Press Roundtable With Edward R. Murrow Journalist Exchange Participants

Assistant Secretary Fried: This is a group that would not have existed when I was your age because during the Soviet period this kind of travel, this kind of contact, did not exist. It existed in a different form. I suppose there were Komsomol (Soviet Youth League) groups from the old Soviet Union or Pionery (Young Pioneers) of various types. But all I've done is reveal how old I am. [Laughter]. That's good.

The challenges of the 21^st Century are different, and we are working with the countries that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Empire. None is an enemy. We aspire to be friends or more than friends with all of the countries. All of the countries of Eurasia and Eastern Europe are finding their way, and we are in a different world, and we are helping as best we can.

Did you also meet with Secretary Rice yesterday? All right. I know that she answered a question, and I'm glad it was to this group, about Russia's relations with Georgia. Even more pleased that without us telling her what to say she said it right and better than we could have said it.

We've left one world, which is the old communist world, and it is not clear to me that we've yet arrived at a new place that is permanent. Rather it seems to me we're in a different kind of a transition with Russia trying to find its way and define itself, and Ukraine trying to define itself in a rather dramatic fashion this past week.

Do we have people from Ukraine here?

Georgia says it has found itself and knows what it wants its future to be, which is part of the EuroAtlantic community. President Nazarbayev thinks in regional terms, and from what he's told me, he has a vision of Kazakhstan more broadly - looking south, looking east, looking west, looking north.

The United States, for our part, believes in an open world. Not a world of closed spheres of influence or empires. We regard our national strength and our national success as dependent on the national successes of other countries. In other words, a strong, prosperous, successful, democratic country in Eastern Europe or Eurasia is something good for America in our view. That serves our national interest. And a weak, authoritarian, insecure country is certainly not in our interests.

Weak countries produce instability and war. Democracies produce peace - very simple, basic, American philosophic tenets. Now you can poke holes in them. It is true that Germany was the most prosperous, technologically advanced country in Europe when it decided to walk over a cliff and try Nazism for a dozen years. So I recognize the fallacy of assuming that progress always leads to better things all at once. But progress generally does. It is generally true that democracy, the rule of law and free markets go together and that they are mutually compatible and that they succeed. Generally true, though not true in every country, every year, every time. But generally true over time.

We have a complicated relationship with Russia, and I assume there are Russians here? No Russians. Okay.

Question: No Russia, no Turkmenistan. All others from the former Soviet Union.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I'm sorry no one from Turkmenistan. I'm rather curious, but all right.

Question: Uzbekistan is represented.

Assistant Secretary Fried: That's also an interesting country.

We have a complicated relationship with Russia, and it's not a symmetrical relationship because we don't think of Russia in the same way that it appears to think of us. Judging by some of the public comments, Russia still regards us as - Russia doesn't regard us as an adversary, but seems to think that we regard Russia as an adversary, and that is not true.

I'm thinking of the debate over missile defense, where Russia has suggested that we intend missile defense as a way to weaken Russia. Whereas, in fact, our intention to develop a modest missile defense system is not directed against Russia at all, because we don't consider Russia to be a threat. It's directed against a nuclear-armed, a potentially nuclear-armed Iran, which ought to be of concern to Russia as well.

On the other hand, there are areas where we work very well with Russia, and we want to work well with Russia wherever we can because we ultimately do not think that our core interests need to be incompatible. But Russia is, as I said, trying to find its way in the world. Russia may look at the United States as an adversary, even though we don't look at Russia as an adversary. Sometimes it's hard to judge Russia.

We also think that the answer to post-communism is democracy and free markets and strong independent institutions and not authoritarian regimes.

We recognize that all of this will take a great deal of time, and we need to be patient, we Americans need to be patient and realistic about what is possible in any country in any year, but we need to be very clear about what it is we think works in the end.

I don't know what's on your mind, so I will stop talking and answer any question that you've got. And you don't have to feel the need to be polite or ask easy questions. Hard questions are more fun anyway. [Laughter].

Question: President Bush recently signed a document which opens for Ukraine and Georgia the way to NATO. How do you think this will affect the present political crisis in Ukraine?

Assistant Secretary Fried: NATO is not the Warsaw Pact. NATO doesn't grab countries and force them in against their will. NATO only wants countries to join NATO if they really want to be in NATO. And we only want countries in NATO if they meet NATO's standards. And I don't mean just military standards. I mean NATO standards of democracy and reform and good relations with neighbors.

