Defense Dept.'s Wolfowitz Briefing in Berlin on Missile Defense

MISSILE DEFENSE CONSULTATION TEAM ON-THE-RECORD PRESS AVAILABILITY

U.S. Embassy Berlin, Germany
Thursday, May 10, 2001 9:15-9:45

Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for coming this morning. We are very
pleased to have our delegation from Washington, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz,
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Steven Hadley, the Assistant to
the President and the Deputy National Security Advisor, and Ms. Avis
Bohlen, the Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control.

We have time, Dr. Wolfowitz will make a brief opening statement; we
will have time for just a few questions, and then we have to get them
on to the next appointment.

WOLFOWITZ: Let me just say a few words about why we are here, and what
we are trying to accomplish. The purpose of this visit is
consultations. The primary subject of our consultations or discussions
have been the ideas that President Bush expressed in his address of
May 1: what we believe is an entirely new way of looking at the
concept of deterrence in the post-Cold War world. The talks here have
allowed us to exchange ideas with our close ally. We have been
speaking frankly and openly. We are listening very carefully to what
we are hearing. We want to factor the things that we have heard here
into our own thinking. The President hasn't made any decisions yet on
the exact direction to go although he has made very clear the general
notions that he has in mind. In our view, and in the President's view,
the world of 2001 is fundamentally different from that of 1972, in
both good ways and bad ways. From the positive standpoint, Russia is
no longer our enemy and that permits some fundamental changes in the
way we approach the deterrence. But on the other hand, we face new
challenges born of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missiles - a situation that is getting worse. We need a
new concept of deterrence that reflects both of these fundamental
changes. In our view, one that combines offensive forces, deployed
defenses, and a strong non-proliferation policy and arms control.

The new relationship with Russia will enable us to further reduce our
strategic nuclear weapons and build a relationship with Russia in
which strategic nuclear weapons are no longer the centerpiece of that
relationship.

Our conversations here in Berlin have been conducted in a very
constructive spirit and very open exchange. Our German colleagues have
presented us with some serious and important questions. We are going
to go home and think about them and we look forward to continuing
these discussions.

I'll be happy now to try to take your questions or have my colleagues
help.

ALEXANDER SZANDAR, DER SPIEGEL: I wonder whether apart from skepticism
you found any preparedness or willingness on behalf of the Germans to
participate in the President's vision of new systems. For example, in
defenses for the ranges against missiles of 1,000 kilometers or maybe
3,000 kilometers range?

WOLFOWITZ: I think the only fair thing is to let our German colleagues
speak for themselves and say what they think. I just would say I think
we found openness and willingness to discuss, but very, very serious
questions asked to us and we were not ...I think that is a fair way to
characterize it, but they really have to say what they think.

MICHAEL BEWERUNGE, ZDF: Could you specify from your point of view what
is the most challenging questions you are put from the German side?
What is the biggest challenge in terms of the United States which you
have to face? You spoke of interesting and serious questions.

WOLFOWITZ: It is a good way to try to get me to characterize the
German views. But let me just, okay, it is a fair question now. I
mean, I would say, speaking for myself, I think, one of the central
issues that, it is not we have not thought about it before, but one of
the central themes of our discussions was how do you move forward with
what the President is talking about in a way that is cooperative,
rather than confrontational, in a way that enhances stability rather
than generating new tensions and new arms races of various kinds. I
think that those have been the most serious questions we have been
thinking about before we got here, but I would say of the many
questions that we were asked, many of them revolved around that core.

CAROL WILLIAMS, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Do you feel in general that you
will be able to persuade the allies to look at the potential word NMD
in the same way that the United States does given the (inaudible)
bridging the gap between us, the two sides of the Atlantic?

WOLFOWITZ: The only thing I would dare to say is I think people
understand that the things we are talking about represent very
fundamentally different ways of thinking about the world. We do not
expect people to suddenly say, oh, yes, we all of a sudden agree with
what you have to say. What we are here to do is to genuinely hear
other people's ideas. To try to take those ideas into account as we
shape our own decisions. It is much too early, I think, even for us to
ask people to agree with us, because we have not come to firm
conclusions yet ourselves.

I think we have time for just one more question.

ROGER COHEN, NEW YORK TIMES: Would you characterize this mission as
damage control after a period of severe misunderstanding?

WOLFOWITZ: Absolutely not. I do not think there is severe
misunderstanding. In fact, I think what we are trying to do is to get
away from the notion that consultations consist of deciding what you
will do and then coming to friends and allies the day before you
announce it and informing them of what is about to happen. We know
that is what we do sometimes. That is definitely not what we are doing
now. The President understands that we are talking about changes in
ways that people have thought about the world for more than thirty
years actually. In some ways, one could say it is surprising that
twelve years after the Berlin Wall came down in this very city, we are
still in some ways, I am speaking in my own view of it is, wedded to
old Cold War notions of deterrence as we are. But it produced very
deeply ingrained views all over the world. Those are not going to
change overnight and the process of changing involves also our
listening and thinking about - it is easier to say what was old and
to be put behind us - it's a little harder to define a new direction
and that is what we are working on.

Thank you.