P.M. EDT
2:00 P.M. EDT
Real Audio of Briefing
COL MACHAMER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center, and I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to our very distinguished panel.
Before we get started with today's briefing, I'd like to turn the microphone over to Doug Wilson, who is the Vice President for the Cohen Group.
Sir.
MR. WILSON: -- former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Forces in Europe and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces; and Lord George Robertson, former Minister of Defense of the United Kingdom, former Secretary General of NATO, now Senior Counselor to the Cohen Group; General Ralston is the Vice Chairman of the Cohen Group.
We are able to gather here today because Lord Robertson is in town to mark his affiliation as the newest Senior Counselor of the Cohen Group.
We are going to ask all three of our distinguished guests to start out by talking a little bit about key issues in U.S.-European relations, and we will then be happy to open the floor to questions from Washington and New York.
I would like to let everybody know that we will have to conclude just before a quarter to three. Thank you.
MR. COHEN: I think I'll begin. As the Chairman of the Group, I want to say that we came prepared to today to talk about the transatlantic relationship, but in view of the number of, and diversity of people who are in the audience, perhaps we can expand that to be a the pan-global discussion today.
The three of us have established friendships over the years. We have worked very closely together while I was at the Defense Department, and General Ralston was the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at that time, and I was working very closely with the former Secretary of State for Defense -- I love that title, by the way -- but the defense minister, as such, of Great Britain, and -- who then became Secretary General of NATO.
We have dedicated much of our professional lives to strengthening the ties that do, in fact, bind all of us, looking for ways in which we could expand our the economic ties and relationships, certainly sharing of ideals, promoting engagement and, of course, also trying also trying to promote the greater integration of military forces between the United States, the NATO alliance, the EU.
All of those issues are very much still on the front burner of today's discussion and agenda. Obviously, we want to find ways in which we can cooperate on the issue of Iraq and the war against terror, but also find ways in which we can, in this ever increasingly globalized world, find ways in which we can cooperate, even as we remain competitors.
And so we wanted to come here today to make ourselves available to each of you to discuss issues on your mind. With that, let me defer to the Vice Chairman of the Cohen Group, General Ralston.
GEN RALSTON: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And let me say, just for a couple of minutes, before I turn it over to Lord Robertson, I have been extraordinarily blessed to have worked for both of these gentlemen, on my left here: Secretary Cohen, when he was Secretary of Defense, and Lord Robertson, when he was Secretary General of NATO. And if there is anything that I am proud of, it's the fact that we were able to work together as a team, with a civilian leadership ultimately being responsible for and taking the decisions that needed to be taken, but doing so with the benefit of professional military advice. And so I feel very good and I would like to say publicly how much I appreciate the support from both of them.
Many times, especially in talking about the transatlantic issues and relations, we have a tendency to view them through the lens of NATO. And transatlantic relations are much, more broad than NATO. They encompass trade, economics, tax policy, government subsidies -- a lot of different issues that are out there.
And NATO is focused, as it should be, on the security dimension. And I would just say that while we have a wide variety of opinions of transatlantic relations, in general, I think our relationship within NATO continues to be very strong. If you look at the cooperation that's going on with NATO, sometimes we forget that NATO has brought peace and stability to the Balkans, where, for nine years, the NATO nations have been involved in a very worthwhile effort there that's going well.
You look at what NATO is doing in Afghanistan today -- quite an interesting mission that you have, but once again, with the cooperation of all the nations of NATO. So I think while there are clearly issues that need to be addressed between both sides of the Atlantic, there is an awful lot that is going in a positive direction within NATO.
Let me stop there and turn it over to Lord Robertson.
LORD ROBERTSON: Thank you so much. I am delighted to be in Washington and to launch a new career with the ex-Secretary of Defense and the ex-Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Because we all worked together, I think we have all, still, something to contribute in terms of our experience and translating that into helping others to understand what is still a difficult but dangerous and a complicated world. So we were a good team and I think we remain a good team in this new form of work that we have now taken up.
In the last three weeks, the European Union has moved from 15 member-states to 25. In February, NATO moved from being an alliance of 19 nations to an alliance of 26 democratic nation-states, so the new community of values is much bigger now and much more effective and has much more potential than it has had in the history of the world since the end of the Second World War.
