Remarks En Route to Brussels, BelgiumSecretary Condoleezza Rice
En Route to Brussels, Belgium
August 18, 2008SECRETARY RICE: Hello. Good morning, everyone. All right, well, welcome aboard. Can you hear back there okay? Can everybody hear? All right.
We’re going to hold a meeting of the North Atlantic Council. This is an opportunity for NATO to review the situation in Georgia and to make an initial response to what has occurred in Georgia. Let me say that we continue to be focused on the immediate task of assuring that the Russian President honors the commitment that he undertook to the European presidency to have the withdrawal of Russian forces begin as of today. And it is our very strong view that it didn’t take that long for Russian forces to get in; it really shouldn’t take that long for them to get out.
There are very clear - through the Sarkozy letter to President Saakashvili - very clear terms for the ceasefire agreement that what should remain of Russian forces is the Russian “peacekeeping” – quote, unquote – forces that were in the zone of conflict before the August 6/7 events began. So that remains a concern and we continue to monitor that situation.
We are also, of course, continuing our humanitarian effort to help the Georgian people. And there will shortly be a team from European Command to assess Georgian security needs and a team from the United States State Department led by Reuben Jeffery, who is the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, an interagency team to assess Georgian reconstruction needs.
The NATO meeting is obviously an important one. The alliance has spoken with one voice, as has the United States and Europe, about the importance of Russia honoring its commitments, about the fact that this was a disproportionate Russian response to what happened in the zone of conflict in South Ossetia. And this is the first opportunity for the alliance to look at, really, three elements.
First, to look at what we can do to support Georgia. Because. after all, we have to deny Russian strategic objectives which were clearly to undermine Georgia’s democracy, to use its military capability to damage, and in some cases, destroy Georgian infrastructure, and to try and weaken the Georgian state. Well, that is an objective that will be denied, because Georgian democracy stands and it will stand with the help of its allies around the world. Georgian infrastructure will be rebuilt. Georgia’s economy will be reinforced. And quite clearly, the efforts to intimidate the Georgian people by bombing Georgian infrastructure and attacking Georgian civilians is producing a backlash not just in Georgia, but in the region. So the first is to support Georgia so that that Russian strategic objective is denied.
Secondly, we have an objective in the alliance to reaffirm the support of the alliance for those states that are now well outside of Russia’s reach; that is, those that have been fully integrated into the transatlantic structures, states like - the Baltic states like Poland, which are fully integrated members of the transatlantic community. And that just shows how far we’ve come since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and certainly how far we’ve come since 1968 when one of the countries that will be sitting around that table was brutally attacked and its government overthrown by Soviet forces.
But we are also going to send a message that we’re not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the transatlantic structures like Georgia and Ukraine. And so the alliance will need to consider what it wishes to do to clearly indicate that we’re not accepting a new line. The Bucharest Declaration, in effect, said that. And I think you will see a reaffirmation of Bucharest as you saw with Chancellor Merkel when she was in Tbilisi.
Finally, we, of course, have to look at what this means for – in terms of the strategic choice that Russia seems to be making. This alliance has kept open a road for a strategic choice of Russia as friend, not adversary. That’s why we have a NATO-Russia Council. That’s why there have been so many efforts to pull Russia toward the international institutions like the WTO and the OECD and the G-8, and, as I mentioned, the NATO-Russia Council.
But frankly, Russia can’t have it both ways. It can’t act in a way that it did during the Cold War when it was the Soviet Union and expect it to be treated – expect to be treated as a responsible partner as President Medvedev outlined in the speech that he made just a few weeks ago. And so we will discuss the choices that Russia seems to be making and the appropriate response to them.
But that is what we’ll be doing at NATO. The alliance has been very strongly speaking about what is going on in Georgia, and I expect it to continue to do so.
Q&A?
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, during the talk shows yesterday, you were asked about the possible consequences for Russia. And you answered by speaking about the missile defense agreement with Poland. Does it mean that the Russians were right, saying that this missile defense agreement is directed against Russia?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, quite to the contrary. In fact, the missile defense system with Poland, as well as the radars in the Czech Republic, are part of an effort to defend against new threats like the long-range missile threat from – medium and long-range missile threats from Iran. And the United States has offered and continues to offer missile defense cooperation with Russia, as NATO offers missile defense cooperation with Russia.
