9:37 A.M. EDT
MR. FRIED: Thank you very much.
This is a good news day, but it is not news for which I am personally responsible. So I have to apologize in advance that I am not going to get into detail about the North Korea understanding recently reached, nor am I a specialist on Afghanistan and the elections. But I did want to talk about some of the - about the U.S.-European relationship in general and what we've been doing here with the Europeans on the margins of the UNGA.
This is a story which is - it's a set of stories which is often overlooked and should not be. Since President Bush's reelection, the United States has made a concentrated and sustained, and I think successful, effort to reach out to Europe as a whole. This continued through his trip - Secretary Rice's trip to Europe in February, the president's trip in February, a series of successful meetings, and it has very much cleared up a lot of, in some cases - forgive me - media-generated speculation about transatlantic rifts, which was very much a story last year. Now we are working with the Europeans on a common agenda and working very, very well together.
There are a massive number of meetings with Europeans going on on the margins. Myself and Undersecretary Burns have been having meetings, some together, some separately. Tomorrow, the secretary will have a ministerial meeting with her European Union counterparts, followed by a lunch with the foreign ministers from NATO, the European Union, and we have also invited Switzerland. So this is a lunch between the United States and Europe as a whole. The secretary met with Lavrov over dinner last night. Nick Burns and I met with the EU- 3 to discuss Iran yesterday morning, following Ahmadinejad's speech. There's a contact group on Kosovo meeting tomorrow. There's - this evening - a senior-level group Nick Burns and I are holding between - with our European Union counterparts.
I mention this so you have an idea of what is going on other than the secretary's schedule. A tremendous amount of work is being done. The themes vary, but an underlying, unifying theme of the work between the United States and Europe here at the UNGA is about our common purpose to advance freedom and security in the world.
United States and Europe - the relationship between the United States and Europe is focused less on itself, on what the relationship is, and more on putting that relationship to work. In Afghanistan, thanks to NATO efforts to provide greater security, we saw yesterday successful parliamentary elections that didn't gain a lot of news coverage; which is odd, but I suppose success counts for less than failure, and this was a success. NATO is taking over in what I think it's fair to call a major new step for NATO, almost a shocking new step if you think back 10 years. NATO has agreed to take over security in Afghanistan through an expansion of ISAF. NATO has agreed to go into the south. It's already in the north and the west. It will also be going into the east. As it does, the American presence in ISAF will grow considerably. Many NATO counties increased their presence in Afghanistan to provide election security. This all went off very, very well.
Another theme of U.S. - well, another product on U.S.-European cooperation is on Lebanon. The secretary and European counterparts are meeting with Lebanese today in an effort to show solidarity for that county's efforts to regain its effective sovereignty in a democratic fashion, and it is clearly a signal to regional powers, a power named in 1559, to allow the Lebanese to govern themselves and their own affairs. This has been the product, as is well known, of very close U.S.-French cooperation. And as I have done in the past, I will point out here that it was President Chirac who has led the way on this, working with President Bush. The two leaders agreed to proceed during their dinner in February in Brussels, and this has been a very successful collaboration with now Europe standing with - all of Europe standing with United States and France, and with many Arab counties in support of Lebanese sovereignty.
A final issue on which the United States and Europe are working together - the last issue, the final one I'll mention now, is on reform in the broader Middle East. If you remember the debate last year, there was a great deal of skepticism as to whether this was even a proper subject to pursue, whether this was a proper avenue for the United States and Europe to collaborate. Now, this year, it is clear that reform in the broader Middle East is one of the central topics. And now the United States and Europe, instead of debating whether we should be doing it, are now discussing how we should do it and how we should do it together.
There are two major instruments of - for the transatlantic community to work to support reformers in the broader Middle East.
One is Europe's process, the Barcelona process. This year it has its 10th anniversary. And the other is the "Forum for the Future," which was established by the G-8, which is a mechanism to bring together regional foreign ministers, foreign ministers of the G-8 and other foreign ministers of countries interested in playing a role to support reform and reformers in the region.
Now, there's a tremendous amount of work going on. It is - these are much better times in U.S.-European relations having gone through the most difficult period of the debate over Iraq. It is a pleasure to be able to sit down with European colleagues and discuss what we can do together to support democracy in Central Asia, to support Yushchenko and the reformers in Ukraine; what we can do together to support reform in the south and stability - peace in the south caucasuses and in the Balkans.