Ukraine does not have, it seems to me, a national consensus about whether it wants to join NATO. There is the blue answer, and then there is the orange answer. And I suppose there is also the red answer, the pink answer, and maybe the brown answer. But basically there is the blue and the orange answers, which are different.

All we are saying is that that door is open to Ukraine if Ukraine wishes to walk through it, and if Ukraine wishes to do the work. It is not pressure. It is not a demand. It is simply an opportunity for Ukraine. We want Ukrainians to be able to debate the strategic options for their country in a serious way and without pressure from Washington and without pressure from Moscow.

With respect to the political crisis in Ukraine, it's for Ukrainians to sort out, not outsiders. And we hope that Ukrainians sort it out in a way that is peaceful, obviously, and provides political answers that are widely seen as legitimate.

I'm not an expert on the Ukrainian constitution and the validity of the President's decree dissolving the Rada. So there will either be elections soon, elections a little later, or elections considerably later. We're not dictating the outcome. We just want Ukrainians to be able to develop, to produce a government which is effective, and then Ukraine can work out its own destiny, and we will help.

Georgia is different. In Georgia there is a national consensus about NATO membership, and Georgia has every right to seek to join NATO, but it's a lot of work. It's not just desire. It's willingness and ability to meet NATO standards.

So a long answer, complicated question, and an interesting one.

Question: I have two questions. We [Armenia] have parliamentary elections coming in May, and I would like to know if there is [inaudible] how it will impact our relations with U.S.

And the second question is that Ankara actually blackmailed the United States, saying it will block the supply channel for the American troops in Iraq [inaudible] resolution or the Armenian Genocide [inaudible] from the congress agenda. I wonder can you consider Turkey to be a good ally if they blackmail to suppress freedom of opinion and action in the U.S.? Thank you very much.

Assistant Secretary Fried: The Turkish Government has never blackmailed or threatened the U.S. Government. They have never said that they will take retaliatory steps if this resolution passes.

The Turkish government has said that Turkish opinion would be inflamed and outraged by this resolution and that they, the Turkish government, fear what the Turkish parliament might do in reaction to something our parliament might do. So it's a little bit different than what you described.

Turkey is a good ally. It is also a country which is undergoing a profound democratic transformation itself. Turkey has for decades had the formal elements of democracy, but in the last 10, 15, 20 years it has deepened this democracy, and especially in the last 5 to 10 years. The boundaries of freedom of expression are now much greater than they were before. Civilian institutions are much stronger. The role of the military is much more circumscribed. These things are advancing, and as this happens there is a growing discussion in Turkey about their own past, and in particular the past of the Ottoman Empire and its relationship to the Armenian community there and the mass killings that took place in 1915 and afterwards. Turks are beginning to discuss this.

We encourage them to examine their history and the painful, what can be called dark spots, and they're not the only country that has them. The United States has plenty of our own: slavery, treatment of American Indians, treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We have a lot of things in our history of which we're not proud.

We think that Turkey and Armenia need to discuss their shared past in a serious way. This needs to be a discussion that historians have. The United States doesn't deny any of the killings. They're an established historical fact, but historians need to discuss the details of what happened, why it happened, who did what. This needs to happen, and it needs to happen as a process of genuine national reconciliation.

We also think that Turkey ought to open up the border with Armenia and restore normal relations. We're pleased by recent steps Turkey has taken, like restoring the Armenian church in Eastern Turkey, even if as a museum. That's still something. And there is in Turkish society a constituency for this kind of reconciliation. Hrant Dink was murdered by an extremist nationalist, but then 100,000 Turks were in the street saying we are all Armenians, we are all Hrant Dink. It didn't mean literally that they're Armenians, but it means we reject nationalism. We embrace a Turkish identity which is tolerant. That's very hopeful. That's a very good thing. That's what we want to encourage.

You keep asking complicated questions. I can't answer in a sound byte, but I'll try.

Question: What about the first one? Parliamentary elections -

Assistant Secretary Fried: Look, we want to see an improvement in the Armenian parliamentary elections. That is important. We don't expect perfection. We don't expect to go from deeply flawed to perfect, but we do expect to see substantial forward progress. That is important.

Armenia, given the strength of the Armenian Diaspora and given Armenia's links to the West, frankly, you ought to be way ahead of Georgia. But I ask you, are you in terms of democratic reforms? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not asking for an answer. But think about that.

Armenia should be doing better. It should be a leader. It should be a prospering country. It has all the ingredients. And lack of oil and gas is not necessarily a curse.

Question: What about closing borders?