But what we are saying, and what I am going to do by going to Poland, is to demonstrate that the kind of language that Russia uses about Poland isn’t tolerable. When people reach out in a hand of friendship, it’s really not responsible language to threaten them with a nuclear attack, as some unnamed Russian general apparently did.
QUESTION: You mentioned yesterday on the talk shows and again today – you made reference to possible steps for other countries in the Baltics and so on. Can you elaborate on that? What are you looking at?
SECRETARY RICE: Look, the Baltic states and Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary are within the transatlantic alliance, both in NATO and in the EU. And so there are many steps that have been taken. This is just to – I just want to make the point that we’re reinforcing the point that they are safely within the transatlantic structures, and that’s just to remind people that this is – that Russia is a far cry in terms of its geostrategic center from where the Soviet Union was.
QUESTION: What have you seen over the last two days about Russia’s desires now on our joint projects with them, on Iran, on North Korea? Do they seem to be pulling back on that at all? What signals do you see?
SECRETARY RICE:Well, we haven’t seen any. In my conversation with Sergey Lavrov, as a matter of fact, we did affirm that we continue to have strategic projects of common interest. But you know, they’re strategic projects of common interest not because Russia is doing favors to the United States, but because they are in Russia’s interests. Russia doesn’t benefit from a nuclear Iran. Matter of fact, since Iran is a lot closer to Russia than it is to the United States, it certainly doesn’t benefit. And it certainly doesn’t benefit from a Middle East that would be roiled by the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Similarly, I don’t think Russia benefits from instability on the Korean peninsula, or further North Korean proliferation, nor does Russia benefit from the – from continued difficulty in – between – in the Levant, Israel, Palestine and so forth. So I assume that that cooperation is based on Russian national interest, as it always has been.
QUESTION: How practically is NATO going to show that Russia can’t draw a new line in the sand to those states that haven’t been integrated? Is – do you think a simple restatement of Bucharest is going to do it, considering that Bucharest itself didn’t stop them from going into Georgia?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I just want to repeat again, Helene, now – I’ll get to your question, but I want to repeat again – what has Russia demonstrated? It has demonstrated that it can use its overwhelming regional military power to beat up on a small neighbor. That’s what it demonstrated. It can attack Georgian civilians, it can block Georgian highways, it can bomb Georgian ports, and it can say very nasty things about a democratically elected Georgian Government. That’s what it has demonstrated.
Now, the democratic – democracy in Georgia will survive and prosper. Georgian ports and infrastructure will be rebuilt. Unfortunately, Georgian civilians can’t be brought back, but the Georgian people have demonstrated their resilience. And to the degree that this was meant to intimidate states around Georgia, the Russians have received nothing but approbation from those states.
So Russian – on the other hand, Russian reputation, Russian protestations that it wants to be a part of the international community of states in a 21st century way, the Russian President, who continually says things that his forces either – that his forces don’t carry out; those are matters that are much harder to rebuild than Georgian ports. And so I think we have to be very clear what Russia has already lost with this venture.
Now, in terms of a reaffirmation of Bucharest, I think that is extremely important, and I think you’re hearing that solidly from the alliance. I don’t expect that we will, and nor have we sought to accelerate MAP for Georgia. We have not done that. We’ve said that was a matter for December and we’ll take that up in December. But I think the very fact of the alliance meeting, the very fact of the alliance considering what steps it will take to assist Georgia will send a very strong message that the strategic objective of undermining Georgian democracy is not going to be achieved.
QUESTION: It seems like the clarifications that President Sarkozy wrote down in his letter and that Foreign Minister Kouchner talked to you about from his notes that they’re not so clear after all, and that the Russians have a significantly different interpretation of what it means to withdraw all of their forces and leave only the peacekeepers there. How do you explain this? Were the French taken advantage of here? Were you taken advantage of here?
SECRETARY RICE: It’s not for me to explain. It’s for President Medvedev to explain to President Sarkozy, because the letter is pretty clear. And I think the French will undoubtedly be seeking from the Russians an explanation for why the Russian President either won’t or can’t keep his word. And so this is a conversation that we will have. That letter is absolutely clear about what the terms of this are. The French, as I understand it, shared the contents of this letter with Russia, and so this is a question of why the Russian president isn’t keeping his word.
