Pakistan chief judge’s lawyer urges pressure on Musharraf

HONG KONG (AFP) – The lawyer for Pakistan’s top judge, ousted by President Pervez Musharraf, on Wednesday urged the US and Britain to put pressure on the military ruler to ensure “free and fair” polls in the country.

Retired judge Rasheed Razvi, one of four lawyers for suspended chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, said both administrations should break their silence on the unrest in Pakistan in the wake of Chaudhry’s removal from office.

“The United Kingdom and the US are absolutely silent on this issue. They want to have a war on terrorism but they are least interested in the likes of the people in Pakistan,” Razvi said while in Hong Kong for a legal conference.

“They should come forward. They want democracy all over the world. Why do they not want a true and real democracy in Pakistan?” he asked.

His comments follow a request Tuesday from key US lawmakers President George W. Bush‘s administration to ensure that Musharraf does not renege on a pledge to hold elections this year.In a letter the lawmakers asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to publicly call for an immediate end to ongoing violence in Pakistan and urge Musharraf’s administration to hold “free and fair” polls by end 2007.Musharraf is facing the biggest challenge of his eight years in power after he suspended Chaudhry on charges of misconduct on March 9, sparking nationwide protests by lawyers which turned violent on May 12 in Karachi.

More than 40 people were killed in the clashes between pro- and anti-government supporters.

Nevertheless, Razvi said the Chaudhry camp had been encouraged by the public response.

“We have to fight for the survival of the judiciary, for the survival of the civil society. At present the unity of the lawyers is tremendous and so united,” he said.

“I think that will wipe out all apprehension, any kind of fear, and now we are prepared to take any consequences,” he added.

Razvi was confident more demonstrations would continue around the country as the number of Chaudhry’s supporters increased.

“Day by day this movement is getting more and more popular, and more people from civil society are coming to join us. I think this will emerge to be a popular movement when elections are announced,” he said.

“I’m very much positive on the outcome. I think (Chaudhry) will be reinstated,” he added.

Razvi also condemned a media decree signed by Musharraf on Monday to curb press freedom.

Under the decree, the Pakistan electronic media regulator can now seal the premises or confiscate the equipment of television and radio channels, and suspend the licences of offenders.

The Pakistan government issued several warnings to the media last week to halt live coverage of rallies by Chaudhry’s supporters.

Musharraf said last week that the media should not broadcast talk shows dealing with Chaudhry’s suspension issue.

“It ‘s a very oppressive rule. We have the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution,” Razvi said.

President Bush imposes new sanctions on Sudan

By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered new U.S. economic sanctions Tuesday to pressure Sudan’s government to halt the bloodshed in Darfur that the administration has condemned as genocide.

“I promise this to the people of Darfur: the United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world,” the president said.

The sanctions target government-run companies involved in Sudan’s oil industry, and three individuals, including a rebel leader suspected of being involved in the violence in Darfur.

“For too long the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder and rape of innocent civilians,” the president said. “My administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide.

“The world has a responsibility to put an end to it,” Bush said.

The conflict erupted in February 2003 when members of Darfur’s ethnic African tribes rebelled against what they considered decades of neglect and discrimination by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government. Sudanese leaders are accused of retaliating by unleashing the janjaweed militia to put down the rebels using a campaign of murder, rape, mutilation and plunder — a charge they deny. The fighting in Darfur has displaced 2.5 million people.

Bush had been prepared to impose the sanctions last month, but held off to give U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon more time to find a diplomatic end to the four-year crisis in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have been killed.

Beyond the new U.S. sanctions, Bush directed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to draft a proposed U.N. resolution to strengthen international pressure on the Sudanese government of President Omar al-Bashir.

“I call on President al-Bashir to stop his obstruction and to allow the peacekeepers in and to end the campaign of violence that continues to target innocent men, women and children,” Bush said.

Bush said delaying sanctions to allow more time for diplomacy had not been effective.

“President Bashir’s actions over the past few weeks follow a long pattern of promising cooperation while finding new methods for obstruction,” the president said.

“One day after I spoke, they bombed a meeting of rebel commanders designed to discuss a possible peace deal with the government.,” the president said. “In the following weeks he used his army and government- sponsored militias to attack rebels and civilians in south Darfur. He’s taken no steps to disarm these militias in the year since the Darfur peace agreement was signed. Senior officials continue to oppose the deployment of the U.N. peacekeeping force.

“The result is that the dire security situation on the ground in Darfur has not changed,” Bush said.

Al-Bashir agreed in November to a three-phase U.N. plan to strengthen the overstretched, 7,000-strong African Union force in Darfur.

After five months of stalling, the Sudanese president gave the go-ahead in April for the second phase — a “heavy support package” with 3,000 U.N. troops, police and civilian personnel along with six attack helicopters and other equipment.

