Interview With European Media in Luxembourg

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you very much for joining me. I will not take too much time for comments, I have been talking a lot since I have been here. So I will take your questions. Just let me say that I think we are very much looking forward to the president’s trip here. After my experience here over the last several days, I believe fully that he will receive a warm welcome and that we are in a very constructive period in U.S.-European relations in which we understand our common agenda ahead of us, in which we are pledged to work very hard on that common agenda, in which we have both great opportunities and great challenges, but opportunity and challenge tend to come together in one package. And we will do everything we can to meet the challenges and fully seize the opportunities before us. It has been a broad agenda on the Middle East, on Europe, on Ukraine, the situation in Balkans. We have had discussions on Iran, we have had discussions about Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been really a very good and broad agenda. And the president is going to have a very good opportunity to continue that dialogue.

We have, I believe, turned to a new chapter that is necessitated by new conditions, conditions that are created by the potential for forward movement in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Potential that is there because of what the Iraqi people did in going out in large number in an election and facing down the terror. And opportunities that are afforded to us to try and move forward on an agenda of the promotion and support for liberty and freedom abroad. Thank you, and with that I will happy to answer questions.

QUESTION: Perhaps Madam Secretary I could ask you to elaborate a little bit on your opening statement in I think, what a lot of us are interested in, is the sort of message that you are taking back to the president. And I suppose the question is: having listened to all of these European and indeed Israeli and Palestinian leaders, how much have you absorbed and how much might we expect American policy over the coming months to be shaped by some of the things you heard? Have you changed your mind? What struck you in particular about some of the things you have heard?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I will certainly go back, and we will have broad discussions within the administration about what we have heard here. The most powerful message that I have heard here is that there is a strong desire to move forward on a common agenda, and that common agenda is actually very well understood. We all have the same elements to that common agenda. We know that we need to fight terrorism, but we need to do much more, that we need to have an antidote to the ideology of hatred that has produced the extremism, and that’s why it’s important to push forward on reform in the Middle East, in concert and in partnership with those who want a different kind of Middle East. We have talked about the need for seizing the opportunities, perhaps, to move the Israeli-Palestinian issue forward; the Balkans was on the agenda; Afghanistan was on the agenda; support for a stable and democratic Iraq was on the agenda.

I noticed that Javier Solana said at the press conference something, with which I agree completely, which is that there has been an awful lot of analyzing of the transatlantic relationship, if you will, kind of putting it on the couch and saying: is it in good shape today, or is it in bad shape today, or how is the transatlantic relationship doing? And in fact we don’t need to talk about ourselves, we need to talk about what we are going to do together. And that’s the very strong message that I got here.

I also remember- in my own remarks in Paris-saying that America stands ready to work with Europe, and Europe needs to stand ready to work with America, and there was a very strong message that that is the case. So, of course, we will go back and take into consideration what we heard here, any issues that people have raised, ideas about how to move the agenda forward, that this has been fruitful in a very broad dialogue that has come up and a lot of good ideas about how we move forward.

QUESTION: Do you think that the time of the coalition of willing in this case is over because you have everybody aboard?

SECRETARY RICE: Well as to Iraq, I do believe that the differences we had are behind us because we’re in a new phase in Iraq. And the Iraqi people took on a challenge, and they passed that test when they went out in large numbers and voted, despite the threats of Abu al Zarqawi and his ilk, who claimed to do everything from behead them to blow them up, all kinds of things. And they took on that challenge, and they voted in large numbers, and now they have a chance to build a united and democratic Iraq.

We now have agreed that we must take up the challenge that they have given to us, which is to support their democratic evolution to be there for Iraq in terms of training of their security forces so that they can take up their own security. In terms of creating better conditions for the Iraqi people through reconstruction and economic assistance. And of course also through helping with capacity building for the construction of the new Iraqi state. So, all of these activities were completely agreed.

