International Media Center, Budapest Convention Center Budapest, Hungary 29 May 2001

Remarks to the Press by US Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell Original version Secretary Powell: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting, but its been a busy day here in Budapest. First of all, I think it would be appropriate for me to thank the Hungarian Government for sponsoring our NAC meeting here. It's quite an historic occasion to have our first ministerial meeting in a nation that had been a member of the Warsaw Pact some years ago, and just shows how far we have moved in the last ten years and shows the vitality of the NATO Alliance. I won't give much more of an opening statement than that because I do have to be back over in just a few moments; so, this will have to be an abbreviated conference. So let me go right to your questions. Start down here with Mr. Ensor. Sir. Question: Could the Secretary tell us what progress, if any, was made on the question of Iraqi sanctions at the meeting on Iraq where I gather four of the five Perm Five countries were represented? Secretary Powell: Well, we had a good discussion with a number of people and we discussed a number of issues and one of those issues was Iraq and, as you know, we are hard at work in New York at the UN on the nature of rollover resolution and you will see the results of these consultations in the near future. Question: Mr. Secretary, Lord Robertson told us that you had given assurances to your colleagues on two points. One was that you would not leave Bosnia with them, the U.S. troops would not depart before the European allies; and, secondly, on missile defense. Secretary Powell: I'm sorry. SFOR? Question: Hum, yes, SFOR. And the second was that on missile defense, you would consult them. Clearly you don't give assurances in a vacuum; to what extent did you find that there's a concern among your NATO allies about unilateralism by the United States? Secretary Powell: On the first point, a lot has been written about the U.S. position with respect to our forces in the Balkans in both SFOR and KFOR, and I wanted to assure my colleagues that there is unanimity within the United States Government. The President has made a decision on this. Secretary Rumsfeld and I discuss it on a frequent basis and we know that our presence is still required and, as I said previously in shorthand, we went into this together and we'll come out together. And we are always looking for ways to reduce the level of our commitment. Secretary Rumsfeld was tasked by the President to look at worldwide commitments and try to lower them in order to reduce costs and also reduce the op-tempo that is affecting our force structure. And, so, Secretary Rumsfeld and I are always looking at ways to reduce it. But, if you'll notice, we have not taken a single unilateral action with respect to reducing the size of U.S. contributions to either SFOR or KFOR. It's always been in the context of the six-month review or on one occasion, I think, we were over the expected or authorized strength and we reduced down to that authorized strength. I did encourage my colleagues this morning to be more aggressive in shifting the burden to those kinds of units that are better able to deal with the emerging environment. For example, NATO has committed 19 MSU's, as they are called, Multinational Specialist Units, consisting of gendarmarie and Carabinier –type units and only 11 of those are now in place -- these platoon-level organizations. So, let's get the other nine in place because the mission is shifting, it's more of crowd-control and protection of civilians and other kinds of missions that could be handled by non-combat troops. And so we're putting pressure on our colleagues to provide more of these kinds of units, but it's all within the context of good dialogue. It's all within the context of meeting our obligations to SFOR and to KFOR. And although you will read stories from time to time about disagreements within the United States Government, it may be on the pace, it may be on how much pressure to apply and when can we ship more, but there's no disagreement on the basic principle that we went in together and we'll come out together. With respect to the strategic framework that we are consulting with our allies on and the Russians and the Chinese and other concerned nations, I made it clear to my colleagues this morning that President Bush sees this in terms of an overall strategic framework, dealing with offensive weapons, missile defense, proliferation, non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, cooperative arrangements and agreements, a whole range of issues that would reflect the new strategic environment and not the old strategic environment. We're looking at reductions in offensive weapons; we're looking at what technologies are available to deal with limited missile attacks coming our way. I made it clear to them that this is a real consultation that President Bush launched on the first of May with the speech at the National Defense University and not a phoney consultation. We really want to hear back from our allies. We are an Alliance. We believe in this Alliance and we are going to consult with our colleagues as we move forward. But at the same time, I made it clear to them that we know we have to move forward. We can see the threat. The threat is clear and we have to deal with that threat and we'll do it in a way that I think will enhance overall strategic stability and it'll take us time to persuade everybody of that proposition, but I think we'll be successful at the end of the day. Question: [Inaudible] I want to ask about the enlargement of the alliance. In the communiqué we read the alliance can expect to enlarge in the next year, is it not? The alliance will review the process in Prague in 2002. I don't understand what the enlargement process means. Secretary Powell: It wasn't a specific agenda item this morning, but it was covered in the communiqué. And obviously this will be an issue that I am quite sure that heads of state and government will address when they meet in Brussels on the 13th of June. The exact manner in which we approach Prague 2002 and how we will make judgements and again what standards we will make those judgements with respect to expanding the Alliance, will be announced in due course, but I have no particular announcement for you today. I think it is clear that the Alliance has shown that it can take in new members as it did recently, a couple of years ago, and within a short period of time those new members are fully integrated and making contribution to the Alliance. And so the Alliance is open for enlargement and the pace and the circumstances and the conditions of enlargement will be made know in due course. Question: Are you pleased that unlike in earlier communiqués, this NATO communiqué makes no mention of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty as the corner stone of strategic stability. And are you yet able to say that NATO Allies share the U.S. administration's view that there is a pressing ballistic missile threat that must be responded to in a clear time line with the sort of defensive measures that you are proposing? Secretary Powell: I must admit I did not go through the lengthy communiqué looking for the acronym ABM, but I must say that it didn't warrant particular attention this time around. I didn't take a poll around the room of everybody's views, but I think I can safely say that there is recognition that there is a threat out there. Some people see it as a more immediate than others. Some people see it as greater than perhaps others. I don't think there is any question that there is some sort of a threat out there. And it would be irresponsible for the United States, as a nation with the capability to do something about such a threat, not to do something about such a threat by examining the technologies that might deal with these threats weather these threats are there tomorrow, a year from now, two years from now or five years from now. If you want to have the systems that can deal with such threats, you don't wait until they are pointed at your heart. You start working on it now. And that is what we are doing. And that is why Secretary Rumsfeld is hard at work looking at the technologies available to us, and he will have more detailed information than previously presented when he appears before his defense minister colleagues next week. Question: Could you tell us what reports you have from Mr. Burns in the Middle East and what is the position of the United States on weather of the next round of security talks should include confidence building measures and political aspects of the disputes? Secretary Powell: I talked to Ambassador Burns last night on the way here from Africa. And he has been going back and forth between the two leaders. I think I can say safely that there has been some slight advance in security discussion, and that they are a positive sign. At the same time, we are all looking for that unconditional cessation of violence which we think is so essential. I am anxious right now to see these security coordination take hold so that they can talk directly to each other about the nature of the violence and what can be done to separate the two sides and provide a safer environment within which one can begin talking about confidence building measures. The Mitchell Commission reports sequences I think very well. First, unconditional cessation of violence and meeting all previous obligations with respect to that and then you get into confidence building measures. And obviously when you are talking about confidence building measures, you have to have a plan as to how and when and in what time sequence you will do that. I am sure that is what Ambassador Burns is talking about to the leaders in the region, but I don't have a report in the last twelve hours and he's busy and I'm busy.