Over the weekend, however, al-Bashir reiterated his opposition to the deployment of a 22,000-strong joint U.N.-AU force, saying he would only allow a larger African force with technical and logistical support from the United Nations.

The new sanctions target 31 companies to be barred from the U.S. banking system. Thirty of the companies are controlled by the government of Sudan; the other one is suspected of shipping arms to Darfur, the officials said.

Nearly 10 years ago, the United States cut off about 130 Sudanese companies from the U.S. system over a different dispute, forcing them to find ways to do business outside the sanctions framework.

The U.S. also is targeting three individuals, cutting them off from the U.S. financial system to prevent them, too, from doing business with U.S. companies or individuals.

The Treasury Department said that Ahmad Muhammed Harun, Sudan’s state minister for humanitarian affairs, has been accused of war crimes in Darfur by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Sudan’s head of military intelligence and security, Awad Ibn Auf, was also designated, along with Khalil Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement, a rebel group that has refused to sign the Darfur Peace Agreement.

“Even in the face of sanctions, these individuals have continued to play direct roles in the terrible atrocities of Darfur,” said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr. “We are working to call attention to their horrific acts and further isolate them from the international community.”

The U.N. resolution Bush is seeking would apply new international sanctions against the Sudanese government in Khartoum. It also would seek to impose an expanded embargo on arms sales to Sudan, prohibit Sudan’s government from conducting offensive military flights over Darfur and strengthen the U.S. ability to monitor and report any violations.

Meanwhile, Liu Guijin, China’s new troubleshooter on Africa, defended Chinese investment in Sudan Tuesday as a better way to stop the bloodshed rather than the sanctions advocated by the U.S. and other Western governments.

Fresh from his first trip to Sudan since his appointment this month as a special government envoy, Liu said he saw no desperation in refugee camps in Darfur last week and found that international and Sudanese groups were working together to solve humanitarian problems there.

“I didn’t see a desperate scenario of people dying of hunger,” Liu said at a media briefing. Rather, he said, people in Darfur thanked him for the Chinese government’s help in building dams and providing water supply equipment.

Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir

Tyrant of the Month http://www.crusade-media.com/leader.html

Jihadists moving into Lebanon from Syria

By Christopher Allbritton
The Washington Times
May 29, 2007

NAHR EL-BARED, Lebanon — Heavily armed foreign jihadists have been entering Lebanon from Syria from around the time Western authorities noticed a drop in the infiltration of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq, Lebanese officials say.
    
Syrian authorities, hoping to disrupt Lebanon so they can reassert control of the country, “have stopped sending [the jihadists] to Iraq and are now sending them here,” charged Mohammed Salam, a specialist in Palestinian affairs in Lebanon. “They sent those people to die in Lebanon.”
    
Maj. Gen. Ashraf Rifi, commander of Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces, said about half of the militants who have been battling Lebanese forces in the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp outside Tripoli for nine days had fought previously in Iraq.
    
“They are very dangerous,” he said in an interview. “We have no choice, we have to combat them.”
    
Officials traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said before Miss Rice’s meeting with her Syrian counterpart in Egypt early this month that Syria appeared to be taking “positive” steps to guard its border with Iraq, resulting in a reduced number of jihadists crossing the border.
    
But U.N. officials running the Nahr el-Bared camp told The Washington Times that a large band of foreigners carrying mortars, rockets, explosive belts and other heavy weapons entered the camp in a group several months ago.
    
That is near the time that infiltration of militants from Syria into Iraq fell off, according to Lebanese authorities, who suspect the jihadists were simply redirected by Damascus.
    
Several thousand residents have been trapped in the Palestinian refugee camp since fighting broke out May 20 between the army and several hundred militants of a group called Fatah Islam, which includes a large number of foreign fighters.
    
Palestinian leaders tried yesterday to negotiate an end to the standoff, in which Lebanese army forces are ringed around the camp, but Prime Minister Fuad Siniora insisted that the militants surrender and face justice.
    
Gen. Rifi said the foreigners began arriving in Lebanon during the war between Hezbollah and Israel last summer, when between 60 and 70 jihadists were integrated into Fatah al-Intifada, a group set up by Syrian intelligence in the 1980s.
    
In November last year, a Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship named Shaker Youssef al-Absi broke with Fatah al-Intifada and set up a new group, Fatah Islam, based in the Nahr el-Bared camp. Gen. Rifi said Fatah Islam has about 250 fighters, of which about 50 have been killed so far.
    
“They are parasites,” the general said. “Even in Nahr el-Bared, there are not a lot of Palestinians with Fatah Islam.”

The original group had about 30 to 40 Lebanese members and 20 Palestinians in the leadership positions, Gen. Rifi said. The rest were made up of fighters from Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Yemen, Algeria and even from as far as Bangladesh.
    