That should be an opportunity for great things to happen. And next week we'll celebrate, we'll commemorate the D-Day landings and how that Europe and the United States of America joined hands to defeat Nazi Germany at that time, and out of the ruins of Europe, divided at that time, to build a new, strong democracy and a new, strong security environment.
And we should learn the lessons of these events so long ago because they form the basis of the stability that has been enjoyed by so many people and the European continent. And the fight that the new democracies, the ex-communist countries, have now come into the fold shows that shows who dreamed of a democratically reunited Europe got it right, and those who preached failure and who preached *optimism, once again, got it wrong.
So in the next few weeks, the leaders of the world will unite in Paris to commemorate D-Day, in Georgia, USA, to mark the G-8 Summit; the EU Summit 25 heads of state and government will meet; and in Istanbul the 46 members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council nations at heads of state and government meeting will -- level -- will meet in Istanbul in Turkey.
So in the this dangerous world, this will provide some new, unique opportunities for people to come together and to tackle some of the thornier issues that affect the world today. I remain optimistic.
As the two gentlemen on my right know and had a hand in, the Balkans, nine years ago, ten years ago was regarded as a basket case that could never be solved, never be solved. And there were many clever people in this city and in others who said, you are on a maniac journey to try and pacify the Balkans.
Well, they -- let them go to Sarajevo now. Let them go and see what the Balkans are like today with one of the ex-Yugoslav nations a full member of both NATO and the European Union, and the others all in the wings waiting for membership as well. So things can look pretty bleak from time to time, but history has shown that if there is political will, and political determination and transatlantic unity, then we can still look optimistically on the situation, however bleak.
COL MACHAMER: Okay, as a reminder, before we start questions, please make sure you wait for the microphone and identify yourself by name and news organization. Thank you.
We'll start up front with TASS.
QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Rick. My name is Andrei Sitov. I am with the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS here in -- right here in Washington.
And I hate to break this optimistic spell here, but, of course, we can also look at Kosovo and what's happening there with all those churches burning.
But my question is -- I have two questions, a general one and a narrow one. The general is very simple. Will the NATO survive for another 20 years? And what other purpose does it really serve except being the vehicle of the projection of the American power in Europe? That is the general question.
And the narrow question is, of course, about the NATO relations with Russia, and why isn't it proceeding better than it does, especially in areas such the anti-ballistic missile defense where both sides seem to be interested in that and they have the technical capability to do that, as Secretary Cohen knows, but they are not doing much?
Thank you.
LORD ROBERTSON: Well, I think the answer to your first question is that NATO does have a future, but NATO is not an organization on its own. It is now 27 members strong, but it has links with the other Partnership for Peace countries. 46 nations sit around the table chaired by the Secretary General of NATO, and they will be there at heads of state in government-level in Istanbul, too.
So NATO has never thought that it was an exclusive club. We have relationships with those nations, which includes Russia; with the European Union; with the seven countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue, and we have a very special relationship with Russia and the NATO-Russia Council, where people sit as equals around a table.
And I don't think anybody imagined, when we set up the NATO-Russia Council in 2002 that we would produce instant formulas for the future, but we were going to embark upon a whole series of work programs, including the issue of missile defense, which ceased to be controversial and became a matter of common concern and common endeavor, but we're fighting against 60 years of false perceptions. But I think we're succeeding more than many people thought that we would. And I hope very much, as an individual -- I'm, don’t hold office in NATO anymore -- but I hope that there will be a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Istanbul at the end of June, and that President Putin will come to that meeting because that is the way in which we can promote that level of understanding and common working to a higher level, and everybody will be the beneficiary of it.
QUESTION: Would the Secretary comment on the ABM issue, please?
MR. COHEN: Well, there are two issues involved with U.S. and Russia relations. One has to do with arms reductions; and there, President Bush and President Putin, I believe, are in accord, at least, in the need to reduce the levels of our respective nuclear weaponry.
I recall that President Bush, when he was campaigning, as candidate Bush was talking about reducing the level on both sides from the current, roughly, 6,000 nuclear weapons on each side, to roughly 2,000, 2200, or even that range of 1800. I believe it's important for the two countries to continue on that downward path.
