THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RIZ KHAN, Q&A: Hello, and welcome. I'm Riz Khan.
In the past hour, U.S. president George W. Bush delivered a major defense policy speech near Washington. In it, Mr. Bush outlined his hopes to dramatically cut U.S. nuclear stockpiles, and he spoke on a plan for a missile defense shield whose goal would be to deter a ballistic or nuclear attack on American shores.
Well, Mr. Bush feels the current Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, which some defense experts believe precludes development of any missile defense, is outdated.
In our "Talking Point" - could a proposed U.S. missile defense system lead to a new arms race? So we'll get straight to that with CNN's senior White House correspondent John King, who was listening in to the Bush speech, and he's joining us now.
John, what did you make of that?
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, an interesting remark by the president, Riz, if you read the speech closely, there were no details - no budget proposal, no specifics on how fast the United States administration would like to deploy this system, indeed not even a decision yet from this president on which technology to use. But the president did say - he used the word "promising possibilities."
Some -- in this Pentagon review, he said, some promising possibilities of moving quicker than most had anticipated on a limited defense shield, a limited missile shield. He said there was technology for sensors that could intercept missiles in the boost phase. So the president hinting a little bit today that he would like to move more quickly than most had anticipated.
Right now, the existing technology still an experiment. Most people believe a decade or more until a real missile shield could be deployed if - and it's a big if - that technology works out. The president understanding today, though, this is the beginning of a sales pitch, not only here in the United States, but to key allies and other skeptics around the world.
But the one interesting thing, the one new thing in the speech was the president's comments that perhaps there is some existing technology that could be put in place relatively soon.
KHAN: John, I was wondering about that lobbying of the allies and international world leaders on trying to persuade them this is the right way to go. What kind of reaction has it been back in Washington to what was said?
KING: Well, here in the administration, they believe they're making slow but steady progress with the key allies. And the president this week will send out some top people from the administration - the deputy secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of state and the deputy national security adviser. All officials went out of the government during the Clinton administration were strong advocates of this missile shield.
They believe they are making some progress in convincing the allies of the threat of a rogue missile launch from, say, a North Korea or an Iran, but they have not yet convinced the allies that this technology is feasible and that this technology can be put in place without escalating tensions and escalating an arms race. Many worry that, say, India and Pakistan would feel compelled -- if one was cooperating and the other was not - compelled to have an arms race.
How would the Russians react is another big question. So this again a diplomatic effort now to sell the concept and the potential cost while they still debate and investigate the technology.
KHAN: John, as far as the message, this trend to the message, was there a clear sign here that the Bush administration is adamant, is determined to go ahead with this whatever the response?
KING: Well, certainly this administration has said it plans to go forward, whatever the response. You heard in the president's speech, he said he considered the 1972 ABM Treaty to be outdated, a relic of the Cold War, he said. And he said -- and we know he had a phone conversation earlier today with the Russian president Vladimir Putin -- he said he would like to work on the Russians to reach an accommodation to re-negotiate that treat or to agree to put it aside in favor of some new security arrangement.
But the president also making clear that if he cannot do that, he is prepared to go forward. That, again, a bit of a significant concession. In the campaign, Mr. Bush, then a candidate for president, said he would go ahead and abrogate the ABM Treaty. Now, because of the sensitivity of this issue diplomatically, he says he's willing at least to give it a chance for a dialogue with the Russians to see if some accommodation can be reached.
KHAN: All right. John King, joining us there from the White House, thanks very much.
Well, now, as we turn to Matthew Chance, our correspondent in Moscow, let's see how this announcement plays out. But first, listen to President Bush's message to the Russian government.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, U.S. PRESIDENT: Russia and the United States should work together to develop a new foundation for world peace and security in the 21st century. We should leave behind the constraints of an ABM Treaty that perpetuates a relationship based on distrust and mutual vulnerability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KHAN: Message there from President Bush. Well, Matthew Chance, in Moscow, how's that playing over there?
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, as yet, Riz, there's been no official reaction at this early stage in the hour after the speech in Washington. But I mean, these remarks made by President Bush are going to be seen as very controversial here in Moscow, where, of course, there have been long-standing objections to the U.S. developing and deploying any kind of national missile defense system, any kind of anti-ballistic missile shield. And objections to the amending or even scrapping, as was suggested by President Bush, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The thrust, the crux of Moscow's concerns is that that national missile defense system might in some way impact or undermine their own nuclear deterrence. President Bush made it very clear that, again restating American assurances that the NMD is targeting, is meant to counter threats from rogue states - from countries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea, although they weren't specifically mentioned in President Bush's speech this time. In the past, the Russians have acknowledged that those kinds of threats could exist in the future. But they stress the threats that are talked about the U.S. administration don't exist right now. They're just potential threats.