Residents of the camp appear to have been terrorized by the jihadists, according to interviews with Palestinians who fled for their lives over the past week.
    
The militants “were shooting at anyone who moved,” said one refugee who declined to give his name. He said he could tell they were foreign by listening to their accents, but his wife shushed him and he said no more.
    
Gen. Rifi said there are several more cells of foreign jihadists scattered around Lebanon. Some are in the Palestinian camps, some are in Tripoli and some are in Beirut. Another government official said some were based in the Bekaa Valley.
    
“Some [Gulf] Arabs, originally from al Qaeda, joined the group,” Gen. Rifi said. “But they are false al Qaeda. Our al Qaeda is made in Syria.”
    
Money for the fighters comes from local criminal activities, such as bank robberies — one of which sparked the current standoff — and support from Gulf countries and “local politicians,” said a senior regional military source. “They’re part of the global jihad,” he said.
    
Many government supporters think the timing of this flare-up, given an upcoming U.N. Security Council vote on the formation of an international tribunal to investigate the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, indicates Syria’s involvement.
    
“It’s actually a Syrian-sponsored and -coordinated move to send these jihadis into Lebanon to topple the regime,” said Mr. Salam.
    
Syria has been using the militant Shi’ite group Hezbollah to advance its interests in Lebanon, but Mr. Salam suggested Damascus was worried about inflaming religious tensions with the Sunni-led government that could spill over into Syria.
    
The Syrians “wouldn’t mind demolishing Lebanon, but they didn’t want to do it with a Sunni-Shi’ite war because that could cross the border into Syria. So they got Sunnis to fight Sunnis,” the analyst said. 
    

Iran and U.S. Seem To End 27-Year Diplomatic Freeze

By STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press

BAGHDAD – The United States and Iran broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze Monday with a four-hour meeting about Iraqi security. The American envoy said there was broad policy agreement, but that Iran must stop arming and financing militants who are attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi told The Associated Press that the two sides would meet again in less than a month. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation.
(Article continues after caption)

Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi speaks during a press conference and after his four hours of talks with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker in Baghdad, on Monday , May 28, 2007. Qomi said that he told the Americans that Tehran was ready to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create ‘a new military and security structure’ and he added that the two sides would meet again in less than a month. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban) ********

“We don’t have a formal invitation to respond to just yet, so it doesn’t make sense to respond to what we don’t have,” Crocker told reporters after the meeting.

The talks in the Green Zone offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were the first formal and scheduled meeting between Iranian and American government officials since the United States broke diplomatic relations with Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

An AP reporter who witnessed the opening of the session said Crocker and Kazemi shook hands.

The American envoy called the meeting “businesslike” and said at “the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own.”

However, he said: “What we would obviously like to see, and the Iraqis would clearly like to see, is an action by Iran on the ground to bring what it’s actually doing in line with its stated policy.”

Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: “We don’t take the American accusations seriously.”

Crocker declined to detail what Kazemi had said in the session, but the Iranian diplomat — formerly a top official in the elite Revolutionary Guards Quds Force — said he had offered to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create “a new military and security structure” for Iraq.Kazemi said U.S. efforts to rebuild those forces were inadequate to handle the chaos in Iraq, for which he said Washington bore sole responsibility. He said he also offered to provide what assistance Iran could in rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, which he said had been “demolished by the American invaders.”

The icebreaking session, according to both sides, did not veer into other difficult issues that encumber the U.S.-Iranian relationship — primarily Iran’s nuclear program and the more than a quarter-century history of diplomatic estrangement.

For its part, Iran’s Shiite theocracy fears the Bush administration harbors plans for regime change in Tehran and could act on those desires as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.Washington and its Sunni Arab allies are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam.

Compounding all that is Iran’s open hostility to Israel.But the issues at hand in these first formal contacts portend a bruising set of talks — all other issues aside — should the two sides have follow-up meetings.

The Americans insist that Iran, specifically its Quds force, has been bankrolling, arming and training Iraqi militants, particularly the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Those men, who are deeply embedded in the Iraqi armed forces and police, are believed to make up the Shiite death squads that have pushed Baghdad into the violence and chaos that prompted the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, now in its fourth month.

Beyond that, Iran is charged with sending into Iraq the deadly explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, the armor piercing roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers.  

Mahdi Army commanders have told AP that they receive those weapons from the Revolutionary Guards and that many of the militia’s foot soldiers have gone to Iran for training with the elite military force.

Kazemi and Crocker said the Iranians did not raise the subject of seven Iranians that were captured by the United States in Iraq. Five are still in U.S. custody.

“The focus of our discussions were Iraq and Iraq only,” Crocker said.

Just before 10:30 a.m., al-Maliki greeted the two ambassadors and led them into a conference room, where they sat across a long, glistening wood table from each other. Al-Maliki then made a brief statement before leaving.

