06 October 1997
(At Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial, Sofia, 10/3) (3110) Sofia, Bulgaria -- Assistant Secretary of State Marc Grossman said that if cooperation between Russia and NATO continues at the same level of good will shown at the first Permanent Joint Council meeting September 26, "there is no reason to believe that NATO and Russia ... can't participate in a Europe that is whole, and free, and at peace." Grossman made these comments during a question and answer session following his speech October 3 on "Advancing Stability and Integration in Southeastern Europe" at the Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial in Sofia. He called the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council meeting "a big success," noting that the agenda covered the "three very important issues... peacekeeping, Bosnia, and a future work program." Grossman said he also was pleased with the meeting because "there was interaction. It wasn't just people reading to one another: the Russian Foreign Minister was talking to NATO ministers; they were talking to him; we made a commitment on how to go forward." Following is a transcript of the question and answer session following Assistant Secretary Grossman's speech. (Begin transcript) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOLLOWING ADDRESS BY MARC GROSSMAN Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs At the Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial Sofia, Bulgaria October 3, 1997 ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: I understand the true price of this is that I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody has for a few minutes, if there are any. Mr. Passy tells me that there might be some, and I'd be glad to answer some. ATLANTIC CLUB OF BULGARIA'S PRESIDENT SOLOMON PASSY: Our Chairman Beulken (?) will chair this part of the session, so I turn the presidency in his hands. CHAIRMAN BEULKEN: I don't think that Ambassador Grossman needs any encouragement; I think that the listeners, they need some encouragement. If so, I can help them. As you can see I'm very valuable, you know, as a secretary. Please, do ask questions, if you have any. I'll be glad to transmit [them] to him. Yes, sir. Q: Mr. Attamanli, from the Russian Federation: (inaudible question): ... How will the Russia-NATO cooperation go in the future. Imagine that there was a meeting ... last week ... So in the view of that meeting ... (inaudible) ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Let me -- I'll just repeat the question -- this gentleman asked me if I could give views on how I thought Russia-NATO cooperation will go in the future in light of the first Permanent Joint Council meeting on Friday. Let me answer your question in three ways, if I could: First, I think that the meeting of the Permanent Joint Council last Friday was a big success, and the reason it was a big success is that it took on three very important issues. And the three items on the agenda were peacekeeping, Bosnia, and a future work program. I think that no one who looks at this can help but think that if you can have that kind of serious dialogue between Russia and NATO, that we can make progress. The other reason I thought it was so effective, and I had the good fortune to be there last Friday, was that there was interaction. It wasn't just people reading to one another: the Russian Foreign Minister was talking to NATO ministers; they were talking to him; we made a commitment on how to go forward; and I believe that if we can keep cooperation at that level and with that good will, there is no reason to believe that NATO and Russia, as I said in my speech, can't participate in a Europe that is whole, and free, and at peace. The second thing I would say is that we have to try our best in some of these regional cooperation initiatives, which are starting to florish either in the North of Europe or in the South of Europe, to involve Russia in a way that is positive. For example, earlier this month I had the good fortune to be in Bergen, Norway and I participated in a meeting of the five Nordic foreign ministers and three Baltic foreign ministers. And what they are doing to develop cooperation between Northern Europe and Northwestern Russia is tremendous and should be supported. I know the Bulgarian Government -- and I don't need to speak on their behalf -- wants this Black Sea Initiative very much to include Russia. So, we need to find ways that the regional initiatives will help us reach our goal. Q: My name is Ivo Indzhov of the SEGA magazine. I would like to ask Mr. Grossman, in relation to his last words, what is his assessment of Russia's absence at the Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial meeting? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Let me say three things. First, as I tried to answer the first gentleman's question -- our objective here is to involve Russia in a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. And I think, as Secretary Cohen said earlier today after his meeting with the President of Bulgaria, we are engaged in that in many fora -- Secretary Cohen has just come from Maastricht, where he had very good meetings with the defense minister of Russia. And as I understand the meeting here today, it was for countries who had expressed an interest in joining NATO and were active participants in PFP. And, of course, the decision of whom to invite is a matter for the Bulgarian government. But we are here and we are glad to participate. Q: My name is Mia Santova, from New Television. I would like to ask you one question. Yesterday, U.S. Defense Minister Cohen said that all the expenses for associating [with] NATO will be taken by the three countries -- Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland. When, according to you, Bulgaria will be able to take these, to cover these expenses, if one day we will be invited to join NATO? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Well, let me say this: I think what Secretary Cohen said was that you -- that one has to be very serious about joining the Alliance, and that as I said in my speech, it's not joining a club, it's joining a defense alliance. And that people really must participate so that they can be real allies. The key thing to remember about cost is to go back to the Madrid document. And the Madrid document says there will be costs of NATO expansion, those costs will be moderate, and those costs will be met. And so I think one of the main objectives of the Alliance over the next few months is to decide what those costs will be. And I think NATO will make a report on that later in the year, maybe in November-December, and then we'll have to figure out how to divide them and how to pay. But the Madrid document and what Secretary Cohen says are both very important facts and very important parts of our philosophy. In terms of Bulgaria in particular, let me reiterate what I said in my speech -- the door to NATO expansion remains open. And again, I was referring back to the Madrid document -- it is a document that contains much guidance for the future. How Bulgaria proceeds in terms of economic reform, political reform, relations with its neighbors, is up to Bulgaria. What aspirations Bulgaria sets for itself are for Bulgarians to decide. What we are saying is, there are a set of criteria to join a democratic defense alliance, and if that is the aspiration of the people and Government of Bulgaria, then we want you to keep coming in the direction of European institutions and transatlantic institutions. What costs there are, how you decide to pay them, how you decide to raise that money, is of course your decision and not mine. So, you have to set this aspiration, make clear the criteria, and then it's a national decision about how to proceed. Q: Solomon Passy: I have a question. Ambassador, you mentioned about $30 million which the United States is planning to invest in this region. Could you elaborate, please, a little bit on that matter, in that areas? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Yes, this is a program that has been developed, a $30 million program, and as I said, Secretary Cohen talked about it in his remarks at lunch today at the ministerial meeting. Well, we want to try to put some money in to help people develop transportation infrastructure so that we can start communication moving from East to West across this area. And our idea here is not to build the bridges, not to build the roads, because obviously with $30 million you couldn't do that, but to use this money to spark other people's interests, and to use this money to do studies and encourage people to move forward. And we will work closely with the international financial institutions on that, and our objective is to start transportation corridors moving so that people can have connections, goods can move, economies can grow, people can be surrounded in this concept of regional cooperation. Q: I am (name inaudible) from Romania, from the Euro-Atlantic Center. Sir, for your evaluation about the Romanian relationship with her neighbors here in the Balkans and in the other areas in Central Europe. Your presentation comes after the successful visit of President Clinton in Romania after the Madrid Summit. I would like to ask you two questions: One, what is your interpretation of the paragraph in the Summit Communique about Slovenia and Romania mentioned as future candidates for [joining] NATO; and second, do you think that it will be a tough fight in the U.S. Senate for the three countries which are now candidates? Thank you very much. ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Thank you. Those were both good questions. Let me say that not only are we interested in paying attention to Southeast Europe in general, we are here in Bulgaria today but in fact I will go into Romania tomorrow to consult there with the government and to follow on from some of the conversations that President Clinton had there in July. To take both questions: first, I actually don't interpret the Madrid document, and wouldn't stand here in front of you and do that because I think interpretation only leads to confusion. Madrid says what it says. And I think that if you look at Madrid, if you believe in Madrid, if you accept the good will in the Madrid document, that there is plenty of space and flexibility for countries in Southeastern Europe and in Northern Europe as well, as I said to the previous questioner, to set aspirations, to find goals and to pursue them. Second, on the U.S. Senate. In our system I can tell you, the last thing I am going to do is stand up in front of a group of people, and certainly members of Parliament, and try to guess what the United States Senators will do. I will say three things, though. First, the Senate will very properly ask hard questions about NATO enlargement. We, as a country, mean what we say. And before we extend our security guarantees to anyone, the Senate has every right to ask hard questions -- so that when they are finished, the people of the United States believe in this expansion. Second, we are going to do everything we can as an administration to put forward the arguments for NATO expansion. And, in fact, Secretary Albright has her first testimony before the Senate on the 7th of October. And we'll make all the arguments that you would make. We'll make the arguments I just made to you. And I would say third, that when those arguments are made and the people understand them, that the Senate of the U.S. is convinced that America's word can be kept when it comes to security, that we'll do fine. Q: My name is Khristo Tzvetkov. I am a retired officer. I would like to first of all congratulate everyone present on the fact that we lived to see how here, in Sofia, at an official convention, the NATO flag is up and flying as well. And here is my question. We follow the debate ongoing in the USA concerning the price of NATO