Munich Conference on Security Policy

Question: Let me start a little personal, Mr. Volker. When you listened to the speech of Putin in Munich, were you surprised or angry?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Thank you for having me. I was a bit surprised, I have to say, because the analysis of the world that President Putin gave and the strong language that he used about the United States and about Europe just doesn't correspond to the world that we really see today. He talked about the end of the bipolar world, which we all agree is a very good thing, but that's not replaced by a unipolar world, that's replaced by a world where we all have an opportunity to work together to promote freedom, democracy, market economy, the rule of law, and the U.S. and Europe and nations around the world are all working very hard to do that. And we want to work together with Russia, and we think that Russia shares an interest in developing that better and safer world. We were very surprised at his analysis and the tone of his remarks.

Question: But, on the other hand, aren't there some facts in his speech? Let's take for example his complaints about enlarging NATO -- your country especially is very much in favor of Georgia, and maybe some others, in joining NATO? Then the other thing, the missile defense system that made him somehow angry, since it's fact, too, because you plan to cooperate with Poland and the Czech Republic. Then, the third point, that the U.S. rejected some other contracts regarding the arms race. It wasn't just a vision.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Let's take all three, and start with NATO enlargement. NATO enlargement -- and, in parallel with that, EU enlargement -- has been one of the great historic achievements of the last 15, 20 years. We now have more than 100 million people who are living in freedom, democracy, secure societies, and growing more prosperous societies as a result of NATO enlargement and EU enlargement. The other is that NATO enlargement proceeded with a change in the security environment in the world, so that we do not look at Russia as a threat. And NATO enlargement is not directed against any nation; it's directed in favor of the security and prosperity of all of the states.

The threats that we see in the world today come from different places. We don't see the principal security challenges as anchored in Europe and Eurasia any more; we see those as anchored, broadly, in the broader Middle East region, things like terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, dictatorships, failed states, like Afghanistan, radical Islamic extremism -- these are the real challenges in the world. These are challenges that Russia faces, too, and we're working together with Europe and, ideally, as much as we can, with Russia to address these challenges. We think NATO enlargement has been a tremendous success and something that should continue. That vision of advancing freedom and democracy in the world, supported by security institutions, is very important.

When you get to the next point you raise -- the missile defense -- that relates directly to the new kind of security environment we face. We're not looking at a missile defense system because of Russian missiles. We have a longstanding deterrence policy that has been in place a long time; we don't expect Russia to be using nuclear weapons or sending missiles to the United States; we don't expect to be sending them to Russia. What we're worried about is states that develop nuclear or other missile technologies and can aim them, in small numbers, at the United States. Take North Korea, for example, which has declared a nuclear weapons capability and has fired missiles over Japan. States like Iran, which are developing missile technology -- they've produced some medium-range missiles already -- and which are seeking to have ownership of the nuclear fuel cycle with the potential of creating nuclear weapons. Those are the things that concern us. When you look at the geography of how do you produce a missile defense system that would deal with a nuclear or a missile threat, from the Middle East region, we have radars that are being developed in Alaska for North Korea, in the U.K. for looking eastward; but particularly when you look at Central and Eastern Europe, that's because that gives you the radar coverage and the picture of things that might come from the Middle East region, it's not aimed against Russia in any way. And, in fact, we, and the Czechs, and the Poles -- who we are speaking with about this -- have been very transparent about the fact that we are talking about developing a missile defense system. It's a long way to go from here to actual deployment, but it's for these sorts of limited risks that are out there.

The final point was on arms control. It struck me, as part of his remarks, that President Putin referred to the INF Treaty and, by implication, said that maybe this is out of date, which is surprising. Having zero intermediate-range missiles in Europe, which is what the INF Treaty is about, is still a good idea, and when he's referring to other countries that are developing capacities for medium-range missiles, that's exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about a limited missile-defense system.

As far as referencing other steps in arms control, first off, in terms of the ABM Treaty, that was done with the agreement of Russia. We negotiated both an end to the ABM Treaty and a reduction in strategic nuclear arsenals in both the U.S. and Russia. When it comes to the CFE Treaty, I think he did not quite give an accurate portrayal there. One of the principles we think is very important is that states have a sovereign right to decide if they want foreign troops on their territory or not. And, in the case of Moldova, they feel that they do not want the Russian forces there that are currently there, with these ammunition depots. The Russians made an agreement to remove the ammunition from Transniestria, which they have not done, and in Georgia, there are still issues to be implemented concerning the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia.