He told both sides that Iraqis wanted a stable country free of foreign forces and regional interference. Iraq should not be turned into a base for terrorist groups, he said, adding that the U.S.-led forces in Iraq were only here to help rebuild the army, police and infrastructure.

The United States had no plans to launch a strike against Iran from Iraq, he said.

“We are sure that securing progress in this meeting would, without doubt, enhance the bridges of trust between the two countries and create a positive atmosphere” that would help them deal with other issues, he said.

After he left, the meeting moved to a second room where the delegations sat at three long tables draped in white cloth and put together in a triangular formation. National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie took charge of the Iraqi delegation.

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admitted that its Middle East policy had failed.

“We are hopeful that Washington’s realistic approach to the current issues of Iraq — by confessing its failed policy in Iraq and the region and by showing a determination to changing the policy — guarantees success of the talks and possible further talks,” Mottaki said.

Crocker said he could not speculate whether future talks — even if they happened — would be raised to a higher-level, perhaps that of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mottaki.

One reporter asked Crocker if he had a meal with Kazemi during a break in the talks that ran over the lunch hour.

No, the veteran American Mideast hand said, a wry tone in his voice. “We drank tea together.”

Talks between U.S. and Iran begin

By Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press

BAGHDAD – The United States and Iran began talks on Monday, resuming public diplomacy for the first time in nearly three decades. The meeting between ambassadors on security in Iraq could produce a chapter in world history for its success or a footnote for its failure.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker represented Washington. Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi spoke for Iran at the talks, which were held at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office in the Green Zone compound in Baghdad.

Just before 10:30 a.m., al-Maliki greeted the two ambassadors, who shook hands, and led them into a conference room, where the ambassadors sat across the table from each other. Al-Maliki then made a brief statement and left the room. Iraq was being represented at the talks by National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie.

Monday’s talks were to have a pinpoint focus: What Washington and Tehran — separately or together — could do to contain the sectarian conflagration in Iraq.

Washington wants Tehran to stop arming, financing and training militants, particularly Shiite militias that are fighting American and Iraqi troops. Tehran wants Washington out of Iraq, period.

But much more encumbers the narrow agenda, primarily Iran’s nuclear program and more than a quarter-century of diplomatic estrangement after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.

Further, the Iranian Shiite theocracy fears the Bush administration harbors plans for regime change in Tehran and could act on those desires as it did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.Washington and its Sunni Arab allies, on their side, are deeply unnerved by growing Iranian influence in the Middle East and the spread of increasingly radical Islam.

Compounding all that is Iran’s open hostility to Israel.Those issues, combined, are what make this opening of the U.S.-Iranian minuet both so important and so interesting.

Will this first meeting, as the Iraqis openly hope and as the Iranians and Americans may quietly aspire, be sufficiently cordial and productive that a second meeting becomes possible? Should that happen, will a future dialogue involve higher-level officials — perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki?

On Saturday, Crocker was circumspect when asked about prospects for further meetings.

“It’s going to start with one meeting and see how it goes,” Crocker said. “We’re coming prepared to talk about Iraq.”

Mottaki set out a hard-line opening position.

“The two sides can be hopeful about the outcome of the negotiations, if America develops a realistic view toward Monday’s talks, admits its wrong policies in Iraq, decides to change them and accepts its responsibilities,” he said in Tehran.

A political aide to al-Maliki told The Associated Press that Iraq hoped to play a mediator’s role in easing tensions between the Americans and Iranians, which Iraqi officials have routinely said are being played out in Iraq.

The adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter, said Iraq would remain neutral as regards to its position in the disputes.

“But we want to try to close the gap, to be partners in the dialogue,” the official said. “It is time to look forward, not backward.”

Many small issues could cloud the talks before they begin. There were U.S. Navy exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from President Bush about new U.N. penalties against Tehran over its nuclear program. The United States says Tehran is trying to build a bomb, while Iran says it needs nuclear technology for energy production.

Further complicating the talks, Iran said Saturday that it had uncovered spy rings organized by the United States and its Western allies.

Iran accuses the U.S. of improperly seizing five Iranians in Iraq this spring. The U.S. military is holding the five. Iran says they are diplomats; Washington contends they are intelligence agents.

The U.S. also has complained about the detention or arrest of several Iranian-Americans in Iran in recent weeks. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that issue was not on the U.S. agenda for Monday.

Regardless, the Baghdad talks are the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement is possible after nearly three decades of animosity. Iran, angry over the blunt show of U.S. military power off its coast, almost refused to come.

