Ambassador
To see the interview click here and choose to view the 22:30 program from March 21st 2007.
Transcript of Ambassador Daniel Fried's Interview with journalist Adam Holm, on DR-TV's 10:30 p.m. "Deadline" broadcast, March 21, 2007
Adam Holm: Welcome Ambassador Daniel Fried. As you know, the biggest NATO countries already command several thousand nuclear missiles which can easily deter any foreign threat. So what is the logic behind setting up the missile system in Europe?
Ambassador Fried: We feel that it is important to have option to protect Europe and the United States – our common allied space – against threats that might arise from, let's say, irresponsible regimes in the Middle East who might possess a handful of missiles. It's important to have options to deal with these threats, other than nuclear retaliation.
Adam Holm: But how will this be an extra advantage because, as I said, the biggest NATO countries do command all these missiles which should easily deter Iran and North Korea from any potential attack.
Ambassador Fried: I am familiar with the logic of deterrence from the Cold War. And it worked in the case of the Soviet Union and the United States. But the logic may not apply equally to smaller nuclear powers who may have a different set of motivations. You're dealing with less responsible countries, more perhaps, apocalyptic countries. And I would rather have an option to deal with, let's say, a launch from the Middle East or Iran other than nuclear retaliation. That's questionable, even in moral terms.
Adam Holm: Funny you should mention that Cold War, because there are critics who are saying that by placing these missiles, or this system, in say, Poland and The Czech Republic, you are almost re-invoking the Cold War. We've seen very sinister reactions from Russia. For instance, at least one Russian general has the anti-missile systems a clear threat to Russia. Why do you want to run this risk?
Ambassador Fried: Well, in the first place, we shouldn't let Russian rhetoric stand unchallenged. Ten missiles in Poland, a threat to Russia? Please, excuse me, that is not a serious argument.
Adam Holm: So, you don't take it seriously. Is that what you are saying?
Ambassador Fried: I take the rhetoric seriously. But, I do not take seriously a charge that these missiles are a threat to Russia. The Russians know they are not.
We have consulted with Russia extensively at many levels.
Adam Holm: But Ambassador Fried, clearly the Russians seems to be provoked by your decision. What's the military logic behind placing the missiles in Poland or The Czech Republic. Why not in Turkey or Greece which are at least closer to Iran?
Ambassador Fried: Now, that's a fair question. The military logic is if you place the missiles in Greece or Turkey they will be completely ineffective against missiles coming from Iran – they are too close. The physics means they would never catch up to a missile launch from Iran. It turns out that placing them in Poland provides the best defense of NATO territory, which is our goal.
Adam Holm: But what I fail to understand is how are 10 interceptors going to help us, that is the West, the US and Europe, in this battle against terrorism? I can't think of any terrorist organizations which, at present, have their hands on missiles.
Ambassador Fried: Well, they don't solve all the problems. To put on a small facility of 10 missiles the entire burden of the struggle against terrorism is too much. No one system could withstand that kind of weight. Look, they will be useful against a handful of nuclear missiles possessed by a state in the Middle East. That's what they do and that's all that they do. They don't solve the problem of terrorism. They don't solve other problems, but they can be effective.
Adam Holm: But you are going to be spending a lot of money on this. Not just the US, but possibly several other European countries. Why not allocate this money for more necessary purposes, say civilian purposes? Because you are going to spend a lot of money on something which critics believe to be almost useless.
Ambassador Fried: Well, we don't think that it is useless. If you think about Ahmedinejad with a ballistic missiles and a nuclear warhead, I wonder if you would think it is useless, really. You can use the logic any way you like. Why spend money on X when you can use it on Y. We have to make decisions about prioritizing defenses. This is one of them.
Adam Holm: You mention Ahmedinejad and I mentioned before, North Korea. We're talking about very sinister anti-American rhetoric. But do you clearly see any sign that Ahmedinejad, Iran or North Korea will actually dare to attack the West?
Ambassador Fried: They are trying to develop the capability both through weapons programs and through nuclear weapons programs. I don't want to be faced with the situation where they have an actual capability and then manage to deter the West or frighten the West or intimidate the West. I want to have an ability to deter them without having to rely on nuclear incineration as the preferred means.
Adam Holm: Finally Ambassador Fried, you have presented your argument, but as you know, setting up the anti-missile system is going to create a lot of fuss, political fuss and also in public opinion. What is your best argument to the European population that we need an anti-missile system?
Ambassador Fried: The Cold War with the Soviet Union is long over. We face different threats in the twentieth century. Let's not face them with the slogans of the Cold War. Let's face them with the right policies, the rights decisions, working together.
Adam Holm: We shall see about this. Thank you very much for coming here Ambassador Fried.
Ambassador Fried: Thank you.