Now it has to be understood that those who participated in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime are the core of the coalition that form the core, in turn, of the multinational force. They have taken on special responsibilities, and that will never be forgotten by the American people. As we move to a new chapter we will never forget the contributions and the sacrifices of the British and the Poles and the Australians and the Romanians and the Bulgarians and others who lost people in this great cause. And in fact you know I was just in Italy, I had a chance to say to, in effect, the families of the fallen that what happened on that Sunday is in fact because people were willing to sacrifice, just as people sacrificed for us at other times in our history. That will never be forgotten.

But it is now time to turn a page and to move on to supporting this new Iraqi state. I would note that President Bush was with President Kwasniewski yesterday, and they talked about some of the important steps that needed to take place to support our [inaudible] $400 million request in the supplemental for support to coalition partners, and I am sure that some portion of that will go to Poland, and about $100 million of it is in addition to the annual support that is provided. So we will continue to support our coalition partners who are now part of the multinational force. But in general this is a time to turn the page and to move on.

QUESTION: Ayatollah Sistani, who is going to win the election, claims two days ago about the new constitution of Iraq, inspired by Koran and by Sharia. I wish to know your opinion, not just like a Secretary of State, but as a woman struggling for the human rights of the women.

SECRETARY RICE: Well obviously the United Sates has stood and will continue to stand for the rights of women, Including in the states of the Middle East and states in which Islam is practiced in large numbers or even in the majority or in total.

The Shia- who will do very well at these elections- let’s remember when we say that, that the Shia are large in number, they have been a repressed and oppressed population under Saddam Hussein, brutally repressed. And their emergence is a good thing for Iraq. Now there is going to be an intensely political process now of the Iraqis coming to term with all of the different interests and all of the different traditions in that society. And what we must all do is to encourage them toward the creation of an Iraqi constitution and an Iraqi state in which all Iraqis, regardless of religious tradition, regardless of ethnic background, are welcome and respected. And from the Shia leaders we have heard a good deal of discussion of the need to do precisely that.

So I would just caution that it is going to be important for all of us to recognize that when a political process is underway, There is a process of talking and bargaining and putting forth positions and we need not to react to every word that is said in this process. I have been impressed with the Ayatollah Sistani’s very strong support for elections. Very strong messages of reconciliation to Sunnis and others, even those who did not vote. He has been a positive force in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I suspect that he is going to continue to be a positive force.

QUESTION: As we started with Iraq, I want to ask about Kirkuk. There are some circles- even yesterday the New York Times newspaper was commenting -that Turkey might intervene militarily to Kirkuk. Are you worried about intervention of Turkey? And in this case, don’t you think that is might create problems in the region more than ever? And also how do you see the situation of Turkmen in Iraq?

SECRETARY RICE: On the second point, when I say that there has to be a unified Iraq with territorial integrity where all Iraqis are represented and all Iraqis are respected, I mean also not just Shias and Sunnis, but Turkmen and Kurds and other minorities that are in Iraq. That’s what democratic institutions and constitutions do; they create institutions in which these differences can be resolved and mediated and in which people’s rights can be protected. What the Iraqis have had, in the past, is a brutal dictator who exacerbated the differences among these various groups. And so, now they have to come to a process of finding a way to bridge their differences and that includes, of course, minorities like Turkmen.

As to Kirkuk, it also has to be a city for all Iraqis. And I am quite sure that the Iraqis are going to -- it has to be an Iraqi process of coming to terms with that -- but I am quite sure they understand their obligations to have an Iraq that can be at peace with its neighbors, where terrorism cannot be carried out from Iraq’s territory, and where Iraq is finally a stabilizing force in the region, rather that what is was under Saddam Hussein, which was a destabilizing force, who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and against his neighbors, who invaded his neighbors.

Sometimes when people talk about the future of this new Iraq, it is awfully important to remember what the old Iraq looked like. The old Iraq was not an Iraq that was a force for good in the region. As fragile and as complicated as the future of Iraq is now - as they emerge from Saddam Hussein's reign - it has the potential to be a very good force in this region. And I believe the Iraqis, having suffered a lot under Saddam Hussein, understand the responsibilities to do this.

