Transcript: Powell Says Moscow Treaty Consistent with Previous Treaties

(Briefs May 25 on Bush trip to Russia, signing of arms treaty) (5080)





Secretary of State Colin Powell says the Treaty of Moscow -- the


strategic offensive reduction treaty signed by President George W.


Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin during their Moscow summit


May 24 -- is consistent with previous treaties such as START I and II


in that it deals with warheads on launchers but not warheads in


storage.





"All previous arms control treaties were of the same type -- they


didn't deal with the stockpile elimination, they dealt with either


launchers or systems. And so this is consistent with those previous


treaties -- SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II, and the INF treaty,"


Powell said during a briefing on the President's stop in Russia as


part of a week-long visit to Europe.





"The important point is that warheads are coming off of launchers." 





The Moscow Treaty "serves the interest of both nations, both peoples,


and makes it a safer world, as we reduce the number of launchers that


are sitting there with warheads on them, and as we then turn our


attention to how do we get rid of those weapons in stockpiles that are


really not necessary," Powell said. "Over time, I think you will see


that happen."





Once weapons are stockpiled, he said, "then you can make judgments as


to whether you retain some as operational spares, or whether you use


some to modernize systems, or whether you destroy them," he pointed


out, adding that "both sides are also limited as to how many they can


destroy in any given year because it is a very technical process."





The United States is "interested in helping the Russians not only to


get rid of their excess stockpile warheads, but also their no longer


necessary chemical weapons stockpiles and whatever other chemical,


biological or radiological stockpiles they may have. And that's why we


put close to a billion [1,000 million] dollars a year into these


cooperative programs with the Russians, and will continue to maintain


that level of investment."





The Bush-Putin meetings in Moscow and St. Petersburg also focused on


the broad U.S.-Russia relationship, Powell said, including "laying out


new ways that we can cooperate economically, new opportunities for


cooperation in energy, the advocacy of multiple pipelines to bring out


oil from this part of the world to where it is needed, the discussion


of accession to the World Trade Organization on the part of Russia,"


increasing U.S. business investment in Russia and people-to-people


exchanges.





"The President is very pleased with the trip," Powell said.





During the briefing he answered reporters' questions about tensions


between India and Pakistan; Bush's next stops in France and Italy; the


new NATO-Russia Council; U.S.-Russia friendship; non-proliferation


issues including Russian exports to Iran, unsecured fissile material


in Russia, and tactical nuclear weapons; and U.S.-Russia cooperation


on ballistic missile defense systems and on the war against terrorism.





Following is a White House transcript of his briefing in Moscow:


  


(begin transcript)





THE WHITE HOUSE


Office of the Press Secretary


(St. Petersburg, Russia)





May 25, 2002





PRESS BRIEFING BY SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL ON PRESIDENT'S TRIP


TO RUSSIA





The Grand Europa Hotel


St. Petersburg, Russia





5:00 P.M. (Local)





SECRETARY POWELL: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're


coming to the end of our trip here in Russia, so I thought it might be


useful to take a few moments and summarize the last couple of days and


answer any questions you might have.





The President is very pleased with the trip, as you might well


imagine, and we all are. We think it's been quite successful, as


highlighted yesterday morning by a signing of the two documents -- the


Treaty of Moscow, as we now call it, as well as the political


declaration and other statements that went along with the treaty that


the President and President Putin also signed.





I think I might say a word about the Treaty of Moscow, the strategic


offensive reduction treaty. And let me say a word about the treaty by


taking you back to the 1st of May of last year, when at the National


Defense University, President Bush gave a vision of where he wanted to


go with respect to a strategic framework with Russia; where he wanted


to go with respect to missile defense and with respect to the ABM


Treaty and what we had to do about the ABM Treaty to move into a new


future strategic relationship with Russia.





The President has acted on every one of the elements of that speech at


the National Defense University, in a way that did not cause a


disruption in our relationship -- we moved beyond the ABM Treaty. At


the time we did that, we had also announced our intention to reduce


our strategic offensive arsenal down to 1,700 to 2,200 deployed


warheads. And President Putin, when responding to our notification


that we were leaving the treaty, made a similar statement with respect


to the reduction that he would be undertaking. So, rather than leaving


the ABM Treaty and causing an arms race, did quite the opposite.





And then after a period of intense discussion and negotiation, we came


up with the treaty that was signed yesterday, which moves


operationally deployed warheads down from their levels of roughly


5,000 to 6,000 now, down to 1,700 to 2,200. We believe, and I think I


can speak for the Russian side, as well, because they said as much --


believe that this is an historic achievement.





