08 October 1999
(Perry: JCS and labs assured him of national security interests) (1540) Dr. William Perry, former Secretary of Defense, told reporters in Palo Alto, California October 6 that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the directors of the U.S. nuclear laboratories all assured him at the time he recommended to President Clinton that he sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 that "this treaty is in the national security interests of the United States." One of the features of the CTBT, Perry said, is that 47 nations are required to sign it before it comes into force. That number, he said, includes India, Pakistan and North Korea "so this would be a very positive step if those nations would step forward and ratify this Treaty." Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that there is "an enduring need of the world to have a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It goes back to the days of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy." And, he added, "it's an enduring interest of the United States." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the reporters that from her own perspective she thinks "it would send a very bad signal for this Treaty to be voted down, in terms of diplomatic activities that I must carry on with India and Pakistan and the discussions with our NATO allies, who are in favor of it." That signal, she said, would be that the United States "would not be in a leadership position on nonproliferation issues." "We believe," she said, "that the issue of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat that we are faced with. This Treaty is one way - a very important way - to get our arms around the threat and strangle it." Following is the State Department transcript: (begin transcript) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of the Spokesman October 8, 1999 REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECETARY OF STATE WARREN CHRISTOPHER AND FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM PERRY Palo Alto, California October 6, l999 SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I've had the opportunity to just give a speech here at the University on the importance of ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I am very pleased that at my former colleagues, Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry, are here and that they actually were instrumental during the negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and they support ratification of it. I'm very glad that we've had the opportunity to restate the importance in terms of national security for the ratification of this important treaty. QUESTION: Secretary Albright, Jesse Helms said today that he wants it in writing from the Clinton Administration that they will withdraw the test best treaty for a vote now and will not bring it up again until after the 2000 election. Is that going to happen? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I am not going to get involved in the parliamentary aspects of this. I am supposed to testify before Chairman Helms tomorrow and I will repeat what I have said here: It is in the US national security interests to ratify the treaty; a vote against the treaty is a vote for testing. QUESTION: Along those lines, Secretary Albright, many people say it's a toothless tiger if you cannot stop a so-called rogue state from developing weapons, so if it is not ratified by the United States it's no great loss. What's your reaction? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I would just like to say that, clearly, we are not trying to test; the others are. This provides us a regime to try to get all those states not to test. And I can't understand why we would be worse off in trying to develop a regime that controls people than we are now. I would like Secretary Perry to comment. SECRETARY PERRY: One of the features of the treaty requires a number of nations, 47 nations, to sign this before it becomes in force. That includes India and Pakistan and includes North Korea, so this would be a very positive step if those nations would step forward and ratify this treaty. QUESTION: Madame Secretary, if it appears that the treaty will go down to defeat in a couple days, is it your opinion that the Administration should withdraw it so that perhaps it can live another day? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I am doing everything I can to get a positive vote for the treaty. We believe and have said for some time that the American public needs to have information about the treaty. We have been calling for hearings on the treaty. Every other major treaty has had days and weeks of hearings. This has had no hearings. So what I am calling for is for hearings that would allow us to explain the importance of this treaty to the American public. QUESTION: Secretary Perry, have you been assured in your talks with people in Pyongyang that the North Koreans will go along and sign this? SECRETARY PERRY: Let me answer a more fundamental question. I was assured by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by directors of laboratories at the time I recommended to the President to sign this treaty, that this treaty is in the national security interests of the United States. I don't know what North Korea would do relevant to signing or ratifying this treaty, but before it is fully in force it is required that they do that. QUESTION: How do you account for the fact that Republicans are rushing this to a vote, Madame Secretary? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I don't feel qualified. I can talk about the aspects of the treaty and my budget but, as to the motivation of the Republicans, I am not qualified to discuss that. QUESTION: What would be a motivation to vote no for the ratification? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I can't imagine, because a no vote is a vote for testing by every country in the world. We have decided not to test. Now, we are not being prohibited from testing; we have decided not to test. So, frankly, I don't understand why one would want to vote no. But let me ask Secretary Christopher, who was instrumental on this. SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: This is an enduring need of the world to have a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It goes back to the days of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. What I can say with a good deal of authority is whatever Congress does in the next few days or weeks, the interest in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will continue because it's an enduring interest of the United States. It was fortunate during my tenure to watch the negotiations and bring them to a conclusion. I firmly believe that the United States is more secure and the people here are safer with a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. So there may be ups and downs of negotiations, but this is an enduring need that will continue to be, I think, a high priority to the United States. QUESTION: Would you describe it as dismantling perhaps a monster that the US itself helped create? Would you describe this effort as dismantling a monster perhaps that the US helped create? SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Certainly not. This is something -- a decision we took in our own national interest not to test because we are leaders of the world in so many ways. We hope that leadership will enable us to bring all the civilized nations of the world within the treaty regime, creating 300 monitoring stations around the world, so we could try to ensure that others are not testing in rogue fashion. So this is part of the United States policy; as I say, it has been since the days of President Eisenhower and will continue to be, I'm sure, for many years to come. QUESTION: If this treaty is voted down, if this is not the moment for it, after an election and there's another Congress, could it be resubmitted? Is that legal? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think hypothetically so, but I think that what we are saying, and Secretary Christopher has said, this is a treaty that is important for the United States and is enduring. From my own perspective, I think it would send a very bad signal for this treaty to be voted down in terms of diplomatic activities that I must carry on with India and Pakistan and the discussions with our NATO allies, who are in favor of it, so this would not be helpful in terms of our diplomatic activities. QUESTION: What would that signal be? Can you spell out what you mean? SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I think that this has to do with what Secretary Christopher said. The signal is that the United States would not be in a leadership position on nonproliferation issues. We believe -- I think the other Secretaries can speak for themselves -- that the issue of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the greatest threat that we are faced with. This treaty is one way -- a very important way -- to get our arms around the threat and strangle it. (end transcript)