 |
Digital Video Conference with journalists in Paris, Berlin and London and Assistant Secretary Beth Jones in Washington.(left to right).
|
November 30, 2004. Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Jones from the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State, joined European journalists via video conference on November 30, 2004. The journalists, based in London, Paris and Berlin, discussed transatlantic relations, Ukraine elections, Iraq and other current issues with Assistant Secretary Jones.
Transcript
To start with, I’d like to point out that in his initial press conference right after he was reelected, President Bush specifically mentioned the importance of the trans-atlantic relationship, of working with the European Union and NATO, and of working in multi-lateral organizations, in order to make sure that the work that we do is done well. That will be the framework of the next administration. It is something that we work on every hour of every day. I think the immediate evidence of that is the vote yesterday in the IAEA that was led by my colleagues, Secretary Powell’s colleaguesin Paris, London, and Berlin, who worked out an agreement with the Iranians. I think that’s a very good start. I look forward to your questions.
Q: (London) As we contemplate the state of the trans-atlantic relationship, obviously there is a lot of interest at the moment in the Ukraine. I’d like to find out what is the position of the Administration over the latest developments, where there seems to be a move towards holding new elections there. Is that something that the United States would like to see happen? Also, I’d just like you to address the remarks by Colin Powell when this crisis began that “serious consequences” would result if the results as declared officially stood. And I was just wondering if you could address that as well.
A: Absolutely. All of us, and by all of us I mean the United States, many, many countries in Europe, the European Union specifically, have been working very hard for many, many months to impress upon the leadership in Ukraine -- the political elite in Ukraine -- that free and fair elections were absolutely essential for Ukraine’s continued integration into trans-atlantic and European structures. This was the biggest possible theme, for instance, at the NATO-Ukraine summit that took place in Istanbul in June. There was no secret at all to the intensity of the interest and the feelings that there absolutely be a free and fair election in Ukraine. Very unfortunately, there were disappointingly large number of violations during the election that took place on November 21, as there had been in the previous election. November 21 was the run-off. When we saw this, and there were countless -- literally thousands -- of observers who were able to document violation after violation after violation. When we saw this, we made very strong representations, as did the European Union and member states of the European Union,not to announce to the Central Election Commission these fraudulent results. Unfortunately, that happened. That is what sparked Secretary Powell’s statement that we would have to do a serious job of reviewing our relationship with Ukraine if these results were not investigated.
A tremendous amount has happened since then. The European Union has taken a very strong leadership role in Ukraine with President Kwasniewski, President Adamkus, High Representative Solana going to Kiev last Friday to meet with President Kuchma, with the Speaker of the Rada Lytvyn, with various other Ukrainian representatives. The Speaker of the Duma, Gryzlov, from Russia was there, as was the Secretary General of the OSCE. There wasa huge effort on the part of our European friends and allies, along with Russia, to mediate the problem, the crisis, in Ukraine -- with some very good results. They left behind a working group that has been meeting in the meantime. The Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, made a series of very clear decisions, in three resolutions on Saturday. That’s being debated now, right this minute. The Supreme Court, in the meantime, decided to review the complaints that were put before it by the opposition candidate, Yushchenko. Those Supreme Court hearings are underway right now. I do not know when the result will come. But it is absolutely, abundantly clear that there must be a review of some kind and a correction of some kind to these very fraudulent results.
I am not in a position, and the United States is not in position, to provide a prescription for what that should be. If it’s new elections, that’s something that the Ukrainian people will decide. And the United States, in close consultation with the European Union, will be there to support an outcome that truly represents the will of the Ukrainian people. We’ve seen the hundreds of thousands of people in the street. Many of them are there, not because they support one particular candidate, but because they are very upset that their votes did not count. Or that some people were allowed to vote countless times.
Q: (Paris) What is your assessment of the outcome of the Sharm-El-Sheik (spelling?) Summit? Did the Europeans come through as much as you hoped? Did the French come through as much as you hoped? And where are we going with the greater Middle East now that that conference is over?
