Text 1746, 540 rader
Skriven 2005-11-18 23:33:08 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0511185) for Fri, 2005 Nov 18
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on APEC Summit
Meetings
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 18, 2005

Press Briefing with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on APEC Summit
Meetings
Commodore Hotel
Busan, Republic of Korea


˙˙˙˙˙APEC Summit 2005

6:55 P.M. (Local)

MR. HADLEY: Good evening. I thought I might go through a little bit of the
day the President had today, give you a little bit of the highlights, and
then answer some -- give you a preview of tomorrow and answer whatever
questions you've got.

The President had a meeting with President Putin. They talked a little bit
about the state of the relationship between the two countries, noted that
there's been an intensification of exchanges between the two sides. The two
Presidents have met probably three times in the last six months. Secretary
Rice was in Moscow; I've recently been in Moscow. So there is an intensive
dialogue between representatives of the two governments and between the two
Presidents, and both expressed satisfaction with that.

They talked about the need for progress on the WTO round in December at
Hong Kong, and the need for a successful conclusion to the Doha process.
And they talked about the challenge of Iran's pursuit of and intentions to
achieve a nuclear weapon capability, and compared notes on the latest
efforts to try and get Iran back into a negotiated framework in which it
will reassure the world that it's not pursuing a nuclear weapons program
and give up on a permanent basis enrichment and reprocessing, and how to
try and achieve that.

There was some discussion about Syria and a reaffirmation of the need for
Syria to -- the Syrian government to cooperate with the Mehlis
investigation, and also with the importance that the Syrian government stop
threatening or interfering with Lebanon.

There was some discussion about North Korea, a review of the status of the
six-party talks, some sympathy expressed for the need to address human
rights and the flight of the North Korean people as a part of that process.
There was -- they talked about the war on terror and recent progress in the
war on terror, the challenged posed by avian flu, and a little discussion
about Iraq. So it was a discussion about the broad range of issues in which
we are engaged with Russia.

The President then had a meeting with the members of ASEAN who are here at
the APEC summit. There is a statement that was issued at the conclusion of
that meeting that talks about an enhanced partnership between the United
States and ASEAN, a variety of areas in which the United States will be
able to cooperate with ASEAN. There was a affirmation of the importance of
success in the Doha Round, which, of course, is something that is -- the
World Trade Organization negotiations, and the impetus that can be given to
that progress here at the APEC summit.

There was an emphasis that it is important to proceed on trade as an effort
-- as an element of a more prosperous world and as an element, also, of
raising people out of poverty. But it was also recognized that there are
other elements that are required in order to achieve progress. We need to
deal with the issue of terrorism. There was discussion about cooperation on
the war on terror, progress in the war on terror, and a mutual
reaffirmation of the commitment to succeed; discussion about energy
security and the need to, over time, move beyond a hydrocarbon economy;
cooperation -- the need for cooperation on avian flu.

There was also a discussion about Burma and expression by a number of
members in the meeting of the importance that Burma move forward on the
road map to democracy, which was set out some time ago -- the need for
progress on that, which we have, to date, not seen.

The President made clear to those in the meeting that the United States
remained engaged, and would remain engaged, in Southeast Asia; that it was
an area of strategic importance to the United States. He expressed concern
about the plight of various peoples in distress: the people in Pakistan
struggling to recover from the earthquake, the people of Burma and North
Korea.

I think what was noteworthy, of course, was the participation of Vietnam in
this discussion. The President of Vietnam indicated the support of his
government for the range of issues that were discussed at the meeting, and
it's an indication of how far we've come in that relationship from 30 years
ago.

Finally, there was a meeting that the President had with President Fox,
Prime Minister Martin, and President Toledo. It was an opportunity for the
four of them to review progress on seeking freer and fairer trade. They all
agreed that this meeting at the APEC summit is an opportunity to advance
the prospects for the Doha Round, how important that is. They restated
their approach -- their support not only for progress at the global level,
but also at the regional level, and the importance of, therefore,
continuing to try and find a way to go forward with a free trade agreement
of the Americas, as well as various bilateral negotiations.

There was, today, the first meeting of -- or what they call the first
retreat of the APEC summit. There was strong support from all the speakers.
The format, basically, is introductory remarks by four designated speakers
-- the President was one of them -- and then an opportunity for other heads
of state and government to comment. All of them did so in this first
session. There was strong support for the opportunity that is presented in
December in Hong Kong to move forward the Doha agenda of free and fair
trade to enhance prosperity. There was a recognition that in order to
achieve success, everybody needs to do its part, or their part. And for
countries like the United States and Europe and Japan, it is progress in
the agricultural sphere to get rid of tariffs, barriers and trade
distorting subsidies, but that this progress and commitment needed to be
matched among other countries for a commitment to move towards freer and
fairer trade, open markets on the issue of industrial products and
services, as well. So, a recognition that for success we have to be
ambitious and everyone needs to do their part.

