For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 6, 2001
Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on President's Travel to Europe
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
5:35 P.M. EDT
DR. RICE: Good evening,
everyone. On Monday evening, June 11, the President will
depart on a five-day trip to Europe that will take him to Spain,
Belgium, Sweden, Poland, and Slovenia. The President will
return on Saturday night, June 16th -- I might add, very late on
Saturday night, June 16th.
The President's first official trip to Europe
will express his vision of a Europe, whole, free and at peace, and it
will include the following themes: NATO as an anchor of U.S.
engagement; transatlantic security, and a force for stability and
security throughout Europe; the U.S.-EU partnership for security and
prosperity; the enlargement of the sphere of freedom, security and
democracy. And the President also looks forward to his first
meeting with President Putin and advancing an agenda for a constructive
and realistic relationship with Russia.
I should note that this the first of two trips
to Europe this summer. The G7-G8 meetings in Genoa in July will
highlight the global dimension of our relationship with Europe.
First, to the stop that we will make in
Spain. The President will arrive in Spain on Tuesday
morning, June 12th. While in Spain, the President will meet
with King Carlos I and Queen Sophia. He will hold a
bilateral and a lunch with Prime Minister Aznar and he will participate
in a press availability at the Aznar ranch.
Spain is an appropriate place for the
President to begin his trip. This country is an important NATO ally
and trading partner, and a great example of successful
post-authoritarian transition, and it is fast emerging as an
influential European partner.
U.S. cooperation with Spain extends from the
Mediterranean to Latin America. We have troops on the ground
together in the Balkans, and we have important U.S. military
installations in Spain. The President plans to cover a range
of issues while there, including bilateral relations, trade issues, the
Balkans, the Middle East, and European security including NATO
enlargement.
The President spoke with Prime Minister Aznar
early in February, and he, of course, received the King and Queen here
in late March, and he looks very much forward to seeing them again in
Madrid.
The President departs Spain Wednesday morning,
June 13th, and goes on to Belgium. While in Belgium, the
President will meet with NATO Secretary General Robertson, and with
NATO leaders at NATO Headquarters. There he will have a
press availability at NATO Headquarters. He will,
afterwards, meet with King Albert II and Queen Paola. He
will attend a U.S. Embassy greeting and hold a bilateral meeting with
the Belgium Prime Minister.
During that part of the trip, the themes are
that NATO embodies the transatlantic link that binds Europe and North
America. It is based on common defense and security, as well
as shared values and principles. The visit to NATO reaffirms
the U.S. commitment to a strong alliance and to meeting new challenges
together with our allies.
The President will discuss key NATO issues,
adapting the Alliance to meet new challenges, defense capabilities,
NATO enlargement, a new strategic framework for nuclear weapons, the
European Security Defense Policy, missions in the Balkans, NATO
outreach to Ukraine, Russia and --
The President is also looking forward to the
bilateral component of the visit there. Belgium is a valued
NATO ally and will hold the next EU presidency starting July
1. As I've said, the President will see the King and the
Prime Minister there, and he will discuss U.S.-EU trade agenda, the
broader U.S.-EU agenda, European security and also begin to preview
with our European allies the question of AIDS in Africa, because that
will undoubtedly be a major topic at the G-8 in July.
The President departs Belgium Thursday
morning, June 1, and arrives -- I'm sorry, June 14th, and arrives on
June 14th. While in Sweden, he will hold a bilateral meeting
with Prime Minister Perrson, attend a U.S.-EU summit and luncheon,
participate in a press availability, meet with King Karl Gustaf and
Queen Sylvia and have dinner with EU leaders.
The President's first U.S.-EU summit is a
chance to advance his vision of a global partnership with the
EU. The EU is already our largest economic partner, with an
annual, two-way trade and investment profile of well over $1 trillion
per year.
We're working well together to bring peace and
stability to the Balkans and to integrate emerging democracies into
Euro-Atlantic institutions. The summit is an opportunity to
provide better definition and impetus to our common agenda with the EU,
including the launch of a new trade round, addressing the scourge of
contagious diseases like HIV-AIDS, exploring the different approaches
to meeting our common goal of addressing climate change, and looking at
Southeastern Europe and other regional security challenges.
