embassy events 2008
U.S., Poland Hold Talks on Military Modernization
8 May 2008
 |
| Ambassador Mull |
Ambassador Mull's complete remarks at the press conference can be read here:
Press Conference by Ambassador Stephen Mull
Acting Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Warsaw, May 7, 2008
I am very happy to be back in Poland to work with our Polish friends and allies on how the U.S. and Poland can intensify our cooperation in modernizing Poland’s armed forces. As President Bush told Prime Minister Tusk in March, the United States is committed to help our Polish allies on this important issue, and he has directed us to develop a plan to do so in the next few months.
Today, accompanied by some two dozen colleagues from the departments of State and Defense, and the European command, we convened four separate working groups to carry out President Bush’s instruction. In our first working group U.S. and Polish intelligence experts will analyze military threats to Poland, both generally and specifically linked to the prospective deployment of U.S. missile defense assets in Poland. That group will report to our defense modernization working group, which will propose specific options to defend against those threats. Our third working group will identify and remove obstacles to our defense trade and the transfer of sensitive technology. Our fourth group will explore options for financing Poland’s defense modernization, through a mix of security assistance and other finance mechanisms.
I would note this will be a long term process, built on a substantial investment that the U.S. has already made in Poland’s defense forces. Last week we began consultations with our Congress on providing another $20 million in security assistance for Poland in addition to the $27 million President Bush has already proposed in security assistance for Poland for our next fiscal year. This, of course is not the end, but the beginning of a new phase in our already strong defense relations with Poland.
The full Questions and Answers from the press conference follow:
Q: from Associated Press: Two questions. One thing is Mr. Waszczykowski said today that for Poland the content of the agreement is more important than time…content is of primary importance compared to the timing; the talks are not time critical for Poland. Is that also the U.S. approach, that time is not a critical element in the talks? And you suggested also that this was the case…
A: I think there are two separate questions here, one concerning the timing of the missile defense process, the other concerning the timing of our work to support Polish armed forces.
In the first question we would like to move as quickly as possible because NATO has already endorsed the system as something that is important for European and North American security. And also because our Congress has already allocated funds; and we have a very short timeline for applying these funds to building the system.
In terms of the second question -- supporting Poland’s armed forces -- this will have some short term dimensions as well as longer term dimensions. We hope that our working groups will wrap up their proposals by the end of July. We expect their recommendations will include both options to implement in the short term as well as options to implement over the next ten or fifteen years.
Q: Follow-up by AP: Minister Sikorski said today that the scope of U.S. involvement in upgrading Poland’s army would be a test of the intentions of our friends, of the U.S. Administration; how valuable in terms of money, is the friendship to the Washington administration?
A: Well, the value of our friendship to Poland is priceless, I couldn’t put a price tag on that. And of course we have provided several hundred million dollars of military assistance since Poland became a democracy and we’ve been a very strong supporter of Poland’s military growth over the past 15 years, particularly since it joined NATO. We’ve also helped our Polish allies with their deployment, equipping and training costs for their cooperation and working with us in Afghanistan and Iraq, which we very much value and are very grateful to the Polish people for.
In terms of the direction or the amounts of money we might get into in the future, I’m just not in a position to comment. Let’s see what these working groups recommend in terms of what the threat is, and what the need is to respond to that threat, and then we’ll decide how working together we can apply our resources jointly to the problem.
Q: Joanna Wajda, Polish Public TV: Maybe a similar question, but I’d like to ask you about this help for our army, because in Poland there’s a very hot discussion about this 20 million dollars which were asked for by Mr. President Bush; do you think that we can expect in this year other propositions for upgrading our army or not? Is this all for this year, just 20 million dollars?
A: Well, I should say that for our fiscal year 2009 which begins in October, our Congress has not yet passed a budget, but several months ago, back in January, President Bush already proposed 27 million dollars in direct military assistance. This is above and beyond the assistance we already provide for the Polish deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that put Poland in sixth place in terms of the countries that we assist around the world with military assistance; Poland is the sixth biggest recipient of assistance and in first place in Europe. Prior to my coming to Poland this week, President Bush decided to seek an additional 20 million dollars on top of that 27 million, so the total amount for our fiscal year 2009 would be 47 million dollars. I stress to add that we’re a democracy, and ultimately it’s up to the Congress to decide to spend the money, but so far our consultations with the Congress are going well, and we hope that the Congress will agree with President Bush’s proposal. In terms of continuing aid, I am certain that we will continue to aid Poland beyond this 47 million dollars, but first we need to see what are the needs, what resources will Poland bring to the table, because ultimately this is the Polish government’s responsibility to pay. But we’re going to be eager to help.