That is what we are doing. This is a change from last year, and although it is Secretary Rice who will be dealing with the headline questions of the day, as she should, I thought it was important to give you a sense of the other issues in play here in New York.
So I will stop there and take your questions.
Q James Bone, The Times. Do you have any comment on the German elections and what that means for dealing with Europe over the next months?
MR. FRIED: Democracy does what it does. It's a close election that - it's something the United States is familiar with, in our case, painfully so. Well, no, the thing about free elections is you don't know how they're going to turn out. That said, we made it very clear that we plan to work with whatever government the German people gives us and to make that point - to underscore that point, Chancellor Schroeder not only met at a very good meeting with President Bush in February in Mainz, but we invited Chancellor Schroeder - the United States - President Bush invited Chancellor Schroeder to the White House, I believe, in June before the campaign was getting under way.
And the not too subtle message of this was: We're not part of this campaign. We work with whom the leadership - the German people give us. I have no idea what that leadership is going to be because I asked, you know - when I've asked my German colleagues, they go through all the coalitions and tell me why all of the coalition possibilities have problems. And then, they shrug and say, you know, one of them will occur.
We will wait, we will work together with the Germans, and we're working with them well.
Q Could you - Mark Turner, Financial Times - could you - there's a couple of things - give us a sense of how you see the next week going with regards to Iran and U.S.-European cooperation? And also, I'd like a little bit more details on Lebanon and where we're heading. I know there were some discussions about the possibility of holding trials outside Lebanon. Anyway, those two subjects.
MR. FRIED: Yes. On Iran, I will defer to the secretary and Nick Burns. But I will say that Ahmadinejad's speech was so harsh as to be - I don't know whether I would call it surprisingly harsh, but it was a harsh speech. And that kind of a speech demands an expression of solidarity among the nations of the world concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
We are going to be discussing this week - well, we were discussing yesterday with the EU-3, and this topic will be discussed intensely the coming days. I don't know precisely the forum. This will be - this will be discussed at the IAEA Board of Governors. It will be discussed here in New York. But it is important that we build on the growing consensus that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are a grave problem.
I note that this consensus has indeed grown. If we were having this discussion a year ago, your question might have been - and I recall questions at the time that focused on differences between the United States and the EU-3. You remember that period. And that was - that was - that was then, this is now. We have been working very closely with the EU-3. We intend to work closely with them and to build out to deepen an international consensus on the problem that Iran has presented the world.
Q Where do you see China and Russia as this debate goes on?
MR. FRIED: I don't want to predict how they will - how they will come out on this, but the Russians clearly have their own concerns about Iran. They're now wrestling with the right way to proceed, and I hope that they face this clearly.
MS. NISBET: If I can just interrupt, we have a question from the Washington Foreign Press Center.
MR. FRIED: That's fine.
MS. NISBET: I don't know if you can view the monitors straight ahead.
MR. FRIED: That's fine. See the monitors straight ahead.
Q (Off mike.)
MR. FRIED: Yes, I hear you fine. We all do.
Q (Off mike.)
MR. FRIED: Well, we look forward to having discussions with Russia about these issues and about our approaches to these countries. We discuss with Russia a great many regional issues, whether it's the Middle East or the Balkans, and I think that these discussions are a very - these discussions which we and the Russians have agreed are a very good idea.
Now, speaking for the policy of my government, we support the sovereignty of all of these countries which emerged from the end of the Soviet Union. We also support reforms in these countries. We believe that the road to successful sovereignty and stability is through democratic and economic - and free-market economic reforms properly conceived.
That is why we think that, for example, the so-called Rose Revolution in Georgia is a good thing not only for Georgia and the region but also good for the world, because a Georgian state which can function more effectively, which exercises better control over its territory, is less apt to generate the sort of problems that bothered Russia, such as in the Pankisi Gorge. And we hope that Russia, which has expressed strong concerns about its own territorial integrity and concerns about separatist regions, will also help with peaceful resolutions of some of the separatist conflicts in Georgia.
With respect to Ukraine, it seems clear to me, at any rate, that the Orange Revolution, so called, ushered in a period of hope as well as challenge for Ukraine. All countries that have emerged from authoritarianism in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989 have gone through a period of political turmoil. We're used to that. We hope that Russia and the United Sates, as well as Europe, can all support reformist forces in these countries so that stability and democracy advance. So I look forward to discussions with my Russian counterparts.