There was also recognition that prosperity was going to depend, as well, on
cooperation in the fight against terror, dealing with things like avian flu
and energy security. These are issues that will be addressed more tomorrow.
I think it was an evidence of the success of making APEC a forum not only
to talk about trade and economic issues, but also to talk about security
issues -- a direction that APEC took about a year ago, and was reaffirmed
today in their conversations. There was a complementarity between security
and prosperity.

Tomorrow there will be a second meeting, or second retreat. The focus will
be on human security. There will be an opportunity to discuss more broadly
the issues of energy security, the challenge of avian flu, the challenge of
dealing with disaster preparation more generally, and, of course,
continuing to work on issues and initiatives associated with
counterterrorism and the handling of the challenge of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. There is in process a series of statements
that will address these issues and will contain some initiatives on several
of these areas.

There will be -- after the second retreat tomorrow, there will be a lunch
among the leaders. There will be then the usual family photo opportunity,
and then a leaders statement. The leaders will then get together and
assemble, and President Roh, on their behalf, will present to the public
the statement that reflects the deliberations and discussions that they've
had.

And that's really the President's state today and what he's looking at in
terms of tomorrow. And I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

Q Did you sense any level of frustration with Russia in regards to Iran's
enrichment program?

MR. HADLEY: No. Russia has provided, as you know, a -- has taken the lead
in a couple respects that have been very constructive. One, as you know,
they are talking, and have for a number of years been talking to the
Iranians about completing the Bushehr reactor, and as you know, this is not
new news. They have reached an agreement with the Iranians for a number of
steps that would reduce the proliferation risk that that reactor would
represent, the most important of which being the take-back of fuel -- that
Russia would supply the nuclear fuel that would power the reactor, and once
the fuel was spent, it would be then returned to Russia.

In order to try and get -- to move forward on the getting Iran back into
the negotiations and a framework whereby Iran, while retaining its right to
enrichment and reprocessing, would, nonetheless, find it in its interest to
give up that right in terms of its own territory, the Russians have been
pursuing an interesting idea which would be to construct an enrichment
facility in Russia in which Iran would have management and financial
interest, but not a technical interest. And it would be then the facility
which could supply reactor fuel to the Bushehr reactor. It would give Iran
a sense that it would have an assured fuel supply for its civil nuclear
power program, because it would have management participation and financial
participation in the venture, but it would have it off-shore in Russia,
rather than in Iran.

This is an interesting idea. The Iranians, probably not surprisingly,
initially, have said, no, this is something that they want as a sovereignty
exercise to have on their territory. We think it's an area for further
conversation. So that was the focus, the things, the steps that Russia has
done that have been very constructive in trying to lead Iran to a different
path.

Q Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant, did you sense any frustration on the
Russians' part in their dealings with Iran? Weren't they guaranteed by Iran
that they wouldn't enrich, and then they turn around a week later, started?
Are the Russians getting frustrated with Iran?

MR. HADLEY: Well, you know, this has been a difficult discussion and I
think there's some frustration that the EU 3 -- the UK, Germany, and France
-- have in dealing with Iran right now. We certainly have some
frustrations. But they were very focused on a problem-solving mode. And the
Russians -- President Putin talked about Igor Ivanov, who had just been in
Iran, and gave a bit of a report. You know, they -- I think the notion is,
yes, it's difficult, but we're going to keep at it and they're going to
keep pushing this idea.

Q And if I could, sir, while I've got your attention, just one more quick
question. What can you tell us about host TV in China pulling live coverage
of the President's visit? Was that in direct reaction to the speech he gave
in Japan?

MR. HADLEY: I don't know what -- I'm not aware of what you just said.

Q Steve, was the administration blind-sided by the announcement today that
South Korea intends to pull a third of its troops out of Iraq? And if so,
what do you make of -- is this an affront to President Bush that it
occurred while he's here?

MR. HADLEY: The President had a good discussion with President Roh, who
made it clear he remained committed to the mission in Iraq, and that North
-- that South Korea remained committed to providing troops to that mission.
So they had a very good discussion about this yesterday.

