16 February 2000
(President's senior advisor John Holum) (7,370) Arms control remains central to America's national security interests and to the international security environment, and the United States will continue to take a leadership role in non-proliferation efforts, according to President Clinton's Senior Advisor for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Security Affairs, John Holum. Arms control is "far preferable to building more offensive weapons and greater defenses. It is much less costly, it is much more reliable," he said February 15 during a Department of State WorldNet interactive television program between Washington and Paris. "Despite the setback last October when the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT], the United States remains committed to a leadership role in arms control and non-proliferation efforts. We won't let up one single bit in those efforts." The five-year review conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will begin in April in New York, and Holum said the conference presents both a great challenge and opportunity. "There is likely to be a great deal of debate on the pace of disarmament and on the effectiveness of the non-proliferation norm," he said. "But we have an obligation and an opportunity, I think, to make this a successful conference, where countries will come away feeling that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is indispensable to their security; that it is not a favor to the nuclear weapon states but rather a security instrument for all of its members because it gives them the assurance that their neighbors aren't acquiring nuclear weapons; and the confidence through International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring that that commitment is being kept." ................... Following is a transcript of the WorldNet program: (begin transcript) WORLDNET "DIALOGUE" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of Broadcast Services Washington, D.C. GUEST: John Holum, President's Senior Advisor for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Security Affairs TOPIC: U.S. POLICY ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION POST: Paris HOST: Nathan Roberts DATE: February 15, 2000 TIME: 09:00 - 10:00 EST MR. ROBERTS: Good afternoon, and welcome to this special edition of WorldNet's "Dialogue." I am your host, Nathan Roberts. In October, as you know, the United States failed to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, and in Europe and elsewhere the Senate's actions shocked many of the United States' closest friends and allies. But despite this setback, top U.S. officials have emphasized that America remains strongly committed to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. (Begin videotape.) ANNOUNCER: In 1996, President Bill Clinton became the first world leader to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Following the Senate vote, he vowed that efforts to bring the CTBT into force will continue: PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today I say again on behalf of the United States we will continue the policy we have maintained since 1992 of not conducting nuclear tests. I call on Russia, China, Britain, France, and all other countries to continue to refrain from testing. I call on nations that have not done so to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and I will continue to do all I can to make that case to the Senate. When all is said and done, I have no doubt that the United States will ratify this treaty. ................ MR. ROBERTS: We are most fortunate to have with us today a senior government official who has been at the center of these issues since early in President Clinton's first term, John D. Holum, the administration's senior advisor for arms control, non-proliferation and security affairs. Previously Mr. Holum was the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. And Mr. Holum, welcome to WorldNet's "Dialogue." We are delighted you could be with us this afternoon. I know you have some brief opening remarks before we get to the questions. MR. HOLUM: Thank you. I am very happy to be here, and with our audience in Paris, and also viewers in Islamabad. I would like to just make three quick points before we begin with the questions. The first is that arms control remains central to our national security interests and to the international security environment. It's far preferable to building more offensive weapons and greater defenses. It is much less costly, it is much more reliable. So it's central to our thinking in international security. The second point is, as the film underscored, despite the setback last October when the Senate failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the United States remains committed to a leadership role in arms control and non-proliferation efforts. We won't let up one single bit in those efforts. And the third point is that as part of those efforts, we and our friends in France and elsewhere around the world have a great challenge and opportunity coming up in April -- just a couple of months from now -- when the NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is up for its five-year review. There is likely to be a great deal of debate on the pace of disarmament and on the effectiveness of the non-proliferation norm. But we have an obligation and an opportunity, I think, to make this a successful conference, where countries will come away feeling that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is indispensable to their security; that it is not a favor to the nuclear weapon states but rather a security instrument for all of its members because it gives them the assurance that their neighbors aren't acquiring nuclear weapons; and the confidence through International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring that that commitment is being kept. So the NPT is an important focus as we move toward the April conference. .............. MR. ROBERTS: Well, thank you very much for those comments, Mr. Holum. Now I would like to welcome our participants in Paris for the interactive portion of this broadcast, as well as the rest of our viewing audience. So we'll begin. Please go ahead, Paris, with your first question. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Holum. It's -- (inaudible). You spoke earlier of President Clinton's determination to get the treaty which the Senate failed to ratify in October. But what assurances can you give us that it is at all likely? MR. HOLUM: Well, I can't give you an absolute guarantee. The Senate, as you know, voted the treaty down, and there is a lot of resistance to the treaty. But I'd underscore several points. One is that we have undertaken, through the formation of a high level task force, with an important role for General John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to engage with the Senate in a more detailed review of the issues that arose during that brief debate last October. This treaty was more than two years in negotiating. It was carefully reviewed before being sent to the Hill for review. Then it was debated for a matter of only two weeks. That's clearly not enough to consider something as important as this. So we've heard signals from quite a number of senators that they would like to understand it better, have a better focus on the issues that came up on stockpile stewardship, on verifiability. I'd underscore in addition to that that the United States remains committed to the no-testing regime. So while we continue to work on ratification in the United States, the president has made clear we will continue the moratorium that we began in 1992, that we have no plans to test; and that we'll encourage other countries to ratify, so the treaty can come into force soon. Until we have 43 other ratifications, the United States' failure to ratify won't be holding up entry into force of the treaty, because it requires 44 specified countries. But it is still unfortunate in my view that the United States has not thus far been able to be out in front leading that effort, as we'd prefer, but rather trailing behind. I might say in this context that it's an important step that France has ratified the treaty, and we hope we can catch up. .................. MR. ROBERTS: As we continue now, Mr. Holum, let me ask you to elaborate a bit on some of the things that have been brought up, and perhaps some that haven't here, with some questions. First of all, concerning CTBT, will it be resubmitted for Senate ratification? If so, what are the chances? MR. HOLUM: Well, the treaty is still pending in the Senate, and we will certainly be prepared, or want to be prepared, for a renewed effort if that becomes feasible. I think as a practical matter it is unlikely that the treaty will be taken up again by the Senate while President Clinton is still in office. That is still this year. There are some circumstances where that might change. I think if something good happened internationally -- good being 43 other countries ratify and the United States is the last country still holding out -- I think then some Senators might be inclined to take it up again. Or if something bad happened internationally -- that is, if somebody tested again. And there could be made the argument that the United States is lagging behind its non-proliferation obligations. I think under circumstances like that, which I think are unlikely, it might be possible to reconsider it. What we want to do with General Shalikashvili's effort and with our steps to engage Senators is to be prepared in case the opportunity presents itself, and at a minimum to hand off the treaty to the next administration in much better shape for a possible ratification effort. MR. ROBERTS: Absent CTBT, what steps is the administration taking to limit and prohibit nuclear proliferation? MR. HOLUM: Well, we are really focusing now on the NPT Review Conference, which will be a crucial international focus on nuclear non-proliferation. And in support of that, recognizing there will be a great deal of attention at the conference on what has been done by the nuclear weapons states to continue disarmament, we will be emphasizing facts on the ground. Obviously there are more negotiations that need to be pursued. The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty should be negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament, and we are actively engaged in that effort. But the key to us, it seems to me, is to focus on what has already been accomplished and what's being accomplished in terms of actual disarmament. Thirteen thousand warheads have already been eliminated, and that is continuing. We are taxing the capability of our dismantling plant at Pantex in Texas to take nuclear weapons apart -- not only the delivery systems, not only the missiles and bombers which are being sliced apart, but to actually disassemble the warheads themselves. At the same time, we are working very closely with the Russians through the cooperative threat reduction program to take down their nuclear forces. Both countries are running ahead of schedule in implementing the mandates of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to eliminate nuclear forces. And we are