Text 4755, 459 rader
Skriven 2007-06-07 23:30:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0706076) for Thu, 2007 Jun 7
===================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 7, 2007

Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Steve Hadley Via Teleconference

˙˙Press Briefings

˙˙˙˙˙ G8 Summit 2007

4:58 P.M. (Local)

MR. JOHNDROE: Hi everyone. Thank you for waiting. Steve Hadley, National
Security Advisor to the President, will brief on the President's meeting
with President Putin of Russia, as well as make some comments on the G8
declaration.

Mr. Hadley.

MR. HADLEY: The President had a meeting with President Putin. It was a good
and constructive meeting. You will probably want to look at the transcript
of their comments to the press after the meeting. Obviously, there was a
discussion of missile defense. As you know, the United States has been and
is pursuing a missile defense proposal that involves radars in the Czech
Republic, and missile interceptors in Poland. This is an effort to extend
to our European allies protection against ballistic missiles potentially
coming from Iran that might be armed with weapons of mass destruction.

We have been in consultation with Russia on this issue, because they have
raised some concerns. Obviously, we've had consultations with NATO. We're
in close communication with our Czech and Polish allies. We have -- the
President has done a number of things to try and reassure the Russians that
this is a system not aimed at them in any way, but aimed at a potential
threat to Russia, Europe, and the United States, that is to say, ballistic
missiles from rogue states that might be armed with weapons of mass
destruction.

As part of that, he has indicated that since it is a common threat to
Russia, Europe and the United States, Russia ought to consider cooperating
with us in addressing this threat. And I think what was interesting about
the meeting today was that President Putin -- he did in his public
comments, as well -- indicated that he recognized there was a potential
threat, with willingness to discuss that threat, and what to be done about
it, and actually made a specific proposal of the kinds of cooperation and
contribution Russia might be willing and able to make as part of dealing
with this threat.

And his idea involved using a radar that was built during the Soviet period
in Azerbaijan that continues to operate under an agreement between Russia
and the Azerbaijan government, and that he proposed that that information
from that radar site would be fed in real time to the United States, and
potentially other countries in Europe as an element, a radar element for
missile defense systems. He also suggested that as, and should, that kind
of threat emerge, that radar data could be linked into U.S. interceptors on
Aegis ships and the like in order to deal with that threat.

So it was a, I think a positive response to the President's call for
exploration of ways in which Russia and the United States might cooperate
on a missile defense system that would protect Russia, the United States
and Europe.

The President's response was to say that it was an interesting proposal.
Obviously, it's something that needs to be studied by military experts. And
he basically suggested that the proper approach would be for us to get
appropriate experts together in a room, put all the proposals on the table
-- we have one, obviously the Russians now have one -- put those ideas on
the table and see if we can plot a way ahead that would provide protection
to all three regions -- Russia, Europe, and the United States -- in a very
transparent and open way.

And President Putin agreed with that proposal. We'll need to work out the
modalities -- who is going to do the meeting, where, and what kind of
schedule. But we think it was a positive development and offers a prospect
of trying to bridge the gap on those issues.

So that was, I think, the centerpiece of the discussion between the two
men. It was a very substantive, very positive meeting with, I think, a good
rapport between the two.

We've also, I think, had a very good day on the issue of climate change.
Chancellor Merkel, in her role as President of the G8, has done a really
remarkable job of reaching and finding and then reaching consensus on the
way forward in terms of how to deal with the issue on climate. And if you
read the document, I think a couple of things will stand out. One, it's a
recognition that the climate issue is really part of a broader complex of
issues involving economic growth, sustainable development, energy security,
secure environmental considerations, and climate.

These all need to be addressed in a consistent way so that developing
countries recognize that they don't need to protect their environment at
the expense of development, growth, and bringing people out of poverty.

It was clear that technology is going to be a key element of this, that
there needs to be a way for the emitting countries to come together and
participate in this process, because it is going to be -- their
participation is going to be critical to the success of a global effort in
this context. There's agreement that there needs to be a post-Kyoto
framework or agreement, a commitment to try and develop that framework,
that a series of meetings that will be held to try and make a contribution
to that effort under the framework of, of course, the overall U.N. effort.

And one of the features I think all agreed to is there needs to be a
long-term goal, a long-term global goal to substantially reduce emissions.
There are, obviously, a number of ideas as to how that should be done, what
that goal should be. The document at the conclusion of the meeting will
indicate that there are proposals for aspirational long-term goals from the
EU, Japan, and Canada. They are different, involving different percentages,
with different base years. So there are a number of proposals out there,
and obviously, the process will take them into consideration.

