09 June 2000
(U.S. envoy says Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty needed) (2700) Ambassador Robert Grey, U.S. representative to the Conference on Disarmament (CD), says that although there is an illusion "that nothing is happening" in the realm of arms control, "the reality is quite different." "Arms control is happening all the time," he told Washington File Correspondent Wendy Lubetkin in an interview in Geneva, Switzerland, June 7. "Real progress" is occurring, he said, pointing out that the numbers of U.S. and Russian strategic weapon systems "are diminishing rapidly as we talk." "The reality is that we are probably doing more arms control now than we have ever done," Grey said. People need to understand "that a lot of the work we are doing with the Russians is not generally well known," he said. "We are spending several million dollars" to assist them in disposing of weapons and protecting their stockpiles. Grey also said that the main U.S. objective for the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament is the successful negotiation of a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials. "We have all agreed for years that an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty) was the first priority, so we think we should start negotiating on that now," he said. Following is the transcript of the Grey interview: (begin transcript) QUESTION: What will be the arms control priorities of the United States in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) during the remainder of the year and what are the main obstacles to achieving those goals? AMBASSADOR GREY: The main objective we have had here for several years is unchanged. We want to get a negotiation started on a ban on the production of fissile materials, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). This has been our objective for the past five years. We attach a great deal of importance to it. And we hope that finally maybe we can get the CD's procedural logjam broken and negotiations started. The problem is that there are other delegations which are pressing for a more active engagement on nuclear disarmament and for a negotiation preventing the militarization of outer space. Neither one of these are issues that we think the CD is in a position to handle at this time. We are not interested in multilateral negotiations on these two particular subjects, so we are continuing to try to agree on a work program that will get us started on FMCT and maybe enable us to discuss the possibilities of what we could do with the other two at some future date. But they are certainly not ripe for negotiation now. Q: During the effort to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) one of the main obstacles was the effort by some nations to link those very specific negotiations to other topics. Are similar linkages now blocking the commencement of negotiations on an FMCT? AMBASSADOR GREY: This is exactly the same thing. The Chinese allege that they would like to see negotiations on all three subjects within the CD -- the demilitarization of outer space, multilateral nuclear disarmament, and the FMCT -- and that they should all be treated equally. We think there is a substantive difference. We have all agreed for years that FMCT was the first priority, so we think we should start negotiating on that now. On the others, the best outcome would be to discuss what the possibilities are. Is there anything that could be usefully done in the CD on these subjects? Frankly, we are very skeptical. Q: Why does the United States believe that the demilitarization of outer space, and nuclear disarmament, are not ripe for negotiations in the CD at this time? AMBASSADOR GREY: We have always taken the position that in nuclear disarmament the principal negotiations will be for the foreseeable future between the United States and the Russian Federation. And it is complicated enough to get agreement between those two countries. As you know, START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) II was finally ratified by the Duma. Even in a bilateral relationship, where the rules of the game are pretty clearly understood, progress in nuclear disarmament is difficult to achieve. We think there is no possibility at this stage of the game of negotiating in a multilateral forum on nuclear disarmament. The best way forward is for us and the Russians to keep bringing the numbers down and ultimately, over time, when the numbers get low enough, be joined by the Chinese, the French, and the British in driving the numbers still lower down, and only then would we be willing to consider bringing it into the CD or some other multilateral forum. So that's just the most practical way to proceed. This is an incremental step-by-step process; it is not something that one can do all at once and clearly it is hard enough to negotiate at 2. One can barely contemplate how difficult it would be at 66. Now on the question of outer space, frankly there is no arms race in outer space as far as we are concerned. We don't see anything that could be usefully served in trying to negotiate on that. We have a space treaty which bans the placing of weapons of mass destruction in outer space; we think that is sufficient. And so we are very skeptical about the need to negotiate anything in the CD or anywhere else in that respect. Q: Do you see any indication that the logjam could be broken this year, and what will be the impact on the prestige and viability of the Conference on Disarmament if the deadlock continues? AMBASSADOR GREY: Well, there have been logjams before that have lasted for a considerable time. We have had five or six successful negotiations over the last two or three decades. There are periods when progress is difficult. Other events outside the CD obviously shape the agenda. So continued stalemate is frustrating, but I think that at the end of the day we'll get the CD back to doing what it is supposed to do, which is to negotiate multilateral arms control treaties. And obviously the first candidate is the FMCT treaty, which everyone agrees is the next logical step in multilateral arms control. So while it is frustrating and annoying that we can't get going, I don't think at the end of the day that it will be fatal to the Conference on Disarmament. I think we will get a negotiation eventually. We cannot have nuclear disarmament without an FMCT agreement. If countries continue to produce fissile material that can be used for nuclear weapons, you can't have total and complete nuclear disarmament. You need to stop the production and gradually reduce the stockpiles, which is what we are trying to do in an FMCT negotiation. Therefore, ultimately and inevitably this agreement has to be negotiated, and it will be negotiated in the CD just like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So while it may take time, we have to be a little patient. Q: Why does the U.S. consider the CD to be important to its overall non-proliferation goals? AMBASSADOR GREY: It has really a bigger role in arms control than in non-proliferation. I would think that the fundamental objective here is to control the weapons, and of course non-proliferation contributes to that, but it is 50/50: -you have to have a little of each to get progress. But the CD has proven its value over the last several decades because almost every major multilateral arms control agreement that we have achieved has come through the CD. It is the logical place to do it. If it didn't exist, you'd have to invent it. Q: How is the discussion in the U.S. about the possibility of a limited National Missile Defense affecting discussions within the CD? AMBASSADOR GREY: The Chinese are very concerned about it. They claim