XM suspends Opie and Anthony for 30 days

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press

McLEAN, Va. – XM Satellite Radio suspended shock jocks Opie and Anthony for 30 days Tuesday, one week after they aired crude sex comments about Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth II and one day after they made light of the incident in their broadcast.Comments made by Opie and Anthony on yesterday’s broadcast put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter,” Washington-based XM said in a statement. “The management of XM Radio decided to suspend Opie and Anthony to make clear that our on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them.”
Opie (Greg Hughes

Opie and Anthony, who last week apologized for the sex comments, struck a more defensive tone on Monday’s broadcast. They lamented the state of radio and what they perceived as excessive reactions to comments made by themselves and other radio disc jockeys.

“We’re under the same scrutiny as (National Public Radio) — it doesn’t make sense,” they said on Monday’s show.

The pair also expressed sympathy for Don Imus, saying his career is now “gone, just because he was trying to entertain people.”

Last month, cable network MSNBC dropped its simulcast of Imus’ show, then CBS Radio fired him for using racist and sexist terms to describe the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

On May 9, Opie and Anthony, whose full names are Greg “Opie” Hughes and Anthony Cumia, aired a segment with a man they call Homeless Charlie. As the names of Rice, Bush and the queen came up, Charlie said in vulgar terms that he would like to have sex with each of them.

Opie and Anthony laughed as they imagined Rice’s “horror” while describing a violent sexual encounter in which Rice is punched in the face.

Opie and Anthony were fired by CBS Radio in 2002 after broadcasting a call from two listeners who said they were having sex in New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

XM hired the pair in 2004. Because the show airs on satellite radio, its content is not subject to regulation by the

Federal Communications Commission.Opie and Anthony also host a syndicated, tamer terrestrial radio program for CBS. Opie and Anthony will be on the air for that program as scheduled Wednesday morning, CBS Radio said Tuesday.A call to Opie and Anthony’s agent, Robert Eatman, was not immediately returned Tuesday.

A spokesman for XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. declined to say whether Opie and Anthony would be paid during their suspension, calling it a contractual matter.

___

Associated Press Writer Larry McShane in New York contributed to this report.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice bids to defuse talk of new Cold War

by David Millikin

MOSCOW (AFP) – US Secretary of State     Condoleezza Rice insisted there was no reason to speak of a new Cold War with Russia as she arrived in Moscow on Monday for talks aimed at halting a dramatic slide in relations.

Parallels drawn by some Russian officials with the era of the East-West Cold War were misplaced, Rice said as she prepared for meetings, including with President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

“I think the parallels just frankly have no basis whatsoever…. It’s not an easy time for the relationship. It’s not. But it’s also not a time in which I think any sort of cataclysmic things are happening,” Rice said.

“There are some things that are going very well, some things that are going less well… and some things that are very problematic. But it’s critically important to use this time to enhance those things that are going well and to work on those things that are not going well,” she said.

Rice’s visit follows a sharp downturn in relations sparked by US military activity in countries that in Soviet times were ruled, often unwillingly, from Moscow.

In particular Moscow has sharply criticized US plans to place elements of a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

The United States and Poland were to begin formal talks on Monday on plans to place interceptor rockets in Poland as part of the shield, which Moscow fiercely opposes.

Rice said Washington was taking steps to involve Moscow in the plans.

She reiterated Washington’s insistence that the defence system is not directed against Russia but is needed to defend against new potential threats, notably from Iran.

“We’ve made some very forward-leaning proposals for missile defence cooperation and I look forward to discussing those further…. This is a limited missile defence system that is aimed at emerging threats,” Rice said.

“It would be I think irresponsible not to look to technology as a way to deal with these limited threats,” she said.

Rice was to start her visit on Monday by having dinner with First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov. Ivanov, who oversees the military-industrial sector of the economy, is seen as a favourite to replace Putin after elections next March.

Foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said that any discussion of missile defence issues in Europe should “meet the security interests of all European states” and be discussed collectively, the ITAR-TASS news agency reported.

Nikolai Bordyuzha, head of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, which unites several ex-Soviet states, said Washington was trying to surround Russia and its neighbours with a “military structure” that he likened to a “loaded gun.”

Also aggravating relations has been US criticism of Putin’s democracy record and the Kremlin’s unease with plans for Kosovo’s independence.

Despite Rice’s reassuring comments, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper wrote Monday that Moscow and Washington had lost all trust and now see each other as a threat.

Rice’s visit “begins a new phase in… relations. As in the days of the USSR, Washington will be guided by a doctrine of ‘strategic patience,’” the paper said.

The deterioration in relations has been evident since Putin made a frontal assault on US foreign policy in a speech in the German city of Munich in February.

Last month Putin said Russia was freezing compliance with a key accord on European security, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty.

Earlier, Rice made clear that the United States was wary of Putin’s leadership.

“I think everybody around the world, in Europe, in the United States, is very concerned about the internal course that Russia has taken,” she told a Senate committee last week.

