USIA - Transcript: Albright Press Conference at NATO Headquarters, 97-02-19

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>

TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT PRESS CONFERENCE AT NATO HEADQUARTERS

(Secretary of State sees unanimity in NATO stance) (2610)

Specifically, she told a press conference following her address to the North Atlantic Council February 18, the allies are "addressing Russian concerns in the form of a NATO-Russian charter that will make Russia a full participant in the new system," but without Russian veto power.

"I believe all of NATO is marching together down the road to Madrid," she told reporters. "We are moving toward decisions on who will be invited to join NATO by 1999," Albright said. "We are developing a broader framework to ensure that all European democracies, whether they are in NATO or not, have an appropriate role in ensuring the security of the Continent. We are addressing Russian concerns in the form of a NATO-Russia charter that will make Russia a full participant in the new system, although without a veto. And we are, at the same time, completing NATO's internal transformation."

Albright emphasized efforts "to try to include Russia as much as possible in NATO activities.

"But what we do not want to have is an arrangement whereby the Russians could, in fact, stop an activity that the other NATO members wish to undertake.... We will try, as often as possible, to act jointly with Russia, but where we cannot, we will continue to act as the Alliance."

Following is the transcript provided by the State Department:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
(London, UK)

February 19, 1997

PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECRETARY MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium
February 18, 1997

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Good evening. I deeply appreciated the opportunity to address the North Atlantic Council so early in my tenure as Secretary of State, and I thank Secretary General Solana and the Council representatives for scheduling this special session.

My purpose in addressing the Council was straightforward. I wanted to underline American support, from President Clinton on down, for the dramatic progress that has already been made in adapting NATO to the demands of a new era and a new century. The existence of a transformed NATO is no longer a hope or a plan; it is a reality. The evidence is on display every day in Bosnia. It is evident in the internal changes that are providing more visibility and responsibility for the European members of the Alliance, and it is evident in the relationship that has been developed between Allies and Partners within the Partnership for Peace.

I also wanted to discuss the steps that need to be taken during the next five months in preparation for the Summit in Madrid. That Summit will be an historic event, creating a unified security system for the 21st century. The run-up to Madrid presents some formidable diplomatic obstacles, but after today's meeting, I believe all of NATO is marching together down the road to Madrid.

We are moving toward decisions on who will be invited to join NATO by 1999. We are developing a broader framework to ensure that all European democracies, whether they are in NATO or not, have an appropriate role in ensuring the security of the Continent. We are addressing Russian concerns in the form of a NATO-Russia charter that will make Russia a full participant in the new system, although without a veto. And we are, at the same time, completing NATO's internal transformation.

I also had an excellent meeting this morning with EU President Santer and his colleagues. We agreed that the upcoming U.S.-EU Summit in May will be an opportunity to strengthen the trans-Atlantic partnership. The U.S. supports the process of EU enlargement. We also had a good exchange on Bosnia, the Middle East peace process, Turkey, and Central Africa.

On the whole, I have to say it is been a very successful and a very productive day, and I thank you. I am now ready to take your questions.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Barry Schweid, AP. A couple of mechanical questions, please. Your proposal -- your idea -- of a brigade, a joint brigade with Russia, could you elaborate a bit on the details? What's the mission? How many men? How many troops, I should say? Also, your 16-plus-1, there is some confusion whether that's a rotating "one" -- all prospective new members? Or, indeed, is it a traditional 16-plus-Russia.

ALBRIGHT: Thanks, Barry, for asking those questions so that I can clarify. Let me say, first of all, on the issue of the brigade, basically this is a concept, a new idea, that we have put forward about the possibility of U.S.- Russian action together in ways that are based in some respect in the very positive experiences we have had in Bosnia. At the moment it is an idea about how to plan, train, and exercise together, and it is something that we want to explore. There are no numbers attached to it at the moment. The mission is thought of generally as an ability to do peacekeeping together in appropriate areas. But it is a new idea and we're going to be exploring ways to have such a U.S.-Russian unit operate together.

The second question was about the 16-plus-1, and I think there really is confusion on this. Generally, I think, as 16-plus-1 has been discussed in the press and in seminars, et cetera, it has referred to the discussion of NATO with Russia. But it also primarily applies within NATO parlance with the idea that the 16 current members of NATO meet with the one applicant for membership in NATO to discuss the various aspects of NATO membership. So, to put it in your terms, it is a rotating "one" and applies to the new applicants.

Q: Madam Secretary, from the New York Times. Could you talk a little bit about the role of the modified CFE treaty in this package that we're offering Russia? As we understand it, the idea is to get rid of the old, sort of east-west divide and provide national limits, and then territorial limits that will set numbers on national forces and slightly higher number for the possibility of reinforcements, one presumes with pre-notification. Do you have any indication that the Russians are willing to include Kaliningrad in this shape of new CFE?

ALBRIGHT: Steve, I think, here, let me just kind of go generally over this and not get into as specific a response as you are asking at this moment, because I think that has not yet been dealt with in that kind of specificity. The agreement in NATO on CFE is now proposed for submission to governments and it should be approved this week. What happened is that the CFE signatories agreed in Lisbon to adapt CFE to changed circumstances. The NATO proposal now both updates the treaty and it suggests arrangements to make clear no NATO build-up in new members. Therefore it gives the Russians additional confidence that a new NATO will not take advantage of the new members to threaten Russia. I think that is the important point at this stage for people to understand what the new CFE proposals are. We are waiting now for the governments to give their agreement, and we will obviously be discussing this with you in greater detail. But I think it is important to give that general overview at the moment.

Q: If I could just follow-up for a second. But isn't the idea also to try to reassure countries that may be left out of the first NATO tranche that there will be limits on Russian forces, too, especially in Kaliningrad?