Secondly, we have the issue of the Nunn-Lugar Program, of the Nuclear Cooperation Program, whereby we support the effort to work with our Russian counterparts to eliminate nuclear materials and, indeed, other biological, even chemical weapons under the Nunn-Lugar program.
The third would be the missile defense system. As you know, the United States opted out of the ABM Treaty, and frankly, I think there were a good deal of discussions that took place between the Administration and President Putin to indicate that this was not something that was directed against Russia itself, but the threat that might be posed by countries such as North Korea and others who would -- are less, certainly, inclined to engage in the kind of arrangements we've had with our Russian friends.
So I think that it's in the interest of Russia to have a comparable system, as it is in the United States. And I would hope that we would continue to try to work on a mutually advantageous defense program.
QUESTION: Thank you. This is Tulin Daloglu, from Turkey's Star TV and the Star Daily. I have a specific question for Lord Robertson.
There has been a referenda at the island of Cyprus on 24th of April. And we are expecting the Secretary of General, UN Secretary of General's report coming, hopefully, on Friday. We don't know what he is going to say, but for years there has been this talk whether the UN -- if the UN peacekeeping are forces to be withdrawn, maybe it's going to be replaced by NATO forces.
What do you think the likelihood of such a, you know, replacement? Or do you, you know, forecast any likelihood for NATO taking any part in -- on Cyprus?
And for Mr. Cohen, you know, there has -- we -- there has been a lot of talk in Turkey and in the, you know, region, that Iraq -- it's quite pessimistic that, you know, actually, looking from that side of the world that Iraq -- it is inevitable that there is going to be a civil war in Iraq.
And now we are, you know, approaching to the handover of sovereignty on June the 30th, and there was an article yesterday at The Washington Post -- Robin Wright has written it -- and she was also, you know, saying the same thing: that it's getting really very difficult to prevent a civil war.
And we heard from the Turkish officials, from the Turkish military, that they want to keep the right to do what is necessary if the -- you know, they comes to protect Turkey's interest. And that goes to Turkish relations with the northern Iraq, with the Kurdish issue.
Can you give us a vision -- and you know going into the war, Turkey and U.S. has, you know, a lot of issues. Can you -- you know, look into the future after June the 30th, and what is the, you know, challenging issues that you see with Turkey facing with U.S., and also in Iraq. Can you give us a vision, overview with that?
Thank you.
LORD ROBERTSON: Well the, I think you will find that NATO, at the moment, has its hands pretty full with Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the help that it is already giving to Poland and in Iraq, so I think it's unlikely that a needed solution would be found for peacekeeping in Cyprus, especially when two NATO countries are actually engaged in that, so I can't tell what's going to happen; what Secretary General Kofi Annan will say at the end of this week. But it is, at the moment, a UN responsibility, and I think it's likely to stay that way.
MR. COHEN: As Lord Robertson mentioned in his opening comments, that it's easy for people to be overwhelmed with the forces of darkness and pessimism. And as history has shown that the same voices of darkness about the prospects for ever having any kind of stability in the Balkans, certainly, were loudest back in the early '90s, and that with the cooperation of individuals and with the dedication to resolving and solving problems, we were able to at least maintain some stability and a great deal of hope for that region.
I think the same is still possible for Iraq. I've always believed that nothing is inevitable until it happens, and that by saying it's inevitable that civil war will break out, then we invite that inevitably and make it possible. I think that what we have to do is to rededicate ourselves to helping to prevent that from taking place because we need to persuade all of the countries in Europe, in NATO, in the EU, in Russia, in China and elsewhere that it is in no one's interest to see Iraq descend into a level of civil conflict; that there would be great destabilization for the Gulf region, to be sure.
Other frontline states who have been supporting of the coalition effort also will be placed in jeopardy, and the economic consequences would spread well beyond the Gulf to many other countries, not to mention certain other issues.
So I think the global interest in having the coalition forces succeed in preventing a descent into civil war is imperative. We are going to see an effort made, I believe, to persuade other countries to join in the effort after the handover.