prepared to resume negotiations as soon as Russia ratifies START II. We are prepared to proceed with START III, which will take us down to 80 percent below the forces deployed at the height of the Cold War. And these are things that are actually happening. And it's not only eliminating or taking down weapons covered by the treaties; we are making the reductions irreversible by taking the weapons apart and then extracting the plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, and disposing of those as well, as far as plutonium is concerned in negotiations now underway. So this is a very active disarmament agenda. I mentioned earlier that France has also taken significant steps in disarmament. And these are things we need to present at the NPT Review Conference to demonstrate that the process of disarmament is alive, vital, continuing, and headed precipitately in the right direction. MR. ROBERTS: Is there an expectation India will sign CTBT during President Clinton's visit? MR. HOLUM: I think that's unlikely. Certainly the entire question of non-proliferation will be on the agenda when the president goes to South Asia. The leadership in India has been, as they said they would, working on building a consensus for signature of the CTBT. I personally am doubtful whether that will occur before the president's trip. I hope it will. That would be an important step. It's also one of a number of steps that we think are important to avert an arms race in South Asia that the president will be addressing on his trip. MR. ROBERTS: Let's go back to Paris right now for another question for Mr. Holum. Go ahead Paris. Q: It's Julian Lidley French (ph) again. I find myself -- (inaudible) -- controversial this afternoon here. Just taking you up on this point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, particularly Article 6, the general comprehensive disarmament. How would you react to a country like India who says, Well, take the U.K. -- in the last 10 years the U.K. has virtually proliferated -- it has gone from a fairly basic ballistic missile system -- submarine-launch system in the Polaris system to the most advanced submarine ballistic missile system available, the Trident V-5. It has launched four very large ballistic missile submarines last -- deployed last year. Is it not difficult to say to a country like India when yourselves and your allies are in a sense proliferating through technological development that you must in turn refrain from developing a first-generation system? Are we in danger in a sense of shooting ourselves in the nuclear foot? MR. HOLUM: No, I don't think so. First of all, the modernization that has been conducted by the U.K. and several others tends to be in the direction of making systems more secure, more precisely targetable, but not more capable of destroying more targets. In fact, the number of weapons has been going down in the U.K. as well as in France and Russia and the United States. So I don't think -- I wouldn't refer to that as proliferating weapons so much as refining delivery systems and the safety and security of those systems. Now, I am also not making the argument with India and Pakistan that our -- that they should disarm as a favor to us, that they should have avoided nuclear testing as a favor to us. This is a security issue for the people of those countries to consider. It's my very strong belief that nuclear capabilities do not add to their security. In countries so close to each other and at such odds over a border dispute in Kashmir, the addition of nuclear weapons to the equation is, it seems to me, a very dangerous step for India and Pakistan to take. So it's not a matter of saying, Match our approach; it's a matter of saying, Consider your own security interests, and evaluate whether this is really the right step to pursue, the right course to pursue. We are not arguing that anybody should be satisfied with our accomplishments on disarmament. We still think we have a great deal further to go. I think the trend is in the right direction. But remember that 182 countries around the world, many of them with difficult arguments and disputes with their neighbors, have determined that nuclear weapons are something to be avoided, and that their security interests are advanced by undertaking an obligation not to pursue nuclear weapons. MR. ROBERTS: Before we say goodbye, Mr. Holum, any closing thoughts? MR. HOLUM: Well, I'd just say I really have enjoyed this very stimulating discussion. The questions have been good, probing, and I think they pretty well covered the waterfront of nuclear issues. They demonstrate that we have a lot of work to do in the United States, as one of the interlocutors suggested, in making clear the limited character of what we are trying to do on national missile defense, and how we see that fitting with our alliance commitments and our relations with other members of the P-5 and with the NATO alliance more broadly. So I welcome the chance to have this discussion. I plan to continue it in both public and private fora as we go forward toward dealing with this very difficult issue. MR. ROBERTS: Thanks very much, Mr. Holum. I am afraid we have run out of time, even if there are plenty of other questions that need to be asked. I'd like to thank our distinguished guest here in the studio for joining us on this afternoon's program, and to Paris for your great thoughts and questions. From Washington, I'm Nathan Roberts. And from everyone here in Studio 48, thanks for watching. We hope to see you next time for another edition of WorldNet's "Dialogue." (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)