The President will depart Sweden on Friday
morning, June the 15th, and arrive in Poland. While in
Poland, the President will hold bilateral meetings with the President
and Prime Minister of Poland, lay wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknown,
at the Warsaw Ghetto memorial, and at the Warsaw Uprising
Memorial. He will deliver a speech at the university library
and attend a state dinner, and of course, visit the U.S. Embassy in
Poland.
Poland is a great success story of the
post-communist era. It has built a stable democracy, a
strong economy and a vibrant society. It's one of the three
new allies in NATO, and the President will take the opportunity to
celebrate that with the Poles while talking about this as just the
beginning of a U.S.-Polish relationship that should benefit all of
Europe and beyond.
The key security issues that the President
will talk about there will be NATO enlargement, and he will talk also
about our consultations on the new security framework. You
may remember that Poland was one of the stops for the consultative team
that went out a few weeks ago.
You should know that the President phoned
President Kwasniewski early in his presidency, and he's stayed in close
touch. And he appreciates the Polish government's tough
economic reforms and will make that point to Prime Minister Buzek.
President departs Poland on Saturday morning
and arrives in Slovenia. And while in Slovenia he will hold bilateral
meetings with the Slovenian President Kuchan, and with the Prime
Minister and, of course, he will meet there with President Putin of
Russia.
But I want to make very clear that Ljubljana
is not just the site of a meeting with the Russian President; it is in
its own right an important stop for us, because the Slovenes have shown
what a successful country in transition can achieve. It has
been excellent on matters of economic reform. It is moving
to an excellent political consolidation of its democracy, and the
Slovene leadership seems to be determined to implement the necessary
economic legal military reforms to become contributing members of EU
and eventually of NATO.
The President looks forward to these meetings,
and he also looks forward, of course, to meeting Russian President
Vladimir Putin face to face. He will have an opportunity
there to discuss with President Putin his vision for security in the
21st century and to explain to President Putin his desire to build a
positive and constructive relationship with Russia.
The meeting is planned for a little over two
hours between the two Presidents. We have a lot of work to
do with the Russians, and the President is eager to begin it with
President Putin. In addition to presenting his view on the
nature of the relationship and its very important security component --
that is, to talk about the new security framework -- the President
really wants to talk more broadly about the U.S.-Russian relationship,
areas of cooperation, regional areas in which we are already
cooperating, like Nagorno-Karabakh. Economic cooperation,
and as well, areas with which we have differences with the Russians on
proliferation, on Chechnya, on media freedoms in Russia.
But I want to be very clear that this will be
an opportunity for the two men to get to know each other and an
opportunity to sketch out a broad vision for the
relationship. That is really the purpose of this meeting.
At the conclusion of the meeting with
President Putin, the President returns here to Washington.
Q What's the message
the President's going to bring to allies who are critical of the
administration's positions on global warming and missile defense?
DR. RICE: Well, first of all, the
administration will bring to the allies another statement of our very
strong interest in a strong alliance and strong Alliance
relations. And as a part of that, we will understand that
there will be times when we don't always agree on exactly what
approaches to take to different problems. They will, I
think, an important discussion of global climate change, a problem that
the President takes very seriously, and he's looking forward to hearing
from our friends and allies.
On missile defense, I think that I would not
characterize it as disagreement. I would say that we're in
the midst of ongoing consultations with our allies about how to best
move forward to address the common threats of today's security
environment. We understand that we're putting a lot on the
table in talking about an entirely new security framework, a new
comprehensive approach that includes a new offense-defense mix that
puts offensive nuclear reductions on the table; that talks about new
efforts at nonproliferation. We understand that there is a
lot to digest here. The consultations have just begun and we
look forward to talking with the Europeans.
But the one thing the President will really
underscore is that we have more in common than we have in disagreement,
and that we really should be celebrating that which we have in common.
Q Just to follow up,
besides listening to them on global warming, what is the message he's
going to bring? "I'm opposed to Kyoto, but" --
DR. RICE: The President, as you
know, because he was concerned about this issue, but has believed that
the Kyoto Protocol did not address the issue properly, the President
has had a high-level Cabinet working group that has been working very
hard at this problem, but it's ongoing work. It is work that
is continuing. A lot of ideas are being explored.
