Secretary Powell's Recent Trip to Georgia and Russia and The Current State of U.S.-Georgian and U.S.-Russian Relations

We certainly heard from the Russian side a clear willingness to sit down with our Georgian counterparts to discuss exactly that, to do so without further delay, and we look forward very much to that conversation taking place. There aren't specific dates. That wasn't part of what Secretary Powell intended to do. That's something that the Georgian side wants very much to do, is quite prepared to do, and I know that they are ready to -- both sides -- the impression we gained was that both sides are prepared to "roll up their sleeves," as we say in America, and get to the negotiating table and get this decided as soon as possible; both sides have a clear, new willingness to do this.

QUESTION: President Saakashvili will be visiting United States soon. Which will be what main issues and topics, which will be discussed during the meetings? And can this visit force and make faster the process of withdrawing troops from Georgia, let's say?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Let me address the second part first. The issue of withdrawing troops is an issue between Russia and Georgia. And as I say, both sides certainly demonstrated to Secretary Powell a very clear, unhesitating willingness to sit down and negotiate this. So that's an issue between these two sovereign states.

Yes, we are very pleased that President Saakashvili accepted President Bush's invitation to visit him at the White House on February 25th; we look forward very much to that. I don't know what the items on the agenda are. I can guess, but let's leave that for the two sides to work [it] out as we get a little bit closer to the time.

MR. DENIG: Okay, second questioner from New York.

QUESTION: Oh. Paul, those were our two questions.

MR. DENIG: Is that it for now? Okay. Let's go to Russia in the middle here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Andrei Surzhanskiy, ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia.

Madame Secretary, I have two questions. First of all, AP yesterday quoted senior U.S. official as saying that during his meetings with Russian President Putin, Secretary Powell promised that the United States had no plans to set up military bases in Georgia and you briefly touched upon this subject.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right.

QUESTION: Can you confirm on the record that there are no such plans to set up these military bases and --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I think I just did. Didn't I say that in my opening statement?

QUESTION: Okay. And secondly, my second question are related to the terrorist activity in Georgia. What would be your assessment of the situation in Pankisi Gorge? And do you think that the terrorist threat emerging from this gorge was completely eliminated? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Thank you for that question. It's a very good starting point for me to mention what the purpose was of the American Train and Equip Program in Georgia. The goal of that program, as was very clearly worked out with our Russian colleagues, as well as our Georgian colleagues, was to enable the Georgian Government to begin to take control over its territory in order to stop the flow of terrorists from the Pankisi Gorge into Chechnya. This was something that was very explicitly done because the Russian Federation was so concerned and so worried about the number of terrorists that were moving up from Georgia into Chechnya.

We are extremely pleased that that program has worked as well as it has. It's a program that will end in May. The last class will graduate in May. I'm very proud of the program, but it will end then and we will go back to a normal military-to-military liaison training kind of relationship with Georgia between the European Command and Georgia.

As I say, we're very pleased with the result of the program in terms of the ability of the Georgian military and police forces to prevent so many terrorists from moving from Pankisi into Russia, into Chechnya. We're also very pleased with the agreements that were made about joint border controls, that kind of thing, that were part of the effort to stop the flow of terrorists, of weapons, and that kind of thing. And we think the program's been a great success.

Is the problem completely over with? No, it's not. One of the issues that we're concerned about is that so long as there is still a lack of political agreement in Chechnya, there will be the potential for terrorists and weapons and terrorist money to flow into Chechnya. We want very much to support the Russian Government's effort to reach a political solution in Chechnya and look forward to the ability of the Russian Government to do that.

We're worried about the situation there. We're not so sure that the circumstances allow that at the moment, but we are very hopeful that, finally, a political solution can be found.

MR. DENIG: Let's take the lady in the front row here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Shefa Mekherliva, Azer-Taj News Agency. Mrs. Jones, I would like to ask you to elaborate a little bit on Secretary Powell's discussion in Moscow regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. And secondly, President Ilham Alieyev stated yesterday that through the threat of the Minsk Group turning into the group observers, rather than the group of mediators. Shall we expect any kind of new initiatives or significant moves in the work of the Minsk Group in near future?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: In terms of the discussion in Moscow, it was not a lengthy discussion. We talked about the new efforts of the Minsk Group co-chairs to invigorate the negotiating process. There are some suggestions that have been put to both sides, which I won't elaborate on for the record. But rest assured that the last thing we want is for the Minsk Group to become moribund or inactive. We want it to be active. We, the U.S. and the French want it to be active; one of the other co-chairs, the Russian side wants it to be active and we intend it to be as active as we possibly can and to try to think of ways to get the two sides to engage in a constructive way

MR. DENIG: Okay. Let's take the gentleman on the right here.

