----- Original Message ----- From: Miroslav Antic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: NATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:47 AM Subject: NATO Chief Affirms Russia Accepting Missile Defense [STOPNATO.ORG.UK] STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Build a marketing database and send targeted HTML and text e-mail newsletters to your customers with List Builder. http://www.listbuilder.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NATO Chief Affirms Russia Accepting Missile Defense Washington, March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Russia accepts the necessity of some form of missile defense, removing a key hurdle for U.S.-led development of a comprehensive multinational system, NATO's top official assured American policy-makers. ``The Russian initiative, for whatever its motives, has now recognized that there is a threat, and secondly -- and this is new -- that there is a potential military solution to that threat,'' the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, George Robertson, said during a Washington visit. Robertson, in the U.S. capital to meet members of Congress and leaders of the Bush administration, also brought assurances that a planned European-only defense force will remain connected to and reliant upon NATO. His visit unfolded as the U.S. missile defense initiative and the proposed European force have renewed questions on both sides of the Atlantic about the future of the NATO military alliance formed in the aftermath of World War II. Russian leaders, including President Vladimir Putin, described for Robertson their interest in a Europe-wide missile defense system during a Moscow visit two weeks ago. Although the offer could be discounted as mostly an effort to divide Europe and the U.S. on the issue, Robertson described it as based on a ``real'' Russian understanding of a missile threat posed by ``rogue'' nations with potential nuclear capability. `Rogue States' Putin ``mentioned four states by name and actually used the term `rogue states,''' Robertson told a Capitol Hill forum arranged by the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and Senator Fred Thompson, a Republican of Tennessee. Among the countries cited as possible missile threats are Iran and North Korea. President George W. Bush said today he is skeptical about North Korea's efforts to forge a peace with South Korea, after meeting with visiting South Korean President Kim Dae Jung. Kim said South Korea doesn't oppose Bush's missile defense plan. Earlier, his Foreign Ministry suggested during a visit by Putin that it backed Russia in calls to strengthen the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, which bars a national missile shield. ``I really regret the misunderstanding,'' Kim said, speaking through a translator. Robertson praised the Bush administration for continuing consultations begun under President Bill Clinton on the nature of U.S. plans for National Missile Defense, or NMD, its sensitivity to NATO objections and its assurance the U.S. isn't weakening its commitment to collective defense. He also praised the new administration for stressing -- without any elaboration of how it would be done -- that any missile defense shield must include the alliance. Larger Strategy Sought ``The Bush administration's approach, which aims to include allies and fielded forces in the net -- in other words dropping the `N' from `NMD' -- and to put missile defense into a larger strategy, has helped address those concerns,'' Robertson said. ``So I am very confident that instead of seeing a major transatlantic row over whether America should deploy a national missile defense system, we are actually going to see some very serious consultations on how a broader missile defense system and strategy will come into effect,'' Robertson said. Boeing Co., Raytheon Co. and TRW Inc. are the top contractors on the U.S. ground-based system of early-warning and precision tracking radar, hit-to-kill interceptor rockets and a communications network. Untested The Pentagon's top test office in its most recent annual report of major weapons systems said the ground-based program has demonstrated its basic functions but has yet to be tested realistically after three of 19 planned flight test intercepts. The next test is scheduled for May or June, and the system is unlikely be ready for operation until 2006 at the earliest, according to the report. At the same time, the U.S. Navy is exploring converting Lockheed Martin Corp. radar and communications systems and Raytheon missiles on its Aegis-class destroyers and cruisers to perform sea-based missile defense. The test report said a sea-based system isn't a viable option any time soon, however. The Navy acknowledges it couldn't field an initial capability until 2006 or a full capability by 2010, at the earliest. The Bush administration has said it wants to explore fielding a system that combines both ground- and sea-based components. European Forces U.S. concerns over the planned European defense force have been heightened, meanwhile, by French government suggestions that the outfit will have staffs and intelligence-gathering operations separate from those of NATO, Thompson said. Robertson discounted the concern. ``The whole project is based entirely on an umbilical connection to NATO -- the NATO assets, the NATO capabilities, the NATO planning procedures,'' Robertson said. ``And it is only on that basis that the whole system can work.'' The main obstacle to moving forward with planning the force is the need to establish a role for NATO members that don't belong to the European Union, he said. That is in part a reference to Turkey, a long-term candidate for EU membership that insists on having a voice in the use of NATO by the proposed European force. Although questioned by some in Congress, the proposed force actually is a response to U.S. criticism that Europe has been insufficiently prepared to handle smaller regional military problems without calling NATO, Robertson said. Albanian Precedent ``For any security challenge in Europe larger than a forest fire, there are only two options: NATO or nothing,'' Robertson said. That lack of options was evident most recently in Albania, when NATO refused to get involved after the collapse of the country's banking system led to a civil war fueled by gangs stealing weapons from military warehouses, Robertson said. European members of NATO failed to respond, leaving Italy to handle the situation, he said. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress today he saw no threat from the European defense force. ``We've made the case that has to be an essential part of our NATO efforts as well, and we think they understand that,'' Powell told the House International Relations Committee. The committee's chairman, Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois, nevertheless described the U.S.-European alliance as ``being hollowed out even as the responsible officials solemnly reaffirm their commitment.'' ``I believe we are watching the beginnings of an unraveling of the Atlantic relationship,'' Hyde said. Miroslav Antic, http://www.antic.org/SNN/ ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