There has been some commentary as to, well, it doesn't deal with the


actual warheads once they're in storage, it deals with the warheads on


their launchers. I might point out that all previous arms control


treaties were of the same type -- they didn't deal with the stockpile


elimination, they dealt with either launchers or systems. And so this


is consistent with those previous treaties -- SALT I, SALT II, START


I, START II and the INF treaty.





The important point is that warheads are coming off of launchers. And


if you were interested in reducing the number of warheads in the world


on both sides and destroying these warheads, you start with taking


them off a launcher. And once you have them into your stockpile, then


you can make judgments as to whether you retain some as operational


spares, or whether you use some to modernize systems, or whether you


destroy them.





I think both sides have it in their interests to destroy as many as


possible. Both sides are also limited as to how many they can destroy


in any given year because it is a very technical process. We are


limited to how many we can do; so are they, just by the nature of our


nuclear infrastructure.





We are interested in helping the Russians not only to get rid of their


excess stockpile warheads, but also their no longer necessary chemical


weapons stockpiles and whatever other chemical, biological or


radiological stockpiles they may have. And that's why we put close to


a billion dollars a year into these cooperative programs with the


Russians, and will continue to maintain that level of investment. It


is also why we are looking at new creative ways of finding the means


by which Russia can accelerate the elimination of these kinds of


stockpiles.





So I think it is an historic treaty which serves the interest of both


nations, both peoples, and makes it a safer world, as we reduce the


number of launchers that are sitting there with warheads on them, and


as we then turn our attention to how do we get rid of those weapons in


stockpiles that are really not necessary, they're excess to anyone


else's needs. And over time, I think you will see that happen. Nothing


in this treaty keeps anybody from destroying warheads that they no


longer need which are in stockpiles.





But the activities of the last two days went beyond just the strategic


treaty and the strategic framework. It went into laying out new ways


that we can cooperate economically, new opportunities for cooperation


in energy, the advocacy of multiple pipelines to bring out oil from


this part of the world to where it is needed, the discussion of


accession to the World Trade Organization on the part of Russia -- the


United States supports this, and we'll be doing everything possible to


prepare Russia for accession into the World Trading Organization. Our


continued efforts to remove the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which is a


vestige of the 1970s, and you've heard the President speak to this.


And we are also hopeful that, within the next couple of weeks,


Secretary Evans will be making a determination on designating Russia


-- whether or not he will designate it as a market economy. That is in


his authority; it's a regulatory action.





We also met yesterday -- the President met with a number of business


leaders, both Russian and American business leaders, to explore what


additional opportunities that exist in Russia for investment. And I


think as you read through the statement, you also saw there was a


commitment to increase the level of our people-to-people exchanges,


because as you have heard President Bush say many, many times, we are


anxious to show the Russian people that we are their friends, and we


are going to be their partners. And I think that this fifth meeting


between the two Presidents builds on the foundation that was


established in Slovenia over a year ago. And the President is quite


pleased with everything that has transpired, as well as the deepening


of the personal relationship between President Putin and President


Bush.





And so with those few introductory remarks, let me move on from


Russia, just to say that we're looking forward to discussions with the


French leaders tomorrow, and President Chirac. And then we will also


have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Berlusconi in Rome. And that all


leads up to Tuesday, when we will again be with President Putin and


the other leaders of NATO to sign another historic document. This will


be setting up the NATO-Russia Council, which will have important work


to do on areas of mutual interest.





So it's been a successful trip so far, and we look to another -- look


forward to another several successful days.





Questions.  Ron?





Q: Yes, sir. The President today urged President Musharraf to keep his


promises and stop the insurgency. And President Putin announced his


conference -- that he's going to have one-on-one sideline meetings,


and also said that the missile tests by Pakistan are not helpful, are


aggravating the situation.





SECRETARY POWELL: Yes.





Q: When will -- what is the United States' position on the missile


test? Do you agree that they're aggravating the situation, and will we


have any role in the sideline discussions?





SECRETARY POWELL: Let me start from the beginning, of course. We do


expect President Musharraf to stick with the commitments that he has


publicly made. He began making them very publicly in his January 12th


speech, to stop cross-border activity. That is very destabilizing and


is a source of tension and has contributed to the situation we find


ourselves in.





I spoke to President Musharraf twice the day before yesterday, and I


spoke to Foreign Minister Singh of India yesterday, to keep the


dialogue going. I'm pleased that my European Union colleague, Chris


Patton, is in the region now; and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary of


the United Kingdom, will be going in early next week; and then Deputy


Secretary Armitage is planning a trip toward the end of next week, the


beginning of the following week. So we're going to stay very actively


engaged in trying to find a solution to this very, very difficult


situation.





