Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld returned empty-handed from a truncated set of 'consultations' with Russian President Putin and Defense Minister Ivanov on the issues of missile defenses and nuclear reductions. The failure of the United States to put forward detailed positions regarding reductions in nuclear weapons or missile defense deployments has created the impression in Moscow that these talks are nothing more than a "box checking" exercise designed to provide cover for a future U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. This failure and impression is bad enough.
But remarks by Secretary Rumsfeld on the nature of negotiations and treaties promises to make matters worse and raise serious doubts about the ability of this key official to develop the new strategic framework espoused by President Bush. Upon returning from Moscow, the Secretary was asked about Russia's interest in holding negotiations on a new framework, as opposed to continuing 'consultations' that included no firm positions by the United States. Rumsfeld replied that "(O)bviously you negotiate with an enemy. You negotiate a treaty to try to control hostility between two parties." This is the latest in a series of quotes by the Defense Secretary expressing the view that you only negotiate agreements with your enemies and not between friends.
This quote raises an obvious question: Does the secretary feel this way about all treaties? The United States relies for its very security and economic vitality on a broad network of global treaties that govern everything from air safety and military alliances to the price of bananas. It is only reasonable to assume that Secretary Rumsfeld has heard of NATO (the North Atlantic TREATY Organization) and that in his experience in the business world he might have run across items such as the North American Free Trade AGREEMENT and the Global AGREEMENT on Trade and Tariffs. It also leaves one to wonder what the Secretary thinks about our treaty arrangements with Great Britain and Japan, among others.
The Secretary's view on the role and advisability of agreements and treaties reflects a way of thinking within the Bush administration that has staked out positions against almost all arms control agreements negotiated within the past 30 years. But that the Secretary of Defense would state that treaties and agreements are only for enemies belies all credibility and casts doubt on his ability to negotiate any type of new arrangement with old and new friends alike.
FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SECRETARY'S 8/16/01 NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER INTERVIEW CLICK HERE