And the countries that are going to stand to lose the most with an early deployment of a national missile defense system are countries like Russia itself and countries like China. And Moscow believes that might destabilize, throw the whole delicate nuclear balance in the world into confusion, Riz.
KHAN: Well, Matthew, let's put into perspective. Everyone here is looking at President Bush's first 100 days. In those months he's been in office, how has his relationship with Vladimir Putin developed?
CHANCE: Well, I mean, I have to say I don't think their relationship has been very close at all at this stage. There has been telephone conversations between the two presidents, but they haven't met as yet. They are planning to meet in a few weeks from now, a few months from now, rather, in July before the G-8 summit. But as yet, there has been no summit between the two presidents.
As I say, there have been telephone calls in the past. There was one telephone call just a few hours ago in the hours before President Bush's keynote speech in Washington. He's told - we're told by Kremlin officials, he called Vladimir Putin and stressed that the U.S. would not take the path of what Kremlin officials said here one-sided strategic decisions. President Putin is said to have expressed his readiness to interact with Washington over further arms control talks and on methods of deterrence.
So they have discussed what was - what President Bush went into in more detail in Washington. But the two presidents still have quite a formal relationship. Riz.
KHAN: All right, Matthew Chance, giving us the perspective from Moscow.
Now at this stage, we continue our conversation with Daniel Plesch, who is joining us from London. He is the director of the British-American Security Information Council, a group which analyzes security issues and promotes public awareness. He's opposed to the anti-missile defense system.
Mr. Plesch, thanks for joining us. I want to kick off by asking what's your main objection to it?
DANIEL PLESCH, BRITISH-AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL: Well, I think very simply by rejecting the idea of international control on armaments, we are unleashing nuclear anarchy. Everyone wants to be defended. That's very clear. But adding the shield to the sword simply makes for better war fighting and the rejection of nuclear deterrence, and certainly no one wants a balance of terror.
But rejecting the balance of terror in favor of a new arms race is simply crazy for the whole world. What most countries want from the United States is leadership in respect of moving towards a world without weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations, NATO itself have moved in this direction in the last few years, and that is where the president should be leading - not in this foolhardy scheme.
KHAN: Now how much do you believe this has become a political battle or a political strategy as opposed to a specific military and defense strategy?
PLESCH: Well, I think the two are connected. I think people back to Ronald Reagan's day felt that the balance of terror was simply too terrible. And in that, I think we can all agree. The question is whether or not you think that you solve that problem with yet more technology, yet more weapons build-up, or through a concerted strategy of international diplomacy and, if necessary, military force.
But let's be fair, the engagement with North Korea, the engagement with Iran has been highly effective, and that is with almost no support from Washington. Most of those initiatives have come from outsiders, nonprofits and so on such as my own and the Europeans. We use strategy to eliminate nuclear weapons, not to get into another round of an arms race.
KHAN: Well, you know, we've got a caller on the line from Sweden. Adrian (ph) has a question, Mr. Plesch. So let's get Adrian into the conversation. Go ahead.
CALLER: Hello. I just would like to ask which countries that the president of the United States mean would be like possible threats for the world? I mean, generally all the Americans and its allies.
KHAN: All right. So your perspective on that, Mr. Plesch?
PLESCH: Well, I think in code, the president was talking about Iran, North Korea, Iraq -- all very unpleasant countries. But frankly, all pretty weak countries. Most of the weapons that are talked about are Scuds, which are derivative from World War II weapons. There really is no serious defense industrial base outside the West.
We control all the weapons, and yet the United States still, in a rather paranoid way, seems to think it's vulnerable.
KHAN: What about the timing of the announcement? Do you make anything of that?
PLESCH: Well, I think he is rushing along a little bit. He's under a great deal of pressure from within the party to completely renounce the ABM Treaty, but also he's got - he know that his ministers, Secretary Cheney and so on, are coming to Europe shortly, and this issue is going to be on the agenda. So he's trying to get ahead.
But frankly, in the old days with Reagan or Bush, Sr., we'd have seen a much more concrete proposal than what we've seen today.
KHAN: In your opinion, how are the allies going to react? I mean, how blunt will they be in their view, whether it's pro or against?
PLESCH: Well, I think, too, the allies want America in Europe, and so people I think will tend to be rather anxious not to be too vociferous, particularly because they want the Americans to stay in the Balkans. And there are other issues such as the expansion of NATO coming up.
But I think in private, and I have found nobody really in the ministry of defense or in the foreign office in London who really likes the idea. But I think Mr. Blair is anxious not to say anything too strongly in public because he thinks that the Republicans are going to railroad this along. I think he perhaps hopes that if the Democrats win the Senate back in a year or two's time, things will change.