Anytime you have two armies that close to one another and this level


of tension, there is the likelihood of an outbreak of hostilities; and


when both are nuclear armed, that should cause us all concern. And


this is a time for both sides to reflect on the actions that they


taken, reflect on the current situation, and let the international


community help them in finding a political way to resolve the


situation.





The conference in Almaty [Kazakhstan] that was referenced by President


Putin. I don't think he was so much announcing it as he was


acknowledging what many of you may not have known, that such a


conference is scheduled for early June. And it's a conference that was


called by President Nazarbayev some time ago. It's not a conference


that's suddenly being called. And a number of regional leaders are


coming to the conference. And two of the regional leaders who have


been invited are President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee.





I don't know if they are going. As President Putin indicated, they


have been invited. But should they attend, that would open up


opportunities for political dialogue, not necessarily with each other,


but with other leaders who will be there. President Putin will be


attending that conference. We won't be at that conference, because it


is a regional grouping that we are not a part of.





With respect to the missile tests by the Pakistanis, as we said at the


Department yesterday, we are disappointed. The tests were announced


publicly and the Pakistanis did notify the Indians that they were


routine tests, and the Indians received them in that manner, and


described them in a way they chose to describe them. I'll let them


describe it. But I don't think it was a particularly useful thing to


do right now, even though I don't think it causes us to get any closer


to a conflict. But I don't think it was a terribly useful thing to do


right now. And, as the Department noted yesterday, we were


disappointed that the Pakistanis took this time to perform routine


tests which, if they were routine, could have been performed at some


other time.





Q: Why do you think President Musharraf has been unable to follow


through on his pledge, his January 12th pledge?





SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I can't speak for President Musharraf. I do


know that we have spoken to him on a number of occasions and he has


assured us that he is taking action. But we do not believe that that


action is yet complete or has totally satisfied the statement that he


made earlier, that all activity would be stopped. So we will continue


to encourage him to do it in such a way and to give instructions and


orders in such a way that there can be no mistaking his intention and


his actual actions, and that his deeds and the deeds of the Pakistani


forces will match the words of their President.





Q: Mr. Secretary, what do you expect on your visit to France  -- 





SECRETARY POWELL: I beg your pardon?





Q: What do you expect, Mr. Secretary, from your visit in France


tomorrow, and after tomorrow, with President Chirac and in Normandy?





SECRETARY POWELL: Well, Normandy -- let me start with Normandy.


Normandy will be an opportunity to remember the brave soldiers who


lost their lives in that invasion in 1944, on the 6th of June. And


it's always a moving ceremony for Americans, and for the French, as


well. And it will give us an opportunity to reflect on the strength of


our relationship with France and with the French people. We have been


through many things together over the last 220-odd years. And we


shared an experience in World War II, which will be commemorated on


the Normandy beaches once again.





And it also gives an opportunity for President Bush to exchange views


with Mr. Chirac on a number of issues. And I think they'll be


discussing the Middle East. I'm sure they'll be discussing the future


of NATO and other issues of interest to Europe and to the bilateral


relationship between our two sides.





There are very few outstanding issues between France and the United


States bilaterally. There are occasional disagreements and areas of


discussion in multilateral or regional forum. And I've already had the


opportunity to meet with my new French colleague once, and I look


forward to seeing him again on -- tomorrow.





Q: Sir, building up on this, will the new Russian role in NATO be


close to what the French role used to be? And in general, how will the


new Russia-NATO Council help define the future evolution of the


alliance?





SECRETARY POWELL: I don't think it can compare to the French role,


because France was always a member of the political alliance -- if not


always -- not part of the integrated military component of that


alliance. Russia's role with NATO is new and unique, and that's why it


is being given this prominence. And the fact that all of the leaders


elected to come together in Rome on Tuesday to sign this gives it


added impetus -- emphasis -- added emphasis.





The test of it all, though, is what will we do in this NATO-Russia


Council? And several areas of cooperation have already been spelled


out in rather specific terms: To look at threat assessments in the


area of terrorism; to examine how we can do search and rescue


activities together; what kind of air control plans we might look at


that could be integrated with respect to control of air space. And


there were several other areas. And I look forward to exploring with


my Russian colleagues and my other NATO colleagues other areas where


it makes sense for us to operate "at-20," all the way from North


America, across Western Europe, old Eastern Europe and into Russia.





And so this new arrangement as opposed to, say, the arrangement that


existed since 1997, I think will have greater specificity to it and


more energy in it. And we look forward this fall to showing the


results of our initial efforts.