QUESTION: And do you see any possibilities of intervention [inaudible]?

SECRETARY RICE: Iraqi territorial integrity means Iraqi territorial integrity and Iraqi sovereignty.

QUESTION: Going back to Europe, you’ve seen many European leaders, in Brussels, in Luxembourg, in different cities, according to you, who is leading the foreign policy in
Europe? [Laughter] If you had one person to call on the phone, who would that be?

SECRETARY RICE: If I had one person to call on the phone…well, I never have to call just one person. We have learned to work in concert with a number of the parties in Europe. I do want to say that the European Union and its development in terms of the common foreign policy is a positive trend. A European Union that is open and that has an open architecture, if you will, that is not promoting fortress Europe -- and I hear no one saying that -- that unified Europe is going to be a positive force for us.

And so, I very much want to call to everybody’s attention that, that is why the president is coming to the European Union, now with the Luxembourg presidency, because he wants to emphasize that we do have a partnership with the European Union, as well as we continue to have partnerships…have bilateral partnerships with individual members.

I have found that there is a strong commonality of values, obviously, but what I've found here this time is that there is also strong commonality of understanding about what the agenda is. And it hasn’t mattered whether you are at the European Union, or the European Commission, with the British or the Germans or the French or the Poles or the Italians or any of the other places that I’ve been. It hasn’t mattered where you were; that common agenda is understood. That means that we’ve got all kinds of relationships that we can mobilize and use and work with to pursue that common agenda. That is really in many ways to me the remarkable thing: my conversations have been really very much the same in all of those fora.

QUESTIONS: Would you prefer to have one counterpart in Europe instead of running everywhere? Wouldn’t it be easier to conduct foreign policy?

SECRETARY RICE: I actually don’t mind it the way it is. And as Europe unifies further, I'm sure that…and has a common foreign policy, I understand what is going to happen with the constitution, and that there will be the unification under, in effect, a foreign minister. I think that will also be a very good development. But, of course we will continue to have bilateral relations, as well, and that also is a very, very good thing. There’s nothing wrong with them being able to come from several different directions.

QUESTION: There has been a debate in the Republican party which is about whether the traditional post war view -- that it’s in America’s interest to have a unified Europe -- any longer holds, as it were, at the end of the Cold War. Are you saying it is now clear policy of the administration to support the unified Europe when there are some people still talking about old Europe and new Europe?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the United States has supported a unified Europe. You know, one of the president’s first trips was actually to an EU-U.S. summit in Sweden. And we’ve continued to work with the European Union.

There have been concerns that, from time to time, that the European Union would turn inward and be inward looking, and that it would not be able to reach out and strengthen the transatlantic relationship. That was a concern, and it was a concern of some.

I think that we’ve seen in recent years that the European Union instead has been outward looking. It has been, along with NATO, one of the most important pillars in [incentivizing] the new democracies to take steps toward greater democratization, to civilianization of their military relationships, to opening their economies. If you look at the expansion and the enlargement of NATO and the enlargement of the EU, this is not an inward looking process. It’s an outward looking process and that’s very useful. You have a U.S.-EU dialogue. You also have an EU-Russia dialogue, which in this point in Russia’s history is enormously important. You have an EU-Ukraine dialogue and a U.S.-Ukraine dialogue.

So, to the degree that there were concerns that there would be some incompatibility between the European identity of states and the transatlantic identity of states, I do believe that we are seeing that that does not have to be the case. Now, we have to keep working at it, we have to keep working at it. We have to keep reminding everybody that there isn’t any conflict between a European identity and a transatlantic identity. But this is working.

QUESTION: Isn’t it annoying, excuse me, in such a vital question, for instance, as the Chinese weapons embargo, to have a European position…we were just talking about it before you came in…which isn’t clear at all? Do you have the feeling now that everything is resolved, that the embargo will be lifted, and that Europe will once again be acting against the expressed will of Washington?