It has been a matter of bringing up to speed
some of the highest-ranking people in this government. I
would dare say -- dare challenge you to find a situation in which
you've had so many high-ranking people sitting there week after week
after week, understanding the challenge that we face in global climate
change. Everybody from the Vice President, the Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of
Agriculture. It has been quite something to see all of these
people grappling with the issue.
The President has met with that group and he
will have some ideas. But this is ongoing work and he really wants to
talk about the seriousness of the problem and how we address it.
Q Dr. Rice, is that to
say, then, that whatever is announced, either prior to or during the
course of the talks during the trip, will be more in line with I'm
opposed to Kyoto, but these are principles that I adhere to and we're
still talking about that before we come out with any specific ideas?
DR. RICE: Well, the President wants
to keep this Cabinet-level working group continuing to work, because he
feels that we have learned a great deal, that we have some good ideas,
that we are getting a better sense for what the science does tell us
and what the science does not tell us, and that ultimately, this is
going to lead to better policy. But we are not through with
the work, and we would be wrong to represent that we are through with
the work.
This is a complex problem. It's a
far more complex problem than one usually reads on the pages of the
newspaper. And I think we understand its
complexities. Addressing it is also a complex set of
issues. So the President is going to keep this group
working, and with his allies he'll talk a little bit about what we've
learned thus far.
Q You're not saying
that the President is going to Europe with this buddy-buddy attitude
when there's been so much hostility in the things that he's
said. They don't really feel that he is on board with them
or on the same page on Star Wars or everything else. So he's
got a lot of fence-mending to do, doesn't he? I mean, the
whole question of the whole missile defense, it doesn't work yet, and
yet you're going to unveil it as our defense?
DR. RICE: Well, Helen, first of
all, I want to say very clearly that the President is talking about a
new strategic framework for dealing with threats of today, not the
threats of yesterday. It is not 1972 --
Q Right, but he doesn't
have a system that works yet.
DR. RICE: It is not
1972. What we are embarking on and have told the allies that
we wish to embark on is a comprehensive research-development, testing
and evaluation program of many promising ideas. Some will
accelerate; some will drop by the wayside. But this needs to
be seen not just in the context of what we do about missile defense,
but what we do about addressing the threats that are really there
today.
This is not an era in which the Russians,
pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at the United States on high
stages of alert, with concerns about a Soviet conventional attack in
Europe, is anything like the current situation. So the
President is going to talk about the new security environment.
As to how he's received in Europe, I have sat
in every meeting that he's had with European leaders. I've
been there when he's made the telephone calls. These are
friendly, respectful, outgoing relationships. And he's going to have a
chance to renew them. The notion somehow that we have
tremendous tensions with our European allies I think are, frankly, just
not right.
Q How can you say
that? On global warming, on --
DR. RICE: Of course, we have policy
differences on a number of issues. Not, by the way, on
missile defense. There, the allies have made very clear that
they appreciate the consultations that are going on, that they expect
those consultations to continue. The NATO communique says
that, yes, there are new threats to worry about. And so we
have a lot of work to do with our allies, but, you know, the common
values here, and the common agenda, far out-weighs policy differences
that we have.
Q The President is not
going to be going to the Balkans, but do you expect him to make some
statement about the pace or the prospect of withdrawal of U.S. troops?
DR. RICE: The President's been very
clear that we are going to honor our commitments in the Balkans; that
he understands that we went in together, that we will eventually come
out together. What we have been talking to our allies about
-- and I think everybody believes that this is appropriate -- is as
conditions do change on the ground, what do we do about the troop
presence, about the structure of our troops, and how do we get on with
the business of building civilian institutions like police forces and a
functioning judicial system that can actually be the bedrock of stable
democracy in Bosnia-Hercegovina, or ultimately in Kosovo.
A lot has changed in the Balkans, including
the election of a democratic government in Belgrade, and so we do have
to keep assessing the circumstances. But the President has
made very clear he has no deadline and that he's going to honor our
commitments in the Balkans.