Q: What do you expect from the Ukrainian effort to join NATO?





SECRETARY POWELL: Ukraine has recently expressed an interest in


joining NATO at some point in the future. And, of course, we are


anxious to hear more about Ukraine's efforts to prepare themselves. I


think they're -- we're quite a distance away from starting Ukraine on


the formal process toward membership.





Q: If we can get back to India and Pakistan for a moment. In January


there were tensions, of course. In hindsight, many people believe the


two countries came very close to war, that it was a very critical


moment. Is it your assessment that we're at that level of tension and


danger now? Can you put it in some sort of comparative context for us?





SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know that I could give you a direct


comparison. I can tell yo that I'm as concerned now as I was then. And


we devoted a lot of time and energy to it then, and we're doing it


now. We have been trying to find a way to bridge the differences


between the two sides. There was an idea to exchange lists of


individuals -- that didn't quite work out.





The key thing that we're looking for now is to shut down the action


across the Line of Control, and hopefully that will give us a basis


for seeing de-escalation on the part of the Indians. And from that


point on -- if we can get to that point, that first set of steps, then


I think there will be opportunities for many other things to happen


after that. And we are poised diplomatically to encourage other steps


beyond that. But that is the first step that we have to reach, or else


it gets -- it's difficult to go beyond, of course.





Q: Secretary Powell, on yesterday's meetings with President Putin, can


you be a little more specific about what kind of commitments he made


in relation to the exports to Iran?





And also what your assessment is, now that you've had a chance to talk


with him, about how much loose nuclear material remains unsecured in


Russia, the degree to which that is an existing concern. We know you


set up a commission, so there has to be some concern. But we don't


really have a quantitative sense of what you think is out there.





SECRETARY POWELL: With respect to Iran, I would answer the question


this way. Both nations are agreed that we don't want to contribute to


proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, and that includes nuclear


weapons technology to Iran. Both nations are committed to the


proposition that this would not be a good thing for any one of them to


be involved in.





There is a disagreement between we and the Russians about the nature


of some of their activities. It's a disagreement that's gone on for


some time. We believe that some of the activities they are


participating in can be seen as helping Iran in the direction of


proliferation. They disagree with our assessment. They say that they


are as sensitive to this issue as we are, they are closer to Iran than


we are and, therefore, that's why they are more sensitive, and that


their activities do not assist Iran in that direction.





We disagree with that, and the groups that have been set up, plus our


continuing bilateral dialogue that's been going on for quite a while


will continue to explore this. There are some areas that I look


forward to taking up with Foreign Minister Ivanov to see if he can


assure me, or I can convince him who has the right side of this


argument. The good news is that we've had candid discussions about


this, and I hope we'll be able to solve this going forward, just as we


have solved some of the other difficult issues that we have faced over


the past year.





With respect to fissile material, I can't tell you how much is


unaccounted for, if any. I just don't have that data. That's why we're


working with them, and we're investing in our comprehensive threat


reduction efforts. And we want to have a broader dialogue with them,


to get a better understanding of what they have done over the years,


what they have produced over the years, how can we be more effective


in capturing that material, recycling it to be used as fuel, or for


other purposes, or getting it under solid accountability, so that the


whole world can be more comfortable with the knowledge that it is


under solid accountability.





Q: Have they been reluctant to give you that data?





SECRETARY POWELL: We have not gotten all the intimation on not just


that type of technology, but other technology -- chemical activities,


biological activities that they've had ongoing over the years. And the


group that has been set up consisting of the four ministers -- the two


Ivanovs, Rumsfeld and Powell, these are some of the areas we'll be


exploring with them.





Q: Secretary Powell, from what we've seen on this trip so far, the


reception has been much warmer than in a traditional -- here in Russia


versus in Europe. Can you talk a little bit about the differences in


the public perception that we see in the two places, and also if


there's any --





SECRETARY POWELL: Much warmer in Russia than in Western Europe?





Q: Well, on the streets. I don't know, you're in a bubble, but


certainly -- (laughter.)





SECRETARY POWELL: My bubble isn't as big as the President's bubble.


(Laughter.)





Q: -- any color, any anecdotes from the meetings that we haven't been


privy to?





SECRETARY POWELL: There is -- with respect to the two Presidents,


obviously, you can see it. I don't need to give you too much


tick-tock. There is a great deal of respect and personal affection.


And it now includes the family members. All family members have now


met one another. And a very moving evening last night at President


Putin's home, we were all privileged -- some of us were privileged to


be a part of.





So I think the respect between the two leaders, the understanding of


each other's position, the understanding of the needs of each other,


give us a more solid foundation upon which to build and to move


forward. And President Bush spoke to that earlier.