She said Putin had overseen a rollback of democratic reforms, undermining the independence of the legislature, the media and judiciary.

Rice was due to meet representatives of Russian non-governmental organizations on Tuesday. Civil society has come under pressure during Putin’s rule, particularly groups receiving Western funding.

A US-backed plan currently before the United Nations to grant supervised independence to the Serbian province of Kosovo has also added to tensions.

A long-time ally of Serbia, Russia says any settlement must have the backing of both sides.

State Department officials said Rice would broach all these subjects on a trip designed to smooth relations ahead of next month’s Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany, when Putin will meet with President George W. Bush.

The so-called Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States and their respective allies began soon after the end of World War II and lasted until the Soviet collapse in 1991.

Missile Defense Plans for Europe

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs

Press Roundtable at the U.S. State Department
Washington, DC

May 4, 2007

Assistant Secretary Fried: I’m looking forward to a good conversation on missile defense. And it’s also been a very interesting week, another interesting week, on some other issues with the Russians, so I’m willing to talk about that as well.

I testified with my friend and colleague John Rood yesterday on missile defense, and we are in the United States and in conversations with Europe just still in a beginning stage of working through this issue with our allies, with the Russians and with the Congress.

The issue of missile defense went from being, if you pardon the phrase, a wonk issue of specialists, to being a major political issue and an issue that captured intense scrutiny and interest in Europe and in Russia. This happened suddenly as a result of President Putin’s speech in Munich, and we have intensified the pace of our consultations and increased the level of our consultations, hence Secretary Gates’ trip to Moscow and Secretary Rice’s trip to NATO last week; his trip also to Prague — Gate’s trip, sorry, to Warsaw and Berlin. We’ve had other trips to Prague, other trips to Moscow, other trips to NATO.

So we’ve increased our outreach and work with the Europeans.

We have been very gratified by the results of now three weeks of intensive consultations with our European allies and with the Russians. We have seen a noticeable shift in European attitudes. I cite today’s editorial in Suddeutsche Zeitung which urged its readers to take a second look at missile defense and pointed out that the missiles the Americans were thinking of putting in Poland seemed far less cause for concern than the missiles that Iran was, in fact, developing.

Which means that our central message is getting through and that is this: missile defense should not be seen in the categories of 25 years ago as a replay of the debate over President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. We’re in the 21st Century. We face different strategic challenges. The missile defense of today is being proposed in a radically different strategic context when we have not one great superpower rival in the form of the Soviet Union with its massive arsenals, but also its very considerable assets and interest in the status quo. But we face the possibility that Iran, a very different and in many ways — in most ways — less stable and perhaps more dangerous country, could develop a nuclear arsenal. And as Secretary Gates said in Moscow and in Warsaw, we must think 20 to 25 years ahead about other threats that could arise.

Given that strategic context and the fact that a new generation of technology makes a much more limited system vastly more practical, missile defense makes good strategic sense.

As I said, we’re at the beginning of a process. NATO is grappling with the complicated issues of missile defense, both NATO’s own medium range missile defense programs, and how this could be linked to the American proposed program. Russia, despite the words and the public statements, I am reasonably confident is taking a hard, serious look at the American proposals for missile defense cooperation.

The debates in Germany, in Poland in the Czech Republic, all through Europe I think are going to develop and grow more sophisticated, and as we make our points I’m confident we will meet with greater understanding.

Now a word about the House Armed Services subcommittee reduction of funds for the so-called third site, that is the missile defense installations in Europe. This is one step in what is going to be a very long process. People who understand the defense appropriations process and authorization process know that there are many committees, many, many stages. I regard this rather as a signal of Congress’ state of mind about this program at the moment, or rather, honestly, a state of mind of a few weeks ago. I don’t think the Congress has fully absorbed the intense work we’ve done. The questions yesterday were good questions but did not seem informed by the most recent developments where we’ve gotten stronger support from our allies on missile defense. But, nevertheless, I look forward to working with the Congress. Chairman Wexler is a very serious person, a very thoughtful person. His questions, frankly, even his skeptical ones, are well founded, which means he is also I think interested in really listening, and I look forward to working with him and with others.

With that I will be happy to take questions. As I said, it’s been an interesting week.

Question: Can you give us a preview of the arguments that Secretary Rice will make when she is in Moscow later this month? And can you give us, to try persuade the Russians that missile defense is not indeed a threat to them?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I would never attempt to predict what my boss, Secretary Rice, will say to the Russians. That is both futile and even dangerous.

Question: But will she bring up something new?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I can characterize the arguments that Gates has made and the position he took, and I’m very comfortable talking about what Secretary Rice, the position she took on missile defense at NATO last week, which can give you a clue.