ALBRIGHT: Well, that is also part of the way that it is being looked at. But I think that the details of that still need to be worked out.

Q: Madam Secretary, Steve Hurst from CNN. I just wanted to clarify that you did not perhaps misspeak when you were talking about a U.S.-Russian brigade, because in your speech, you used the words "NATO-Russian" brigade.

ALBRIGHT: Sorry -- NATO-Russian.

Q: Okay. And the other thing I wanted to ask you, if you're talking about Russia as a full participant but without a veto, why do you need such devices as joint brigades or joint planning if Russia is, in fact, a full participant?

ALBRIGHT: I think the issue here is that we are going to try to include Russia as much as possible in NATO activities. But what we do not want to have is an arrangement whereby the Russians could, in fact, stop an activity that the other NATO members wish to undertake. We want to make sure that it is still possible to operate under Article 51, and it is also possible for NATO as constituted, the membership within it, to take decisions independently. So Russia will have a voice, but Russia will not have a veto. We will try, as often as possible, to act jointly with Russia, but where we cannot, we will continue to act as the Alliance.

Q: Frederick Bonnart, NATO's Sixteen Nations. Secretary of State, in your address here now, you mention the date of 1999, and indeed in your address to the Council, you said you spoke about a commitment to have them in by 1999. In view of the reservations of the -- in fact, the severe reservations -- of the political classes of certain NATO countries, and, indeed, including your own, how do you believe this commitment can be met?

ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say, there are two dates that we are looking at. One is that by the end of this year, the accession talks will have been completed, a decision that was made in December at the Summit. The additional two years are basically to be used for dealing with each country's parliaments and publics in order to explain the importance of an enlarged NATO and the fact that such an enlarged NATO is basically in our interests, "our" being all the nations that are going to be asked to ratify this. This is not an enlargement that is taking place to satisfy one or two or four countries, but one that, in fact, is in the interest of the NATO membership. I believe that once the arguments are fully made, that such ratification will be made by the parliaments of the respective NATO countries.

Q: Madam Secretary, Gary Mastsumoto of the Fox News Channel. The enlargement of NATO is going to come at considerable cost to the taxpayer in member states. Some estimates range as high as $120 billion over ten years, and on the low end there's an estimate of about $200 million being put forward by some officials here at NATO headquarters. Can you give us some idea as to how much this is all going to cost?

ALBRIGHT: Let me say that Congress has asked for a report, generally, on NATO enlargement and these particular questions. The President is going to be providing such a report to Congress and you would not want me to scoop the President of the United States. But let me say that the cost always of prevention is much lower than the cost of dealing with conflicts. The issue here is that we believe that the enlargement of NATO, a new NATO that, in fact, provides for a sense of security and stability throughout a free and united Europe, is well worth the cost.

Q: Madam Secretary, Carol Giacomo with Reuters. Secretary General Solana said that he felt confident that there could be a compromise with Turkey on its veto threat on enlargement. I wondered if you shared a similar feeling and to what extent was Turkey discussed in your meeting? And to what extent did the Turks discuss their veto threat with you directly?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think, first of all, that throughout my talks here in Europe for the last two days, we have talked about the importance of having Turkey anchored to the west as a secular Turkey. I think there is general agreement on that, and we support trying to keep Turkey as involved in European structures as possible. I think it is important, also, for Turkey to understand the importance for its national interest to be a part of an enlarged NATO. Obviously, they are very interested also in their accession to the EU, and I think that that is very clear, that both issues are in the national interest of Turkey.

Q: Madam Secretary, Tom Fenton of CBS News. To put a little more beef on the Russian-NATO brigade concept; do you see this as a real operational force with operational roles along the Bosnia model, or more of showpiece, a model of cooperation?

ALBRIGHT: I would hope that ultimately it would have a genuine purpose, and have a real purpose, not a showcase kind of a thing. All I am saying is that we have all, I think, been quite satisfied with the operations in Bosnia, the cooperation, the real help that that kind of work together has provided in the Bosnia context. I think that as we think toward all kinds of new ideas with the new NATO, we need to be open to these kinds of suggestions.

I shared with you a very early idea because I wanted the publics to understand the possibilities here, of thinking about a NATO that was not in any way shape or form adversarial towards one country. A NATO that, in fact, provided a way to include a lot of different countries in it that would provide a sense of security and stability. I think that what you are going to be hearing in the next months are lots of ideas that we are going to be fleshing out with other NATO members, with the people -- the countries -- that are now seeking application. So I think we are going to have a very interesting time. I think we are going to explore things and try to put beef on the plate. Thank you.

Q: Would it be possible to pose an EU question?

ALBRIGHT? An EU question? All right.

Q: James Robbins of the BBC, thank you very much. Going back to your exchanges this morning with Jacques Santer and Sir Leon Britten, may I ask the Secretary of State about Helms-Burton? Sir Leon has told us that the American position is unacceptable, unjustifiable, unproductive and that Castro must be laughing all the way to the bank with the U.S. pursuing European business. To what extent is this poisoning the wider partnership? What is the way out of all of this?

ALBRIGHT: First of all, I think that what is very important is the extent to which the U.S. and Europe have agreed on a necessity for democratization and democracy in Cuba. That has been what we have been seeking throughout all this -- to get concerted effort to have an allied, or concerted approach to getting a transition towards democracy in Cuba.

Clearly there are differences. We hope very much that they will be resolved and we think that there probably are ways to resolve it in an amicable way. Those are not quite the words Sir Leon used in the meeting we had together.

Thank you.

(end transcript)

From the United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at gopher://gopher.usia.gov

United States Information Agency: Selected Articles Directory - Previous Article - Next Article