Sir?
Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Coming back to the Iran thing, the Iran problem, how you are you going to deal with the division inside European Union in terms of how they have to deal with this problem of Iran?
MR. FRIED: With Iran.
Q Yeah.
MR. FRIED: Well, the EU-3 is not divided.
Q The EU-25, yes.
MR. FRIED: Sandro Pozzi, El Pais, There may be some different approaches, but I think that - well, we are the ones - our European friends have recommended to us repeatedly that we work with the European Union, that we treat the European Union with respect, that we try to work with Europe as a whole. We will try to do so. I hope that European nations come to see things - all European nations come to see things the way the EU-3 have and understand that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are a major, major problem for the world and that this is going to require some difficult decisions and considerable resolve.
This is a serious diplomatic problem, and we need to be serious about it.
Sir?
Q Yeah. Also Iran - (name inaudible) - with the German Public Radio, but not responsible for the outcome of the election. (Laughs.)
MR. FRIED: I would not think so. It had not occurred to me until now that you even might be.
Q Is it a problem that Iran doesn't claim anything that the NPT Treaty does not allow? I mean, what is your reaction to the fact that not only media people but also politicians say, oh, there's a double standard. America, for example, is fine with members - or nonmembers, like Pakistan, India, and even Israel, and in the case of Iran just say, oh, it's a horror to think about that they might have nuclear weapons one day. What would be a horror, probably, but, you know -
MR. FRIED: Right. As you said -
Q Yeah, but the others already have, and others come up and may have to buy into a special danger in this case, is my question.
MR. FRIED: You used - you yourself used the words - these are your words - that it would be "a horror" to contemplate a nuclear- armed Iran. Those are your words. It is - when President Bush came to Europe in February, he asked all of the leaders - the three leaders of U.K., France, and Germany - whether, at the end of the day they could accept an Iran with nuclear - a nuclear-armed Iran. And they all expressed their grave concern about such an event. And it was after that that we decided to work even more closely with the EU- 3, based on a confidence that we shared a common concern, and indeed, we do. I don't know of any - any government in Europe - to recall the question of our Spanish colleague - which does not contemplate a nuclear-armed Iran with grave trepidation, to say the least.
Iran has been found out to be dissembling to the international community for some time, and to the IAEA, and it does need to be called to account. Secretary Rice was very clear about this. There are numerous reasons why the world community feels the way it does about Iran. These have to do with the same reasons that prompted you to say that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a horror." This is a problem we must deal with squarely. I think Ahmadinejad's speech did nothing to increase confidence in Iran's intentions - quite the opposite.
And the French foreign minister's reaction, I think, was instructive. The French have been accused of many things, but not excessive fidelity to American government views for the sake of that fidelity. And the fact that the French reacted so strongly and so clearly and so quickly indicates the depth of this - of our common view, which I think is the right one.
Ma'am?
Q Pamela Peeters for Argus Magazine, Germany.
Coming back to the title of the briefing that you are giving today, U.S. and Europe addressing global issues together -
MR. FRIED: Yes?
Q I believe the environment is pretty much a global issue. Do you believe that America and the U.S. are expending the same visions towards a similar role? And how do you think, if we're not at this time, we'll close that gap?
MR. FRIED: Well, that question came about because of the differences about the Kyoto treaty. And we do have differences about the Kyoto treaty, though, and I don't want to get into that except to say that Europeans, I think, will have more trouble than they think adhering to its terms. But that's not the issue of the moment.
We all agree that the global environment has to be an issue of global concern. We all agree that global warming is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. We all agree on some of the steps that need to be taken to address this. There are hard choices that face the world community as we deal with global environmental issues.
Now I'm making a policy pronouncement here, but I note that there is a major debate within the U.S. environmental community - first debate in 25 years - about nuclear power. The U.S. environmental community has hated nuclear power ever since the 1970s. But since they have argued that global warming - they argue that global warming, precipitated or increased by the use of fossil fuels in our nation's energy mix, is a serious problem since some of the rhetoric is pretty strong. They've had - you know, honest people have had to address the risks and balances of nuclear power.
So it - my point is not to start a debate of nuclear energy, but to say that these are tough issues that we all must deal with. France has one view of nuclear power; Germany quite another. We need to get beyond - there was sort of a rhetorical excess in the discussion about Kyoto. It became almost the talismans of one's personal sincerity about the environment, whereas the choices that are going to face us about the environment are serious choices.