Secretary Gates said that after listening to Russian concerns, which the Russian General Staff presented in some detail, he had two reactions. He said first, Russian concerns seemed motivated by a misunderstanding of the system’s limitations and capabilities. Second, he said that Russian concerns seemed motivated also by a fear not of what the system is today but what it might become. And he said both of these concerns can be addressed, and he said he looked forward to working with the Russians to address them in detail.

He proposed, and the Russians accepted, that we set up a working group on missile defense as well as, by the way, working groups on CFE. We are putting together these working groups. We have my colleague Eric Edelman at the Defense Department, John Rood here, going to play very active roles in this process. Then we have agreed to a Russian suggestion that the Secretaries of Defense and State meet with their Russian counterparts and do so in a so-called 2+2, possibly a 3+3 format if the respective National Security Advisors Steve Hadley and Igor Ivanov were interested.

So all of these offers stand. All of these offers stand and we look forward to working with the Russians.

At the same time, I don’t doubt that Secretary Rice will maintain her position. That is, well, her word was “ludicrous.” It is ludicrous to assert that ten unarmed interceptors stationed in Poland pose any threat to the Russian nuclear arsenal. They simply do not.

Question: Is it conceivable to you that the U.S. government would be willing to give the Russians assurances on the limitation of the [inaudible] in the future to allay that particular concern?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I don’t want to prejudge what the working groups and what we will manage to do with the Russians, but I will say this. Secretary Gates was quite comfortable saying that he wanted to address Russian concerns. He was quite comfortable underscoring our intention to not simply address their concerns, that is deal negatively, allay their concerns, but wanted to deal positively, that is propose rather far-reaching missile defense cooperation. All of this is on the table. I look forward to productive discussions.

Question: The Russians also seem to be really keen on discussing the nature of the threat for some reason, analysis of the threat. Angela Merkel, when she was visiting the other day mentioned that also. So is that a part of the discussion that you are willing to take on with the Russians?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We have, of course, had discussions with the Russians about the threats. We have had long sessions both at the NATO-Russia Council and bilaterally about the threats. However, that said, if the Russians are interested I’m sure that we’re willing to talk about this. And it is, some of the public statements by Russian officials that suggest there is no threat are not necessarily, are not entirely consistent with Russia’s developing views on Iran and their cooperation with us about Iran and its nuclear weapons program.

Question: Sir, since you covered all of the other questions I had on this subject I wanted to ask you about -

Assistant Secretary Fried: That’s good. [Laughter].

Question: Well, you’ve given us situation coverage on the subject. V-Day in Europe. May 8th, May 9th. How important is the legacy of that victory in today’s world?

Assistant Secretary Fried: It is a fact that the grand alliance working together was necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. Now part of your question may be colored by the dispute about the Soviet War Memorial in Tallinn. But let me say in answer to the question you did ask, that we remember that common victory. We have celebrated that common victory. It is a source of great regret that that common victory was followed not by an era of general cooperation to advance freedom and consolidate what the Americans thought had been achieved, but by the Cold War.

It is our view now, with a Europe finally whole, free and at peace, that we can cooperate more and recall that spirit of cooperation. So we do remember this victory and we honor that grand alliance.

Question: Since you mentioned the position of some countries, for their own reasons, and the reasons are understandable, for their historic reasons, may view the situation a little differently. Is it acceptable for someone saying that yeah, our history included taking part in the, I don’t know, extermination of the Jews in Europe, but since it’s our history it must have been good so we will erect monuments to that one and we’ll skip the other side. Is that acceptable?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I don’t know what you’re referring to because I don’t know of any country which expresses itself in those terms.

Question: In Estonia the monuments to -

Assistant Secretary Fried: I don’t know -

Question: – still stands, undeterred.

Assistant Secretary Fried: History is a complicated thing. As I’ve said, for Russians the monument to the Soviet soldiers represented a victory over Fascism in general and Nazi Germany in particular, and that is a valid view. For the Estonians that monument represents something else. It represents the occupation of their country by the Soviet Union and the illegal annexation of that country, and that view has to be also respected.

You are aware, I’m sure, of the history of what happened in 1940 and 1944 and the mass deportations. This history is tragic and it is complicated. It does not excuse the actions of individual Estonians who committed crimes. It does not justify this. And it is also important for the Estonians to come to terms with their history. Not all acts of resistance against the Soviet Union were justified simply in the name of defending, cannot be justified. But Russia also has to look at its own history and understand the point of view of people who were treated rather roughly.

Do we really have to go into the history of what happened when the Soviet Army came in in 1940 and discuss the deportations?

Question: We may and we may -

Assistant Secretary Fried: It’s probably not, I agree, probably not a good idea. But since I’m aware of the rhetoric it is important to remember that you have two sides and two points of view which are not compatible, yet very strongly and in many cases very honestly held. We Americans are trying to be sensitive to both sides.

