18 May 2000
Source:
http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=00051703.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml
17 May 2000
(Cites measures to combat threats to security) (5020) In response to the increasingly sophisticated and globalized nature of terrorism, President Clinton May 17 announced that he is requesting an additional $300 million to fund programs to expand intelligence efforts; improve forensic abilities; track terrorists; and enhance coordination among federal, state, and local authorities in case of attack. He said the new funds are in addition to the $9 billion that he has already requested for counter-terrorism in the 2001 federal budget. Speaking to graduating cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut, Clinton listed a number of national priorities intended to enhance national and global security, including protecting existing nuclear weapons, joint research with Russia to help its scientists "turn their expertise to peaceful projects," and steps to protect the United States from cyber crime and cyber terrorism. The president said that despite such measures, Americans must "face the possibility that a hostile nation...may well acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles necessary to deliver them." That is what the debate over "whether we should have a limited national missile defense is all about," Clinton said, adding that later this year, he will "decide whether we should begin to deploy it next spring." He said the United States must do its fair share, "working with others to secure peace and prosperity where we can, leading where we must, and standing up for what we believe." In that context, he reaffirmed his support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, saying, "I hope the Congress will ratify it next year." The president discussed other world threats, including: -- biological and chemical warfare; -- narco-trafficking and drug use; -- climate change and global warming; and -- physical infections like malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS; Following is the White House transcript of the President's address: (begin transcript) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (New London, Connecticut) May 17, 2000 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE U.S. COAST GUARD ACADEMY'S 119th COMMENCEMENT Cadet Memorial Field U.S. Coast Guard Academy New London, Connecticut 11:40 A.M. EDT [Excerpts] The very openness of our borders and technology, however, also makes us vulnerable in new ways. The same technology that gave us GPS and the marvelous possibilities of the Internet also apparently empowered a student sitting in the Philippines to launch a computer virus that in just a few hours spread through more than 10 million computers and caused billions of dollars in damage. The central reality of our time is that the advent of globalization and the revolution in information technology have magnified both the creative and the destructive potential of every individual, tribe and nation on our planet. Now, most of us have a vision of the 21st century. It sees the triumph of peace, prosperity and personal freedom through the power of the Internet, the spread of the democracy, the potential of science as embodied in the human genome project and the probing of the deepest mysteries of nature, from the dark holes of the universe to the dark floors of the ocean. But we must understand the other side of the coin, as well. The same technological advances are making the tools of destruction deadlier, cheaper and more available. Making us more vulnerable to problems that arise half a world away: to terror; to ethnic, racial and religious conflicts; to weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking and other organized crime. Today, and for the foreseeable tomorrows, we, and especially you, will face a fateful struggle between the forces of integration and harmony, and the forces of disintegration and chaos. The phenomenal explosion of technology can be a servant of either side, or ironically, both. Of course, our traditional security concerns have by no means vanished; still, we must manage our relationships with great and potentially great powers in ways that protect and advance our interests. We must continue to maintain strong alliances; to have the best trained, best equipped military in the world; to be vigilant that regional conflicts do not threaten us. ... So your class will play an even larger role in defending and advancing America's security. It is very important to me, as the Commander in Chief, that each and every one of you understand the threats we face, and what we should do to meet them. First, international terrorism is not new, but it is becoming increasingly sophisticated. Terrorist networks communicate on the worldwide web, too. Available weapons are becoming more destructive and more miniaturized, just as the size of cell phones and computers is shrinking -- shrinking to the point where a lot of you with large hands like mine wonder if you'll be able to work the things before long. You should understand that the same process of miniaturization will find its way into the development of biological and chemical, and maybe even nuclear weapons. And it is something we have to be ready for. ... So the first point I wish to make is, in a globalized world, we must have more security cooperation, not less. In responding to terrorist threats, our own strategy should be identical to your motto: semper paratus, always ready. Today, I'm adding over $300 million to fund critical programs to protect our citizens from terrorist threats; to expand our intelligence efforts; to improve our ability to use forensic evidence, to track terrorists; to enhance our coordination with state and local officials, as we did over New Year's, to protect our nation against possible attacks. I have requested now some $9 billion for counter-terrorism funding in the 2001 budget; that's 40 percent more than three years