At this point, no one can tell you exactly what Mr. Brahimi is going to recommend in terms of the architecture of what that interim government is going to look like. It is going to be a handover of political authority, and to what degree or what dimensions that political authority will extend still remain unclear. But ultimately, the United States and those forces that are currently there are going to remain. And they will attempt to provide the kind of security that really is most necessary for the Iraqi people.
But I think if we can persuade -- meaning, we, the coalition forces and hopefully a much larger group of nations, can persuade the Iraqi people that they need to join in this effort; that they need to support what we are seeking to do at this point, and that is to create a stable environment in which the seeds of democracy can be planted, that you can have majority rule, but minority rights, then everyone will benefit from that, especially the Iraqi people, but certainly, the entire Gulf region, including Turkey.
It is not in Turkey's interest to see a descent into civil war in Iraq. So the burden is now upon not only the United States but all the free nations who see what the future would hold if Iraq descends into chaos, into conflict. Now, the instability that would result, the implications for the United States as a global power are very much in the center of the concern, so I am also optimistic enough to believe that the President will meet with heads of state of other countries, with those in NATO and EU, and seek their commitment to help stabilize Iraq during this interim period, and hopefully stabilize it long enough so that an internal police force can be developed, an external military capable of providing for the security of the nation also can be developed with the support of the United States and other allied forces.
COL. MACHAMER: Okay, fourth row. And, please, I'm going to ask -- we have a lot of people here that have questions. So if you can have your question ready to ask, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
QUESTION: Giampierro Gramaglia, Italian News Agency, ANSA.
Following the last answer of Secretary Cohen, a question for Lord Robertson. After a new resolution of the United Council, the United Nation Security Council, do you consider still possible a NATO role in Iraq like the NATO has in Afghanistan?
And for General Ralston, has the NATO the military capabilities to offer more help in Iraq than the single countries in NATO, which are part of the coalition are already operating?
LORD ROBERTSON: The alliance is already involved in Iraq, A decision by all 19 members last year was taken to support Poland in taking over Division South Central in Iraq, and that was a fairly significant decision for all of the 19 NATO countries to take together.
I think it's still open for a decision as to whether or not NATO could or should do more than that, and a lot of that would depend on the discussions in the next few weeks.
We certainly have experience of bringing together multinational forces. We have experience, as we did in Bosnia, of having a UN mandate and having a military presence with an American leader and multinational forces within it. And of course, we've already taken over in the region the responsibility for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
But I think the debate will take place at the NATO summit, and it will be based on decisions that will undoubtedly have been taken by then in relation to what the UN is going to do; what they are -- what the UN Security Council resolutions will be, and what the demands will be in the NATO nations for troops.
But it's still an open possibility and we started on that road last year when the decision was taken to support Poland in its remarkable endeavor in this -- the Babylon area.
GEN RALSTON: And let me add to the second part of your question. The -- when we talk about the NATO forces in the Balkans, we sometimes forget that in Bosnia and Kosovo we have 30-some nations that have military forces there. It's not just the 19 nations or the 26 nations of NATO. But you have other nations there, as well.
You have Finland and Sweden for example, that have been extremely useful in terms of their Civil Affairs units. You have Morocco, Jordan, United Arab Emirates -- all under a NATO command, which is one of the things that's made the Balkans quite effective. So if the decision were taken by NATO to have a more "NATO" role in Iraq, I think it would not just be the 26 nations of NATO, but there would be a reaching out to other nations as well.
Secondly, having said that, I wouldn't look for a lot more forces to be involved, but I would look for a lot more political unity and the fact that all of the NATO nations sitting around the table at the North Atlantic Council would have a voice into what the policies should be and how they should be done.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Janet Silver with Australian Broadcasting.
Secretary Cohen, I just wanted to get your thoughts on some news that came out today with regards to the raid on Ahmed Chalabi's home and removal of some things. Do you think that the United States has put too much emphasis on its relationship with Mr. Chalabi? And what does this say about the current state of leadership in Iraq?
MR. COHEN: I don't know the answer to that question. I have not been involved with a discussion about Mr. Chalabi in terms of his influence in Iraq, itself.