QUESTION: Hi. I am Arkadi Orlov with the Russian News Agency, RIA Novosti, and I have yet another question on bases.

I understand what you have just repeated today and what the Secretary Powell told earlier. But still, you seem to leave door open for some other arrangements, like for instance, you mentioned today that you are looking, in the course of your review, the way how to transfer -- how to transport quickly the forces and assets, to, say, the "hot spots."

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right.

QUESTION: So are you looking for some basing rights or some other arrangements, which would be different from the traditional meaning of the bases but still would allow you to have that capability around the former --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: That's an important question. I appreciate your highlighting the distinction. The fundamental point is we're not building any new bases. We're not taking over bases.

What we're trying to get people to understand is that they should not look for the same kind of big bases with lots of families and schools and all that kind of thing anywhere else. That's not what we're doing anywhere. A lot of those big, big groups of Americans are going home -- back here to the United States -- as soon as that can be organized and decided.

But what we are looking for is the ability to move quickly to the hot spots. What that means is that we need to have access to a base here or there in order to transfer troops from wherever they're based to wherever they're going. Sometimes that's what we call a "gas and go" operation. For instance, sometimes it might be that you'd want to preposition some repair equipment. Sometimes it might mean that, let's see, what's another example? I guess those are the best examples. In some places, there is some consideration of, where can we do some temporary training?

If we have most [of our] troops in the United States, as opposed to in Germany, is there a place that we can nevertheless train, mostly doing joint training? How do we train with our NATO allies? How do we train with PFP in places that are not in the United States so it's closer to where things might happen or whatever?

But the goal is, by no means, as the Secretary said explicitly -- not, we are not trying to surround Russia with any kind of basing, semi-basing or whatever it is, whatever fancy word you might want to use, arrangements. We are looking to continue our very close collaboration and cooperation with the Russian Federation to fight the global war on terrorism.

This is something that we discuss on a very regular basis, in a very formal format in the U.S.- Russia Counterterrorism working group that Mr. Armitage and Deputy Foreign Minister Trubnikov chair. They talk over and over and in detail about what, exactly, is happening. What are the troops, the U.S. troops doing in Karshi Khanibad, in Uzbekistan? They're based there in order to get in and out of Afghanistan, nothing going on in Central Asia, same thing with the base at Manas, out of Bishkek.

The last time I was there, there was a huge contingent that had come in from Oklahoma. They were there for three hours. They were going on to Bagram. That's what we're talking about. And in order to do that, you've got a few people who are stationed there in order to keep the planes going and feed the troops when they get there for their three hours of overlap or whatever it is. That's what we're talking about.

Now, one last thing: None of this is decided. This is all still in review for a very good reason. We need to be sure we know how many are going back to the United States, where does it make sense to move, and the review involves very detailed consultation with our friends and allies, including Moscow. And that's what Under Secretary Grossman was doing in Moscow in December, to have that conversation. There will be lots of other conversations.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Let's go to the UK here.

QUESTION: Guy Dinmore with The Financial Times, hello.

I guess I get to ask two questions. Is Georgia considered part of a greater Middle East project, which officials are beginning to talk about? Can that extend up to the Caucasus?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No. That's the short answer.

QUESTION: Secondly, you talked about the -- where things had not gone so well in the relationship over the last eight or nine months, as in the Izvestiya piece. Have those elements had any impact at all on what you've just described as a -- the close relationship in the fight on terror and on the other broader issues? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Well, that's part of the reason that I put it in terms of the broader strategic relationship. We have things that go really well, things that we're still talking about, things that aren't going well, and that's in that category.

But let me add one other thing. One of the benefits of having the close, the good personal relationship that our leaders have, the Russian and American, and because we have developed a habit of talking about each of these issues quite regularly, we are able to talk about these issues in quite an open and frank manner, and that's valuable. It's important to us to know that our concerns are listened to, just as we listen to Russian concerns about bases, for instance, or about other issues, such as visas, that are of concern, we try to address them.

MR. DENIG: Let's go back to Russia, blue suit, in the middle.

QUESTION: Alexander Iourine, International Affairs Journal.

After this visit to Moscow, what is your current vision of the United States priorities, approaches, and the role in the region of the former Soviet state in NIS?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: First, let me be clear that there isn't some sort of a break and a change. We've had a relationship with each of these countries since the breakup of the former Soviet Union. We've had embassies in every single one of these capitals since that time. We've had assistance programs in every single one of these countries since that time, and the focus of those assistance programs has been the same the whole time. The emphasis might change a bit here and there, but our focus has been on economic reform, political reform, some social support, social assistance and military-to-military reform. That hasn't changed.