A: The conference, from my understanding—I, of course, was not there-- was an important milestone in the discussions which allowed for a good airing of people’s concerns. There is a tremendous amount of work underway right now in Iraq to get ready for elections in January. There has been a lot of discussion about whether that is an appropriate timing. From everything that I understand from my colleagues that work on this much more intensively than I do, the majority of areas in Iraq are now ready or will be ready by January 30 for these elections. The three governorates that aren’t ready yet, there is a lot of work going on to get them ready. And from everything that I know, those elections will go forward.
In terms of the Middle East itself, the broader Middle East, the next big event will be a conference that Morocco is hosting on December 11 to discuss the challenges that were put forward by the G-8, NATO, the European Union and the U.S. to look at ways that we can support reformers in the Middle East that are working on economic reforms and political issues, improved education, those kinds of things. Secretary Powell will be at that conference Saturday after next. And we look forward to good progress there as well.
Q: (Berlin) You mentioned the frame for trans-atlantic cooperation. What will be the key issues for trans-atlantic cooperation?
A: One of the areas that doesn’t get a lot of attention, but is nevertheless highly important, is the work that goes on between the Home and Justice Affairs ministries within the European Union and their counterparts in Washington. Those are very important for law enforcement, for counter-terrorism, for the kinds of things that we all agree are common threats that need to be addressed. I look forward to a lot more work in that area that will bring us even closer together in our ability to fight terrorism and to fight some of the other trans-national threats that we see before us.
The other area in which we and the European Union member states and the Commission are working very well together is on ways to move ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is something that is obviously very important for NATO as well. In both cases, there is a tremendous amount of work on reconstruction, on how we can work together for example, in Afghanistan on the counter-narcotics threat. In both places -- on law enforcement development and police training, police equipping -- there is a tremendous amount of work being done, especially by Germany, on police training for Iraqis. I think that those are the areas that require the greatest attention. There is a tremendous amount of very constructive work already underway. I look forward to more of that.
In addition, there’s a lot of collaboration in areas of Africa. In Darfur, for example, there is constant consultation and constant efforts to work together to try and improve the situation there.
We’ve already talked a bit about the Middle East Peace Process and the greater Middle East and the kinds of things that can be done there. I think that this is one of the areas that requires the greatest attention. I think thereis no question about that in Europe. I look forward to much more collaboration and cooperation to try and address the very serious problems between Israel and Palestine.
Q: (London) Turning back to a question related to the Ukraine. I was wondering if you could give us your assessment of the status of U.S.-Russian relations? Obviously the Russians took a very different position to that of the United States and the EU over the election results in the Ukraine. It also seems to propose a debate over whether that good working relationship enjoyed by President Bush and President Putin in his first term will last in his second term. I’d like to hear your views on that.
A: Yes, indeed. Thank you. I believe that the good working relationship between President Bush and President Putin will continue. I believe that the important thing is to make sure that it is clear that every issue of interest to all of us remains on the agenda. That there is no effort to try and limit the list of items, to limit the agenda, that can be discussed by the two presidents or anyone else in the two administrations. There’s no question that we’ve had some rather direct, clear discussions with Russia, and between the United States and Russia and the European Union, about frozen conflicts, about Ukraine, and about the countries that are closest to Russia.
There’s no question that the United States completely understands that Russia has strong interests in these areas, but so do the European Union and the United States. We think we can have a much better conversation with Russia about how to address the issues that come up in these countries, whether the topic isthe various regions of Georgia where criminal sectional leaders are in charge.or whether it is the criminal whois in charge in Transnistria. We need to have better discussions with the Russians about how to get Moldova back together again. And we can certainly have a much better discussion about the importance of Russia, the United States, and the European Union ensuring that the Ukrainian people have free and fair elections and that they can decide for themselves whom they wish to have as their leader.
