
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. DEPUTY SECRETARY 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 borne of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The
situation that is getting worse. We need a new concept of deterrence that
reflects 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. QUESTION: 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? DEPUTY SECRETARY 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. QUESTION: 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. DEPUTY SECRETARY 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. QUESTION: 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? DEPUTY SECRETARY 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. QUESTION: Would you characterize this mission as damage control
after a period of severe misunderstanding? DEPUTY SECRETARY 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.
[End]