It's clear that the new structure that is being proposed by Mr. Brahimi will involve additional people and perhaps a whole new team. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows at this point, but I'm really not in a position to judge whether or not Mr. Chalabi has had either excessive reliance on the part of the United States or whether he is just one individual that they have turned to. But clearly, the Iraqi people have to be the ones to judge who the leadership of their country is going to be, even on an interim basis. And so to the extent that it is seen as being more of, an almost completely, of Iraqi initiation, as opposed to U.S. initiation, I think that would be helpful, but I'm not really in a position to comment on his influence or lack thereof.
QUESTION: Daniel Scheschkewitz of Deutschewelle, Germany's external broadcaster.
A question for Secretary Cohen: Do you think -- when it comes to a NATO role in Iraq, what do you think the United States must do to lay the political groundwork for that? And do you think the Bush Administration is able to learn from its mistakes before the Iraq war at the UN Security Council, especially with regard to old-time allies like Germany and France?
MR. COHEN: Well, I can't comment on Administration mistakes. That presumes that the Administration has made the mistake that you refer to, at least obliquely, in your question.
But let me comment directly in terms of what I think needs to be done. What I think needs to be done is for the United States to meet with Germany, with Chancellor Schroeder, with President Chirac and others; to sit down during one of the meetings that are coming up in the near future that Lord Robertson referred to in his comments, and there are a number -- three or four meetings coming up -- of which there will be an opportunity to see if there can't be an understanding of what needs to be done.
I'm actually quite encouraged about this. I recall attending at a security conference in Munich back in February, during which time Foreign Minister Fischer indicated in a very public way that while Germany disagreed with the initial decision to go in to Iraq, nonetheless, because the coalition forces were there, and because stability and security were critical, not only to the Iraqi people, but to general stability of the region.
And that would have an impact on Germany itself, as well as other countries, that it was important that the United States and the coalition forces succeed, and, therefore, if a consensus were to develop within NATO itself that Germany would not obstruct or stand in the way.
I thought that was a very positive statement coming out of Minister Fischer. I believe it's an opportunity to build upon those comments and to build that relationship and to reestablish a better relationship with Germany and with France. And I think there's an opportunity to do that in the coming few weeks. And it is my hope that that will take place.
QUESTION: Mohamed El-Settouhi, Nile News Channel, Egyptian Television.
First to Lord Robertson, you talked about a NATO role in Iraq, or expected role. However, General Abizaid was talking about expecting foreign troops in Iraq. Do you see it happening in the near future to be more specific about this issue?
And to Secretary Cohen, and also the General, many U.S. commanders were reported talking in some American newspapers about the concern that they may be winning every battle in Iraq and end up losing the war. Do you see this as a possibility?
LORD ROBERTSON: I think that one of the great advantages that NATO involvement in Afghanistan brought was not just that NATO's military organization took over the military functions at that time being done by lead nations, but that around the North Atlantic Council table there were 19 countries, with the addition of the other countries who contributed troops, involved in a weekly discussion about Afghanistan and the direction of the policy, both of the International Security and Assistance Force, but also of the military engagement in that country, as well.
And I think when people are looking at NATO, they are not just looking at an organization that has military effectiveness and ties to give them multinational forces, they're thinking of an organization that has a political forum at the highest level, with ambassadors and foreign ministers and defense ministers, and eventually, heads of state and government meeting on a regular basis to give political direction to the way in which the military effort is being directed.
That was the huge advantage in the Balkans: in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. It was the advantage that was seen in Macedonia when we were involved there in 2001, and then in Afghanistan last year when NATO took over full responsibility for that.
So many of those who are thinking about a NATO involvement in Iraq at the moment also see that transition from the coalition at the present moment, which is a coalition of forces, but does not have a political level at which decisions can be -- military decisions can be reviewed, to something that might more closely resemble what we saw in the other theaters that NATO had responsibility for.
So the decisions have not been taken, but that is a huge advantage that we had, which I think should not be underestimated and which I hope that the heads of state and government over the next few weeks will very much bear in mind when they look at that transition on the 30th of June to an Iraqi authority.
QUESTION: But it is the urgent thing right now to ask for more troops in Iraq, and this is what people are wondering about.