President Bush has said that the solution must include technological innovation so that those choices become easier and we expand the range of choices. So we are working better now on the environment. There is more we are able to do. And we are getting past the point where Kyoto becomes such a loud, symbolic issue that it drowns out our ability to discuss these issues. So we are - I think we are moving ahead even here.
MS. NISBET: I think we have time to get around to everyone. We could go to Washington.
MR. FRIED: Happy to do it.
MS. NISBET: Okay. Washington?
Q (Off mike.)
MR. FRIED: Well, the Poles, like other countries, have been stalwart and courageous in keeping their troops in Iraq through what has been a very difficult period; what continues to be an operation that is long and hard. The Poles have said that they need to change - that they need to make some changes to the nature of their deployment. That's, of course, the outgoing government which has said this. They do have elections - well, what can I say to a German correspondent on the subject of elections? There are surprises in elections. I don't want to predict who will come out on top. But it is true that all of the major Polish parties, whether they're in the government or in opposition, are proud of their mission; they support their mission. They do want to change the nature of their deployment, and I have no doubt that they will, but they are working with us on the details.
And the same can be said for many of the countries with troops in Iraq. We are profoundly grateful to the Danes, to the Italians, to the British, to many, many other countries who have kept their forces in Iraq through - the Romanians - through very difficult times. They are supporting the Iraqi people as the Iraqi people move forward with the democratic political process. And I believe that we'll be able to work out satisfactory arrangements with the Poles. The point is to keep supporting the Iraqi people.
Ma'am?
Q. Kirsten Larsen, Danish Radio, I would like to go back to the question of my colleague here concerning Iran, because you spoke before about nuclear power. Isn't it a problem, or could it be a problem that Iran seemingly not doing anything in breach of the NPT treaty?
Furthermore, about the talks on trade, Tony Blair said Thursday that it was time to call the bluff.
Where do you see the solution between, especially EU and the U.S. on trade relations?
MR. FRIED: Well, we have - I'm not going to get into the trade relations issue because that involves a whole other army of American specialists. So let me stay away from that one, except to say that these are tough issues and we do need to find a way to move ahead to keep the global economy moving. It does no good to fight poverty in the long - well, it does good to fight poverty through assistance, but long-range solutions involve economic development trade, and we have to keep this in mind.
With respect to Iran, we believe that Iran clearly is in - is not in compliance with its obligations, and I think that that view is shared widely across European - by European governments.
And we need to find a way to express this international concern very clearly and very loudly so that the Iranians get the message, especially after this speech by Ahmadinejad. They don't have that message; they need to get it.
Q Sandro Pozzi. Do you think after the North Korea - that maybe it will be easier to resolve the problem with Iran?
MR. FRIED: Well, I hope the Iranians see that there are ways that negotiated solutions can be reached. I don't doubt the secretary will - my secretary will have more to say on this topic. It's a tremendous achievement. Chris Hill did - my counterpart for East Asia is a first-rate diplomat, did a tremendous job. This is a great achievement; we have to see how it works. And I hope that the Iranians are paying attention.
Q Siu Wai Cheung, Ta Kung Pao - Hong Kong. In the advance to the U.N. General Assembly, at the press conference - I mean, briefing - Secretary Rice was asked about the question of the EU's lifting of the arms embargo to China.
MR. FRIED: Yes.
Q And I quote here. The secretary said, "We've made a lot of progress with the Europeans in beginning to work toward a common strategic understanding of Asia." Can you elaborate on that?
MR. FRIED: Yes, I can. We had a sharp debate with the European Union about the China arms embargo. I remember that embarrassing moment when the European Union delegation arrived in Washington to try to tell us why lifting the arms embargo was a good thing, which was the very day the Chinese National Assembly passed the anti-secession law. Well, my European Union colleagues were discomfitted, to put it mildly.
We decided with our European colleagues that we were simply putting this debate in the wrong order; we should not be debating the arms embargo, we should be having a deeper strategic discussion about Asia and about China and about how Europe and the United States will work with China to make sure that its development, its rise, if you will, contributes to international security and prosperity; and if we have various questions, if we have various concerns, we ought to address it in a framework of a common understanding of what our goals are and not talk about - start that discussion by talking about and debating the tactics.