And so what do we know? We know that they remain committed to the mission.
We know that they need to seek here, shortly, an extension from the
National Assembly in order to keep the forces there. Now, I know there have
been some press reports of some comments that have come out of the Defense
Ministry. I just got off the phone before coming here, and the Foreign
Minister has just made a statement to the South Korean press, and he has
said that -- as I understand, I'm getting the second hand -- that South
Korea remains committed to the mission of trying to support the Iraqi
people as they fight terror and build their democracy; that they are
seeking an extension from the National Assembly so that their forces can
remain in Iraq to support that mission; that they will be taking that issue
to the National Assembly next week. He made clear that the issue of their
force levels in Iraq would be a decision made based on the progress that
Iraqi security forces are making and taking in training, and taking more
responsibility for security in the evolution of the political situation
there and the military requirements and the progress towards stability.

So what the Foreign Minister said just a few minutes ago puts South Korea's
decisions in the same framework that we're making ours on, basically that
the force levels needs to reflect a capabilities-based approach, and that
that will depend on the political evolution and the security evolution.

In the debate that they have next week, I'm sure you're going to see a
discussion about what should be the mission of the forces, what should be
the composition of the forces, what should be the force level. We have that
debate in the United States every time Congress turns to this issue. I'm
sure you're going to see it next week, as well. But I think what's
important is that the Foreign Minister has just gone out, made clear their
commitment to the mission, clear their commitment of the government to
continue troops there, and to the kind of capabilities-based assessment
that we have said ought to be the framework for dealing with issues about
force levels.

Q Could I just follow -- could you clarify, did President Roh actually tell
President Bush in their meeting, did he give him a heads-up that this
announcement was coming that they may reduce those levels, that that's what
they were considering?

MR. HADLEY: I think the question is -- I don't think there's an
announcement. I think what the press is reporting is some statements by
Defense Ministry spokesmen about the question of force levels. So what I
have, in terms of authoritative statements, is the one just made by the
Foreign Minister. And what the President heard from President Roh is what
you would expect. The President expressed thanks for the commitment that
the South Korean people have made by keeping -- by deploying forces in
Iraq, expressed his appreciation for that. And what President Roh said to
the President is, we remain committed to Iraq, it's important to bring
democracy to Iraq, and we will continue to provide troops to that mission.

Q But he didn't say, I may not have the votes to keep the troop strength
where it is?

MR. HADLEY: Not at all. Quite the contrary. He was pretty confident that
the mandate would be extended.

Q And he didn't say that he -- that the Defense Ministry would, in fact, be
briefing lawmakers about a 1,000 troop reduction? He didn't give him a
specific heads-up on that?

MR. HADLEY: He didn't, and I don't know what the nature of that briefing
was. I mean, I know what's reported in the press. And again, when you go
into one of these situations, is there a lot of discussion about missions
and force levels and all the rest, and are there people doing a lot of
planning? Sure. It goes on in our government, it goes on in their
government. But I think what we have now is a statement of intention by the
-- by this administration.

Q Steve, can I take you back to Iran for a minute? At the beginning of your
briefing, you, I think, said that both men were convinced that Iran has a
nuclear weapons program --

MR. HADLEY: No, I --

Q -- or at least I -- that you referred to their weapons program. Is
President Putin, at this point, persuaded that Iran's ultimate goal is to
build a weapons program?

MR. HADLEY: I think what I said is that the two men expressed the concern
that we all have -- they have, the Russians have, the United States has,
the EU 3 have -- that based on the fact that Iran had a nuclear program
undisclosed for 15 years, held covertly, not disclosed to the IAEA, in
violation of safeguards agreement, we all have concerns about the nuclear
intentions of Iran. That's why we're in this negotiation; that's why we're
talking about trying to get them out of the business of an enrichment and
reprocessing capability. We all have that concern. And we also share the
concern, and the two Presidents share the concern, that an Iran with a
nuclear weapon is a destabilizing thing for the region.

Q On that point, Russia was among the countries that was recently briefed
on the warhead information that the U.S. had. Did they indicate either in
this meeting or in any other meetings you've had with them that they found
this persuasive, or not?

MR. HADLEY: Well, as you know, David, as we've talked about in the past,
there have been reports about that. There's obviously -- that's classified
information. I don't talk about it here. One of the things I can say
generally is, we've been trying to share with countries who are taking the
lead on the issue of Iranian nuclear aspirations, if you will. We have
shared intelligence with them because we think it's important that we all
have the same data. And that's been useful to do. So I think I've got to
leave it at that.

Q Did the subject didn't come up specifically enough that he indicated that
whatever data you have shared with him has changed his view in any way?