Question: One probably could comment, like the Czech foreign minister did, that those speeches, especially President Putin's, are a good reason to enlarge NATO. And all the others, even the serious ones, mentioned that there might have been a lack of consultations between Moscow and Washington, and some serious experts mentioned some, in the coffee breaks and so, so after the Wall came down some promises from Washington to Moscow but then broken promises in the sense of suddenly stopped consultations and unilateral actions by the United States. Could you agree in part with those complaints?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: I can't agree even in part, I'm sorry. I think that we have had an extraordinary level of bilateral working consultations with Russia throughout this administration. Everyone remembers President Bush's first meeting with President Putin in Ljubljana in 2001 and we've had significant follow-up since then across all areas. That's why the speech by President Putin was such a surprise. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was in Washington last week for meetings with Secretary Rice for a Quartet meeting on the Middle East, and we certainly didn't have from that meeting an indication of the kind of speech that President Putin would give in Wehrkunde.

Question: And let me mention also the kind of answer of the Secretary of Defense Gates and then Ivanov again, they all referred to that speech of the day before but in a moderate tone, in a moderate sound. Gates didn't get angry, Ivanov was smiling, talking about spies and this and that. So, what's disturbing any longer with that speech?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Well, I have to say Secretary Gates did exactly as you said, he took it very lightly, he talked about not the vision that was put out by President Putin but the vision that we have in the world, which is about trying to support the human developments, whether through peace, through development, through security, through stability, through rule of law, and working in partnership with allies, in partnership with other countries to try to develop that; whether that's in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, or in Israeli/Palestinian relations, and so on. That's what Secretary Gates talked about. We don't, you know -- he was asked the question, pointedly, from the audience, do you want a second Cold War? Of course not, nobody wants a second Cold War, and that's, again, why the kind of rhetoric that President Putin used was very disturbing because it was a different tone than anything we have come to expect, and not what we seek. Sergey Ivanov, I think, did take a lighter touch in his remarks, and, I mean, just leave it there, I think that answered the question.

Question: On the other side, one also should mention that Putin wasn't that hostile; he spoke about his friend George W. Bush; he mentioned a further effort to fight terrorism; he also mentioned that one should limit the arms race and development of new arms. So that's the other part of the speech, right?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Actually, that was mostly in the question-and-answer period. The speech itself was very tightly written, putting out a particular view of things in the world that we don't share -- and nobody in the room shared. I have to say that I was really struck by the reaction of the Europeans in the room as well as the Americans. Everybody thought that this was a speech that was unexpected and that used a language and an analysis of the world that was very different from what the common perception in the room was. And you've seen a number of the European leaders speak out afterwards as a result. So, I'm sorry, can you repeat that …

Question: Was it somehow constructive, not destructive, when he was saying, yes, we will continue to fight terrorism; yes, Washington and Moscow together will try to limit arms developments, and so forth?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Yes. In the question-and-answer period, President Putin did address some issues of cooperation with the rest of the world -- nonproliferation, counterterrorism -- and he did refer to President Bush as his friend and a person you can do business with. I think he did that in a way that was off the cuff and responding to questions, but it didn't change what he said during his speech and in fact, in that context, you have to look at what the implication is of those comments; it's almost the exception of what he was characterizing rather than the rest of his presentation.

Question: One last question, and that's the future of NATO. Always you can read about and listen about on the radio that Afghanistan is the greatest, biggest challenge for NATO. If it's true, in what terms?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: Well, Afghanistan, first off, is NATO's biggest operation and is one that has now 32,000 forces in the ISAF operation. It is critical that if NATO takes on a mission that it do it well, and that is very much a key part of NATO being a success. Second thing I would say is that the biggest challenges that we face in the world, as I mentioned, are terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, extremism. Afghanistan was a base for the export of those problems before 2001, and we have a stake in ensuring that it never becomes a place where those problems are exported again. Also, Afghanistan was a place where people were oppressed, where you had a ruthless regime that did not allow girls to go to school, that was stoning women, that was not developing the economy in any serious way, music was banned, they were blowing up UN World Heritage sites. So, removing that kind of odious regime and giving people the opportunity to live in freedom and development is very important.

Question: Very last question, Mr. Volker. The NATO-Russia Council, is that a good instrument, is that a good place to solve the problems that might have been created in Munich?

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Volker: We were disappointed over the past few years at the development of the NATO-Russia Council. It was created five years ago this year at the summit in Pratica di Mare and we had great expectations for working together with Russia in areas where we really do have common security interests, and counterproliferation is one of those, counterterrorism is another one, safety of military assistance -- there's a great deal that we can work on together. We've put a number of proposals on the table, as NATO, as NATO allies, things we would work on together with Russia. Some of them have been picked up by the Russians, but, really, disappointingly few, and we'd like to see greater growth there. But, over the past few years, I have to say that we've been disappointed that Russia has not shown more interest in actually working on some of these concrete projects.

Thank you.