So Chris Hill and I started a strategic dialogue with the European Union and with NATO about China. We did so in the spring. We will continue this dialogue this fall. This is - we take this very seriously and our purpose is to have a common understanding with Europe about Asia and about China so that the discussions within respect to the China arms embargo take place within a framework of shared views.
We've been remiss in not having this dialogue early and stumbling into a debate about tactics out of order. We've now fixed that.
Q I just wondered if you could answer the question about Lebanon I asked you.
MR. FRIED: Oh, yes. Sorry.
The - sometimes in international relations, you start something and you precipitate the changes which move ahead, and you get into a virtuous cycle. Who knew that when we and the French started working in the U.N. that our actions would coincide with, and to some degree get intertwined with a Lebanese movement to demand the effective independence and sovereignty of their country? But there you have it. The arrest and indictments of four senior security officials on suspicion of murder of the former prime minister, Mr. Hariri, was a major development. The U.N. has a very able head of an investigation team looking into this. I don't know where this process will end, but we are on the right - we and the Europeans are on the right side of history; we are backing the Lebanese people in their democratic search for national sovereignty.
Q And on the procedure question, do you think those trials - they'll be a push to have them outside the country?
MR. FRIED: Don't know. Don't know. That's something we're going to have to think about. It's going to be a Lebanese decision, and we'll be consulting with them to keep - there's a broader strategic question here, which is how we support the Lebanese people, and so far, we've - we have managed - we have succeeded in doing so. It's a good thing.
Sir?
Q. Grimaglia, ANSA. The Security Council, Secretary Rice said yes to Japan, yes to developing countries. Does it mean no to Germany?
MR. FRIED: We have not said no to Germany. We said yes to Japan. And we also said that Security Council reform had to be part of a broader package of reform of the Security Council. We also said that Security Council reforms could contribute to international harmony. But when I look at every region, the way the discussion of Security Council expansion was handled actually exacerbated some diplomatic tensions, and - don't take my word for it, ask the Italians in Europe how they felt. Don't take my word for it, ask the Koreans what they felt about the Japanese. In each region, there were objections raised to the proposal and the manner in which the proposal was being forced ahead.
We are going to return to Security Council reform. It's not dead. But we have to do so in a way that takes into account everyone's view. And when we say that there's a - we need a broad consensus, we mean that. It doesn't mean unanimity, but it does mean that countries who feel they are being - their interests are being run over - we need to have their views taken into account.
So we'll be back to this.
Sir?
MS. NISBET: I think we have some questions around - along this side. Go ahead.
MR. DAVIDSON: Just a couple more.
Q Back to the U.N. and Iran. Isn't it contradictory on the one hand that not only the United States, Arabs too are very much concerned for seeing the possibility of nuclear weapons in Iran, and on the other hand, there was not even a little mentioning of the nonproliferation issue and together with disarmament in the famous paper that many people, first of all, Kofi Annan was very much disappointed about? I mean, if you are so concerned, why there's nothing about nonproliferation? It's been such an important -
MR. FRIED: Well, Kofi Annan's sense of disappointment has been much exaggerated, at least according to Kofi Annan, and I refer you to his article published, I think, today in The Wall Street Journal where he talked about all that we had achieved. I'm not going to go back and do a negotiating history of this document. Happily, the negotiations succeeded. It's a good document. The fact that we couldn't agree on precise language about nonproliferation hardly means that the United States is not concerned with it, it's that there were obviously some - there may have been some differences of approach.
But the Iran - we should not be distracted by other issues when we are grappling with this very serious challenge to international peace and security. Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are a problem. They have been and will continue to be a problem. The way to deal with this problem, as my president and Secretary Rice said, is diplomatically, but those diplomatic steps need to be clear. They need to be strong. We need to face squarely that we have a problem, and the international community needs to deal with it and focus on it.
Q To follow up on my colleague's question, you were talking about strategy and tactics earlier. I mean, so where does Iran fit in in terms of a broader U.S. strategy regarding, you know, the unraveling or the perceived danger of unraveling the NPT regime, the tension between the right to peaceful nuclear power, and the price of new technology of uranium enrichment? And you know - and countries had - this was part of what was trying to be addressed. The Norwegians put together a proposal with a group of other countries, including South Africa, Australia, Britain. The U.S. basically rejected it.