The emphasis changes here and there, but our fundamental goal is to develop a relationship with each of these countries that is a fully functioning independent country that we can have a very good relationship with.

We believe very strongly that the greatest strength of a country is in the ability of its people to choose: to choose which job they have; to choose to be prosperous; to choose the kind of economic system they work in; to choose who their political leaders are from, you know, from the town hall to the President. And the more we can support those who want -- who are able to get the legislation in place, get the habits formed, develop free media to provide the scrutiny and the transparency to this -- to the process and to the results of these reforms, the more these countries will be stable, good partners for us and for the entire international community.

MR. DENIG: Let's go to the gentleman in the back.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. My name is Kenan Alizu with Voice of American, Azerbaijani Service.

Secretary, I have a question on Azerbaijan. There is a lot of criticism in Azeri media, particularly in opposition media, that United States treated Azerbaijan differently from Georgia. So in Georgia, U.S. supported the democratic forces. In Azerbaijan, it supported the son of the President and supported basically the regime, dynastic regime change.

What is your response to this criticism? And also, my second part of this question is that this Human Rights Watch Report recently came out, and it criticizes, again, the U.S. Administration, saying that U.S. Administration didn't take a strong stance on the election abuse in Azerbaijan, which, of course, entered the question the commitment of this Administration to its recently announced call for a policy objective of spreading democracy in the Muslim world. So what is your stance on this?

And I will have just one more question after that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Both of those statements are wrong, from my perspective.

In the first instance, in both Azerbaijan and Georgia, and indeed everywhere, the U.S. programs and U.S. policies support free and fair elections. What does that mean?

That means that we support organizations in civil society, including free media, to ensure that voter lists are done, are drafted, compiled as well as they can be with transparency; that there is training for observers at the voting stations; that there are voting stations; that the rules that are used by election commissions are rules that comply with international standards set by the OSCE -- we work extremely closely with the OSCE, as well as other U.S. NGOs and international and European NGOs.

There was no difference whatsoever in the policies and in the support for NGOs, organizations like that, between Georgia and Azerbaijan. The results are quite different. The biggest issue for us is transparency in the process. That's the biggest issue. And we don't support any particular candidate. We don't support this person or that person. That is completely against what the United States stands for, completely. And if you look at exactly what was done in each country, you'll see that what I've said is completely accurate.

In terms of -- I've lost my track, train of thought on the Human Rights Report, that we?

QUESTION: That this, I mean, you're probably familiar with the crackdown which has been going after the elections.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Oh, yeah.

QUESTION: And there is report that opposition leaders were threatened with rape, and they were subjected to electric shock.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Right, I know all that. But what is -- what's the question?

QUESTION: The question is: Are you concerned with this development? I mean, after the elections, there were crackdown, people in the prisons --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: We've made lots of statements on the record about all of that, and I'd refer you to all of those statements. There's no point in repeating all of that here. What is important now is that 19 of the detainees have been released. The others are going to trial. It is very important that the trial be transparent. The OSCE is training trial observers. That's a good thing, that they have been accepted. That is all very important.

What we want to see happen is that there is a firm, clear development of civil society, of rule of law, of the ability of the Azeri people, Azerbaijani people and the Azerbaijani Government to develop the right kinds of habits in terms of how to proceed with elections, with good governance, with making legislative changes that are necessary to bring prosperity to the country. That's what we're going to focus on now. That's what's important. That's what's important.

QUESTION: I'd like a follow-up. After the elections, you called for the independent investigation of the election violations. Are you still calling for this independent investigation? And also, Senator McCain was calling for that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: I have said what I'm going to say on the subject.

MR. DENIG: Let's go to Finland in the back row, please.

QUESTION: This is Jyri Raivio, of the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Finland. Is it your understanding that Russia has given up all the opposition towards potential further enlargement of NATO? And a small thing, did you discuss Mr. Khodorkovsky's case?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: The discussion we have with the Russian Federation about NATO doesn't revolve around, has Russia given up opposition -- that kind of thing. Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO, more importantly, have fundamentally agreed, as they did at the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council in Rome two years ago, that Russia and NATO no longer threaten each other.

So the entire discussion that NATO and Russia has now is over “how can these two organizations, these two entities -- whatever it is -- cooperate? What are the areas in which it makes the most sense for the Russian Federation and for NATO to work on?” And that's the focus of the attention. That's what we work on, day-in and day-out: How can we use the potential of both organizations, both of Russian Federation, as a country, NATO as an organization, to do things that are in our mutual interest; such as fight the global war on terror; such as support the government if there is some kind of a natural catastrophe? How can we work together on missile defense? That's the discussion now. It's not which country is going to be in NATO and which not.