ago, and this $300 million will go on top of that. It sounds like a lot of money. When you see the evidence of what we're up against, I think you will support it, and I hope you will. (Applause.) We also have to do all we can to protect existing nuclear weapons from finding new owners. To keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials secure at the source, we've helped Russia to deactivate about 5,000 warheads, to strengthen border controls and keep weapons expertise from spreading. But Russia's economic difficulties have made this an even greater challenge. The programs that we fund in joint endeavors to secure the Russian nuclear force and the materials, and to do other kinds of joint research, help to give such scientists a decent living to support their families. And I think we have to do even more to help them turn their expertise to peaceful projects. We shouldn't just depend upon their character to resist the temptation to earn a living wage with all of their knowledge and education. And we have asked Congress for extra funding here to help Russia keep its arsenal of nuclear weapons secure. Still, we have to face the possibility that a hostile nation, sooner or later, may well acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles necessary to deliver them to our shores. That's what this whole debate over whether we should have a limited national missile defense is all about. Later this year, I will decide whether we should begin to deploy it next spring, based on four factors that I will have to take into account. First, has this technology really proved it will work? Second, what does it cost and how do we balance that cost against our other defense priorities? Third, how far advanced is the threat; how likely is it that another nation could deliver long-range ballistic missiles to our shore within three years, five years, 10 years, what is the time frame? And, finally, what impact will it have on our overall security, including our arms control efforts in other areas, our relationships with our allies in other countries around the world? I also want you to know, as I said earlier, we've got to be ready for the prospect of biological and chemical warfare. We saw that in the sarin gas attack in Japan four years ago. We've established a national defense preparedness office to train first responders, using new technology to improve our ability to detect these agents quickly. And we're doing all we can to see that poison gas and biological weapons are, in fact, eliminated from the face of the Earth. We have to do the same when it comes to problems in cyber security. Today, critical systems like power structures, nuclear plants, air traffic control, computer networks, they're all connected and run by computers. Two years ago, we had an amazing experience in America and around the world -- we saw that the single failed electronics link with one satellite malfunction disable pagers, ATMs, credit card systems and TV and radio networks all over the world. That was an accident. The Love Bug was not an accident. So to protect America from cyber crime and cyber terrorism, we have developed a national plan for cyber security, with both public and private sector brains putting it together. We're asking for increased funding to implement this plan to protect our vital networks. That's something else I hope you will support. ... Let me say just this last point. We cannot accept the fact that the burden of protecting America's security falls solely on the shoulders of those who stand watch on our borders and coastlines, on the high seas or our allies' home ground, that it involves only immediate threats to our security. Ever since the end of the Cold War, some people have been saying, we don't need to play such an active role in the world anymore, or worry about distant conflicts or play our part in international institutions like the United Nations. I want to ask you what you think the alternative is: a survivalist foreign policy, build a fence around America and retreat behind it; a go-it-alone foreign policy, where we do it our way, and if people disagree with us, we just don't do it at all. I profoundly disagree with both. Do you remember the story I told you about the millennium, and the help we got from Jordan, and the work we did with Canada? It wouldn't have mattered what we had done; if they hadn't helped us, we'd have had bombs going off here as we celebrated the millennium. We have got to be more involved in a cooperative way with other nations to advance our national security. America has been called a shining city on a hill; that doesn't mean our oceans are moats; it doesn't mean our country is a fortress. If we wait to act until problems come home to America, problems are far more likely to come home to America. I hope when you leave here today as new officers, you will be convinced that more than any previous time in history, your nation must be engaged in the world -- paying our fair share, doing our fair share, working with others to secure peace and prosperity where we can, leading where we must and standing up for what we believe. That's why I support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I hope the Congress will ratify it next year. That's why I've worked to relieve the debts of the poorest nations of the world, and to help them build their economies and their educational systems; why we have worked to expand trade with Africa and the poor Caribbean nations, to deepen our economic ties to Latin American and Asia; why we work for peace in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, for democracy in Haiti, and an end to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo; for reconciliation between North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. They may be along way from home but, more and more, as the years go by, you will see that in an age of globalism, our values and interests are at stake in these places as well. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)