MR. HADLEY: That particular subject was not discussed.

Q And one last thing, just on that point -- just finishing the loop on
President Putin on this. You said that they've made this offer. And by
virtue of the fact that President Putin was involved in the discussion,
should we construe that if the Iranians took the offer on the table by the
Russians that they would bring the enrichment out, that that would be
acceptable to President Bush as a solution?

MR. HADLEY: We have talked to the Russians about this, and we have
supported their proposal. It has been something that the Russians have been
talking to the EU3 -- the U.K., France and Germany -- who are taking the
lead in the negotiations with the Iranians. They also support it. We think
it's a good avenue to explore, and we've said so.

Q Good avenue to explore --

MR. HADLEY: Good avenue to explore --

Q -- or acceptable to President Bush --

MR. HADLEY: If we didn't think it was acceptable, we probably wouldn't
encourage it to be explored.

Q On the Putin meeting real quickly -- sorry -- you didn't mention the NGO
issue. Can you describe what conversation there was on that?

MR. HADLEY: This is an issue with a legislation that is pending in the Duma
that regulates non-government organizations. This is an issue that we have
raised with the Russian government officials in the past. Secretary Rice
raised it when she was in Moscow; I raised it when I was in Moscow
recently. It was a subject of discussion today. And as I say, that
legislation is still pending, and I'm confident it will continue to be a
subject of discussion with the Russian government. That's really all I can
say on it.

Q What was the President's message on it?

MR. HADLEY: That's really all I can say, Peter.

Q Why is that?

MR. HADLEY: Because it's a confidential discussion between the two leaders,
and sometimes there are issues which can more be -- productively be
discussed outside of public view.

Q Two -- the first is, the Iranian compromise is a good avenue to explore
-- the Iranians have rejected it. What's the next step on that?

MR. HADLEY: Well, they've had a spokesman come out and reject it and insist
it is a matter of sovereignty, they want this on their own territory. We
think that doesn't end it, and that this will be an issue that we will
return to with the Iranians, certainly now, and maybe again, as this issue
unfolds going forward. So we think it remains to be a -- it remains a good
idea and is a potential avenue out that respects Iranian sovereignty, and
says, yes, we know you insist that you have a right to these facilities,
but countries can decide that it's in their interest to take other
alternative arrangements. And we hope that over time Iran will see the
virtue of this approach, and it may provide a way out.

Q The second one, on Burma. The Southeast Asian leaders -- some of their
aides are saying that they told the President that they agreed the
situation is not great in Burma, in fact, it's bad, but they think that
rather than isolation, rather than pressure, they'd like to see some
constructive engagement. What is the United States' position on that?

MR. HADLEY: Well, they have -- our position is that the Burmese government
ought to do what the Burmese government said it would do, by progress down
the democracy road map, and that the problem is we have not seen that
progress. I think the other leaders who spoke it on agreed, and they
undertook in their various conversations to be speaking with the Burmese
authority about it. And they suggested that other countries in the region
who might have interest -- have influence with the Burmese government
should pick up and make this an issue in their dialogue, as well.

Q You said you were going to look ahead to tomorrow. Let me ask, on the eve
of the arrival in China, do you have any indication of any movement by
China on issues like IPR?

MR. HADLEY: I don't have anything in the last 24 hours. We, of course, hope
that that's one of several issues that we can make progress on, if not at
the meeting, itself, then in the weeks that will follow, because,
obviously, they will be subject of discussions between the two leaders.

Q Do you think that Congressman John Murtha is out of the mainstream with
the Democratic Party with regard to Iraq? He is somebody I assume that you
know pretty well in terms of his position on defense issues. Do you think
he's out of the mainstream?

MR. HADLEY: He's a veteran, a veteran congressman, and a great leader in
the Congress. On this issue, the President believes he's wrong. And it was
interesting that just two days ago the Senate of the United States, in
voting on the Levin amendment, had an opportunity to reject the position of
deadlines or immediate pullout of troops. So we think it's the wrong
position. We do not see how an immediate pullout contributes to winning the
war on terror, bringing stability to Iraq, how it makes America, the United
States more secure. It doesn't seem to achieve any of the objectives that
we have. And so we simply believe that the Congressman is wrong on this
issue.

Q Did the President have a brief meeting with the Representative of Taiwan?
And if so, is the President concerned that his praise of Taiwan democracy
in Kyoto would implicate his talks in Beijing with the Chinese President?