QUESTION: Do you think that there is a disconnect or there’s a problem between Medvedev and the military, or Medvedev – what’s (inaudible)?
SECRETARY RICE: I have – as I said, I think it’s for the Russian president to explain why he can’t or won’t keep his word.
QUESTION: Which do you suspect?
SECRETARY RICE: I can’t make a judgment.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, there were reports in The New York Times this morning that Russia is, in fact, stepping up its military concentration in South Ossetia with the deployment of SS-21 short-range – medium-range missiles. Can you talk about that, to what extent they have in fact been bolstering their military presence there? And what will the United States do about eventually what seems to be a very, very large point to come, which is the future of the territorial integrity of Georgia? How are you going to resolve those two disputed territories?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all they’ve been disputed for a long time. And there have been a number of international efforts to resolve it. And I think those international efforts will receive now a new impetus to try to come to a resolution.
The Georgians have long offered substantial autonomy to both regions, because there is a different demographic there and the Georgians understand that. And so we’ll – there will undoubtedly need to be international negotiations on that matter. But from the point of view of the United States and the EU, those proceed from the territorial integrity of Georgia and from the Security Council resolutions that affirm South Ossetia and Abkhazia as within the internationally recognized boundaries of Georgia.
As to Russian military activity there, there are many reports. I don’t want to comment prematurely on the reports, but I am certain that we’ll be able to get a briefing while we’re at NATO on precisely militarily what the Russians are and are not doing.
QUESTION: Have they been putting more -- can you tell us have they been putting more (inaudible)?
SECRETARY RICE: I can’t comment on that particular issue at this time. There are reports. I just can’t comment on it further.
QUESTION: I just had a question on a separate subject, which is Pakistan. Could you tell us if the – if President Musharraf was in touch with the U.S. Government before announcing his decision. Did he call the President? Did he call you? Was there communication before the announcement?
SECRETARY RICE: Karen, he was not in touch with me. I am not aware that he was in touch with the U.S. Government. But I can’t vouch for that, given that I’ve been flying.
QUESTION: Any comments (inaudible)?
SECRETARY RICE: I’ve issued a statement. President Musharraf took his country a long way, turning it back from the extremism that was starting to characterize it in its – at the time of 2001. I think that – September 11th, 2001. He also kept his promise to try and help transition to free and fair elections.
We didn’t agree with everything that he did, especially the state of emergency, but he did take off the uniform. The elections were free and fair and I – he was a good – he served as a good ally for the United States. We have long stood for the transition to democracy there, and we’ve established very good relations with the democratically elected government. And we have a lot of work to do to support them economically, politically, and in security terms so that they can fight the terrorists and the militants who threaten not only American interest, but threaten very much Pakistani interest, as shown by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by militants.
QUESTION: It’s really just to expand on the issue of Pakistan. And I mean, I understand that it’s an internal matter, the transition, the political transition, but how worried are you about possible power vacuum, the fact that instability might grow? I mean, a lot of people are watching Pakistan and see this as a slow descent into chaos. Are you worried about this?
SECRETARY RICE: Look, obviously, it’s a fragile situation in Pakistan because it’s a new civilian government for the first time in a long time in Pakistan, since 1999. And so our effort is to support that government, strengthen it. We have very detailed discussions going on within the G-7, for instance, on economic support for Pakistan of the kind that the Prime Minister asked for when he was in Washington with the President. And it is our intention and it’s the intention of our allies as well to do everything that we can to strengthen that government. It’s – obviously, it’s a difficult and fragile time, but it is an elected government. I think it has fabulous support. And that’s a lot to build on.
QUESTION: Just on the subject of Pakistan, I mean, General Kiani, who is head of – you know, head of the forces - even he says, privately, he doesn’t have anyone to negotiate with, he doesn’t know what their policy is on terrorism. The Afghans say the same, Karzai says the same; the Pakistani Government has been more concerned about impeaching Musharraf and getting revenge than having any real policy, and that’s reflected on the ground in the tribal areas and on the border. That’s – you know, there’s –
the U.S. general said there’s a direct correlation between Pakistan’s lack of policy and the increase in violence and the problem on the Afghan side.