We believe it is absolutely in Russia’s interest to want to work towards stability in the world, particularly in the regions that are close to Russia. It cannot possibly be in Russia’s interest for there to be areas of instability, for there to be areas where criminal leaders are allowed to use the territory for smugglingfor weapons or for trafficking in persons. All of us, including Russia, completely understand and agree that these threats are contrary to our interests. And certainly we can have a much better conversation about how we can work together more constructively to address these problems and to ensure that instability in these areas is not allowed to continue.
Q: (Paris) Ambassador, I would like to come back to Iran. What is now the policy of the United States towards Iran seeing that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon in the next two years? Garbled [Are there deterrents towards Iran becoming a new nuclear state and your line where you emphasize Europe – Germany, Britain and France.] How will you deal, will the State Department deal with the very big concern that you have in Israel that the Iranians will get the atomic bomb?
A: There is no question that all of us are very worried with about Iranian intentions with regard to nuclear weapons. That said, we just had a vote yesterday, as I mentioned in the beginning, at the IAEA on a resolution that accepts the undertakings that Iran has made to Britain, France and Germany. In the latest series of very intensive exchanges, the work that Britain, France, and Germany did to persuade the leadership in Iran that it cannot continue its nuclear program -- that the international community demands that it cease the kind of work that it has undertaken -- is very important and we are very grateful to our European colleagues for having pursued this with the intensity that they did.
As for the next step for the United States, I can’t tell you. I haven’t been involved in those kinds of internal discussions. Certainly one of the themes that has been on the table throughout is that we want to be able to have a discussion with the Iranians about all of the issues that are of concern to us. The nuclear issue is one. Support for terrorism is another. Harboring some of the Al-Qaeda leaders that escaped Afghanistan and possible Iraq are two more. These are terribly important issues that must be addressed. Anotherone, of course, is Iran’s attitude towards Israel. That has to be addressed as well.
Q: (Berlin) I would like to come back to the question my colleague asked. In Germany, and I think in France as well, there have been hopes for a relaunch of trans-Atlantic relations and that after the American elections there were some expectations that there could be some sort of American gesture to mark this new beginning. Do you think the new U.S. Administration is willing to do some sort of thing like that?
A: Well, I’m not sure really what you mean by “gesture.” That to me is something that one does with a country when it has had zero conversations for the past period of time. I’m sure you realize the intensity of the discussions that take place between Washington and Berlin, between Washington and Paris, between Washington and London, between Washington and many, many, many leaders all throughout Europe all the time. I’m not sure what you mean by, what kind of gesture would be a gesture. The best I can do is say that the President started out, right after he’d been reelected, talking about the trans-Atlantic relationship. He’s already said he’s going to visit Europe right after the inauguration. I don’t know when that will be, but the White House is talking about February. I’m not sure what gesture would be appropriate. Quite frankly, I think that the trans-atlantic relationship requires intense and deep substance to have meaning. That substance is already there. What I do most of every day is talk with my European colleagues about how to address a great variety of issues. Ukraine is only the most recent example of very intense consultation and deep collaboration with the Dutch presidency, with my colleagues in Berlin, my colleagues in various other countries -- Poland in this instance -- to be sure that we understand the most appropriate way to address these various issues on which we are already in fundamental agreement.
Q: (London) I’d like to ask you about Bosnia. As you know the United States pulled out its last troops and the mission has been given to the EU for primary responsibility. I was wondering if you were concerned that might be seen as a signal from Washington that they’d given up on ever hoping to catch war criminals like Vladic and Karadic and that a very important part of the mission in Bosnia has been left undone and yet the U.S. is leaving.
A: That’s a very important question and thank you for raising it. The end of NATO and the transfer to a different path for the European force takes place on December 2 -- just a couple of days from now. As we got very involved in the discussions with the European Union about the command and control, how the new force would work, we led the way to ensure that a residual NATO group would remain in Bosnia, specifically in order to pursue persons indicted for war crimes, war criminals that still must go to The Hague for prosecution. That is specifically why the NATO group remains and why there are U.S. troops in that NATO group. It is very important to us that it be clear that having NATO there provides a foothold, if you will, for the United States to demonstrate our continued interest in pursuing these issues in Bosnia. That said, we all think, that it is very important that the European Union, through the EU force, is prepared to take over stabilization responsibilities in Bosnia. This is something that we have all worked for, for quite some time, to demonstrate that this is an area in which the European Union has primary, paramount interest.