Is there an alternative in terms of the broader strategy as to where the U.S. and Europe might be going on some kind of system to provide enriched uranium to countries that want to, you know, use nuclear power, without actually giving them the power to - ability to make bombs?
MR. FRIED: Well, we think that resolving the Iran nuclear weapons program is critical to the strengthening of the NPT and the credibility of the NPT. I notice that there was language - well, there was language in Ahmadinejad's speech that suggested Iran would be happy to share its technology more widely as it was developed. And of course the word for that is "proliferation." So he's announcing in front of the U.N. that he believes in nuclear proliferation. (Laughter.) Odd approach!
We need to strengthen the NPT regime, and one of the ways you do that is by showing that the NPT and the IAEA is going to stand up and face squarely challenges like this that are presented to it.
The North Korea understanding suggests that there are diplomatic solutions that can be reached, even in very difficult circumstances. Secretary Rice has said, during her statement to be confirmed as secretary of State, that the time for diplomacy is now. And what she meant by that is that we need to be firm in our diplomacy, work with our allies, work through multilateral institutions, and address squarely the problems of security that have been presented to us.
Q. Pawel Maciag, Polish Press Agency. I want to go back to the question from my colleague from Washington regarding Poland the Iraq.
A strong candidate for the future next prime minister, Mr. Rokita, said yesterday in the Polish Public Television that the Polish policy will be changed compared with the last government, and they will require that something from something. So, for example, the left-centrist government asked for the - to add the Poland to the visa waiver program, and it's happened nothing.
MR. FRIED: Yes.
Q So Mr. Rokita said yesterday that the new government will require something to stay in Iraq, to keep the Polish soldiers in Iraq, but Poland has to get something from the United States.
Can I have your comment?
MR. FRIED: Well, I don't know who the next prime minister of Poland will be. I've known Jan Maria Rokita for a number of years, and I greatly respect him.
The United States and Poland and our coalition partners have forces in Iraq to help the Iraqi people because we believe that it is important that the Iraqi people succeed and not fail in their efforts to stabilize the country, to democratize the country, and to make Iraq a nation at peace with itself and its neighbors.
Polish troops have performed admirably. I'm not familiar with precisely what Jan Maria Rokita said, but it is certainly true that we want to work with Poland wherever we can. We have agreed to work with Poland to help Poland - to help Poland do what it must to do to qualify for the visa waiver program. We have increased very significantly our military assistance for Poland - up to $100 million - as well as our support for - military support for Poland's presence in Iraq. So there's a great deal we and Poland are doing together, and Poland is a strong ally, a good friend, and Poland is stepping up to its responsibilities. I think we will work with Poland very well in the world on the basis of our friendship, our common interests, and our willingness to help each other.
Q Kristen Larsen. On the Security Council, how do you feel about having three EU countries as permanent members of the Security Council?
And furthermore, I think you painted a very harmonic picture of the relationship between the EU and the U.S. Where do you perceive any problems in the near future?
MR. FRIED: Well, you have - I talked about U.N. Security Council reform already, and it - there isn't a consensus in Europe about European countries being -
Q No, no, but how do you feel about -
MR. FRIED: We'll - we'll get back to that when we re-address the question of Security Council reform. We haven't said no to anybody. We have said we support Japanese membership. We've also said that we look for a broad consensus. I'm looking for broad consensus. I don't see one in Europe. This debate has not resolved itself in Europe.
I'm painting a relatively harmonious picture of U.S.-European relations because for the past three years, the press has painted a picture - and not just the European press - much of the American press has painted what I think is - was an exaggerated picture of transatlantic discord and dysfunctionality. That atmosphere has changed. It is true, of course, that there are differences between the United States and some European countries - or among some European countries on various issues. But when we sit down with our European colleagues now, we are discussing what we should do to work together to face common problems beyond Europe.
That's what the U.S.- European relationship is about. We are just stressing how we can reconfigure NATO so we can perform security missions in places where it never dreamt it would be present ever, and here we are. We want to put the U.S.-EU relationship to work to promote democracy and stability along Europe's - well, what one can call Europe's frontier of freedom, the countries which are - which need help in stabilizing their own democracies as they go through a difficult transformation. It is time for the U.S. and Europe to get to work together, and that's what we're doing: to put ourselves to work, to put our agenda to work.
MS. NISBET: Okay. We have to wrap up this roundtable, but thanks so much to Assistant Secretary Fried for coming.
MR. FRIED: Pleasure.
END.