So how frustrated are you at the moment with the fact that there isn’t really any real leadership in Pakistan? And what does that mean for the very real problem that we have in the Afghan border area?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don’t subscribe to the notion that there’s not leadership in Pakistan. There’s a democratically elected prime minister of Pakistan. There’s a government that came into being as a coalition and it’s had its difficulties internally. We’ve made the point to the Pakistanis that they need to focus intensely and intensively on what is going on in the FATA, as well as the militants’ increasing capability and, it appears, willingness to attack targets outside of the FATA, not to mention what’s going on on the other side of the border. So those points have all been made.
We have very good military-to-military ties. We have very good cooperation and discussions through multiple channels. You know that we’ve had a number of American high-ranking military officials in Pakistan recently. But ultimately, as I said, it’s a fragile situation with a new government. We believe that this government can succeed in taking on these terrorists. We’ve talked about some of the strategies. We think that the strategy of trying to negotiate in the FATA has not demonstrated results and we’ve been very clear about that. But it is a government that has been elected by the Pakistani people and we’re going to do everything we can to strengthen it and continue working with it.
QUESTION: Sorry, just one more on NATO. Do you expect to have any discussions about peacekeeping in Georgia? Do you see any possible role for NATO in peacekeeping? And what about contingency planning? Any discussion of taking up contingency or defense planning that had been rejected in years past for fear of antagonizing the Russians?
SECRETARY RICE: The second hasn’t come up in (inaudible). I think the peacekeeping function is more likely to be OSCE and European Union and, conceivably, even under a UN mandate of some kind. I think that’s more likely.
Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, beyond the cancellation of these several military exercises, is there anything specific that you are going to ask NATO or that NATO – the NAC is going to consider in terms of concrete – additional concrete action that you’re going – that they could take in the short term?
SECRETARY RICE: As I said, we’re going to look at how we can support Georgia. We’re going to look at how we can affirm for those states that are not yet in the transatlantic community, their – NATO’s support of them. And of course, we’ll start looking – we’ll look at the issue of Russia.
But I just want to emphasize again, Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used, that will make it – that – when it wishes to deliver a message, and that’s its military power. That’s not the way to deal in the 21st century. And if Russia wishes to make a different strategic choice, as President Medvedev said, this is a bad way to start. And so Russia has already done significant damage to its own image, its own reputation, and its own suitability for any – for full integration into the international community.
Now, I think everybody recognizes that this is not the first time that we’ve seen this problem. We’ve had difficulties between Britain and Russia. We’ve had Russian Bear flights along the Norwegian coast. We’ve had Russian strategic aviation challenging in ways that they haven’t, even along borders with the United States which, I might note, is a very dangerous game, and perhaps one the Russians want to reconsider. This is not something that is just cost-free. Nobody needs strategic – Russian strategic aviation along America’s coasts.
And so this effort to somehow assert Russian power or influence by military means is something that we’ve been seeing for a while. And it’s unfortunate, because everyone knows that Russia has certain military capabilities. The hope had been that Russia was going to build its foundation and its relationships with Europe and the United States on the basis of Russian economic, political, cultural, and other kinds of assets. And reminding people that Bears can fly next – near Norway or near Alaska and that you can use military force among – against a small neighbor is not a particularly appealing message or image.
Thanks.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you think that you already denied Russia its strategic objective? Has that been accomplished at the State Department?
SECRETARY RICE: We are determined – we’re determined to deny them their strategic objective. They – I just want to repeat, this isn’t 1968 and they have not been able to achieve what they apparently set out to achieve, but it’s going to take some work to make sure that they don’t.
QUESTION: Could you just clarify what the flights (inaudible)?
SECRETARY RICE: I – no, no. You know that we have these problems with Blackjacks and Bears. You’ve been asking Sean about them practically daily.
Yeah, Sean will tell you what you’ve been asking him. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You mentioned G-7, and not G-8. So, the G-8 doesn’t exist --
SECRETARY RICE: G-7 finance ministers, I said.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
SECRETARY RICE: There is no G-8 finance ministers and I doubt there will be.
QUESTION: Why don’t you just say there is no G-8?
SECRETARY RICE: There is no G-8 finance – G-8 finance ministers and I doubt that there will be.
2008/T24-1
Released on August 18, 2008
|