SECRETARY RICE: The discussions about the EU arms embargo have been straightforward, and there has been an open dialogue. I do feel that we have been listened to about our concerns about the lifting of the arms embargo.

I don’t know what the future holds. I know that the final decision has not yet been taken. But I do have some confidence that whatever the decision, that our European colleagues will have been fully apprised and informed of and discussed American concerns about it -- the implications of such a decision, the consequences of such a decision, that all of this would have been on the table -- and that’s why we have these discussions.

We are not always going to agree on everything. It would a quite strange alliance, of this many democratic countries, if everything was simply a point of agreement. What is important is that the goals and objectives of this alliance are matters of common agreement. And if and when we disagree tactically about this or that and how to get there…I was asked yesterday, at the press conference someone said: the United States and the EU disagree about China. The United States and the EU don’t disagree about China. We have the same concerns about how to deal with the prospect of a China that is economically rising very quickly, and of course along side that, there is the political power that goes with that, the regional power that goes with that. I think we both agree that we want to help to integrate China into the international community so that it’s a positive force, not a negative force in international politics. That’s why we supported the WTO accession for China. It’s why we have involved in all kinds of the resolution of regional conflict where possible.

So, we shouldn’t take the arms embargo, which is a very serious matter for us, but say that that somehow means we don’t have the same view of what needs to be done in terms of China. So, that’s why we have these discussions. Because we will have our differences, we have to try to overcome them in ways that are supportive of both our interests, but we can’t expect to always agree.

QUESTION: Could I ask you about another topic on which there seems to be some difference, Madam Secretary? You have been asked at almost every stop of your trip about the nuclear issue and Iran. As far as I understood, you supported and support the initiative of the EU-3 and advised Iran to take the deal. My question is if there would be a deal between the Europeans and Iran, and there would be a strong guarantee that Iran cannot go the path to develop nuclear weapons, would the United States be prepared to support that deal? Would you be prepared to engage, as well, with Iran? Do you see the necessity to offer incentives, as well, as the Europeans are trying to do, because I think you have been a little bit unclear on that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let’s do first things first: let’s get the Iranians to accept that they have an obligation to the international community not to develop nuclear weapons under cover of civilian nuclear power. The United States was the first state really to raise the alarm on this several years ago. And after some suspicious Iranian activities were uncovered, I think everybody began to realize that this actually was a very big problem.

The EU-3 are trying, in this way, to get the Iranians to live up to these obligations; as I said, the Iranians ought to do it. What we shouldn’t do is it allow the Iranians to start introducing new conditions, like what the United States might or might not do, in order to avoid the answer to the question that is being asked of Iran, which is: are you prepared to live up to your international obligations? Let’s see if the Iranians can convince the international community that they are, in fact, able and willing to live up to their international obligations in a verifiable way.

The nuclear issue is urgent. It has to be seen in the context and Iran that is in other ways out of step with important trends in the Middle East - in terms of its support for terrorism, in terms of its treatment of its own people. When we’ve just talked about the need for reform in the Middle East, and we’ve just talked about the need for the Israelis and Palestinians to be able to move forward and to resolve their conflict. The Iranians are on the wrong side of the divide on a number of issues.

QUESTION: You’ve said to some European leaders that you are worried that by opening any contact with Iran you might be seen to be legitimizing the Iranian regime. But in a sense, you know, through the Cold War, there were immense contacts with the Soviet Union. There have been contacts with Korea, which I am sure we will come on to in a moment. So, why is opening some sort of dialogue with Iran legitimizing the Iranian regime?