Q Could you elaborate
on what the President is going to be advancing or possibly proposing on
AIDS? And could you also possibly react to a proposal today
by Congressman Hyde, the Chairman of the International Relations
Committee, which would put forward about a 50-percent increase in the
funding for U.S. support for other countries dealing with HIV-AIDS?
DR. RICE: Outside of
Africa? Essentially Africa, yes. I have not seen
the Hyde proposal and, I'm sorry, so I can't really react to
that. I know that Chairman Hyde has been very interested in
this problem, and we've, indeed, talked about it. There's a
lot of support on the Hill for doing something about the scourge of
AIDS.
The President outlined his approach when he
had Secretary General Annan here and President Obasanjo of
Nigeria. And it is an approach that is comprehensive in the
way we go about it. It recognizes that yes, treatment is an
important issue, but so, too, is education and prevention; so, too, are
health delivery systems that can actually carry out the rather
complicated regimen that one needs to treat AIDS.
I think that perhaps Secretary General Kofi
Annan said it best when he talked about the tremendous leadership that
the United States had shown in being the first to respond to his call
for a global fund to deal with infectious diseases like AIDS,
tuberculosis and other such diseases.
The President will talk more about the need
for accountability, for knowing what works, for having ways to measure
the progress that we're getting. But most of all, I think he
will join, hopefully, the allies in putting forth a real effort to deal
with this scourge. And I might just want to note again, the
United States already provides almost half of the funding
internationally for AIDS. So it is a challenge, in a sense,
to others to also come along.
Q A question on the
summit with the Russian President. Do I understand you
correctly that no policy documents are expected to come out of that
summit? And more generally, what outcome of the summit would
you describe as a credible success to the Americans, to the Russians,
and to the Europeans?
DR. RICE: I believe that the
success of this summit is going to be seen in the long
term. And that is that what we really are doing here is
establishing a foundation with these two Presidents in their personal
relationship that can help us to promote a constructive and realistic
relationship with Russia going forward. No, we're not
expecting major agreements here. This is, after all, a
two-hour meeting of the two men. But we felt that it was time to go
ahead and do this, to get them to start to get to know each other, to
have them lay out a vision of how we see the relationship unfolding,
and so I think that it will be successful, because I would speculate or
I would guess that these two men will find that they have a lot in
common in what they view as a successful U.S.-Russian relationship.
Of course, there will be
disagreements. I know that it's sometimes better to write
about the disagreements. But, you know, countries do
disagree about some things. It doesn't mean that it's a
fundamentally hostile relationship or that it's a relationship of
enemies. Russia is a big power going through a major
transition. I think the President wants to signal his
support for having a Russia that is really a part of Europe, that is a
respected partner in international politics, and they will talk about
that as well.
Q Dr. Rice, in
diplomatic circles and in meetings with the President, how frequently
do our European allies raise the issue of their governmental opposition
to the death penalty? And do you see any possible
awkwardness next week in the possibility that the U.S. will carry out
the death penalty in a very high-profile case on the same day the
President leaves for his trip to Europe?
DR. RICE: The death penalty has not
been raised in a single meeting between the President and a head of
state. I believe that our allies probably understand that
this is a matter for the American government, its
democratically-elected government with the American people to be
concerned about. We are an open and democratic society, we
have debates about the death penalty. Reasonable people
disagree about the death penalty. But it is a matter for
America's democracy, not a matter for international negotiation.
Q With the 2002 target
for the next round of NATO expansion coming up, do you expect that to
come up in the discussions with the allies, and particularly with
President Putin?
DR. RICE: I believe that it will
certainly come up with the allies. It is, after all, NATO's business
to decide when and where and how to take in new members. And
so I suspect that there will be discussions there. It will
probably also come up in the EU context because NATO and the EU are the
two great European institutions and, of course, they have different
profiles and different circumstances for entry. But
obviously, in talking about the European Project, building a Europe
whole and free and at peace, they both have their role to
play. So I would expect it would come up there, too.
I think what the President will make clear in
both those stops as well as when he talks to President Putin is that
this really is a matter for NATO to decide. The United States believes
strongly that enlargement needs to continue. It is only
natural that enlargement will continue, that we believe strongly that
there should be no red lines, geographic or historic, that eliminate
any country as a fait accompli, and that we believe that there can be
no veto by any country over NATO enlargement.