Q: Reuters: I want to ask a short question coming back to money … I understand that when you’re sitting at the negotiating table you do have a vague idea at least of what you can propose to Poland. Judging by some reports, the Polish side is expecting up to 200 billion dollars; so I’m not trying to ask you the direct amount here, but what spread would be acceptable for Washington….
A: Well, really I know this must be very frustrating, but I can’t answer the question because the first thing is, we first have to look at what the needs are, we have to acquaint ourselves with what Poland itself, what the government of Poland will be investing, and then we will look to see how we can maximize our common resources. So I can’t say, I can’t put a dollar figure on that yet. I’m very sorry.
Q: Reuters TV: Has there been a change in enthusiasm to the project since the change in government, is that part of the reason why the process [of missile defense] has slowed down a bit?
A: Well as Prime Minister Tusk made clear shortly after taking office, he’s very interested in assessing what the U.S. is going to be able to do to assist Poland’s military modernization. He views this as a part of the broader missile defense question; we see them as two different subjects. Because the prime minister has said this, there is of course some relationship to it from the Polish side. But we believe that strengthening Poland’s armed forces is a good thing, and it’s something that’s in America’s interests in and of itself. We have a few more months of work to do on the missile defense deal that we hope to negotiate with the Poles, and we’ll continue to do that in the months ahead. But I don’t see a real formal link between the two.
Q: [from AP] A technical/military question: the missile defense, the whole project – is it operational already? Is it, on the military-technical level, has it been positively tested? Is it ready for implementation?
A: There’s testing that goes on all the time, but there’s quite a bit of work that needs to be done in terms of where the interceptor missiles finally are located. There will have to be a lot of infrastructural work conducted, a lot of construction will be involved in setting this up, there will be security measures that need to be involved; the technology of missile defense itself is undergoing constant testing in the United States and with our allies elsewhere, it will, I think, take several years to install all of this in Poland and the Czech Republic, if Poland agrees to host it, and we hope within a couple of years it will be up and running.
Q: TVN. What about the attitude of Poland’s negotiators? Are you satisfied with the way we negotiate as Poles?
A: Well, I can say that your government is a very strong and energetic advocate for Poland’s interests, but that doesn’t surprise us, because Poland is a strong and active country in everything having to do with defense. We have a lot to talk about, a lot of work that we need to do. The Polish side very much has its expectations; we’re going to do our best to meet them, and we hope that we’ll be able to do that soon.
Q: Russia has a new president …do you think now it will be easier to deal with the Russians?
A: Well, he’s only been in office for a couple of hours, so we’ll see…we think one of the most important developments on the whole question of missile defense over the past few months was the unanimous decision at the NATO Summit in Bucharest to support the American proposal for missile defense. I think that sent a decisive signal that the Alliance is serious about this, and our hands are open to the Russians to work together on this, to build a system that will protect all of us. We hope that they will see that and agree with that.
Q: [from AP]: One last question –these negotiations seem to be long; we had last year expected them to be concluded sooner, so given the [inaudible] Polish government’s approach or condition…is the U.S. administration considering the option of placing the missiles elsewhere?
A: Well, the United States very much would like to place them in Poland, we think it’s the optimal place not only for reasons of geography, but frankly for reasons of friendship with our Polish allies. We have a strong and – it’s a young tradition – but it’s a strong and a proud tradition of military cooperation with Poland. And so that and many other reasons make it the most optimal place. I wouldn’t want to say that we are looking at other alternatives; that would be a threat, and I’m not here to threaten friends. We would like to do this in Poland; if the Polish government decides for whatever reason it’s not convenient, of course we will respect that and I don’t think it will damage our very strong military friendship, but if Poland decided it did not want them, the United States and the NATO Alliance are very strongly committed to this system. We of course in that case would be forced to look at other alternatives. We hope that that doesn’t happen, we very much want to do this in Poland.
Thank you very much, dziekuje bardzo za uwage.