SECRETARY RICE: Well this is the concern, First of all, the Iranians, as I said, should not hold hostage their decision, their very important decision about what they intend to do about their international obligations, to what the United States does or does not do. It shouldn’t, and we shouldn’t go down that road. The problem with the Iranian regime is that it’s not as if there is any absence of knowledge on the part of the Iranian regime of what it needs to do in order to change the path that it’s on with the international community. That can be done -- or that could be started -- tomorrow. And we shouldn’t get caught up in this question of what contact we are prepared to have or what contact we are not prepared to have and have the Iranians change the conversation to that, when the conversation is about Iran.

It’s not the United States that is isolated; it’s Iran that’s isolated. And the discussion of what we will or will not do is really an attempt to isolate the United States and say, well, it’s a problem of the United States. Let’s do first thing first. Let the Iranians respond to the demands of the international community, not just the EU-3 but the IAEA that they come into conformity with their international obligations. Let’s get that done first because the Iranians need to inspire some confidence that they actually understand the steps they need to take.

QUESTION: You were talking about the consequences for Iraq if it doesn’t live up to its obligations…

SECRETARY RICE: For Iran?

QUESTION: …Iran, Iran. Bring the case to the Security Council. Are you sufficiently sure now that the Europeans would support that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well at the IAEA, when this was discussed, it was discussed that, of course, at some point if Iran is not living up to its international obligations, there have to be next steps. And I think everyone understands the next steps means referral to the Security Council.

QUESTION: Getting to Bratislava, Russian [inaudible]. Some say during the second term of the Bush presidency, relations might be cooler in terms of the American side. What will be the message of President Bush to his counterpart in Bratislava and what is the American side expected to hear from Russia? And is there possibility that the next U.S.-Russia summit will take place in May in Moscow?

SECRETARY RICE: I’ll get back to you on the May question. The U.S.-Russia summit that will take place in Slovakia will be yet another opportunity for President Putin and President Bush, they’ve had many opportunities, for them to affirm that we have a productive and constructive relationship, probably one of the most productive and constructive relationships the United States and Russia have ever had. You just look at the [inaudible] of areas in which we are cooperating, in security, the Russians and Americans not too long ago had a joint military exercise, who have thought that possible just a few years ago. We cooperate fully on counter-terrorism issues, intelligence sharing, law enforcement activity. We have been supportive of Russia’s aspirations for WTO membership, and Mr. Gref and Bob Zoellick met not to long ago to review the list of changes that need to be made in Russia so that Russia can get into the WTO, something we support fully. We are cooperating in Afghanistan, I could go on, in the Balkans, I could go on.

To the degree that there are concerns about U.S.-Russian relations, of course, international developments in Russia are a concern -- it doesn’t mean we cant have productive relations -- it means a sort of deepening of relations that would be based on common values, needs to have at its foundation, a democratizing Russia. So, there are concerns about the role of the press, there are concerns about the judiciary, there are concerns about the rule of law in Russia. But they are concerns that we can discuss. This is not the kind of thing that we would say, well you need to somehow have to engage in the isolation of Russia. I heard people say that Russia should not come to G-8. That would be a mistake. Russia is a country that is in transition. Many of these [inaudible] are young in Russia, and we need to continue our discussion, but it is important where Russia comes out in terms of its democratic development, in the long-term help the depth of our relationship.

So, I suspect they are going to have a very good talk. I think they will talk some of nuclear security issues. We’ve had a lot cooperation in trying to deal with the nuclear legacy of the Cold War -- that is nuclear safety issues, dismantling issues, storage of nuclear materials. I think you’ll see that they have a lot to say about that. The energy dialogue will be a part of this summit. So, there’s a great deal to talk about and it’s a good relationship. There are some issues that we need to discuss about in the future, but I think the future can be quite bright.

QUESTION: You are not a fan of this authoritarian drive in Russian leadership or you said about your concerns that [inaudible], especially here in Europe, especially in central Europe, what can you really do? What President Bush will say to President Putin, do something about it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I know they have been concerned broadly in Europe, and that is an important message also to Russia, that these are not just concerns of the United States, these are concerns that are present in Europe. I’ve talked about it with my colleagues; they are concerned with the [inaudible] in Europe. There’s also a very strong desire to see the further development of good relations with Russia and with further development of deeper relations with Russia. We are all looking at ways that we can support and strengthen civil society in Russia. There are new developments in Russia because the Soviet Union collapsed only 15 years ago, so a lot of transition still has to take place. So, supporting civil society, through non-government organizations, is one way in which we can help Russia build more democratic future.