Q: (Paris) Can we say that the words that were employed by Condoleezza Rice when she was Security Advisor to the President, that Russia should be forgiven, Germany should be pardoned, and France should be punished, can we say today that she is becoming Secretary of State that this kind of sentence, including one of the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld quoting “Old Europe” -- can we say that this is over, that there is a new face starting in Washington?
A. Yes. Finished. Done. That was years ago - a couple of years ago-- the situation was completely-- It will be different.
Q. (Berlin) On the whole issue of the trans-atlantic relationship and especially with the German-U.S. relationship: you mentioned quite frequently now (inaudible) of the conversations between Europe and the US is very very high on the working level, but (inaudible) that the working relationship on the top level is not as good as it could have been. Will there be new effort to improve the relationship on the top level?
A. Yes. That’s exactly what the President has been saying, that’s exactly what Secretary Powell has been saying, that’s exactly what Dr. Rice has been saying. It takes two, of course, but certainly the effort will be there on the part of the President of the United States. We’ve said that many times already. That’s why he’s going to Europe right after the inauguration.
Q. (London) I wanted to go back to the Middle East issue. I know we’ve got elections looming on the Palestinian leadership, and there seems to be a need for consensus, a kind of lack of consensus, on what steps could be taken. Do you think perhaps the US or Europe should be working on, or thinking about, providing money or election observers or technical assistance for the Palestinians to help in this election, or (inaudible) the Israelis to create the sort of environment that would allow the Palestinians to hold a free and fair election?
A. Yes, you’re right. To be honest, the part of it I know the best is the OSCE part of it. The Palestinian Authority has asked the OSCE to provide observers. This is something that the U.S. supports and we will be working on this in Vienna with the OSCE. This requires funding, that’s also something we’ve been working on. I apologize, but I didn’t research enough with my Middle East colleagues to know any more details of the work that’s underway to get ready for elections. That’s my fault, I didn’t check on that.
Q. (Paris) What is the U.S. reaction to Putin’s announcement on creating a new kind of nuclear weapon?
A. I’ll do my best on that. What I understand from my colleague is that this is a weapons development that’s been underway for some time. But I honestly can’t give you an evaluation of it, I’m not very good on weapons and arms control issues.
Q. (Berlin) I’d like to come back to the Middle East and peace process. Do you think the new Middle East initiative could still rely on the road map as it was drawn out a couple of years ago? And the second question is – do you see a wider road in the future (inaudible) of the European Union in operating or outlining the peace process, in fact, monitoring control of the Gaza Strip or something like that?
A. Certainly. The road map is the fundamental document from which the actions can and should take place to address the problems between the British and the Palestinians. The road map is still very much on the table, it is still very much there. It provides for a variety of actions that each side can and should take. I don’t see any other… let me just say that the road map is what we are working on, and it is what will be worked on in the future. In terms of European participation, I like the Quartet andI believe our European Union colleagues like the quartet. It is a good way to consult; it’s a good way to work in a more focused way among the two co-chairs of the Middle East peace process, the United States and Russia,; a way to include the U.N., a terribly important element in all this, and of course, to include the European Union. Secretary Powell has said it has been difficult to make progress, obviously, in the Middle East peace process. We haven’t (inaudible) on any road maps, but it has been a very good mechanism to channel ideas, to have a forum in which we can consult, to have a forum in which we can talk with the parties. There are various levels at which the Quartet meets, sometimes at the ministerial level, but much more frequently at the level of my colleague and associate, Assistant Secretary Bill Burns and his colleagues, as we work through varies ideas for how one can get the parties moving again. I can’t honestly tell you what might be appropriate for European Union member states, the European Union, the UN, the U.S., whatever it may be, down the road. That’s something that would be discussed within the Quartet and with the parties. I can’t sit here and tell you what that might be.