that negotiations to prevent the militarization of outer space are the most crucial concern they have. They claim that they have to have a negotiation on that in the Conference on Disarmament and appear to be blocking progress on any other negotiation until they get that. So obviously it is having a negative impact in that sense. The reality is that no treaty is 100 percent effective forever. Treaties have to be adjusted to reflect changing times and changing circumstances. I think there is a growing appreciation that there is a perceptible threat out there that we have identified as something a limited ballistic missile defense system could conceivably protect us from. That is the threat of the so-called rogue states. But clearly this is an unsettling proposition for a number of countries because it means that a number of things come into play. Some people might think that their strategic systems will be in some way less effective because this shield exists, although the shield is designed to protect against only 40 or 50 missiles. When you have a couple of thousand, it doesn't have much impact. But there is a lot of expense involved here. There is a lot of concern that it might de-couple the United States from Europe. There is a lot of concern that it could have some impact in terms of the relationship between the Chinese and the Japanese, and above all, there is the concern that this kind of technology, which is terribly expensive and costly, can upset people's plans for defense and their military spending in ways that are unpredictable. Q: You've just returned from the NPT Review Conference. What lessons do you think can be drawn from it? AMBASSADOR GREY: I think it was a successful outcome. We agreed to a forward-looking statement that reiterated the importance that we all attach to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and we did this following a difficult time when two countries proceeded to test. The signatories to the NPT reiterated a commitment to the treaty. They made it clear that the only way that the nations not currently participating in the NPT can participate is as non-nuclear states, not as nuclear states. And, we reaffirmed our commitment to the process of moving ahead toward a world that is going to be free of nuclear weapons. So it was a significant achievement in the face of some pretty discouraging events, with two countries going nuclear in the five-year period leading up to the Review Conference. Q: U.S. arms control officials take every opportunity to express commitment to the universality of the NPT. How is the United States working behind the scenes to express that commitment and to bring other countries on board? AMBASSADOR GREY: Well, we are trying to persuade both India and Pakistan that it is in everyone's interest to join this regime as a non-nuclear weapons state. Now this is obviously difficult in the context of India and Pakistan. But we have made the point repeatedly and will continue to make it. We cannot have normal, effective, businesslike relations with countries that are non-adherents to the NPT. It just is not possible to have the same kind of a relationship with them that you have with other countries. We have made that clear. This cuts across the whole variety of the areas of concern. Q: Is the United States working with India and Pakistan to narrow our differences on non-proliferation and, if so, how are we doing so? AMBASSADOR GREY: We are having intense conversations with both countries, trying to persuade them not to field these weapons or to further test them or test missiles designed to go with them, and we are trying to persuade them that ultimately the only way forward is to join the NPT as non-nuclear states. Whether we will be successful in that or not remains to be seen. Q: Do you think that there are lessons that other nations could take from the fact that South Africa has voluntarily stepped away from being a nuclear-weapon capable state? AMBASSADOR GREY: I would say that the South African model is a good one. It already has had an impact and that is, of course, that both Brazil and Argentina have taken a hard look at whether or not the nuclear option made sense to them and they both decided to join the NPT as non-nuclear states. I think the South African example is one that was demonstrably of interest to those two countries and to others as well. The fact of the matter is that there are only a few states outside the NPT at the moment. Q: What do you think about the recent suggestion that there should be an international conference on nuclear disarmament, which would be separate and apart from the NPT Review Conference? AMBASSADOR GREY: We don't think it is a very good idea at all. We have plenty of conferences to discuss these things. You have the General Assembly of the United Nations. You have the U.N. Disarmament Commission. You have the Conference on Disarmament. You have all sorts of places. The last thing we need is still another conference. What we need are some positive negotiations. The best contribution the membership of the United Nations could make on this issue would be to get the CD down to work on negotiating an FMCT. Q: So in the U.S. view, the FMCT is the next logical step in arms control? AMBASSADOR GREY: Absolutely, in terms of multilateral arms control. Obviously the START III negotiations between the Russian Federation and the United States are very important, and obviously we need to make progress on that and we will. Q: What has the Russian Duma's ratification of START II done for the hopes of arms controllers, and do you expect further strategic reductions to pick up speed now? AMBASSADOR GREY: My expectation is that now that START II has been ratified by the Duma, we can proceed to get to work on a START III agreement. The START III numbers will be substantially lower than what we agreed in START II. The numbers could be anywhere from 2,500 down to 2,000, and some say the Russians are even prepared to go to 1,500. So the numbers will drop and it will be a significant step forward. After START III, we may be in a position where we will have reduced our nuclear holdings on both sides by around 80 percent. Q: Do you think that arms control in general is on the wane or in a period of ascendancy? AMBASSADOR GREY: Arms control is happening all the time. The numbers of both American systems and Russian systems are diminishing rapidly as we talk. Fissile material is being eliminated, being put under international safeguards and blended down so that it can only be used for commercial purposes. The reality is that we are probably doing more arms control now than we have ever done. The problem is that it is not encapsulated in formal negotiations or formal settings like the CD or in ongoing bilateral relations, but it is occurring every day of the week. There is an illusion that nothing is happening, but the reality is quite different. And I think that is something that people have to understand -- that a lot of the work we are doing with the Russians is not generally well known. We are spending several million dollars to assist them in protecting their stockpiles and disposing of these weapons, etc, etc. This is real progress as opposed to talk. Q: Critics of the United States sometimes say that we are only periodically committed to arms control just before the NPT conference each time it rolls around. How would you respond? AMBASSADOR GREY: Well that is just nonsense. If you look at the record of what we have done over the past ten years or since the end of the Cold War, it is a huge accomplishment. And it's a systematic one. And frankly, we put our money where our mouth is. A lot of people just talk. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)