We believe that economic liberalization, the rule of law will also be important for a democratic Russian future. So there is much to do, much that we can do together. But the U.S.-Russian relationship, and I think the EU-Russian relationship, are both based on a premise that the deepening of those relationships would be on the basis of common values. We all are looking to try and build a stronger, more productive relationship and to see the continuing development of good relations with Russia.

QUESTION: May I ask you three questions on North Korea? First, were you surprised by the announcement this morning that North Korea had the nuclear weapon?

SECRETARY RICE: The United States has since the mid-90s acknowledged that the North Koreans might have enough material to build a nuclear weapon. I want to be very clear that we have, on the Korean peninsula, a strong relationship with the South Koreans and deterrent forces to deal with any threats from North Korea. And the North Koreans have said things like this quite a bit in the past year and a half or so. This is not the first time that the North Koreans have said such things. But every time they say those kinds of things, they are only deepening their isolation because no one wants a nuclear-armed Korean peninsula -- that includes South Korea, that includes Japan, that includes Russia, that includes the United States and that includes China. And the reason that we have six-party talks is so that the parties are able to have a common message to the North Koreans about the kind of Korean peninsula that we need to have. It’s also the case that the six-party talks provide for the North Koreans a path that is different from the one that they are on.

QUESTION: It didn’t work obviously. Isn't it a failure for the U.S. policy?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, no, things take time. What we’ve achieved in the six-party talks is a united position on the need for a nuclear free Korean peninsula, nuclear weapon free Korean peninsula. Imagine if these were two-party talks, then it would be the North Koreans saying to the United States: we’re walking out of the talks. The North Koreans just said to the Chinese -- the Chinese who are the hosts of these talks, who have been active in these talks --that they don’t want to come back to the talks. We knew that the Chinese government has been very desirous of the North Koreans being involved in the talks. The North Koreans have just said to the South Koreans: we don’t want to come back to talk with you. We know that the South Koreans have been desirous of six-party talks. And so on and so on. So because this is a multilateral forum, when the North Koreans walk out or refuse to go back, that is not just the United States with which they are dealing, it’s the rest of their neighborhood, as well. And that’s a very important difference.

Now, I hope they will reconsider, because there is another path. They have been told that security assurances are available to them on a multilateral basis; of course if the United States is part of those security assurances, the United States will be part of those security assurances. They have been told by the President of the United States that we don’t want to attack them or invade them. So, the North Koreans have every reason to be involved in the six-party talks and not to further deepen their isolation.

QUESTION: Are you saying you are not at all concerned about the announcement today?

SECRETARY RICE: Of course I’m concerned, but the North Koreans should recognize that the problem that they’ve caused is a problem for them, that’s their deepening isolation. We’re trying to resolve the problem through the six-party talks. We’re trying to resolve the problem by certain assurance to the North Koreans. We’re trying to resolve the problem by telling the North Koreans that if they will give up their programs, verifiably and irreversibly, there is a completely different path toward different relations with the rest of the world on which North Korea could be launched.

QUESTION: And if not? You said isolation, but they are already isolated.

SECRETARY RICE: Well they do depend on relations with their neighbors to help with the fact that they are really not left with an economy that’s functioning particularly well on its own. The North Koreans have every reason to want to be a part of these talks. The parties have -- not the United States -- but the parties have told them about what an economic future could look like, what a future for their fuel problem could look like. They need to return to the talks and make the strategic decision that they need to make and get on a better path with the rest of the world.

QUESTION: And if they don’t, I mean could it be an international blockage? Or any military option?