MR. HADLEY: No, and no. He did not have a meeting with the Taiwan -- any
Taiwan representative, so far as I'm aware. And the President's speech was
a speech about democracy and freedom, which is an agenda that he has had,
and has talked about almost in every region and in every forum. And the
point he was making is that the success people see in Asia, in terms of
economic prosperity and stability, is a result of the commitment that was
made 40, 50 years ago to democracy and freedom, and the progress of
democracy and freedom in the region in that period of time, and what it has
done for the people. And he went through a series of examples, and Taiwan
is clearly one that has moved in the direction of democracy and freedom and
greater prosperity for their people. South Korea is another, Japan is
another. There are other examples. And he wanted to make the obvious point
that in the way that progress -- that democracy and freedom have brought
stability and peace in this region, it can do the same thing in the Middle
East.

And that's one of the things that's at stake in Iraq, and why an immediate
pullout of troops would jeopardize our interests. So that's -- it's a theme
that I think didn't surprise the Chinese to hear the President talking
about freedom and democracy.

Q Were you the administration official who talked with Bob Woodward about
the identity of a CIA operative?

MR. HADLEY: I have seen press reports that -- and only press reports --
that Bob Woodward has talked about, I guess, three sources from the
administration that he had. I've also seen press reports from White House
officials saying that I am not one of his sources. As you know, there is an
ongoing investigation of this matter. We have all, at the White House, been
instructed to cooperate with that investigation, as we are requested to do
so, and to not talk about it. And that's all I can say.

Q The South Korean government wants the return of wartime -- South Korean
Defense Minister has mentioned about the issue last Tuesday. Did the
President discuss this issue --

MR. HADLEY: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question. What
issue?

Q Wartime --

MR. HADLEY: Oh. That issue really did not come up, or it came up sort of
inferentially in the following way. One of the things that the two
Presidents noted was the range of bilateral issues that had been -- some of
which of longstanding -- that have been resolved here. And a lot of those
issues centered around the reposturing of U.S. forces in the Korean
Peninsula, which both, taking advantage of technology and what we learned
over the last 10 years, allows us to actually increase the capability of
forces while moving them out of areas so they're less intrusive on the
South Korean people, and sometimes easier for the men and women over here
in uniform.

And they celebrated the resolution of the issue and a lot of issues
associated with that. The issue of the efforts to further strengthen the
U.S.-South Korean relationship, to recognize the increased capability of
South Korean forces, and of South Korea to take more responsibility for its
own security was talked about. And in that context, there are a number of
issues that we have been engaged, discussing on. That is one; there are a
number of others, as well. They're being discussed at the appropriate
levels, and the two Presidents basically just noted the importance of
continuing to make progress on these issues, but they didn't talk about
them in any detail.

Q What did the President and Mr. Putin discuss on Iraq?

MR. HADLEY: It wasn't a -- it was not a lengthy discussion. One of the
things we've been anxious to do is to get Russia to find ways to be
supportive of what the Iraqis are doing, and they talked about a couple of
ways that might be done. I can't talk about either of them right now from
the podium. But I think they both recognize the importance of progress in
Iraq. And again, we're trying to find ways in which Russia can contribute
to that progress.

Q Should we expect the President tomorrow to use the Osan speech to respond
in any way to Congressman Murtha or other Democratic critics of the Iraq
policy?

MR. HADLEY: I think you can expect the President to pay tribute to the men
and women in uniform serving in this theater and the importance that they
continue to serve in helping maintain stability here. I think you can
expect he will talk about Iraq, and talk about our strategy in Iraq, and
the progress -- the elements of that strategy, and the progress we're
making, and the importance for us to continue to remain committed to that
strategy.

I think there will be -- you know, he, obviously -- the debate in the
United States that we're having has sort of been commented on over here,
but I think he will -- he's outside of the United States -- I think he'll
probably focus on the way forward in Iraq and explaining to these men and
women in uniform the way forward in Iraq and on the war on terror, and how
Iraq fits into the broader framework of helping to win the war on terror.

Thanks a lot.

Q Does that mean he's dropping the -- reference that he's been pursuing for
the last week?

MR. HADLEY: No. It's -- I'm just talking about the speech he's making
tomorrow, outside the country, to men and women stationed in Seoul.

Q -- just drop it for tomorrow's speech, though, right?

MR. HADLEY: No. I'm trying to answer the question, which is, what do you
think the focus will be of the speech? The focus I think will be of what I
just said.

Q But that will still be in there, right?

MR. HADLEY: We'll see what he says tomorrow. I've said all I can say.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

END 7:27 P.M. (Local)

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051118-5.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)