----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Withecombe To: STOP NATO Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 7:32 PM Subject: [STOPNATO] Nato's George Robertson on Son of Star Wars - interview STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM PART II JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Welcome back, with me the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson. The United States seems determined to build a shield against so called rogue nuclear powers, a nuclear shield. Is that a good idea? LORD ROBERTSON: Well the Amercians think it is and they've got some reason to think that it is the proliferation of ballistic missiles now is becoming a source of concern for everyone, indeed the Russians agreed with President Clinton that there was now a risk involved in this area, it's a very different world to 1972 when the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was actually framed. The Americans believe that they can install a limited shield against the small number of missiles that might be fired by rogue states who are not deterred in the traditional way, or against accidental firings and they are at the moment looking if whether that is feasible, whether it is cost effective, whether the threat is right. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Which are these, which are these rogue threats, rogue states? LORD ROBERTSON: Well the States that are close to continental United States include North Korea, but obviously we already know that Sadam Hussain had ambitions to have nuclear weapons and with the proliferation now of ballistic missiles then they might well, he might well be in a position to have it at some time in the future. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Okay. LORD ROBERTSON: So some limited shield, a limited shield is what the Amercians are talking about just now, but they're engaged in discussion, a dialogue, maybe even a negotiation with the Russians because the ABM Treaty was bi-lateral treaty between them. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: And of course that would have to be abrogated if a defense of shields of this kind was. LORD ROBERTSON: No, no it wouldn't. no. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Well it would have to be torn up because it's .? LORD ROBERTSON: The ABM Treaty can be amended by mutual agreement, it has already. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Ah, by mutual agreement. Okay. LORD ROBERTSON: Well that is what President Clinton has made it absolutely clear he wants, that is an amendment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that would allow for this limited shield which would not in any way challenge the Russian capability and ballistic missiles, but which would simply have it's effect in making sure that the Continental United States was safe from the potential rogue states. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But President Putin has made it very clear that he is dismayed by this proposal, he suggests a Russian NATO anti-missile defense system for Europe. Are you on side for that? LORD ROBERTSON: Well Marshall Sergejev the Russian Defense Minister came to Brussels on Friday to the meeting of the Nato Russia Permanent Joint Council and he floated the idea of some new form of anti-missile cover. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Do you have an open mind about that yourself? LORD ROBERTSON: Well I have to have, because we don't know the details of it yet, and Marshall Sergejev and I agreed that they had not put the details on the table, some very searching questions were put to Marshall Sergejev which in the time available on Friday he could not answer. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: So you haven't, you don't want to look at that? LORD ROBERTSON: Well we don't, it's going to be looked at in the context of this body we have, the permanent joint council between NATO and Russia and we'll see what it is they are proposing and whether it is actually feasible, affordable or makes any sense at the present time. Some of the outlines at the present moment suggest that it hasn't been thought through carefully enough and that it might actually involve some vast expenditure in order to achieve what it says it is, and that is to knock out these rogue missiles. They are conceding that there is a problem but it is designed not to hit them in space, but to hit them as they launch, now that's a big, it would appear to me to be a pretty big technical ambition to have. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: So. LORD ROBERTSON: But we haven't had the details. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: So, you haven't ruled it out but you are dubious about it? LORD ROBERTSON: Well we want to know what it's about. I think it's quite legitimate to ask questions about and we will see. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But the US Defence Secretary has gone much further than you already, he's said it's an idea that does not appear to be feasible or desirable for protecting us against the threats that are emerging... and whatever the idea may be --and he expresses the same doubts about whether it can work and what it invoves - it could not be a substitute for the American programme that's currently under Research & Development. Now, if they're going ahead with that, can I put. which you. which you know they are going ahead with that research and very likely it will go ahead into a programme - can you imagine circumstances under which the British public would accept providing the nuclear facilities required to make the American shield possible without Britain, the UK itself, being protected by that shield? LORD ROBERTSON: Well, the UK at the moment is not threatened in the same way as the United States is by the likes. the likes of North Korea, which has. we, we know has got the capability at the present moment. Secondly. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Well, hang on. hang on. one point, just on that one point. just on that one point, George, on that one point - Iraq you identified as a rogue state, Iraq is much closer to Britain than it is to the United States. if Iraq can' t penetrate the American shield, and if that American shield is in place partly because what there is at Fylingdale's or around in the UK. and if Saddam Hussein is the rogue that does these kind of things in this Dr Strangelove way. he's going to target Britain, isn't he? LORD ROBERTSON: Well, no, I think it's highly unlikely that he's going to target Britain, because none of the ballistic missiles that have yet been invented at that. at that scale are going to reach the United Kingdom. But the. the general principle is at the moment the Americans have... JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But hold on, just on that one point. LORD ROBERTSON: Well. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Sorry, just on that one point, I. I'm not going to stop you saying what you want to say in general, but on that one point: if Britain is part of providing the shield. LORD ROBERTSON: Well, it isn't in the first stages. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Then you. which you would have to be to make the shield effective. LORD ROBERTSON: No, not in the first instance, no, it wouldn't be. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But down the road it is envisaged that Britain's nuclear facilities, particularly the Fylingdales etcetera would be developed in ways to make that shield effective. If that is the case, one way that Iraq gets at the United States is by targeting those facilities in Britain, surely? And therefore, I put the question to you again, can you imagine the British public accepting that prospect without saying, "You have got to deliver for us the nuclear shield as well" - not, "It would be interesting to have it", but "We've got to have it or we won't have your facilities here" ? LORD ROBERTSON: Well, you're a way down, a long way down the road, quite frankly, from the situation that we're talking about at the present moment. And that's precisely why. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But it is down the road? LORD ROBERTSON: Well. but it's precisely why the Americans have been talking with the Europeans about the prospect that if national missile defence is employed in the United States - and it is still an if, they have not made the decision about it, the President has not made the decision about it. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: How much do you bet that he. how much would you bet he doesn't go ahead? It' s election year, the Republican leadership are asking for an even bigger Star Wars-like operation. are you really saying that he might say, "No, we won't go ahead with it" ? LORD ROBERTSON: Well. well, that's the. the President has made it absolutely clear that he has not made a decision and that as criterion. the criteria he laid down, first of all an assessment of the threat, secondly a question about the efficacy of the system... and there's a further test to come up, because it has not yet been proven. the third one is the affordability of the system and the. the fourth criterion is the overall net gain to security by deploying the. the. the national missile defence. So, the President has made it absolutely clear he will listen to the views of the allies and intensive consultation and discussion is going on, not just with the Russians but with the. the NATO allies. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Does it. does it have to be. ? LORD ROBERTSON: You keep asking questions, Jonathan. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Oh, that's my job. LORD ROBERTSON: Well, I know. but, but my job is to answer. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: But you've been answering very interestingly and just. LORD ROBERTSON: You won't let me finish the question. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: And just one more thing. are you saying it has to be one for all and all for one in NATO, in respect of this shield or not? LORD ROBERTSON: Well, we are consulting inside it about what the Americans are saying is the first component part of a national missile defence, which is a very limited facility that would allow the Americans to knock out a small number of incoming missiles, but which in no way would question the. the totality of the armoury of the. of the Russians or of the Americans. and it's something that is limited to. to rogue firings or accidental firings of. of. of missiles. And you can see why that is very, very attractive inside the United States at the moment. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Okay. And your general point that you wanted to make was what? LORD ROBERTSON: Well, that we're a long way down the. the road. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Okay. LORD ROBERTSON: . from discussing a lot of these things. And at the moment it is a matter for the Americans and for the Russians, perhaps to come to an agreement about amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as it has been amended in the past, to make it more relevant to the present situation - and Mr Putin has not said no. Mr Putin is engaged in the discussions and if you read carefully the agreement that was reached between President Clinton and President Putin last year you see a common concern about the terms and a common concern about the prospects for the proliferation of these kinds of missiles. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Of course, that suggests that if you don't get Putin's agreement, then you will get arms treaties unilaterally torn up or the Americans won't go ahead? LORD ROBERTSON: Well the anti-ballistic missile truly provides for an ABM system, an anti-missile system to be deployed and the United States - and one to be deployed in Russia. Russia has got its system at the present moment, America has chosen not to even have one of these anti-missiles shields at the present moment. So we're quite a bit away from this and inside the alliance a sober, grown up analysis has taken place at the present moment and a serious discussion is taking place between the Americans and the Russians. So I hope that a sensible solution will be the outcome. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY Meanwhile, we've only got a few moments left I'm afraid, you're doing the rounds as Secretary General, NATO, urging European Governments to spend more on defence. If they don't, what? LORD ROBERTSON: Well if they don't spend wisely and spend enough then we'll be left with anti capabilities which frankly will simply be a deceptive comfort blanket for the kind of risks and problems that we're all going to face in the future. If we don't build relevant capabilities, not for yesterday's enemies but for tomorrow's threats then we will leave the people that we represent under-protected and the safety that people have grown used to over the years simply won't be there so, spending smartly and spending enough is a real priority. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY Not a popular message is it? Cut spending on health, education, transport or alternatively increase taxes in order to get the defence spending that you say is needed? LORD ROBERTSON: Well what value is your health service or your education system if your country is not safe, if you are not able to deal with the trouble spots in the world which eventually come home to us. The conflict in the Balkans spilled over, not just into neighbouring countries, but right over into this country as well. The tide of asylum seekers that we see at the present moment has a lot to do with instability in other parts of the world. I think in Britain we should be very proud of the forces who went out and got stability to Sierra Leone, out of the chaos that was there. Now if we're going to make that sort of contribution to making the world safer then we've got to have the right capabilities, we've got to have modern armed forces. Out of date armed forces are a waste of money and a deceptive comfort blanket. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY So in the case of the United Kingdom which is part of this debate your message to Gordon Brown is give the money to the Secretary of State, to defence that he wants and at the very least don't cut it? LORD ROBERTSON: Well that is my message to all finance ministers including Gordon Brown that we've got to make that investment for future generations because if we don't they won't be safe and frankly that is a major priority. So right across Europe where Governments are actually increasing their defence budget and not cutting defence budgets, where we're now facing up to the Europeans carrying a bigger and a better burden inside the alliance then we cannot afford to cut back on defence. You can't get defence on the cheap and the first thing to do is to re-organise and re-shape and modernise armed forces and that is in many ways what we did in this country. But then you've got to make sure you're spending enough, that's the only way to guarantee real safety for the future. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY Lord Robertson thank you very much for being with us today. Next Sunday we'll be back in London and with our studio audience again and the issue at stake, the future of Fox Hunting. If you would like to join that debate then here's the number to ring 020 7261 3781. To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