SECRETARY RICE: I’m not going to speculate. We still believe that this is something that will be resolved diplomatically and that the best option for the North Koreans is to get back on a path towards reasonable relations with their neighbors and with the rest of the world.

QUESTION: Are you sure about American soldiers on the Korean peninsula? What would you say to South Korean people? Are they scared, probably as they are?

SECRETARY RICE: I would strongly say to everybody that the North Korean regime is quite aware of the deterrent capability of the United States of America and its allies on the Korean peninsula.

QUESTION: May I ask you about, you mentioned several times, Ukraine. Is America interested in accelerating the integration of Ukraine and Georgia in transatlantic structures, first of all in NATO? What do you think of the possibility of, what is your attitude to the possibility of deployment of military bases in new NATO member states?

SECRETARY RICE: Beyond where are our bases are now?

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RICE: First of all the United States is changing and bringing down its Cold War structure in Europe, not enhancing its structure in Europe. So we’ve actually been in discussions with, not just the members of NATO, but also the Russian government about our so-called global posture review and repositioning of our forces. And we are not looking for base structure anywhere in the world; our base structure is coming down, not building up.

We have good relations with, of course, countries that are to the east of NATO, countries in central Asia and the like. We have good relations. We have been there for counter terrorism operations- counter terrorism operations that are not just good from the point of view of the United States, but are good from the point of view of the entire neighborhood and from the point of view of Russia, as well.

And of course the NATO transformation and restructuring is also underway and the trend in that is toward lighter mobile forces, not forces that are fixed forces as we had in the Cold War with huge base structures and large numbers of fixed heavy forces, it's just not where the trend is going.

As to Ukraine and Georgia, we want very much to see Georgia and Ukraine, as well as others, to be a part of European mainstream. But while NATO maintains an open door to any European democracy, there are a lot of practical steps that Georgia and Ukraine can be taking that are not issues of membership. We have for instance with the Ukrainians, an action plan for the relationship with NATO that builds off the Ukrainian-NATO Council, not an issue of membership, it build off the-NATO Council and builds off the need for Ukrainian forces to be transformed themselves and to have a democratic relationship to their civilian leaders. So I think we need to concentrate on the practical work before us, not the issue of membership, though of course we have always said that NATO has to remain open to all European democracies.

QUESTION: You just came from Turkey, and for these couple of months even a bit more, over one year we have the impression that relations with Turkey and United States was not very good because of the Iraq situation. How do you see them lasting, improving? Also my other questions, Cypress, European Union couldn’t do anything about direct lines or direct talk to the Turkish Cypriote side of Cypress. Will America take any initiative on this issue?

SECRETARY RICE: Well in terms of U.S.- Turkish relationships, I was just there, and I was there in part to reaffirm how important the U.S.-Turkish relationship is to the United States, and I heard from the Turkish leadership how important the U.S. relationship is to Turkey. This is also a strategic relationship that has a long history. We’ve worked together on a number of issues- Turkey is a member of NATO.

And yes, there were differences concerning Iraq, and like the differences that existed with a number of states, we feel that we’ve turned a page on that, and I think Turkey does too. I also was very clear that the United States understands Turkey’s concerns about the evolution of the future Iraq, that we are committed to an Iraq that is unified and has territorial integrity, that we committed to an Iraq in which all Iraqis, including minorities, are represented and fully respected, that we are committed to an Iraq from whose territory terrorism cannot be committed. So we did have discussions of the PKK, which is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, and the obligations we have to work with Turkey and Iraq to make sure that they are not a threat to Turkish territory. In fact we talked about revitalizing the trilateral security mechanism between Turkey, Iraq and the United States, and I think would be a very step and that’s something I’ll go back and work to do.

QUESTION: Cypress?

