09 July 1998
(Discusses NATO membership, Latvia's citizenship law) (3350) Riga, Latvia -- Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, in Riga for a meeting of the U.S.-Baltic Partnership Commission, spoke with journalists following the signing of the conference communique July 8. Asked about Russia's strong objections to membership in NATO for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Talbott said each of the Baltic states "has the right to make its own decisions about how it's going to defend itself, including the right of associating itself with international treaties and alliances. I can only say that I think it is counterproductive for any of the other countries in this region, large or small, to question that right and to engage in rhetoric or otherwise, in pressure tactics or intimidation." He added that "We believe that there is a new NATO, and that the new NATO is prepared, even as it takes in and especially as it takes in new member states, to work increasingly cooperatively with the new Russia on behalf of the many issues where we agree, and we're also confident that whatever disagreements we have along the way, we can manage." Talbott commended Lativa's lawmakers for amending the citizenship law, praising "the wisdom, the far-sightedness, the statesmanship of President Ullmanis, and of the Latvian Parliament.... It is our strong belief that if enacted, and if implemented, that law will put Latvia very much in accord with the relevant standards, and the relevant standards are those of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], and no country will have any basis for complaint or pressure tactics." Following is a transcript of the question and answer session: (Begin transcript) TRANSCRIPT OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AT PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING THE SIGNING OF THE CONFERENCE COMMUNIQUE July 8, 1998 U.S.-BALTIC PARTNERSHIP COMMISSION Riga, Latvia Michael Tarm, Associated Press: I'd like to address my question to Mr. Talbott. Russia has opposed NATO expansion in general, but has been especially adamant in its opposition to Baltic membership. Moscow has even been speaking quite ominously about "red lines" and also about a new Cold War in this regard. Given this, how are you reassuring Balts that the open door policy is more than just rhetoric and that they really will be given a fair shot at NATO membership? DEPUTY SECRETARY STROBE TALBOTT: First, I think that the proceedings of this meeting today underscored that all aspects of the burgeoning relationship between the United States and the three Baltic States are alive and well and progressing in the right direction. As the Foreign Minister indicated, these aspects include economics and commerce, political relationships, the support for the ongoing process of democratization, and development of a civil society in these very brave and deserving and promising countries. There is also a security relationship. And the United States is prepared to keep working on a cooperative basis with the three Baltic States to hasten the day when they will be able both to take care of their own self-defense needs and also to be able to contribute to the security of Europe as a whole; that is, when they will be net producers, as opposed to consumers, of security. And I must say that what we heard from the three ministries of defense during the course of the afternoon was encouraging in this regard. And that, of course, is a key aspect of eligibility for NATO which was asserted as a general proposition in Madrid and also was a specific proposition with regard to the three Baltic States. Now, the Russian Federation, its government, its political leadership, its parliament, have made clear on numerous occasions that, by and large, they oppose the process of NATO enlargement and that they think the decision of NATO to open its doors to new member states was a mistake. We think that that assessment and opinion on their part is a mistake. We also think that there is already concrete evidence of how the world has changed. And that means how Russia has changed, and how NATO has changed, and the relationship between NATO and Russia has changed. For nearly half a century, NATO was in the business of deterring the danger of Soviet and Warsaw Pact aggression against the West. That's no longer the business that NATO is in because there is no longer a Soviet Union, there's no longer a Warsaw Pact. Now NATO member states, NATO Partner countries, Russia, Ukraine, other states that used to be part of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, are working together side by side to restore peace in a troubled part of Europe -- that is, in the south, in the Balkan region, in the former Yugoslavia. And there is every reason to think, and much of what I heard today reaffirms the reason to think, that there is much that NATO and Russia can do in cooperation despite their disagreements in this region, as well. Tarm: Let me just follow up on that. I'm not quite sure that you addressed the specific issue of Russian's really quite vehement opposition to Baltic membership per se. You are speaking more generally about expansion, but what about Russia's very adamant opposition to Baltic membership? Does this not put the Baltic states at a huge disadvantage, say compared to the Czech Republic, which has had a successful bid to join NATO? DS TALBOTT: No. The first principle here is that the state where I am visiting today, the one that I visited yesterday, Lithuania, the one where I will be tonight and tomorrow morning, Estonia -- these are sovereign, independent states. And their sovereignty and independence, and their rights under international law, are recognized by a variety of documents and undertakings and covenants, including ones that the Russian Federation is party to. One of those, by the way, is the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Each of the states represented by the foreign ministers flanking me here today has the right to make its own decisions about how it's going to defend itself, including the right of associating itself with international treaties and alliances. I can only say that I think it is counterproductive for any of the other countries in this region, large or small, to question that right and to engage in rhetoric or otherwise, in pressure tactics or intimidation. Among other things, that kind of tactic will only increase the fears and anxieties of these countries represented here about the strategic intentions of their large neighbor -- a large neighbor