So the commitment is to development of a long-term global goal by 2050, a
process for determining that goal, but it does not, of course, involve
picking that goal here at Heiligendamm, because obviously, all of the key
players are not at the table. And what the United States proposed, and what
I think got endorsement here, is a process whereby all the relevant
countries can participate in the selection of that goal.

There are other things that are interesting in the report, which you will
see: emphasis on development and technology, increasing investment, and
research and development, eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers for
clean energy technology, greater market access to technology, and
approaches -- sector approaches, energy efficiency, power generation,
transportation.

There's a lot in it. I think it reflects ideas from our President -- ideas
from Japan, from Canada, from Europe, from others. It is a consensus
document that can represent a way forward on dealing with the climate
issue, and as we say, the President has been quite clear on his praise for
Angela Merkel and the job she has done in pulling this all together in this
connection, in this G8.

And in terms of introductory comments, I think that's all we have. Why we
don't go to questions.

Q Thanks. Steve, last week you practically threw your hands up over the
issue of missile defense. You said that Democratic and Republican
administrations have been trying for 17 years, and for the life of me, I
don't know why the Russians don't agree. I'm wondering after today -- two
questions -- first, now do you have cause for optimism that we can actually
reach an agreement? And, second, if , what changed?

MR. HADLEY: Well, I think it's really too soon to say where this heads. I
think there are some -- obviously, some -- the thing that's interesting is
a willingness of the Russian President to make some concrete proposals for
missile defense cooperation. That's a good thing. Obviously, we need to
look at these proposals, study these proposals. There are a lot of
questions you're going to have; there are a lot of questions that we are
going to have.

I think what changed is, it was clear that I think Russia had some
concerns. I think it was clear that the United States was trying to take
those concerns into account. And the rallying point was really a call for
the possibility of trying to make missile defense an area of strategic
cooperation between the United States, Russia and Europe, since it is a
threat that we all face. And I think it was that reality that came through.
I think also President Putin wanted to de-escalate the tensions a little
bit on this issue. And I think it was a useful thing that he did, and
basically accepted the suggestion that the President had made that we try
to deal with this together with our European allies.

Q Thanks.

Q Thanks. Steve, I'd like to ask -- the initial reaction from
environmentalists has been that the U.S. gave a little bit more than they
were expecting, particularly on the 2009 date for reaching a decision on a
follow-on agreement, and also the references to the goal of 50 percent
reduction by 2050. Is it correct to say that the U.S. conceded some things
here that they had previously resisted?

MR. HADLEY: I think what was -- the President laid out his vision for
international cooperation on this issue in the speech he made last week.
And, yes, there is in the document a reference to contributing to agreement
under the UNFCCC by 2009, but of course, the President's proposal -- and I
think it's something that has been accepted and embraced here -- is that we
ought to try and work together to develop a new framework by the end of
2008. Certainly that's something that he wants to do and is committed to in
order to make a contribution to this debate before he leaves office.

So I think these are ideas that the President talked about last week. The
President made clear last week that he accepted the principle of a
long-term goal, an aspirational goal; 2050 is the year people have been
talking about, that's the year that he emphasized and selected, as well.
And what he focused on, then, is what is the kind of process that could
produce an aspirational goal that would be embraced not only by the
countries represented here at the G8, but also some key countries who
aren't here -- India and China and the developing world -- so that it is
something where particularly those major emitters will be part of the
solution.

So I think it's very consistent with some ideas that the President had last
week, but it was also consistent with ideas that have been advanced by
others. And, again, the beauty of this meeting was that under Chancellor
Merkel's leadership, we were able to bring these ideas together in a common
way forward on this issue. And that's a good accomplishment for her.

Q Can I follow up and ask, do you anticipate the U.S.-sponsored process
continuing until the end of 2008?

MR. HADLEY: Well, the President said he would like to bring that process,
obviously -- our President, he's interested in results, and what he has
said is he would like to have these results as soon as reasonably can be
expected. He sort of set a deadline out there, by the end or -- at the
latest by the end of 2008. But he made clear in his comments today and
yesterday that he wants to move on, move forward, and get this process
started.

So a lot of players. It's going to take some time, but his commitment is to
get on with it and to try and get it done as soon as it can be reasonably
done -- no later than the end of 2008.

Q I wanted to know about the North Korean missile test today. Would you
call the test provocative; what is the reaction? Or are you not reacting in
order to let the six-party process run its course?

And I also wondered if you have found out any other details about the
tests, like, how many there were, where it was, when, what time?

MR. HADLEY: I can tell you what I know. What I have been advised is that it
is a cruise missile test. We saw, I think in the last week or 10 days, a
similar test at that time, and today we have said that we think it is not
constructive, it's not helpful. And what we believe that North Korea needs
to do is focus on the February 13th agreement and the implementation of
that agreement.