LORD ROBERTSON: Well, that is one way in which people give troops. They give troops if they've got a political say in what the troops are doing. Yeah. There is no doubt at all that more troops will be needed in Iraq to provide security. Wherever the UN and the Iraqi Authority house, there will be a need for more troops from outside the country.
One of the ways in which you can help to get those troops is to have a political decision-making level that means that everybody is factored into it. And I think that should be one of the ingredients of the discussions in the next few weeks.
QUESTION: So my next question --
MR. COHEN: Well, I'll just offer a couple of comments. I think what has to happen is that if you're talking about additional forces coming in, it should be seen as being under the auspices of a new UN Security Council resolution -- the presence, if not the active participation on the part of the NATO countries.
Other nations, whatever they contribute, in the way of forces would be seen, hopefully, under this new structure, having gone from being "a liberating force," to an occupation force, which we are seen as today.
We don't have enough troops to remain as an occupying force. The Iraqi people must see this security force as a stabilizing force. And in my own judgment, that could only be seen by them as being a stabilizing force if it has greater international, both legitimacy or authority and participation.
I think that that is possible to achieve, but ultimately, it is the Iraqi people who must decide that this is in their interest; that there are two paths that can be -- that they can proceed on: one would be to listen to al-Sadr and others who want to have a more radical approach to resolving issues or that of the coalition forces and the new architecture; their future lies with having a stabilizing, an international stabilizing force until such time as the Iraqi people can take over with their own security and their own opportunity.
And so if that transition can be made, then I think it can result in a successful outcome. Without the strong participation of the Iraqi people seeing that this is in their interest, there aren't sufficient forces in NATO or the United States to remain a "occupying force."
GEN RALSTON: And with regard to your question about tactical victories versus longer-term strategic issues, I think if you listened to General Abizaid yesterday in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, it was very clear that he understands there are tactical decisions and tactical operations, operational issues and strategic issues. And I think, if you take one example of that: if you look at Fallujah, I think the ultimate decision that was made at Fallujah was a decision in favor of a strategic vision as opposed to a short-term tactical operation.
QUESTION: Adu-Otu, AfricaNewscast.com.
I would like to introduce the other segment of the transatlantic in the discussion, which is Africa.
General Ralston, during your tenure as Commander of the European Command, U.S.-European Command, I detected a lot of visits by senior personnel from your command to a West African country called Ghana. I'm interested in knowing what is the strategic interest of the United States in Ghana. And in your response, could you expand it to include all of Africa for that matter?
GEN RALSTON: Well first of all, you are correct. We did spend a lot of effort on most of the countries of Africa. My deputy, my U.S. deputy at that time, General Fulford, four-star general at Stuttgart, spent most of his time working with the various African nations and African countries.
I, myself, went to Ghana to meet with your leadership that was there, and we have a lot of interest. And the basic interest is: security, peace, economic investment and economic development for all of the countries of Africa. Ghana happened to be a center of stability that we wanted to make sure that we could reinforce that, and if there were operations that needed to be conducted in less-stable parts of Africa, at least we had an opportunity to go to Ghana and we could work with the nations.
When Secretary Cohen was Secretary of Defense, we had the African Crisis Response Initiative where we worked very closely with the other nations so the African nations could come together and we could give them the equipment and the training that they needed so that they could be a force for bringing stability to their regions.
QUESTION: Jyri Raivio, Helsingin Sanomat, Finland.
A short question: Why does NATO need UN resolution to participate in Iraq?
LORD ROBERTSON: Because that's what its -- that's what its members would expect. We had a UN resolution in Bosnia. We did not have a UN resolution at the beginning in Kosovo, but ultimately, the stabilization force went in because there was a UN resolution.
Now, we have a UN resolution, a new one, that was created especially to allow NATO to take over ISAF in Afghanistan, and everybody agrees that a new UN resolution is going to have to be the prelude to the exchange of power that will take place on the 30th of June, so NATO operates within the framework of the United Nations, and I don't see that there's any other way in which you could develop a new setup in Iraq without a further resolution being agreed.
COL. MACHAMER: Okay. Once again, I'd like to thank our distinguished guests. And thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to come here. And thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