enlargement that needs to be paid as well as who is to pay such price and how. We are aware of the various standpoints existent there. A most interesting view is the one expressed by the retired General William Moden (?), ex-chief of the National Security Agency and currently Director of the Washington-based Hudson Institute of Security. He said that the enlargement will require the countries joining the Alliance to contribute as much financially as NATO may decide. He also asserted that such enlargement may cause defense expenses to be cut should NATO focus on practical issues relating to its expansion rather than bother with ambitious projects. That is in a nutshell the general's opinion as it was publicized. And another query: what would be the United States' financial and diplomatic involvement in the most critical areas of the relationships between the countries in Southeastern Europe? It is a truism that there are age-long vestiges of conflicts here that might be overcome more easily if every effort is taken to set up better economic conditions in this inflammable area? Thank you. ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Thank you for both those questions. Let me try to take the issue of NATO costs first. I think we have to proceed on several principles. First, as I tried to answer the gentleman from Romania -- the key here is what the Madrid document says. It says there will be cost in NATO enlargement. That's the truth. It says those costs will be moderate and its says those costs will be met. And I believe that when the NATO military authorities, who are currently studying in great detail the actual requirements for the three new members, are finished and produce their study and produce a number, that it will meet the requirements. There are going to be costs, they are going to be moderate, they will be met. And I have no doubt that in the end the Alliance will consider for itself how to meet those costs. Second, I think it's very important that we [do] not get caught in the feeling that we have to recreate in the new countries the defense structures of 1950, 1960, 1970. It's a new era. And there will be defense costs, but they won't be the costs of the past. And to the NATO military authorities we'll have to define what role each of these new countries will play in the Alliance. Third, since the questions are really related, what finances are we going to put here into Southeastern Europe -- I'd say two things. First, we are ready to spend a substantial amount of money pursuing our interests in Europe, and in Southeastern Europe in particular. But, second, I really believe that the future of relationships, certainly between the United States and other countries, and regional initiatives in other countries, is for governments to put in money that can stimulate private investment, private entrepreneurship, and private capital. I think the days of big government funding things and paying for everything are long gone. And now it's the job of government to make a beginning, prime the pump, show people a way to go forward and then get out of the way while the people who really do the work can be successful. So I don't think this is a matter of looking at a dollar figure. It's a matter of looking at how the money is spent, where it is spent, and what it produces over time. I'll take one more [question]. Q: (In French, translated into English) My name is Samuel Francais of AFP. Mr. Minister, you are aware that NATO enlargement is ongoing concurrently with the enlargement of Europe. This means that as far as we, Europeans, are concerned, the association of all candidate countries will contribute to the democratization of Europe, as well as to the freedom of entrepreneurship. It seems to me that there are no material contradictions in this respect between the 15 EU member states and the United States. However, at the Madrid Summit, only three countries were invited to join, the integration of two other candidates was put off for 1999, and the future membership of all other countries will be discussed in the future. The principal argument presented in Madrid was the substantial cost of the enlargement. Does it not seem to you that the decision was influenced by preliminary calculations which indicated that only those candidates that are close to the level of the EU members would be in a position to bear such financial costs, although the cost is not that high after all. And was it not possible that if the calculations were carried out differently, another decision might have been taken, particularly in view of the fact that some countries are unable to cover such costs financially? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GROSSMAN: Thank you very much. Let me try to answer both questions. I will agree with you. I think there is absolutely no contradiction and no disagreement between the European Union and the United States about the need to proceed in parallel with NATO expansion and European Union expansion. And I think that's right. I think, as I said in my speech, although we are not members of the European Union, we think it has to be as wide as possible and as quickly as possible. If I understood your second question, and please correct me if I did not, my impression -- and I was not at Madrid so you'll have to excuse me -- but my impression is that the decision which was taken in Madrid for the three members was not simply a financial decision. It was a decision that reviewed the entire capacity of both the Alliance and the possible candidates. And so I think it's very important not to just bring this down to a figure, not just say, well, we could have recalculated the cost, not just say that we could have found more money or less money. It was a whole broad question of who could come into the Alliance, who would best serve their own interest and also who would best serve the interests of the current members. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your attention. (End transcript)