NATO's Expansion and Future

And so, given what is going on this week and given tomorrow's schedule here in Washington, we thought we'd have a scene-setter for U.S.-European affairs. We are delighted to welcome today, to give us a background briefing on this, [a senior administration official]. I would remind you that since this is a background briefing, that you should only use the attribution “senior administration official.”

And with that, I will hand it over to [our senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank goodness it is not any longer all-Iraq, all the time. Even if it was, we have had a chance to become much more active in European affairs beyond Iraq, and we are in the middle of an extremely active week. I just want to remind you of some of the things that have been happening.

On Friday, Secretary Powell signed the Adriatic Charter with the leaders of Albania, Macedonia and Croatia in Tirana. On Monday, the President met with Lord Robertson of NATO; Dr. Rice met with her German counterpart, Berndt Muetzelburg. Yesterday, Dr. Rice met with a senior Ukrainian delegation that was here for a NATO-Ukraine meeting. This evening, the President is having dinner with President Aznar of Spain. Tomorrow, we have two major events involving the President: a breakfast with Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen and a meeting with the foreign ministers of the seven countries that have been invited to join NATO and who will be in Washington for an event the Senate is, I think now, debating -- NATO enlargement.

That is a very busy week, and you will notice from the countries with whom we're working that this is Europe, all of Europe: the new democracies; the democracies joining NATO; the democracies that want to join NATO; Ukraine, which regards itself as having a European future; Germany, the largest European country; Spain; Denmark. This is a very active time.

After the campaign in Iraq, we are obviously busy working to restore security in that country and helping to create the conditions for the Iraqi people to build democracy, a civil society and an economy that works for the benefit of the Iraqi people. But we are also working with our European friends and allies in common cause because there is a tremendous agenda for us ahead.

We are also looking forward to the President's trip to Europe, which we're still planning, so I don't have any announcements for you today on that, except to say that conceptually, we are looking at this as a way to move beyond the debates of the past, including the recent debates over Iraq, and discuss a common agenda in a world where there are great opportunities, great dangers, and great responsibilities for the members of the transatlantic community.

Now, that's a short statement, but that's what I've got for you now. I'd be happy to take questions. I'll answer them as best I can.

MODERATOR: Just to remind you to please use the microphone and to introduce yourself and your news organization.

QUESTION: My name is Olga Bakova. I'm correspondent of Slovak Radio. Can you tell us something more about tomorrow's meeting with the seven foreign ministers at the White House, what it will be about?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, if the Senate, indeed, votes, provides its advice and consent to the ratification of NATO enlargement for these countries, it will be a moment of celebration and it will be a moment to acknowledge how far we have come in realizing a decades-old dream of a Europe whole, free and at peace.

This was an endeavor that the United States has been deeply involved with and had the support of all the other NATO members. The enlargement of NATO is an enlargement of the community of democracies ready to defend each other and defend common values. These countries have done a lot since 1989. They've been through a lot and have achieved a great deal. This is a moment of, I imagine, of satisfaction for them, and it is certainly a moment of considerable pride for those of us who have been engaged in this process. So it's a good moment.

Also, as the achievement of a Europe whole, free and at peace draws nearer, we all, all of us, have to think about the tasks ahead. And it is also a moment to think about our responsibilities and what the transatlantic community should be doing in the years ahead to deal with the new challenges, even as we achieve the overcoming of the former problems.

MODERATOR: We'll take the lady on the far left.

QUESTION: This is Denise Enginsoy. I'm with Turkey's Anatolia News Agency. How do you see the future of the strategic relationship between the U.S. and NATO partner Turkey? Do you still consider Turkey as your strategic partner? I am asking this because Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz made some harsh comments about Turkey's role during the Iraqi war.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We had disagreements with Turkey and these are well known. I don't have to repeat that history. It is also true that Turkey is a tremendously important country. Turkey is a democracy. Turkey is a country dealing relatively successfully with the challenge of traditional -- of combining traditional values and the requirements of a modern, successful country. Turkey has dealt, I think, rather successfully with its economic crisis that began in 2001. Turkey's a close friend. We did have differences, but I don't have to repeat those. We look forward to working closer with Turkey in the years ahead. And I hope that we will get past these disagreements and be able to build on a common agenda.

