News

USIS Washington 
File

02 December 1998

TRANSCRIPT: COHEN SEES MILITARY AS KEY TO FIGHTING TERRORISM

(Also plays crucial role in disaster relief)  (2460)



CARTAGENA, Colombia -- One major challenge facing democracies in the
21st century will be that of maintaining civil liberties -- even as
governments make full use of the military resources that are
"indispensable" to fighting terrorism and natural disasters, says U.S.
Defense Secretary William Cohen.


"Terror inflicted by the unbridled forces of nature and those
inflicted by the unprincipled forces of evil -- these are the two
types of terrorism which we have to confront in our daily lives,"
Cohen said in a December 1 speech on regional cooperation against
terrorism.


"We will find that the very same capabilities that allow us to fight
the war against terrorism will also allow us to fight the war against
nature's terror. Key to that, of course, is preparation," he added.


He noted that preparation among Central American militaries was key to
providing quick rescue and relief following Hurricane Mitch, and that
intelligence-gathering is similarly crucial to preventing terrorist
attacks.


"The best deterrent that we have against acts of terrorism is to find
out who is conspiring, who has the material, where are they getting
it, who are they talking to, what are their plans," he said. Cohen
warned, however, that advanced intelligence-gathering "runs smack into
constitutional protections of privacy. And it's a tension which will
continue to exist in every free society -- the reconciliation of the
need for liberty and the need for law and order."


He acknowledged that each democracy will have to reconcile those
competing needs in its own way, but argued that intelligence-sharing
among countries will remain an essential component of the fight
against terrorism.


"What we need most of all is to have an understanding that we must
share intelligence about terrorist activities. If you pick up
information about groups that are planning attacks within your own
countries who are cross-border, then that is information that should
be shared," Cohen said. "The same is true for all of us in the
hemisphere. We have an obligation to do that and I believe that it
will in fact provide the kind of deterrence that we are all looking
for."


Following is a transcript of Cohen's remarks:



(begin transcript)



SPEECH ON HEMISPHERIC COOPERATION IN COMBATING TERRORISM

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WILLIAM S. COHEN

Tuesday, Dec. 1

(as delivered)



Thank you very much, Mr. President. Yesterday I tried to indicate that
my past experience in the Senate lends itself to long and rather windy
speeches. But since assuming this position I've tried to compress my
remarks to make them as short and as insightful as possible. Here this
morning I would like to try to be as brief as I can and to summarize
the issues dealing with terrorism.


And let me say once again what an honor it is for me to attend my
first Ministerial as Secretary of Defense. I would also like to
express my thanks once again to President Pastrana and the Colombian
Government for hosting this Defense Ministerial.


This morning it occurred to me there is a line in 'Alice in
Wonderland' in which Alice is talking to the Cheshire Cat and she asks
the cat, 'Which way do I go to get from here to there?' And the cat
responds, 'It all depends on where you want to get to.' And Alice
said, 'I don't much care where.' And the cat responded, 'Then it
doesn't really matter which way you go.' In my study of the defense
ministerials, I believe that we have decided that we know exactly
which way we want to go and where we want to go.


(Partially inaudible) ... it's historic in its scope to have a
hemisphere that is very nearly democratic throughout. I would like to
discuss this morning the role of the military in our lives and two
subject matters which are of paramount interest. Yesterday there was a
good deal of discussion about the nature of terror in our lives: The
terror that is inflicted by nature and the terror that is inflicted by
terrorists. Terror inflicted by the unbridled forces of nature and
those inflicted by the unprincipled forces of evil -- these are the
two types of terrorism which we have to confront in our daily lives.


And the role of the military is that military capabilities are
indispensable in fighting both. We will find that the very same
capabilities that allow us to fight the war against terrorism will
also allow us to fight the war against nature's terror. Key to that,
of course, is preparation. I think it was Paderewski who said that
genius is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. The same is true as
far as our military capabilities are concerned.


The conference on Central American Armies of 1997 had the foresight to
conduct a joint natural-disaster response exercise this past June, and
it was building upon the results of the hurricane relief exercise that
was previously jointly conducted in February in Guatemala. I believe
that that preparation resulted in the saving of hundreds if not
thousands of lives, and once again it demonstrates the need to have
constant preparation.


With respect to the role of the military: The qualities of the
military, I think, we are all familiar with. Our military personnel
train under duress. They have clear command-and-control lines. They
are highly disciplined. They are expert in operational planning and
logistics. The challenge is how do you mesh that with the objectives
of a non-military mission or civilian types of missions?


There's no one rule. There is no one-size-fits-all. A plan that might
work for the United States doesn't necessarily work for another
country. Each of us has a different history, culture, attitudes toward
our military. In the United States, for example, our military
generally is for external types of national security concerns. We have
a National Guard that deals with domestic issues. So we have our own
history and culture to deal with regarding how we handle the military
in its relationship to domestic issues. So each country will have to
decide for itself, and there's a good deal of trial and error and a
good deal of compromise and accommodation, as we work our way through
in terms of what the role of the military is in our respective
societies.


The assets that our military has will be important in dealing with
natural disasters. I can assure you that notwithstanding the structure
in which the civilian community, as such (acts), whether we have a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which is really designed to
handle domestic types of emergencies, or whether we have a National
Guard, or whether you have the local police or the fire department,
you have all of these local agencies.


But when you have a tremendous disaster, what is the first thing that
they turn to, it's the military. Whether it's the National Guard or
whether it's the armed forces, it's the military that is called in
because it has the assets, for the most part. The assets would include
transportation, communication, engineering, medical. These are all
indispensable to responding to natural disasters.