The final thing that he will make clear,
though, is that anyone who wants to eventually become a member of NATO
has to meet certain criteria. And there are membership action plans
out with a number of states, and so fulfilling those is really very
important.
Q Going to Slovenia,
does that indicate we believe Slovenia has met those standards?
DR. RICE: No. Nobody has
been invited yet. Slovenia is a country that is making a lot
of great strides. It seems to be a very good place to meet
the Russian President and also to meet the Slovenes. Because
frankly, in the Balkan story, Slovenia is a pretty remarkable success
story.
Q Dr. Rice, do you
think -- first of all, were you accurately quoted in The Journal today
about the administration's backing away from the Kyoto
Accord? Do you believe that the administration could have
better handled its withdrawal?
DR. RICE: What I think I said is
that the President had made clear when he was a candidate that he did
not believe the Kyoto Protocol addressed the problem of climate change
in a way that the United States could support. He had the
backing, by the way, of a Senate that was under no means prepared to
ratify such an accord, and I think if you really look at the history of
what was going on, nobody was ready to bring that treaty up for
ratification because of the way that it was.
In retrospect, perhaps the fact that we
understood that we had already said this was not immediately observable
to everybody, and it might have been better to let people know again,
in advance, including our allies, that we were not going to support the
protocol. But as I said to European ambassadors, I was
surprised that anyone was surprised.
Q Dr. Rice, following
up on this question, can you outline, at least at this date, what the
President's principles are for a new Kyoto treaty or a new opening to
discuss it? What are his principles?
DR. RICE: I think you will have an
opportunity to hear this as well prepare for the European trip in one
way or another. Let me say, the Cabinet-level working group
is still working on what it wishes to say to the President before we go
to Europe, and so I don't want to try to prefigure that. But
the President's been clear about a few things.
First, he's been very clear that the problems
with Kyoto could not be repeated in any further international
effort. And so, one would want to be certain that developing
countries were accounted for in some way, that technology and science
really ought to be important parts of this answer, that we cannot do
something that damages the American economy or other economies because
growth is also important.
But it is also very clear that this is a
President who takes extremely seriously what we do know about climate
change, which is essentially that there is warming taking
place. But he takes it seriously enough to also want to
understand better what we don't know. It is the reason that
he has worked very, very hard to put this Cabinet group together; that
we've spent so much time understanding the science; that we've had
experts in to help us understand what we do know and what we don't
know, so that you can have intelligent policies that balance, given
what we do and do not know about this problem.
Q To follow up, in
terms of timing, when would we expect, or when would the President --
Cabinet-level group? Maybe by G-8?
DR. RICE: Well, I think we don't
want to set a time limit on it. It is working; it is
continuing to work. I might note that even as this goes on,
I think it will continue to work well into the future. I
mean, one of the advantages of having this particular Cabinet group
together is that you can look at the potential for agriculture and
sequestration to play a role in dealing with emissions; that you can
look at the effects on the economy as a whole, when you have both Larry
Lindsey and Paul O'Neill sitting at the table; that you can look at
concerns about energy supply when you have Spence Abraham at the table;
and you can look at what we might want to do with our allies if you
have Colin Powell there. So you could think of this as an
ongoing way to address the problem.
Now, I think that there will be interim
reports along the way, but we're taking this seriously enough that
we're not just going to slap something together and say, okay, that's
it. We think it's a problem that has many dimensions and
deserves serious attention over an extended period of time.
Q Dr. Rice, about the
President's missile defense plan, Japan's new Foreign Minister has
criticized the President's proposal, at least on several
occasions. Are you disappointed? Are you willing
to talk with him about the missile defense system?
DR. RICE: Well, of course, we're
willing to talk with the Foreign Minister of Japan about the new
strategic security framework. I must say that we've heard
from the Japanese government that there is a willingness to listen and
to continue to consult. Let me be very clear: We
have not asked anybody to come out and say, oh yes, we woke up this
morning and we think this is all a great idea to change the way that we
think about nuclear weapons. That would be too much to
expect. There's a lot on the table, and we're continuing to
consult. And of course, we'll consult with the Japanese
Foreign Minister as well.