QUESTION: I'm Elaine Monaghan with London Times. Could you shed some light on this apparent misunderstanding by the Poles or otherwise, about Germany's role in Iraq? And more broadly, could you tell us -- could you describe how the attempts to repair the relationship with Germany are proceeding?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the last question first. Dr. Rice had a very good meeting with her counterpart, Berndt Muetzelburg. We are in constant contact with our German friends. This was a good discussion. Our contacts with Germany are going to be pretty intense in the weeks ahead. Germany and the United States worked together for decades -- and very hard decades -- of the Cold War, the Reunification of Germany, our common agenda in building a Europe, whole, free and at peace. We appreciate what Germany has contributed in the Balkans and to the Afghanistan operation where Germany has been a lead country in ISAF. We had differences. Again, these are well enough known. I don't have to recount them. We're going to be working closely with Germany.

As for Poland, we are extremely grateful for Polish willingness to take on some serious responsibilities providing stabilization for Iraq. Poland will be working with us, working with its other NATO allies. I don't want to comment on what Ministers have said in public. This is the first time Poland has undertaken this kind of an operation. Obviously, the politics and the disagreements over the last few months have been hard for everyone and I can imagine hard for Poland as well, but I think that Poland, with the help of its friends, will manage this successfully.

QUESTION: I'm Giampiero Gramaglia, the Italian News Agency, ANSA. Two questions: The first regarding France. I don't see any meeting or contact with France in what you cited before. What is the difference between France and Germany, now, in your mind? And the second question is when do you expect that -- expect a decision on a new Secretary General for NATO?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can't predict the NATO process of deciding on a new Secretary General. President Bush had a good, businesslike telephone conversation with President Chirac not too long ago. Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister deVillepin are in contact and Ambassador Levitte is very active. I, myself, speak to him on a regular basis. We have a very good relationship and I respect the job he is doing.

What are the differences between France and Germany starting -- starting when?

QUESTION: 843 A.D.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The break up? We'll, yes. We'll, start off with the break up of the Carolingian Empire and proceed. Attorney General Ashcroft was in Paris and cooperation with France is proceeding in a number of areas. I don’t hide that we had differences with France, and rather serious ones. We have tasks before us as the United States and we are looking to see who is willing to play constructive roles.

QUESTION: Lambros Papantonio, Greek Daily, Athens. I must a little (inaudible) to let know, since NATO led this function in Afghanistan at the request of Germany, and right now it's obvious that it's going to do exactly the same in Iraq, are you planning to expand later beyond the borders of Europe, number one. And the number two question: What is the position of the U.S. Government vis-à-vis to the decision of the four European countries to formulate a kind of Ministry of Defense in the framework of the European Union?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Goodness, so many questions. Well, more is obvious to you than is, so far, obvious to me. NATO's role in Afghanistan is of tremendous importance. And, by the way, I would underscore that a couple of years ago this -- a NATO role in Afghanistan -- would have been relegated to the sidelines as highly improbable, speculative and probably not terribly responsible. That was before September 11th. Here we are.

Last November -- and before -- there was a lot of discussion of the Prague Agenda. The Prague Agenda was adopted and it was about making NATO ready for 21st Century tasks. And I put it to you that the Prague Agenda is already being implemented and with lightning speed. And this is not a case where NATO makes some decisions and three years later someone like me has to get up and explain that something really is happening despite appearances.

Now I can turn to you and say, "The Prague agenda is being realized in the field in a very real way." So NATO is really preparing itself, in fact, for the 21st century. Whether or not NATO has a role in Iraq is something that I can't say at the moment. That's going to be a decision for NATO to make, but it's telling that your question would assume that there is a role for NATO in Iraq, whereas two years ago, this would have considered simply an impossible, ridiculous question when the Balkans were seen as a step too far for NATO.

As for further NATO enlargement, NATO has a lot of work to do right now. It needs to consolidate its membership, which is going to grow from 19 to 26 if all the countries ratify. NATO has a tremendous agenda to get ready for the 21st century. There are countries -- Albania, Croatia and Macedonia -- that have expressed an interest in joining NATO. Others may follow. We'll deal with that. We certainly respect what Albania, Croatia and Macedonia are striving to do and we'll deal with other questions later. And, there were so many.

QUESTION: What is the position of U.S. Government vis-à-vis to the decision of the Four European Countries to --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, well, ask them what they had in mind -- a headquarters commanding which additional forces, exactly? We do respect Europe's desire to have a European Security and Defense identity. We have accepted that. Indeed, in the middle of all of the fighting about Iraq and all the headlines, NATO handed over its successful Macedonian mission to the EU. And that was a very successful example of how the EU and NATO can work together in a seamless fashion to get the security job done.