With each one of these meetings, and with the meetings that I have


with Igor Ivanov or Don has with Sergei Ivanov, or Condi [Condoleezza


Rice] has with her counterparts, we get to understand their positions


better, they get to understand where we're coming from better. We get


the better understanding that they have a public opinion, just as we


have a public opinion. They have news media and a Duma that's on them,


just as we have a news media that is never on us, but a Congress that


occasionally is. (Laughter.)





And so mutual understanding is increased. And my experience in this


work for many, many years is that when you have that level of respect,


understanding and friendship, you can get a lot of things done that


you can't get done, unless you have built those relationships and put


them in place.





We have those same relationships with our friends in Europe. You saw


it with Chancellor Schroeder the other day; you will see it, I'm quite


sure, with President Chirac; and I know you'll see it, for sure, with


Mr. Berlusconi -- Prime Minister Berlusconi -- and with the other NATO


leaders. But does that mean that there is no opportunity for


disagreement or no opportunity for protest of certain policies of the


United States government? Of course there will be protest; of course


there will be demonstrations. As President Bush said, that's what


makes them democracies. And that's why we treasure democracy as a form


of government.





But I must say we're pleased by the reception that the President and


all of us received in Moscow and, especially here in St. Petersburg,


where it also coincided with the birthday of the city, which made it


an even warmer atmosphere with a gorgeous day in an absolutely


beautiful city.





Enough?  One more.





Q: Mr. Secretary, can you tell us in the context of the


nonproliferation efforts, give us your assessment of how concerned you


are with level of danger presented by the tactical nuclear weapons


that remain in Russia?





SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. This is an area we will have to pursue in the


future. Secretary Rumsfeld makes a particular point of it every time


we're together. This agreement yesterday dealt with strategic weapons,


but both sides have tactical nuclear weapons. We have much fewer than


they do. We made a more deliberate effort to get rid of them back in


1991 when, frankly, I was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and we


did it. And they have a larger inventory.





They are short- and medium-range weapons that don't present the same


kind of threat to us as the strategic systems do. But nevertheless,


they're nuclear weapons. And we believe that, as we move forward, we


should discuss these weapons, discuss inventory levels. Have you met


the unilateral commitments you made 10 years ago to get rid of these?


Because at that time, President Gorbachev, I think it was, made the


same commitment that President Bush 41 did to get rid of these kinds


of systems or bring them down to a much, much lower level. We still


have a few or some -- we still have some. They have many more.





And so we do want to explore with them theater nuclear weapons, as to


how we can get a better handle on this kind of weapons system, and


we'll be discussing that with them as we move forward.





Q: Can I just follow up quickly? President Putin mentioned earlier


today that there had been quite a bit of discussion about cooperation


on missile technology. Is there any discussion related to ballistic


missile defense systems and cooperation with Russia's technology?





SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. And if you'll look in the joint statements we


put out, you'll see a reference to our willingness to discuss with the


Russians cooperative efforts in missile defense. They have technology,


we have technology. We have ideas, they have ideas. So we're looking


forward to pursuing that, as has been U.S. policy for many years, ever


since President Reagan first put it out there, a different kind of


missile defense, when he was talking about the Strategic Defense


Initiative. But we've always been willing to make this defensive


technology available to others and cooperate with others, within


reasons of -- within reason and with respect to certain classification


issues, of course.





But, for the most part, try to be as forthcoming as we can with our


plans, with what we're planning to do. Share it with the Russians,


tell them, show them, so they don't see it as a threat to them, but


they do see missile defense as something they may want to be involved


in as a way of protecting them from the kinds of threats that will


come from these irresponsible states that keep moving in this


direction. And that's what our missile defense programs are all about.





Thank you.





Q: Mr. Secretary, can you talk about Russia's role as an ally in the


war against terrorism, and how that has changed the dynamic of the


relationship?





SECRETARY POWELL: Well, after 9/11, President Putin gave a very


powerful statement that aligned Russia fully with the campaign against


terrorism. And he has acted on his -- the commitments he made that


day. And they have become a strong partner in the campaign against


terrorism. They have supported our efforts in Afghanistan, as the


President noted yesterday. They have been very forthcoming in a number


of other areas.





And we have been operating in Central Asia in close coordination and


cooperation with the Russians in a way that would have been


unthinkable just a year, year and a half ago. And so we are very


pleased with the support we have gotten and we also want to operate in


Central Asia in a way that is mindful of their interest in the region,


as well.





Thank you.





END 5:25 p.m. (Local)





(end transcript)