Assistant Secretary Fried: Yes, but a lot of countries - Armenia is not blockaded. It has access through Georgia. It's not as if it has no access to the outside world. We hope that more is done.

Question: I would like to ask a question about Azerbaijan and its continuous advice against [inaudible]. Also the fact that 20 percent of Azerbaijan territory is occupied by Armenia.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I'll try to make these answers shorter. We could talk all day about Nagorno-Karabakh. It is important to try to find a peaceful settlement. War will destroy everything Azerbaijan is trying to do. We have been working very actively with France and Russia to help broker a settlement. We've made some progress, and we hope we can succeed this year.

Azerbaijan has made some progress in democracy, but it needs to make much more. It has a leadership which is poised to take the country into a much more prosperous, democratic future, and I hope that it does.

A strong country has a strong free press and a strong opposition as well as strong central institutions, and Azerbaijan has every opportunity, like Armenia, although the economies are very different, to have a very good 21^st Century.

Question: During the last year some European countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq. How does the USA react to that and what role do you expect from European countries? At the same time, Kurdish leader, Mr. Barzani, [inaudible] says that Kurds living inside Turkey, Iran and Iraq have the right to form their own independent state. And he also threatened to destabilize Turkey as well. What's your reaction to that, to this public statement by Mr. Barzani?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We think that statement by Mr. Barzani was extremely unhelpful and unwise. Iraq needs to have good relations with its neighbor, Turkey. Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's not changing its neighborhood any time soon. So we think that sort of statement did nothing to advance good relations between the two countries, which are important.

We appreciate, with respect to your first question, we very much appreciate every country that has, and those that are continuing to help the Iraqi people find a better future. That mission has been longer and more difficult than we anticipated. It is a very hard mission. We understand that some countries can't maintain their troop presence, but we appreciate all of the countries who have contributed troops; we appreciate countries that have contributed to the Iraqi people's struggle for security and freedom in other ways.

With respect to Turkey, we know we've had our disagreements with Turkey in the past, but Turkey is also important to Iraq, and Turkey has been playing a constructive role including in the preliminary arrangements for the conference.

Question: I want to ask a question about Cyprus. We know that the U.S. has stated several times that they are supporting the end of isolation and embargo on the Turkish Cypriot community [inaudible]. What I'm talking about is the U.S. government planning on taking any concrete steps to start direct flights [inaudible] with the Turkish Cypriot [inaudible]?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We believe in a united Cyprus as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. We don't recognize the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but we do understand that its leaders, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Talat, has done a lot to support a reunified island, and we appreciate that very much.

We have supported proposals to bring the two sides together in technical talks. We have supported steps to de-isolate the Turkish community. The legal issues and economic issues, actually, of direct flights are complicated but we have taken steps to de-isolate the Turkish Cypriots, and we intend to continue to work with them. But our purpose is to advance a reunification of the island.

Frankly, I think Mr. Talat deserves credit because he didn't reject the Annan Plan. He doesn't reject reunification. We think that de-isolating the Turkish community will actually advance prospects for a reunified island.

Question: I have a question about internal politics in Georgia.

The opposition in my country until recently was complaining that the United States administration is kind of turning a blind eye on those shortcomings which are occurring in the reform process carried out by Saakashvili administration. Recently they have voiced an opinion that this kind of stance will be changing. The United States administration is taking more kind of a realistic look towards the situation in Georgia. What do you think about it? Do you think it's kind of a [inaudible] opinion or is there any kind of change?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I think there has not been a change, but I think the opposition may now recognize that we were never uncritical of shortcomings in Georgia.

Look, think where Georgia was five years ago before the Rose Revolution. It was, let's be honest, a rapidly failing state. It was, to use an undiplomatic term, a mess, and it was not getting better.

Now, after I think now three and a half years, economic growth is up, investment is up, the energy situation, which was every winter a disaster, was the best this year it's ever been or been in years. Corruption in many areas is down. There have been some important reforms like local school boards, and I could go on. You know this list better than I do.

You look at it from the low baseline of say five years ago, and the progress has been very impressive. There's also a strong civil society in Georgia. This is not an atomized society. It's a sophisticated one.

If you look at where Georgia should be and where we think it will be in 25 years, there's a lot to do. There are a lot of shortcomings, there are a lot of reforms that need doing, and we do talk to the government about it.

We also see the opposition. Whenever I'm in Georgia I see civil society; I see the opposition.

It's the nature of democracy that it believes that no ruler, no ruling party has a monopoly of truth. The Bolsheviks said they had a monopoly of truth and look how that turned out.