That seems to be working. And there's one good rule of foreign policy, which is that if it seems to be working, it probably is working, so don't fix it until it breaks. But you can ask Belgium what it had in mind. It's still not clear to me.

QUESTION: My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds newspaper. I wanted to ask you if you could shed some light on the new European Defense Alliance? The likelihood, France and other countries, and how will that impact NATO? And also, going back to your beginning statement when you said that includes Germany and other countries from the new democracies. Does that mean there is no more a distinction between old Europe and new Europe?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, Spain is an old country. The United Kingdom is an old country. And they were certainly our close allies in Iraq. Slovakia is both -- is simultaneously old and new. So the discussion of old and new Europe is something we all sort of understand but as you examine it more closely it is less precise rather than more precise.

I think I answered the question about the Four Power Defense Summit already.

QUESTION: How will it (inaudible)?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I don't know. Your question assumes that there is actually some kind of alternative defense structure that exists outside of ESDP, outside of NATO. But I'm not sure that it does. I don't know what, exactly, is being proposed, what it is intended to do and what forces it will bring to the table. So it's hard for me to react to something that I really don't understand.

QUESTION: James Harding from The Financial Times. I have two questions for you. The first one is, can you tell us a little about what the administration is doing in its contact with France to discuss the documents that have seemed to have been found and continue to be found which suggest French officials worked with or were in contact with senior Ba'ath party officials in Iraq and most recently that these documents seem to implicate President Chirac, himself? That's the first question.

And the second one was, would you tell me your personal judgment of what was the nadir in the relationship between the U.S. and France and the U.S. and Russia, and what concrete progress is being made to pick up from there, from that nadir to the summit the President is going to with both French and Russian leaders at the end of the month? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What an exciting question. And how many opportunities you've given me for making news that I probably shouldn't be making. But I think I will avoid that question by saying first of all, I'm not sure that the article -- you are referring, I think, to the article in yesterday's Washington Times -- and I am not sure that that article had any basis.

QUESTION: Right. There's also a separate -- sorry -- there's also a separate report coming out today that suggests -- and this is coming out of Baghdad -- that people, that U.S. Forces have gained documentary evidence which suggests some involvement of President Chirac directly and they are saying, or at least it's the way it's being reported out of Baghdad, that the U.S. administration has contacted the French directly on this subject.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I have to look at that. I have honestly not followed that particular story. Before I would even speculate in a conceptual way about anything, I would want to be very, very careful. So I will just take a pass on that one.

And as for the nadir of relations, it was an interesting time, I will agree. And people will be reminiscing about it when they have the time. But at the moment we're thinking about the trip to Europe and obviously the meetings with President Putin and the trip to the G-8 summit. It isn't, technically speaking, a bilateral visit to France. It is a trip to the G-8 summit, which is being held in France as part of the regular basis and we have a tremendous breadth of relations with both countries and we'll be working on various issues.

QUESTION: So there will be no bilateral meeting with President Chirac? Sorry.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. We are looking forward to going back to St. Petersburg and looking forward to the G-8 summit. And no doubt, as we get closer, there will be more briefings, including like this -- likely in this very room. So we'll get into that as we approach.

QUESTION: So there will be no bilateral meetings in either St. Petersburg or in France?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, no. I didn't say that. The schedule isn't firm yet, but you shouldn't assume that there will not be a bilateral meeting if Chirac is the host -- President Chirac is the host, President Putin is the host. And although I can't comment about the schedule now, you should not at all assume that there would not be a bilateral meeting with the host.

QUESTION: My name is Khaled Daoud from Egypt's Al Ahram newspaper. Although you said in the beginning that this is not about Iraq, but in all the meetings President Bush and other officials are having now with these European nations, the issue of deploying troops and the stabilization, you know, force that is being planned for Iraq, so if you can update us on that. And my second question, sir, is that the way some people look at what you're doing now in Europe is that you're seeking to establish based mainly on the Eastern, former Eastern European countries. I mean, excluding a very important country like France. Do you envisage something like this being possible? You know, a totally new entity of the United States and its allies in Europe only?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I will answer your last question. No, we do not foresee establishing, as you put it, a totally new entity or a new alliance or any such thing. We believe that NATO, the most successful alliance in history is, in fact, already making itself useful, relevant, important and -- I personally think -- critical to meeting 21st century security challenges.