Q. (London) I was wondering, there hasn’t been a U.S. ambassador in London for nearly six months, (inaudible), I was just wondering, is that something you’d like to see achieved before the President comes on his European trip (inaudible) to fill that job and is there a list of candidates you’re working on?
A. Let me tell you, I think it’s critically important for us to have an ambassador in London. There is no question that it’s far better to have an ambassador in any country, but this is especially true in London. That said, David Johnson, our Charge, is doing an extremely good job. He’s a very good colleague, but he is the first to say that nothing substitutes for having an ambassador there. The ambassadorship in London is probably the most coveted of all of the ambassadorships that the United States has, and it is something that’s decided by the White House, not by the State Department. I actually have no idea who the candidates might be, but have absolutely no doubt that President Bush wants to be sure he has an extremely strong, articulate, good candidate to suggest to Her Majesty’s government for acceptance as Ambassador to Great Britain. Whether that can all be done by February, I frankly doubt, knowing our process and the length of time it takes get all the approvals through the ethics lawyers and to gain the advice and consent of the Senate. I’ll bet anything that it will take more than until February.
Q. (Paris) Ambassador, do you, does the Secretary of State (inaudible) plan to give missions to Ambassador Holbrooke, though he is a Democrat; do you know if he will be used during this four years for some missions?
A. I have no idea.
Q. (Berlin) Coming back to the President’s visit to Europe, is it already clear which countries he will visit and will Germany be amongst the countries?
A. It has not yet been decided; it’s under discussion at the White House. The last time I checked there was no decision at all on where he might go, but I would imagine that the countries in which each of the three of you sit are certainly among those being discussed. I don’t honestly know at all what will be decided, or when it will be decided.
Q. (Paris) Concerning Turkish membership in the EU, which I know you’ve spoken about, do you think that the Europeans are dragging this thing out or does the U.S. feel like Turkey will eventually find satisfaction?
A. Well, it’s a perfectly good question, because it’s a question in which the United States has a deep interest. There are a couple of things I think to keep in mind. When the European Union, or the Commission, first began discussing the idea of talking to Turkey about possible membership in the European Union at the Helsinki Summit, Turkey was a very different country then than it is even today. And frankly, we give the program, the goals, of the European Union a huge amount of credit for the tremendous changes that have taken place in Turkey, in its legislation, in a variety of areas that are terribly important also to the United States. We, the United States, have tried very hard to stay in very close touch with the Commission throughout these years to make sure that the kinds of programs that we have underway, and the kinds of representations that we make to the Turks, are in parallel and in support of European Union goals, because ours are the same. Many of us believe, hopefully, that there will be some decision made on December 17 by the European Summit about inviting Turkey to be in accession talks. We’ve made no secret of the fact that we think it’s appropriate to follow through on the Copenhagen decision, which said that it should invite Turkey without delay to begin ascension negotiations. To us, that means fairly soon into 2005. At the same time, I completely believe, most of us believe, that the Turkey that is eventually invited to join the European Union, if that’s the decision, will be a very different Turkey than even the Turkey we see today. And it will be a very welcomed member of the European Union, because it will be such benefit to the Union to have a country as productive, as diverse, and as important as Turkey to be part of Europe.
Q. (Berlin) I would like to come back to Iran for a last one if I may. On the nuclear problem, do you think obligations Iran made are reliable and sustainable or are there expectations in the American administration that topic will be back again on the agenda perhaps next year?
A. I think there’s no question it will take intensive oversight by Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA that the undertakings Iran has made to the three countries on the European Union and, through them, to the Board of Governors of the IAEA. Dr. El Baradei will have to ensure that Iranians undertakings and Iranian promises are abided by. There has been a history of backsliding with Iran that requires intensive scrutiny. I expect intensive scrutiny. Whether Iran will be back on the agenda, I can’t tell you -- but I wouldn’t be surprised.
|