And that's really the next order of business. That is what North Korea
ought to do, both to carry out its responsibilities, but also to reassure
the countries in the region of its intentions to comply with that agreement
and, frankly, the agreement of September of a year ago.

Q Do you know details about how many missiles?

MR. HADLEY: I don't have that here. We can try and get that information,
but I don't have the specifics on the actual tests. We're pretty far from
our information base on that.

Q Thank you.

Q Mr. Hadley, can you clarify, too, from the (inaudible) point, there is no
talk about missiles? I haven't heard the word about missiles in Poland. And
I did not understand. Is it -- is Mr. Putin suggesting that Azerbaijan
takes the place of the Czech Republic, or is he saying that there would be
a radar in the Czech Republic and a radar in Azerbaijan?

MR. HADLEY: I think we will have to see. I think if you listen to his
comments, I think his suggestion was that this would be an alternative to
the radar in the Czech Republic. That may be his idea. We, of course, have
an idea that we think it makes sense for the defense of Europe to have a
radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland.

So he has some ideas, we have some ideas, and the President's point was,
let's get experts together and in a very transparent way, recognizing a lot
of countries have interests in this, let's put all the options on the table
and take a look. The goal, obviously, is a system that will protect Russia,
the United States and Europe from these kinds of rogue state threats.

So this is a -- this is a good development, and as the President said, we
ought to put all these ideas on the table and take a look. And it may be
that some combination turns out to be the kind of system that would provide
the best protection for all concerned.

Q But what about interceptors? Did he say the word? Did he talk about
interceptors?

MR. HADLEY: He did not. He talked, as I think you heard, if you look at the
transcript, he talked about radars, he talked about how the United States
could have its own systems, Aegis cruisers, that he thought could actually
provide interceptors. As you know, there are limitations to what our Aegis
cruisers can do. That's why we've talked about the need for interceptors on
the continent of Europe. So that will be one of the issues that will need
to be addressed. But we, obviously, have thought that we have a good
solution to this problem. President Putin has some additional ideas, some
in the alternative, some that may be supplemental. And, again, the
President said, let's put all these ideas on the table and get some experts
to take a look at them, and that, I think, is the right next step.

Q Thank you very much.

Q Thank you. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about this working
group, who might be there -- I know this is new, but any details on that?
And, also, did you have any idea that the Russians were going to propose
this, or it was totally new for you?

MR. HADLEY: This was an idea that President Putin presented to the
President in some detail. It has some elements to it that we have heard
before, but was presented in a pretty in-depth way. We had been talking
about -- in fact Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had
talked about the possibility of a working group maybe involving foreign
ministry and defense officials. So this was an idea that was in discussion.

But President Putin really came with an idea of a -- sort of wanted to get
into the more details with a proposal of actual -- a sharing approach to
dealing with this problem. The two men agreed that it was appropriate to
have it looked at by technical experts. They did not discuss exactly who
would form that group, where it would meet, how often would it meet. All
those details need to be worked out. So there are some ideas about that. As
I say, Secretary Rice and Sergei Lavrov have talked about them. But that's
one of the things that we'll follow up on as a result of this meeting.

Q Hi, Steve. Are there any political problems or symbolic implications
about putting this missile defense program in a former Soviet republic?
Does that come into the equation?

MR. HADLEY: Say a little more, Terry. I don't understand what you mean.

Q Basing a missile defense system for the United States and Europe in a
former Soviet republic, my question is, is there any political problem or
symbolic difficulty with that?

MR. HADLEY: In terms of Azerbaijan?

Q Yes.

MR. HADLEY: President Putin said today that he had actually talked to the
President of Azerbaijan about this idea. He said that the radar is operated
under an agreement between the Azerbaijan government and the Russian
government. He said that he talked to the President of Azerbaijan, and he
was amenable to this idea.

So I think in some sense, it is something that -- a decision of which the
Azeri government will have to be -- Azerbaijan government will have to be
comfortable. President Putin says he's had a conversation with him, and
thinks that they are --

Q Steve, I'm not making myself clear.

MR. HADLEY: -- party in these conversations, and we'll want to have further
conversation with him.

Q I didn't make myself clear, I guess. It's putting the control of a
missile system for the protection of the United States in a former Soviet
republic. Is that a problem politically or symbolically for President Bush,
not the President of Azerbaijan?

MR. HADLEY: You talk about "control of a missile system defending the
United States in Azerbaijan." What President Putin was talking about was
simply using the output from a radar system that is located is Azerbaijan
as an input to a missile defense architecture. So it's not that the
headquarters of the system is going to be in Azerbaijan, but it was really
using a resource that was built during the Soviet period, continues to
operate, and could make a contribution to a missile defense architecture.
That's what he was talking about.