The challenge for NATO was whether it could mentally and thereafter physically adapt itself to 21st century challenges. And I was both extremely pleased, delighted and gratified that NATO at its Prague Summit moved so far, so fast in accepting the challenges of the 21st century world. And again, point in fact, NATO in Afghanistan -- that's a big leap.

We are certainly not trying to work outside of NATO or establish a new alliance. It is true that we very much value the contribution of countries who stood by us in the very difficult weeks in the run-up to the battle in Iraq. Certainly, we appreciate the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, who are -- let's put it this way -- sensitive to the problem of dictatorships that are not stopped.

But Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Denmark, other countries also provided a great deal of support for which we're grateful. And France and Germany both provided overflights. So it is our intention to work with NATO and work with our NATO allies, not to junk NATO or move beyond it. And the President has been clear repeatedly. Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice have all made this very clear.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, for the details, you should talk to the Defense Department. Obviously, this is something -- this is being very actively worked right now. You should talk to them for the details.

QUESTION: Jean Jacques Mevel, Le Figaro. There has been variations on what France should expect after Iraq, and then some people have talk of retribution, other price, and we had also consequences. Could you help us to find out what those consequences are, will be?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I've read those kind of speculative reports, just as you have. And sometimes, I feel I live in two worlds. One is the world I work in and then, there is the world described for me by the newspapers. They have an overlap, which is occasionally greater and occasionally less. To me, the issue of retribution is one that journalists love, but is, in fact, not a question that I and my colleagues think a great deal about.

There is a question about what our agenda is. What do we have to do? And then, which countries are going to work with us in common purpose, and which countries see it as their task to make things more complicated?

There are real challenges in the world, and there are real challenges in Iraq: challenges of stabilization, of democracy, of security, of economic growth, of creating better conditions so we don't find ourselves in some of the problems we've found ourselves in. This is a serious agenda. It is not an agenda, in my opinion, which can be met by quarrels within the family, artificial or otherwise.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. To take the more neutral semantic, could you give us a true example of consequences, recent consequences for France?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.

MODERATOR: We'll take the gentleman in the back there.

QUESTION: I am Pedro Bicudo, the correspondent for the Portuguese Public Television. NATO is restructuring the Atlantic areas of command, and on June 13th it is expected the announcement of a new arrangement for the areas of command for the Atlantic. Could you please advance some of the general ideas behind this new strategy?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's a question best directed to the Defense Department, but as I understand it, obviously, NATO must restructure its thinking, but also restructure its forces. NATO agreed to do this at Prague, and that work is taking place. It requires changes, closings, openings, a whole set of issues.

Restructuring forces has certain rules, one of which is that everyone is for it in principle, and everyone is against it when it affects their county, their town, their state, or their country. That's a general rule, and I think it may be a universal rule. And we're seeing it in NATO, as well.

We are, by the way, since you are from a Portuguese press, enormously appreciative of the Portuguese Government's hosting of the Atlantic Summit in March, which was organized wonderfully by your government on extremely short notice. That was the shortest notice of any summit bilateral -- and this was, of course, four countries -- of any summit I'm familiar with, and we are very grateful. We're working through these issues now, and we are working in a transparent, collaborative way, and your government is playing an active role. That's really all I can say.

QUESTION: Okay. Hoda Tofi, a correspondent for Al Ahram newspaper, Egypt. Well, whatever NATO is doing in Afghanistan or futuring (sic) to do in Iraq or other parts of the world, would you think that this is a step to alienate the United Nations or what relations this has with the United Nations, since NATO is working under the banner of NATO, exclusively?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We value the United Nations, and it was President Bush, himself, who took the Iraq problem to the United Nations last September 12. We were the ones who appealed to the United Nations and to the Security Council, specifically. The United Nations, as President Bush has said, has a vital role to play in Iraq's future, and I hope the United Nations is prepared for such role.

So the answer to your question is: We do not intend to work without the United Nations and we hope the United Nations is prepared to step up to its responsibilities.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) since in the British have the Americans placed a lot of reports that America is already to allow the creation of Independent Kurdistan against the territorial integrity of Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. Could you please comment on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I will. Very simple: No. And to our Turkish colleague, I will emphasize: No. We have said publicly, privately and repeatedly, we respect the territorial integrity of Iraq, and that means what it means. So there is no ambiguity, no hidden meaning. I want to emphasize that.

Okay, thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Sorry, but we have run out of time. Thank you very much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you.