KHAN: All right, John on the line from Sydney with a question. Go ahead, John.
CALLER: Yes, I've got a question to put to you. I'm just wondering whether the United States should engage in a dialogue with the rogue states before making this announcement?
KHAN: Do you think that's the case, Mr. Plesch, that there could be some - I mean, you were saying that there was a veiled mention of certain nations. Do you think there would be a prospect for a dialogue directly with the U.S. before any kind of other step is taken?
PLESCH: Well, I hope so. But this administration has been very hostile so far to further dialogue with North Korea. It seems almost wanting to create threats in order to justify a new defense industrial build-up rather than engaging in intelligent dialogue. The Republican majority in Congress is really hostile to all kinds of international treaties.
The risk, frankly, is that we see the world degenerating into a kind of nuclear anarchy because the Republican leadership simply has rejected Ronald Reagan's old adage of trust and verify.
KHAN: What do you think this will do to the 1972 anti-ballistic missile pact, the treaty?
PLESCH: Well, of course, the United States can, of course, rip it up completely, and that is what President Bush is being urged to do. So far, he hasn't done that. We fear he might do that this evening (ph), and that in itself is a good sign.
The ABM Treaty, one shouldn't make too much of it. What it does is sanctify the balance of terror. What we need to do is to get away from that through international agreements that are enforceable to eliminate nuclear weapons. That's what was agreed at United Nations last year and endorsed by even Republican senator Cohen at NATO last December.
The NATO and UN strategy for moving towards elimination of mass destruction is what Mr. Bush should be concentrating on.
KHAN: All right. Daniel Plesch, we're going to leave you there, and thank you for joining us on Q&A.
PLESCH: Thank you.
KHAN: All right. Well, as we take a break here, here's the Q&A quick vote question. Would a U.S. missile defense system launch a new global arms race? Yes, nations would have no choice but to buy or develop new arms. Not necessarily - the shield will maintain current global weapons situations. And no, most countries can't afford to enter a new race.
Log on to CNN.com/q&a and let us know what you think. You're watching Q&A.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KHAN: Welcome back.
We're talking about a plan by U.S. president George W. Bush to expand the U.S. missile defense system and possibly include the protection of its allies. And joining us from London to continue our discussion is Quentin Davies. He is the shadow defense minister with the conservative party in Britain, and he favors a missile defense system.
Sir, good to have you with us. I want to start off by asking you to gauge European reaction to this proposed missile system that Mr. Bush spoke about.
QUENTIN DAVIES, BRITISH SHADOW DEFENSE MINISTER: Well, it will be varied, and some people in Europe, like ourselves, will welcome this proposal. I think it's a positive move forward. I think that missile defense complements and strengthens the other pillars of security, which, of course, are deterrence and arms control.,
Some people will be ambiguous, wait and see what happens. The Blair government here will be in that category. But I think, on the whole, I'm confident that ultimately they will prove to be supportive, and of course, there will be the usual opposition from the left of the political spectrum -- the sort of people who opposed the decisions to deploy the Pershings and the Cruises in the 1980s so crucial to victory in the Cold War, sort of people who often led agitation against NATO itself.
So we just have to contend with the fact that the usual spectrum of political views will be expressed.
KHAN: I was wondering, though, sir, perhaps if Britain tends to have a kind of special relationship with the U.S. that there might be divisions between the United Kingdom and the European mainland, and perhaps this might create some divisions within the allies?
DAVIES: Well, I think one of the very useful roles that we can play in Great Britain is that we do, in a sense - and genuinely so, very genuinely so - have a foot in both those camps and I think have interests in both those camps. We're enormously, obviously, appreciative of the very, very long-standing defense relationship we've had with the United States going back right into the second world war.
And as you know, on a day-to-day basis, collaboration between the armed services, collaboration in intelligence and so forth, very strong relationship. And we greatly value that. But equally, we are part of the European Union, and we obviously a strong voice there.
So I hope that our influence will be positive on both sides, and I hope that I'm not suggesting you need Great Britain to broker a deal between the continental Europeans and United States. Of course not. The United States speaks directly to everybody in this game and all your allies directly. But I think that our presence in both those camps, as it were, is a very helpful one.
KHAN: We've got a chat room question here, sir, I want to get to you. It's come in from Saudi Arabia, and I want to put this to you. "Is this plan basically targeting Moscow or Beijing?"
DAVIES: Well, it isn't - it's actually targeting the rogue states, and I think someone in the Middle East and certainly if you're in Saudi Arabia, you're very close to two obvious rogue states. One is Iran and the other is Iraq, and both of them have the access to these missile technologies. And of course, the Iranians have developed the original North Korean Taepo Dong missile into their own Shahab series of missiles - 1, 2, 3, 4 - in a really quite frightening way.
