaty and allied support. Our efforts to make
that possible have not been completed.
For me, the bottom line on this decision is this: Because the
emerging missile threat is real, we have an obligation to pursue a
missile defense system that could enhance our security. We have made
progress, but we should not move forward until we have absolute
confidence that the system will work, and until we have made every
reasonable diplomatic effort to minimize the cost of deployment and
maximize the benefit, as I said, not only to America's security but to
the security of law-abiding nations everywhere subject to the same
threat.
I am convinced that America and the world will be better off if we
explore the frontiers of strategic defenses, while continuing to pursue
arms control, to stand with our allies, and to work with Russia and
others to stop the spread of deadly weapons. I strongly believe this is
the best course for the United States, and therefore the decision I have
reached today is in the best security interest of the United States. In
short, we need to move forward with realism, with steadiness, and with
prudence, not dismissing the threat we face or assuming we can meet it
while ignoring our overall strategic environment, including the
interests and concerns of our allies, friends, and other nations. A
national missile defense, if deployed, should be part of a larger
strategy to preserve and enhance the peace, strength, and security we
now enjoy and to build an even safer world.
I have tried to maximize the ability of the next President to pursue
that strategy. In so doing, I have tried to maximize the chance that all
you young students will live in a safer, more humane, more positively
interdependent world. I hope I have done so. I believe I have.
Thank you very much.
Note: The President spoke at 11:23 a.m. in Gaston Hall. In his remarks,
he referred to Georgetown University provost Dorothy Brown, president
Leo J. O'Donovan, and School of Foreign Service dean Bob Gallucci;
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq; and President Vladimir Putin of
Russia.
[[Page 1749]]