They are also the same assets which are indispensable in responding to
acts of terrorism. They (the terrorists) rejoice in the agony of their
victims and then they hide in villages behind innocent people and the
laughter of children and dare you to strike back. So all of us have
had the experience, whether it be in Buenos Aires or in Oklahoma City.
We understand what happens when terrorists set off their bombs and
inflict that kind of catastrophic damage.


And it's likely to increase. Even though the reporting would indicate
that acts of terrorism are actually decreasing, the level of lethality
is on the rise.


And that is especially true when it comes to dealing with chemical and
biological weapons.


That is the threat that all of us are likely to face in the future.
And whether we're talking about a drop of VX, one drop of which can
kill you in a matter of a couple of minutes, or anthrax, which a
single spore inhaled in your lungs will kill you in a matter of few
days, or whether we're talking about sarin gas released in a Tokyo
subway or New York City or anywhere in the Americas.


Those are the dangers that we face today and tomorrow. The very same
assets that are essential for dealing with natural disasters are
called into play very quickly in dealing with terrorism.


I think one of the most foreboding thoughts for me is how we talk
about transnational terrorism. I look at my good friend, Minister
Dominguez from Argentina. I said, 'Well, suppose you had a small
amount of bacterial agent released on the plane leaving Buenos Aires.
It stops in Los Angeles or San Francisco on its way to Toronto, then
on to Amsterdam or London or wherever. Suddenly you have that one
plane that has been infected and those people on that plane were now
stopping off in Los Angeles, all the way across to Europe. No one
knows that they're infected in the first instance. The disease has
spread and you have no idea who has caused it.'


So the question of deterrence becomes very relevant. How do you deter
such acts of terrorism? One thing that has been done is that the OAS
created the Inter-American Commission on Terrorism. I think that's
very important because terrorists see that there is international
cooperation. That in itself is going to have a deterrent effect.


But when we talk about deterring terrorists, it requires a number of
things. It requires first of all having preparation. We have to
prepare for a disaster which is predictable. And so we have to, number
one, understand that if there is an act of terrorism involving a
chemical or biological agent, how do you identify it? How do you know
what your population has just been hit with? So we have to look at the
people who are the first responders: the police, the fireman, the
doctors, the nurses -- you send them off to the hospital and suddenly
you might have an entire hospital infected. So what we have tried to
do in our country is to try to train the responders. We have to start
training the people who are going to be called upon to first respond
to these acts of terrorism. We are calling upon our National Guard, in
fact, to help in that reconciliation of jurisdictions.


One of the problems we're going to continue to see is who is in
charge. When you have an act of terrorism, who's in charge of it? Is
it the local police? Is it the mayor? Is it the county? Is it the
state government? Is it the federal government? You have all of these
jurisdictional issues to work out. And that's what we are working our
way through right now by trying to come to grips with setting up the
jurisdictional lines.


And again, the military will play a key role because of the assets I
mentioned. The fact that we have transportation and communications,
that we have disciplined officers and soldiers who can carry out
orders and react under very stressful circumstances, all of that will
be terribly important in coming to grips with acts of terrorism in our
respective countries.


So I think in addition to preparation the next most important thing
that we can talk about is intelligence. How do we share intelligence?
How do we collect intelligence? And we do we reconcile the collection
of intelligence with the preservation of privacy? This is an issue
which I think very few countries, including the United States, have
come to grips with.


That the best deterrent that we have against acts of terrorism is to
find out who is conspiring, who has the material, where are they
getting it, who are they talking to, what are their plans. In order to
do that, in order to interdict the terrorists before they set off
their weapon, you have to have that kind of intelligence-gathering
capability, but it runs smack into constitutional protections of
privacy. And it's a tension which will continue to exist in every free
society -- the reconciliation of the need for liberty and the need for
law and order.


And there's going to be a constant balance that we all have to engage
in. Because once the bombs go off -- this is a personal view, this is
not a governmental view of the United States, but it's my personal
view -- that once these weapons start to be exploded people will say
'Protect us. We're willing to give up some of our liberties and some
of our freedoms, but you must protect us.' And that is what will lead
us into this 21st Century, this kind of constitutional tension of how
much protection can we provide and still preserve essential liberties.


And so that is a challenge that I think all of us have to address
ourselves. What we need most of all is to have an understanding that
we must share intelligence about terrorist activities. If you pick up
information about groups that are planning attacks within your own
countries who are cross-border, then that is information that should
be shared. The same is true for all of us in the hemisphere. We have
an obligation to do that and I believe that it will in fact provide
the kind of deterrence that we are all looking for.


Mr. President I had a prepared speech but I think I've covered most of
the issues without making it too lengthy. But I do believe that the
role of the military in fighting natural disasters, and also in
fighting terrorism are very similar -- the training, the equipment,
the expertise -- all of that needs to be integrated very fully in a
well-thought-out plan so that we can combat these two threats to our
societies.


We have seen in Mitch and in other tragedies more recently -- Georges
as well -- how nature can devastate everything that we have worked to
establish. (It) can wipe out villages and the total infrastructure in
a society. We will also see that it is possible through acts of
terrorism, particularly in the field of weapons of mass destruction.


So we have an obligation to address ourselves with all of the
intensity we can and with all the level of cooperation and openness
and transparency that the Defense Ministerials are committed to.


Thank you very much.



(end transcript)