Q Dr. Rice, a question
on some breaking news. Can you confirm that the U.S. will reopen
negotiations with North Korea on a broad range of issues, including
dealing with the troublesome issue of nuclear weapons?
DR. RICE: As you know, the
Secretary of State is going to meet with the Korean Foreign Minister
tomorrow. The President will issue a statement a little bit
later tonight.
Q Is that a
confirmation?
DR. RICE: The President will issue
a statement a little bit later tonight. You'll have to wait
to see what it says.
Q A question on the
trip. How did you interpret the Secretary of State's ability
to deal with the NATO foreign ministers on the question of missile
defense? There was some language he specifically proposed
that they did not endorse, and some of the communique changed what NATO
had historically said about missile defense and about the ABM Treaty
itself. What is your general assessment of what happened there and how
does that set the table for this trip?
DR. RICE: I thought it was an
enormously successful session for the Alliance. As a matter
of fact, I think Lord Robertson went on the record to say that he
believed that the characterization of what had happened in that meeting
and the drafting of the communique was 180 degrees wrong, to
paraphrase.
And it is true that for the first time, there
is no mention of the ABM Treaty at all, let alone as a cornerstone of
strategic stability. And so, you have to take that as a
clear indication that the Alliance is moving on, that it understands
that while there is a transition to be made, and while it understands
that, and we understand that people believe that the treaty continues
to be an issue, that people are listening when we say that the ABM
Treaty can not only not be the cornerstone of strategic stability, but
it is an impediment to getting to a new foundation for security in the
modern era.
So I thought that -- I judge it as having been
very successful, and it does lay the groundwork of continuing to move
this ball forward. But I just want to emphasize, nobody
expects breakthroughs on any given day, most especially so early in the
process. We are early in the process of consultation.
Q Dr. Rice, can I
follow that? The reporting I've seen indicates that the
language on the ABM was removed because we objected to it, and NATO
being a consensus organization, it could not be included unless we went
along with it. Is that inaccurate?
DR. RICE: I think that if you
listen very hard to what Lord Robertson says, that Lord Robertson does
not see this as having been the United States pitching a fit, and
therefore getting some language that he wants.
Lord Robertson says that the reports that were
out there about how the United States did not get language that it
wanted, how this was all very contentious, he says this was respectful,
this was a dialogue, and I think that that is exactly how this took
place.
Now, all that I'm saying -- I've said that
there are still people who believe in the importance of the ABM Treaty;
nobody is -- we're not fooling ourselves in that regard. But
in moving forward little by little -- and I would point you in this
regard to the joint statements that were made with Prime Minister
Blair, with Chancellor Schroeder, with the Japanese Prime Minister,
with the South Korean President, all of which talk about a new
offense-defense mix and working on the new threat environment -- this
intellectual argument is moving forward and I think that we are at this
stage very pleased in where we're going.
Q Is it inaccurate, Dr.
Rice, that a majority of the members of NATO wished to keep the
language and the U.S. and perhaps Britain objected and, because -- and
not in a contentious way, but simply because NATO is a consensus
organization --
DR. RICE: I'm not going to give you
a head count, but the United States was not alone in thinking that this
was the right way to characterize the current situation.
Q And his question on
majority?
DR. RICE: Yes, all the way in
back.
Q Dr. Rice, you talk
about -- you said earlier that countries -- people need to understand
that countries do have their differences. But can you
clarify one difference about the Bush administration, when the
President's top trade negotiator, Bob Zoellick, said one day earlier,
he said that it would be a constructive step if Taiwan's President can
attend the APEC Summit, while today, the State Department seems to have
said the opposite way, saying that Taiwan can only be represented by
its senior economic official. Where does the President stand
on this issue? Can Taiwan's president attend the APEC
summit, or not?
DR. RICE: We have been very clear
about the way that the President views the situation in the Taiwan
Straits, including that we do not believe
in a change in the status quo unilaterally by either side, that we
don't believe in any change by force. And I think you would
find that Chen Shui-bian was treated with the kind of respect when he
came to the United States that we think should be accorded to a
democratically-elected leader.
But the matter of who attends the APEC summit,
we don't expect any change in what has traditionally been U.S. policy
at the APEC summit, which is the highest-ranking economic official.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Last question.