So we think that Georgia has done a lot. It has more to do, and we're quite open about it.

Question: Recently, just before the New Year, there was a conflict between Russia and Belarus as far as shipments of water and gas. I am concerned as related to this conflict; the government headed by President Lukashenka initiated a "friendship" with the leaders of Venezuela and Iran. They decided to talk about the new joint venture, the oil processing, etcetera. So what is the United States attitude towards this newly formed friendship, so to speak?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We believe that Belarus deserves a much more democratic leadership than it has. We think that Belarusian people have been deprived of the opportunity that all the other people in the region have earned and gained, which is to choose their own future.

I think that many of the choices of President Lukashenka have been poor ones, whether domestically or in terms of foreign relations, so I don't think much of this latest one.

We want to see the people of Belarus have a better future. That doesn't mean we want to grab Belarus and force it into NATO, which is what the government claims. Belarusian people need to have the space and the time to figure out who they are and where they want to be in the world, and our job is to help them as best we can and help them figure this out without pressure. But we do speak out about our concerns with respect to what we consider still to be the last dictatorship in Europe.

Question: I would like to ask you about missile defense system. You linked it directly to the perspective of the nuclear Iran. The missile defense is a very sensitive issue causing diplomatic troubles in Europe, and you mentioned the [inaudible] have with Russia over it. Why the urgency? Taking into account that these diplomatic efforts in the Security Council are still going on; can I conclude then that you expect the diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue to fail?

Assistant Secretary Fried: It does no good to wait until you have failed and then suddenly wake up to a problem too late.

Iran, North Korea - there may be other countries - are capable of creating a problem. Let me ask you rhetorically. Are you really comfortable contemplating Ahmadi-Nejad with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles? Does that make you feel comfortable?

It doesn't make us feel comfortable. It is not credible to say that ten unarmed, yes, unarmed American interceptors in Poland - if that's what we work out with the Poles - is a threat to Russia. That's not credible. Pardon me, but that's a silly argument.

It is not true that it represents an arms race with Russia. It is no threat to Russia at all. It is a prudent measure which can help advance security for all of Europe. It needs to be debated in realistic terms, not in terms of slogans that remind me of 25 years ago. NATO needs to discuss this issue, publics need to discuss this issue, but it ought to be discussed in its own terms and not in terms of slogans from a long time ago.

Question: First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to ask a question, especially about Uzbekistan, and my colleagues also. I am glad that they feel free to ask all kinds of questions.

I would like to know, I have heard the phrase that you've said that Uzbekistan is interesting. That Uzbekistan is an interesting country. So I would like to ask how is it interesting? In what respect is interested in my country? Eight years ago, I would like a question like particularly what kind of specific interest you had in Uzbekistan, but now practically everything which could promote our relationship is closed in my country. I would like to ask the question, what is your take on the future of the relationship between Uzbekistan and the United States?

Assistant Secretary Fried: Uzbekistan is host to a rich culture, a strong sense of nationhood and has the potential to be a leading nation in Central Asia. I fear it is being held back by policies that do not advance its economic or political development.

It is interesting because there is a great disparity between its obvious national potential and the reality. We would like to see Uzbekistan developing modern institutions, developing its economy, and working with its neighbors. An Uzbekistan which is more isolated is not in our interest.

Now I am no longer responsible for Uzbekistan. Our bureau that does Central and South Asia is, so I haven't been to Uzbekistan in a while, about a year and a half. But calling it an interesting country isn't quite fair and it isn't illuminating, so I wanted to be quite honest about the potential we see and the problems we see.

Question: I want to ask about the anti-missile installations, or more specifically about the international reaction to this plan. The reaction from Russia was quite predictable, but were you caught by surprise by the intensity of protests from countries like Germany, where one of the priorities of the Merkel government was to improve the German-U.S. relations after the Schroeder government? And lately, countries like Austria and Hungary did not really protest but expressed some concern about these plans as well.

Assistant Secretary Fried: Fair question, although in Germany it hasn't been German society as a whole, it's been one political party. That party has used slogans and arguments that remind me of the 1980s. They've claimed, without foundation, that missile defense would trigger an arms race, when in fact the United States and Russia are achieving record reductions in nuclear arms to this day. So those arguments are simply not only ahistoric, but ungrounded in reality.

The discussion needs to be based on 21^st Century realities, 21^st Century problems. Recently in Germany there has been a kind of counter-reaction. There's been a wave of articles which basically say wait a minute, let's take this seriously. Ahmadi-Nejad's triumphant announcement of industrial levels of uranium enrichment even made some of the, I suspect, some of the SPD politicians think twice about the nature of their own arguments.