SECRETARY RICE: Cypress, yes, Cypress. Well we were disappointed that the Annan plan was not adopted, and we have worked to try and ease the isolation of the northern Cypriots. We have had- Colin Powell, my predecessor had talks with leaders there. We have provided some financial assistance to the Turkish Cypriots. And we are looking at what more we can do. We do have multilateral obligations when one starts looking at other measures, but we do not want to see the Turkish Cypriots isolated because we were not able to get the unification of the island prior to Cypress’ accession into the EU, that was be a bad outcome.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, you have the last question.

QUESTION: Can you perhaps tell us how foreign policy in the president’s second term is going to be different from your foreign policy in the first term?

SECRETARY RICE: The conditions are different. We’re in a different time. We, after September 11^th, had a not surprising revision of American strategic policy and American strategic conception. It’s not at all surprising, after what happened to the United States on September 11^th, it taught the Untied States not to let threats gather, to deal with them before they fully materialize. It taught the United States that we had to be more attentive to the freedom deficit in the Middle East that was producing ideologies of hatred so virulent that people flew airplanes into our buildings on a fine September day.

It caused us to take a look at the immediate region out of which Al-Qaeda emerged, that is Afghanistan and revised fundamentally our relationship with Pakistan in a matter of days. It strengthened our relationships with some states, like Russia, where we had counter-terrorism cooperation, I think, well beyond what anybody would have thought possible.

And ultimately it led us to look at the long-standing threat of Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq and to decide that it was time that he be held accountable for his continued defiance of the international community. Out of that, we fought two wars and created conditions, in fighting those two wars, for a very different geo-strategic balance in favor of moderate states in the region and in favor of freedom in the region.

But it is now a time for diplomacy to move on - from having fought those wars - to engaging our long-term partners, those with we share common values, to deliver on the promise that is there of a Middle East that is reformed, working in partnership with those in the Middle East who clearly want to see a different Middle East. It is time to use our diplomacy and our relationships with those who share our values to deliver on the promise of an Afghanistan and an Iraq that are both pillars of stability and pillars of liberty in the broader Middle East. It’s time to use our diplomacy and our relationships with those who share our values to take hold of the opportunity that appears to be before us. to find a lasting two-state resolution to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. So this is a different time than the last four years.

But I will say, the president took hard decisions in that period of time. Because he took hard decisions about what the true nature of the problem was in the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians and made a call in June 2002 for the parties to take fundamental decisions about their future, I do think that is a part of the story, of why we have an opportunity now in the Middle East.

He took a hard decision- along with Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Kwasniewski and a number of others - that it was time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his defiance of the international system. And now we have a chance for a different kind of Iraq that can be at peace with its neighbors, that can be a force for stability in the region, not a force for instability, that will fight terrorism and that can be one of the first truly democratic states in the region.

So, it was a time of taking hard decisions, and sometimes when you take hard decisions, not everybody will agree. But we have a wonderful opportunity to work on this common agenda. And if we can have the kind of foresight that we had after World War II, then we are going to leave a peaceful and more stable world for our children.

If I could just close with a personal reflection in this regard, I was lucky enough to be the Soviet specialist in the White House at the end of the Cold War in 1989, 1990, 1991. I participated in the liberation of Eastern Europe, I remember being in Gdansk in Poland, with 100,000 poles in the streets supporting solidarity and insisting on freedom. I remember participating in the unification of Germany, something that I think nobody ever thought would come about peacefully, but it did. I had left government but participated in the early stages of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a new Russia, and, in looking back, I had to recognize that these were harvesting decisions, good decisions, that had been taken in 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949, when people were foresightful enough, despite the strategic setbacks that happened in that period of time, foresightful enough to realize that if they could build an alliance based on values, they could in fact face down tyranny and see the spread of those values. And that is exactly what happened in 1989, in 1990 and 1991.

And for that reason if we are as foresightful now, in the wake of the two wars that we have fought, I think we have the same possibilities of success that the giants who not just liberated Europe, but helped to set Europe on a path toward democracy and freedom and toward a Europe whole and free and at peace that has come to fruition for the betterment of peace and stability throughout the world. Thank you.
2005/154