So what - this particular missile defense concept is not in our lifetime going to be such as to threaten the deterrent capability of the Soviet Union or the Russia, as it now is, of course, with 3,000 warheads, something of that sort. But I think it will be a real defense once it's completed, once it's deployed against rogue states and, of course, against possible erroneous launches of various kinds that might be - take place for different reasons from Russia or from China.
But it's not primarily targeted at Russia or China, nor would it be effective, in my view, against either of those two for any kind of foreseeable timeframe.
KHAN: All right. Quentin Davies, we thank you for joining us, sir, and giving us perspective.
Well, next we turn to May Day protests around the globe. What specifically are they protesting against? You're watching Q&A.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KHAN: Welcome back.
What was the message behind the May Day protests? That's our next "Talking Point."
From London to Seoul, hundreds of thousands turned out on this day set aside to honor workers around the world. Well, some demonstrations were large and peaceful, others smaller and yet troubled. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the vast majority of people here are to get a point across, and if it means a little bit of criminal damage, I'm not going to stand out and condemn that because actually the violence of the society we're campaigning against is far greater. Nineteen thousand children die every day as a result of Third World debt. Now there's real violence. If you want a story, go on that one.
(PROTESTERS CHANTING)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KHAN: Well, London saw a huge May Day protest. CNN's Tom Mintier has been covering them. Tom, give us an idea on the way things are ending up early evening there as we go out live.
TOM MINTIER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Riz, as I'm standing above Oxford Circus, there are about 1,500 people that have been held in this intersection for nearly seven hours now. For the most part, it's been fairly quiet and peaceful here. But in the last hour or so, about 10 blocks away from where this crowd is being basically held on all four sides by police, there have been some violent acts committed.
There was a secondary crowd down Oxford Street, if we look off to the right here, you can see now that it is completely deserted except for the police vans down Oxford Street. There was another crowd of about 600 or 800 were down there. They were moved out about an hour and a half ago by police, and we have reports just a few moments ago that there have been some fires set in the street in an area about eight or 10 blocks from here, some windows smashed in businesses.
But this is, by far, the largest crowd. About 1,500 are trapped basically at the intersection of Oxford Street and Regent Street in Oxford Circus. Now they have been standing here in the middle of the street cordoned off by police for nearly seven hours. Police come on megaphones periodically saying that they are being held here because they are disturbing the peace and for destruction of public property. They will be released in due course in an orderly and organized manner.
They're waiting to see what that manner is. Now police have tightened the crowd a bit in the last 10 or 15 minutes. But they've so far given no indication that they're about to let them go. What they have done around the city is basically cordon off the area, trap the protesters in - whether it be 50 or 100 or here 1,500 - and basically seal them off and prevent them from going anywhere else.
So this crowd has been here for a long time, and it's quite possible they could be here even longer until the police let them go and decide which direction they can. With acts of violence going on six or eight blocks from here, they will probably want to hold them until they have maintained order in those areas away from here before they try to move this crowd anywhere else.
Riz?
KHAN: Tom, with some of the coverage we've seen. We've seen, you know, placards being held up and anti-globalization messages and so on. From what you've seen in covering the events through the day, has the message of the protest been clear? Do people all know why they're out there?
MINTIER: Well, I think most people do know why they're out here. These are people who have come here to protest in years previously. There is probably a dozen different groups that have been protesting early in the morning in other areas of the city. They were on bicycles, blowing whistles, driving and basically disrupting traffic.
The businesses you could see in this Oxford Street area really shut down early this morning. They boarded up -- a lot of the places that were hit last year like McDonald's the fast food restaurant and other places basically boarded up and closed down for business. Most of the central district has been drastically affected here. Most of the day they were basically closed off and employees were sent home, and they were boarded up.
Again, most of the protesters have been really cordoned off. You have to remember that a year ago, the protests here quite a bit violent, and we have a new mayor in London. We also have a new commissioner of the metropolitan police department. So they're looking to not have the same mistakes repeated this time, and with a few exceptions in the last hour, they had basically maintained order and had kept most of the demonstrators penned in.
But as they disbursed these groups, they're not set to go home yet. I think it's going to be a long night in London.
KHAN: All right, Tom. We're going to leave you there. Tom Mintier, joining us from London, from Oxford Street.
And that's it for this edition of Q&A. We will continue online if you want to join us in chat room for discussion, and the news continues on CNN.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
![[CNN.com]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/newsnet/cnnlogo.gray.gif){kind=small}
TOP STORIES![[SI.com]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/si.logo.gif){kind=logo}
SPORTS
All Scoreboards
![[CNN Money]](http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/main/fn.logo.newsnet.gif){kind=logo}
(