It's also true that we have publicly offered to cooperate with Russia. You might say if Russia is not the object, that we share a common threat, then the United States ought to cooperate with Russia and we ought to offer it, and that's right. That's right. That's why we have offered cooperation with Russia. President Bush did so with President Putin, and we are going to have some bilateral discussions with the Russians later this month, and hopefully we will be able to cooperate.

All of this will hopefully make it easier for your government [Czech Republic] and for the Polish government to work with us on this program because we certainly don't want to see our friends under such pressure. We don't think it's fair.

Question: I would like to know whether the United States will change in any way its policies towards Moldova, keeping in mind the communist government of my country continues to evade international standards regarding democracy by suppressing independent press and opposition. My second question is what is your take on the conflict in Transnistria in Moldova and whether the U.S. would actually use some influence, and it could [inaudible] resolving this conflict.

Assistant Secretary Fried: We do have some concerns about the level of democracy in Moldova. We make these clear both publicly and privately in talking to the government.

With respect to Transnistria, we've been searching for a settlement which will respect the territorial integrity of Moldova and respect the sovereign right of Moldova to choose its own future. We've been working especially with Ukraine on that, and we think that Ukraine can play a critical role.

I've been to Tiraspol, so I know what you're talking about, the peculiar leadership in Mr. Smirnov and his people. So we hope that there's a negotiated settlement at hand. We have talked to the Russians about this repeatedly and will continue.

One of my deputies last week was in Moscow having discussions about this, so we will continue to work the issue.

Question: The U.S. supports Kosovo's independence -

Assistant Secretary Fried: Supervised independence, yes.

Question: Supervised. My question is, if Russian [inaudible] with us at the Security Council, what position should Kosovo take in the near future? How do you see Kosovo's position in that area? Also we know you have made so many visits to Kosovo. According to your observations do you think that Kosovo is ready for independence? What are the [inaudible]?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We think that Kosovo is ready to do its part to implement the Ahtisaari plan. We think Kosovo is ready for supervised independence, which is the basic compromise of the Ahtisaari plan. And we're impressed by the fact that the Kosovo leadership has embraced the Ahtisaari plan, including the elements that provide for supervision, which is impressive.

I don't want to talk about "what if" scenarios. We intend to convince the countries of the Security Council that Ahtisaari's plan is the best available one. It's not a perfect plan. We don't have the luxury of a perfect solution. I wish that the war of '99 hadn't happened. I wish that Milosevic had never become the leader of Serbia. I wish a lot of things, and I can't roll back the clock. We are where we are. This is the best way forward.

And my only advice to the leaders and people of Kosovo is don't give in to provocations. No matter what is said about you, show the world that you are in fact what you claim to be - a people ready to reach out to your Serbian neighbors and assume the responsibilities of independence. If you do that, if you take care of things at home, the other arrangements will take care of themselves. This is Kosovo's great chance for the future. Be true to your best ideals and you will succeed.

Question: In light of the last question, what -

Assistant Secretary Fried: You're from?

Question: I'm from Croatia but living in Sarajevo. What is going to be the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina in light of, because it's oftentimes linked with the question of Kosovo.

Assistant Secretary Fried: I was in Bosnia-Herzegovina last week. I spoke to this issue. We believe that Bosnia should enjoy a European future.

Question: But how?

Assistant Secretary Fried: First of all, the political leaders of all the parties should work to do the deals necessary on police reform to open up your road to Europe, on the constitution when you're ready. Look, Dayton [Accords] was not perfect. It was the best we could do at the time. It needs to be improved, but we're not Bolsheviks. We're not Stalinists. We're not going to burn everything down and say, ah, a clean field, we can start afresh. Life is not like that. We need to build on what there is.

I was also in Banja Luka in Republika Srpska. I know the origins of Republika Srpska, but the fact is there are Bosniacs living there, there are Bosniaks in the Assembly. We are where we are, and we have to build and improve this. We should never forget what happened in Srebrenica. Never. And we shouldn't forget the people who did it, and we should find them and bring them to justice. But you don't build justice by blowing things up. You build justice. The ultimate, ultimate revenge on the nationalists is to have Bosnia-Herzegovina join Europe as a tolerant place.

Question: But you see it as a unified -

Assistant Secretary Fried: Of course. Of course I do. Every other alternative is much worse.

I've got to go, and thank you very much.

[Applause].