QUESTION: How about Khodorkovsky?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Did we discuss the Khodorkovsky case? We discussed it, yes, in the context of the importance of rule of law, the importance of transparency of judicial procedures, the importance of even-handedness in addressing corruption cases and that kind of thing.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Let's go to Italy.

QUESTION: Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian news agency, ANSA. I would like just give two questions on the bases. There is a deadline for the repositioning of the basing, of the bases. The negotiations are going on. Do you want these negotiations finished for the NATO Summit, or there is no deadline?

And second question, how do you think that the EU enlargement will impact the relations between EU, Russia and the United States?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: No, there's no deadline on the rebasing review. It's not related to the NATO Summit. It's obviously related to NATO, but this isn't something that is a deliverable for Istanbul. It's complicated, it's difficult, it's expensive and it'll take time to get it all studied properly and decided, not least because it involves bringing troops back to the United States, which is not so easy to decide.

In terms of the EU and EU enlargement, we congratulate the European Union on the terrific work it has done on enlargement. It's something that the United States has supported right from the beginning. We've supported it with our programs. We've collaborated, coordinated with the European Union in the countries that are joining the EU on what is the right kind of legislation here -- this issue or that issue -- to make sure that the advice that we were giving Romania or the Czech Republic or Poland was compatible and completely in line with what makes sense for the European Union.

It would have been ridiculous for us to say, “you ought to have this kind of law in Poland,” knowing that there was no way that that was compatible with European law, so that we've had a very strong and very positive, very productive collaboration with the European Union about enlargement. We think that enlargement is an extremely good thing for Europe. It's an extremely good thing for the international community. It's an extremely good thing for Europe. It expands the number of countries that are stable and prosperous, potentially. Right now, we look forward very much to the grand celebration on May 1 of the addition of the ten new members to the European Union.

In the meantime, we are working extremely hard to push the parties involved to reach a settlement on Cyprus so that Cyprus can join the European Union as a unified island on May 1st. This is extremely important. The Secretary General issued four letters last night to the four players on the Cyprus issue to invite them to New York to negotiate on the basis of the Annan plan.

This is an extremely important, very positive, big step forward and we look forward very much to that negotiation getting under way again and for the sides to agree that Secretary General Annan can fill in the gaps, and this will go to a referendum along the timeline he's outlined so that the decision can be made for Cyprus to join as a unified island on May 1st.

This is extremely important for Cyprus. It's extremely important for the European Union, and it's extremely important for Greece and Turkey. One's a member of the EU; one hopes to be. It's a very, very big deal and we're very excited about it and we're pushing very hard and we know our colleagues in the European Union, other member states, are pushing this very hard as well.

MR. DENIG: Is there a final question? Okay, let's go to the gentleman right here.

QUESTION: Secretary Jones, by any chance, did you discuss Iraq reconstruction while in Moscow? Because, like, we are currently not on the list, like France, like Germany. But the White House hinted that the situation might change, so when do we qualify?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: Yes, we had a positive discussion, a very positive discussion about Iraq along the lines that I outlined. And on contracts in particular, the issue of U.S. contracts wasn't addressed. Rather, we heard from the Russian side how pleased they are at the ability of Russian businesspeople to get contracts of various kinds in Iraq and to be able to participate in a very positive way in reconstruction in Iraq, and how much the Russian Federation would like to cooperate and collaborate with the international community, the United States, in reconstruction and in the transition to a sovereign authority on the Iraqi side.

MR. DENIG: Okay. All right. One last one. Slovakia in the middle.

QUESTION: My colleague mentioned enlargement of European Union. I would like to ask you; new countries are coming to EU and to NATO, like Slovakia. And you have, with most of the countries in EU, you have -- they are on a visa waiver. I would like to ask you if new members of EU will have such a possibility, if you will change it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONES: The Visa Waiver Program was not related to membership in any organization. The Visa Waiver Program was instituted on the basis of the citizens of which countries had the best record for staying with the purpose of the visit. So the countries that had the best record of everybody who went as a tourist returning after their visit are the ones that are in the Visa Waiver Program.

Because of the focus in Congress, which you're very aware of being a journalist here, on homeland security, the focus now is on how to increase and enhance the ability of our embassies overseas and our consular officers to issue visas to people whose identity we really know. We've spent a lot of time working against fraudulent passports, but now the focus is on making sure we really do know who the person is, whose passport this is and who we're issuing the visa to.

So that's why there's such an emphasis in the United States, but also in Europe, to going to biometrics -- fingerprints, photographs, that kind of thing. That's where the focus is, rather than on expanding the Visa Waiver Program.

MR. DENIG: Okay. Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.