with which they share a very complex and painful history. So, there is, I will let others explain to you Russian policy and perceptions, I can only speak authoritatively about President Clinton's policy and the U.S. government's strategic intentions. We believe that there is a new NATO, and that the new NATO is prepared, even as it takes in and especially as it takes in new member states, to work increasingly cooperatively with the new Russia on behalf of the many issues where we agree, and we're also confident that whatever disagreements we have along the way, we can manage. Anita Smolenska, the newspaper "Diena," Latvia: How and when will the United States solve the disagreement with EU regarding what policy Latvia should follow in audio-visual sector and joining WTO? DS TALBOTT: I think that question was probably addressed primarily to me, and it's a question I heard earlier today, including from my friend the Minister, and the answer, the best answer that I can give you is the one that I gave to him. I hope that that problem can be solved as soon as possible, and indeed, Charlene Barshevsky, the United States Trade Representative, has been involved in intense discussions with her counterparts in the European Union back in Washington even in the course of the time that I have been here in Riga. And I might add that when President Clinton met with the three presidents of the Baltic States in Washington in January, this issue came up and President Clinton said that the United States would do everything it can to make sure that none of the three Baltic States, and I know Latvia has a particular concern with regard to audio-visual services, will be disadvantaged unfairly in the tricky negotiations going on between the United States and the European Union. We will pursue that objective; we have to balance that objective against our very legitimate concerns with intellectual property rights. But we're making every effort and, incidentally, my colleague, the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, Stu Eizenstat, is going to be in Vilnius in the next couple of days, and I'm sure he will be discussing this with his Baltic counterparts. Erik Jansen, Deutsche Press Agentur: This is a question for you, Mr. Talbott, but also for the Lithuanian and Estonian Foreign Ministers. Russia claims that it is not imposing economic sanctions against Latvia, Latvia claims that Russia IS imposing economic sanctions against Latvia -- the question is, where do you come down on this question, and what are you prepared to do to assist Latvia in taking away this economic pressure? You, Mr. Talbott, just said that you're against such...or...not, you didn't specify that you're against THIS pressure, but that you're against pressure against the Baltic States. Is there anything that you are able to offer, other than moral support? DS TALBOTT: I'm a little curious why you excluded the Latvian Foreign Minister from the question, because I suspect he might...you've heard it?...well, I wouldn't be surprised if you're about to hear it again (laughter). The bottom line is that NO country, Russia certainly included, is justified in economic pressure tactics against Latvia. We are all aware, certainly I am acutely aware, of the immediate contentious issue, which has to do with Latvia's citizenship law. This subject, of course, has been front and center in discussions that we have been having with our Latvian friends and colleagues, and I might add it's a subject that has come up in the bilateral channel that we have with the Russian Federation. The United States is a multiethnic democracy; that's one of many things we have in common with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. We believe very much that if all three of these countries are going to attain the aspirations that we so heartily support, then inclusiveness and reconciliation need to be watchwords as they move forward into the future. We very much respect the Latvian Constitution, and we respect the workings of the Latvian Democracy. And we realize that Latvian democracy has not yet had the last word with regard to the citizenship law. But I will tell you that Latvia's friends in the United States salute the wisdom, the far-sightedness, the statesmanship of President Ullmanis, and of the Latvian Parliament, in passing the citizenship law that they did on the 22nd of June. It is our strong belief that if enacted, and if implemented, that law will put Latvia very much in accord with the relevant standards, and the relevant standards are those of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe], and no country will have any basis for complaint or pressure tactics. And in any event, even as this process goes forward, and as Latvian democracy continues to work, no country has any justification in engaging in intimidation or pressure tactics, not least because, to use a word that's much favored back in Washington, such tactics, I suspect, would be counterproductive. But you invited my colleagues to speak to this. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Saudargas: Of course we try to help what we can, a very recent example was when it was known that the foreign minister of Russia, Mr. Primakov, was coming to Russia, we have been in contact my colleague, Mr. Birkavs, and our Presidents were in contact, and (we all were) able to present Latvia's position to Mr. Primakov. DS TALBOTT: Latvia is in a very good position to explain its OWN position to the Russians, or anybody else who is interested in it. I have met few more articulate counterparts in diplomacy than the Foreign Minister himself. (Latvian Foreign Minister Birkavs expresses thanks for the compliment) Estonian Foreign Minister Ilves: Counterproductivity is really the best description of the entire problem. I mean, let's look at it analytically. In case you don't know, Estonia actually has had double tariffs placed on it since 1993, so in this case we have been in the situation that has been threatened against Latvia for quite some time. Now, what has been the effect of this? Well, first of all, that part of the business community which is most actively engaged with Russia are in fact the ethnic Russians living in Estonia, so, it's a dubious political point if you're hurting the people in whose name you are implementing a policy. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's not very much in the national interest of the country or in the economic interest of Russia, since the effect that we have noticed has been a decrease in trade with what you might have called the Former Soviet Union of around 91-92 percent in 1991; now we have 65 percent of our trade with the EU. 65 percent of our trade with the EU has also forced the Estonian production to increase its quality so it can compete on the western markets, so essentially we can be thankful for these sanctions, because it's been part of the discipline that has been imposed on the Estonian economy to get its act together in order to be able to sell its goods elsewhere, which it is doing very successfully. So in a sense, maybe it's not so bad, but I would say, in terms of Russian national interest, that (sentence incomplete). Aivars Ozolinsh, "Diena": Mr. Talbott, the Polish President Kvashnevski, who happens to be in Riga, has said in an interview published today that he is sure Poland alongside with Czech Republic and Hungary will become members formally admitted to NATO already this year, repeating the assurance expressed by their Defense Minister, Anishkevichs, last week who mentioned the reasons for the early admission of these three countries, as not to embarrass Mr. Yeltsin and the Washington conference. As we know, and as you have already said, there have not been any decisions taken as to what will happen at the Washington Conference, or around it. What do you think is the source of, let's say, to borrow the phrase President Clinton has borrowed for his inauguration speech, the "forced spring of NATO" for these three countries? DS TALBOTT: For these three countries? What was the phrase, especially because you are quoting my President? Ozolinsh: "Forced Spring" DS TALBOTT: "Forced Spring"? Are you asking for the timetable of further enlargement of NATO? Ozolinsh: I am asking the reasons of the possible sources of optimism for the three countries? DS TALBOTT: I see, not these three countries [The Baltic States], but the three countries that have already been designated. Thank you. First, of all President Kvashneviski is well justified in his optimism that his country [Poland], the Czech Republic and Hungary will indeed be accepted into the alliance formally and officially in the relatively near future. It would make sense, for all kinds of reasons, to have them formally enter in advance of the April, 1999, NATO Summit in Washington. I can't prejudge how exactly and when it is going to happen, because there are still some parts of the process that are incomplete. But let me say why I think it's important that it happened at least a little while before the April, 1999, meeting in Washington: because the April 1999 meeting in Washington is not just about the enlargement. Enlargement is a very important part of the process of change that is taking place in NATO, but it is not by any means the only part. NATO is adapting to new realities, new opportunities, new challenges in many other ways, as well. As the hosts of the summit next year in Washington, the United States government will want to make sure that the meeting and the event highlight all aspects of the adaptation of NATO, not just enlargement, but also the ways in which it is adapting new concepts, and procedures internally, to take account of the end of the Cold War, and ways in which it is deepening and strengthening its cooperation with Partner states -- some of whom, like the three represented here, are aspirants for membership in NATO, and whose aspiration we are encouraging, and other Partner states that have not expressed an interest in joining the alliance. So there is a big and complex agenda to be featured at the summit next year, and it would make sense, I think, for the three states who were designated in Madrid to be formally part of that process as new member states. Sergei Zanitayev, Riga Russian-language daily "Panorama Latvii": Mr. Talbot, you have told us today that if some members of the community are excluded from the benefits of the opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship, then the society and the nation as a whole suffer. Why this opinion has not been expressed in 1994, when the Latvia Law of Citizenship was first accepted? DS TALBOTT: Well, Latvian democracy and Latvian society are very much a work in progress -- incidentally, that is true of every society on the face of the Earth, and you should want it to be true; I don't think any of us should want a society to be utterly static, and not to change at all. And Latvia, like Estonia and Lithuania, only very recently regained their independence and their freedom and became once again democracies, so it is quite natural that our Latvian friends have been grappling with the problem of what Latvian statehood means, and what Latvian citizenship means. What has been absolutely a point of consistency, is the view of the United States. I was first in Riga when I was in your line of work [journalist] 12 years ago, when I was here for a conference in Jurmala, but I came back to Riga as a government official in 1993, and an important part of one of the themes that I developed then in my conversation with President Ulmanis and his colleagues was the importance of inclusiveness and reconciliation as bedrock principles for defining citizenship and status. So that's been a point of continuity for the United States, and we very much welcome and salute the Latvian President and the Latvian Parliament for a very important step that they made together on the 22nd of June, and we can only hope that that indeed will be Latvian law on this issue. We think that Latvia will benefit, and that means Latvians coming from different ethnic backgrounds, different countries of origin, and different language groups. It will also be good for the region as a whole, and it will be good for American interests here, which are intense. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Valdis Lapisnskis: Mr. Talbott, how will it affect the U.S.-Latvian relations if the starting referendum will stop the citizenship law? DS TALBOTT: I have learned two things since I went from your line of work to my current line of work, and one lesson I have learned is not to answer hypothetical questions. But I can only -- and I think its responsive to your hypothetical question, which I'm not going to answer as such -- reaffirm what is NOT a hypothetical proposition: that is to comment on the events that have already occurred here, and that is the event of January 22, in the Parliament, and to express alongside the respect that all Americans feel for the Latvian constitution and Latvian democracy, the hope that the voice and will of the people will affirm the wisdom of the Parliament and the President. (End transcript)