Q A question about
Russia, please. This is your area.
DR. RICE: Listen, since I did this,
I'll go there and there. How's that?
Q Thank
you. As you know, India approves the President's NMD, and
you had spoken with the Defense Minister of India when he was here, and
also you called him. But also, India is saying that China is
a threat to the region as far as security and peace is concerned,
because it's building up. Don't you think China is really a
threat to the U.S. in the future? And if this is -- discussed between
the two Presidents, also Afghanistan.
DR. RICE: We do not see -- we are
not out to find a threat in the region. And what we are
trying to do with China is to build a constructive relationship with
China that would allow us to continue to support what is a very
important fundamental transition that is going on in
China. That is why the President has been so supportive of
normal trade relations with China, of WTO accession for China, and a
lot is going on in China domestically.
Now, it is true that we don't always see eye
to eye with China about other matters, including security issues
sometimes. In the Asia Pacific, for instance, we've made
very clear to the Chinese that we're not leaving the region, that the
United States is a stabilizing presence. But, for instance,
on North Korea, there has not been tension with China.
So I think that it is by no means a picture of
a threat. It is a China that has interests that are
sometimes coincident with ours and sometimes not. It's true
of normal relations between mature powers, and I think that we are
working hard toward a constructive relationship with China that would
benefit, obviously, peace and security in the Asia Pacific region.
Q Dr. Rice, just to
follow, are you going to discuss China and Afghanistan during the
discussions?
DR. RICE: Well, with our allies, of
course, we'll discuss any place on the globe that is of interest to
them and I suspect that U.S.-China relations will come
up. And most certainly, I would think that the problems that
we have with the Taliban and Afghanistan will come up.
Q Can you elaborate,
Dr. Rice, on the vision that the President has for the future of
U.S.-Russian relations? What does the United States want
from them, this administration, other than acquiescence in the
modification of the ABM Treaty? What does the President have
to offer them in terms of incentives?
DR. RICE: Well, I think the
greatest incentive for Russia to be a modern power that is internally
reformed, democratic, economically open and marketable is that that
would be the true source of Russian power for the
future. And so it's not an incentive that we offer the
Russians. It is that for Russia, that is the course for full
acceptance and for being able to deal in the world in a way that is not
a 19th century way of dealing with the world.
And I think that in some sense, Putin
understands that. He understands that economic reforms do
have to go forward. I am not always so certain on the
democratic reform side. But obviously, the modern democratic
state is the model that is succeeding. And so the incentive
to Russia is to become the modern democratic state so that it can play
its rightful role as a great power.
We in the United States have every reason to
want that Russia to exist. We understand that it's mostly on
the basis of choices that the Russians themselves will make, not
choices that we will make. But of course, to the degree that
a U.S.-Russian economic dialogue helps, to the degree that our support
for Russian accession to the WTO when it meets the criteria helps with
that process, we are prepared to offer that support.
We want to be supportive of the burgeoning
civic society in Russia. I'm a university former provost and
professor; I can tell you that one of the most important things that
has happened since the collapse of the Soviet Union are the scores of
Russian students that are studying in the United States, the easy
exchange of peoples back and forth. That's an important part
of the transformation that Russia is going to make.
And finally, the President will sit down,
state to state, to talk about areas of potential cooperation on a new
strategic security framework on regions of the world. We've
cooperated in the Balkans; we've cooperated in the
Nagorno-Karabakh. The Russians have been positive in the
Middle East in these last -- since we have been in
office. It is most certainly a broad relationship that we
have with Russia. Russia is, after all, a big and important
power. And it's not surprising, therefore, that it's a
complex relationship. Some things we will agree on; some
things we will disagree on. But there is no reason that
Russia has to reemerge as a strategic adversary for the United States.
And that is really what the President is
saying to President Putin. That is why he wants to move the security
relationship on to a different footing, because this is now becoming a
normal relationship with Russia, not the abnormal relationship that we
had with the Soviet Union.
Thank you very much. Oh, I should
mention, Dan Fried, who is the Special Assistant for Eurasian, will
stay behind to answer any questions, on background, if you've got
them.
END
6:15 P.M. EDT
|