Q And you have no -- you have no problem with that?

MR. HADLEY: We don't if it's something that the Azerbaijan government is
comfortable with. Obviously they're a sovereign state, it is a system that
is on their territory, in the same way that Poland and the Czech Republic
are going to have to make sovereign decisions about their participation in
such a system. So would Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan is an independent and
sovereign country, able to make these decisions and act in a sovereign way,
in the same way that Poland and the Czech Republic would.

Q Yes, we're tag-teaming here. Steve, I'd like to understand clearly, are
you saying that President Putin did not implicitly accept the premise that
interceptors would be based in Poland? And, in fact, is that still a real
problem?

And the second question is, to what extent is this an acknowledgment that
the development of nuclear weapons in Iran is inevitable, or, perhaps,
contrarily, a deterrent to show them that it's truly not worth doing it
because we're going to shield you if you do?

MR. HADLEY: Well, no one thinks that is -- this, in any way, suggests the
development of nuclear weapons in Iran is inevitable. In fact, all the
countries that are talking about this debate are participating in our
diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and
making clear that such a think is unacceptable. And so we're all agreed on
that.

I think one of the things we have said historically about missile defenses,
that is a good thing about missile defenses, is that they devalue the
utility of ballistic missiles, and therefore discourage countries from
developing them. And obviously we would like it not only for Iran not to
develop nuclear weapons, that we think is an unacceptable thing, but we'd
also like them not to be developing ballistic missiles that they could use
to threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass
destruction, or even conventional weapons.

So to the extent it has an effect of discouraging by devaluing ballistic
missiles, that is an altogether -- that is an altogether good thing.

So I don't think it reflects in any way an acceptance of these systems, but
it's an effort to provide a hedge, and in the same way to deter and a
little bit discourage Iran from thinking that there's any kind of military
or geopolitical advantage to developing those systems.

You asked me a first part of the question, and I don't think I answered it.
Could you remind me what that was?

Q Sure. The first part was, did you hear from President Putin any sort of
implicit acknowledgment that the interceptors -- the stationing of the
interceptors in Poland is acceptable, or rather, is that something that
really remains the biggest problem here, outside of radar?

MR. HADLEY: Well, what he said is, I think -- his view is that the
deployment of interceptors at this point is premature, because the
long-range missiles that they would be designed against have not yet
emerged. And he looks at the current Iranian inventory of missiles and
says, there aren't the 4,000- or 5,000-kilometer missiles that would be*
needed to threaten Europe.

So his view is, radar cooperation is fine; the decision about deploying
interceptors is premature. And once these capabilities emerge in Iran or
any other state, there will be time to develop and deploy interceptors. Our
concern, of course, is that in order to have defensive systems in place, it
takes time. These are long lead-time items, and it would take time to get
them deployed. And, secondly, we've been surprised many times by the extent
to which countries have been able to dramatically increase the range of
their missiles in a way that was faster than our intelligence community
predicted.

His view is the decision on interceptors at this point is premature. I
think that's his position.

Q I wanted to ask, Steve, you mentioned yesterday that there might have
been discussion on Kosovo, and what the next step would be towards Iran.
Did that come up? Was any decision made for that? And another side
question, is the new radar system that Russia has proposed, would that be a
new one made just by them, or in cooperation with the U.S.? You said that
they went into lots of technical details. Thanks.

MR. HADLEY: I believe he is talking about an existing system that is in
Azerbaijan. I think it was built during the Soviet period. And it is now,
as President Putin indicated, operated under an agreement between
Azerbaijan and Russia. He called it the Gabala radar. So I think he's
talking about an existing radar in Azerbaijan.

The issue of Kosovo and next steps on the Iran nuclear challenge, those
were not issues in the bilateral discussion. It is -- I'm sure they are
issues that have been discussed or will be discussed in the G8 meetings,
and they may be things that the President and President Putin will discuss
on the side of those meetings. But in the meeting today, they did not come
up.

MS. PERINO: We've got time for one more question.

Q Hi. Did the two Presidents talk about the democracy in Russia, especially
regarding tough statements, which we've heard during the last month from
both sides?

MR. HADLEY: Again, in the confines of this meeting today, the issue did not
come up. Obviously, both men have said some things publicly on that issue.
It is an issue that they have discussed in the past, I'm sure they will
discuss in the future. But it did not come up in the conversation today.

MS. PERINO: I think that will have to do it for Steve. He's got another
meeting. Thanks everybody.

MR. HADLEY: Thanks for your time.

END 5:27 P.M. (Local)
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070607-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)