But in any event, the decision about the war memorial is something the Estonians have to make, have made. We have urged them to do this in a way which is sensitive, sensitive not only to the concerns of Estonians but the concerns of Russians in Estonia, the Russian community, ethnic Russians who are Estonian citizens, and Russians in Russia.

Question: A different subject. I was wondering if you could respond to what I think is a fair description of the skeptics in Congress, not the opponents, but skeptics, which is that missile defense has a value and a broad deterrence policy, but this system in particular is still unproven, although tested. The GAO in March itself said this is relatively untested and unproven.

So bottom line question, why the rush in a manner that is so clearly alienating and isolating Russia and does threat Russia’s [inaudible] the alliance until the system is actually proven to the satisfaction not just of the military, but of those government watchdogs that are paid to watch this?

Assistant Secretary Fried: First, I’m not sure that there is a massive rush. If you look at the timeline for the system becoming operational, I’m told that it would take some years. In fact, quite a number of years before it would be operational.

There are people here who know the details of the system better than I do, and I may turn to them and they are certainly welcome to revise and extend my remarks. I am not a technical expert.

But it seems to me that the technical capabilities from what I have studied, and, again, I do not pretend to be an expert; it seems to me that the technical capabilities of the system are much more advanced than was any system in the mid ’80s during the debate about President Reagan’s initiative and the task, the technical task, is much simpler. We’re not dealing with the Soviet missile arsenal, massive numbers capable of counter-measures. You’re dealing with a system which is going to be much simpler. So I’m convinced there is a much more plausible technical case to be made.

Again, it isn’t so much of a rush as it is a movement in a deliberate way to get this program on track so that there is something fielded by the time we estimate the Iranians might have this kind of capability. You don’t want to have them develop the capability and then only begin to develop your system.

Yesterday in response to this question my colleague John Rood pointed out that Israel, which is kind of a no-fooling target of missiles, has an interesting way of developing its own systems, which is to develop them but also leave in the system enough flexibility to deploy more and more advanced versions of the same system. So you develop these as you’re moving.

Question: Spiral development.

Assistant Secretary Fried: That’s right.

So I think there is a good case to be made. I also don’t accept the characterization that alienating Russia is a result. The Russians are saying a lot of things right now. How much they mean them, how much they’re doing it for other reasons, I can’t say.

Question: If I could pick up on that, what the Russians are saying and why they’re saying it. You restated just a little while ago Secretary Rice’s view that it’s ludicrous to think that ten interceptors could threaten the Russian strategic deterrence. If that’s the case, if we accept that for the moment, what are the Russians really saying? What are their real goals in opposing this so publicly?

Assistant Secretary Fried: Well, it is dangerous to start characterizing the motivations of a foreign government and I myself don’t have a fixed view. The administration doesn’t have a fixed view. But there seem to be several factors.

One, I suppose, is a genuine misunderstanding of what is proposed, and I say that because the Russian military briefing about their concerns over the system had a number of technical thoughts which should be answered and we offered to answer them. So it may be simply a misunderstanding.

Secondly, there may be a fear that we intend this as the beginning of a much larger system which they fear could degrade their deterrent. That’s what Secretary Gates was addressing when he said wait, we can deal with these concerns. To the degree you’re worried about a breakout capability, let’s sit down and talk about that to allay your concerns in a meaningful way.

There may be an element of politics in this. I notice when Russian points in their media and Russian media spokesmen use points that are circulating in Western Europe, I feel that I’m back in the 1980s when the Soviets used to calculate their argument and craft their argument based on what West Europeans were saying critical of the United States. So I think there’s an element of politics involved.

Then there’s the larger question of what if anything has occurred in recent weeks in Russian foreign policy or at least the tone of foreign policy following President Putin’s Munich speech. More assertive, more challenging. That’s an open question. We’re looking at this. It’s one explanation.

In any event, our answer, whatever the explanation, and as I’ve said, we don’t know, our answer is to offer cooperation with the Russians bilaterally, through the NATO-Russia Council, and be completely transparent in everything we do. That’s the right answer. Partly because we’re serious about working with the Russians. It would not be a concession on our part. It would actually be a good thing to work with the Russians, so we mean it, and we will continue to offer that cooperation. Our offers remain on the table.

Question: Just to follow up quickly, what is your sense of why Russian foreign policy has become so much more assertive and challenging?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I have theories of, well, speculations, but you should ask the Russians what lies behind a lot of the rhetoric. Elections? I don’t know.

Question: Have we asked them?

Assistant Secretary Fried: We have lots of conversations with the Russians about a lot of things.

I should also say -

Question: Have you gotten a good answer to that question?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I should also say that in many areas we’re continuing to cooperate well, including on sensitive areas. Including on sensitive areas.

Not only is our cooperation continuing, but we’re making progress in some areas. Our discussions about Georgia and the break-away areas are continuing, and I find that the Russians, my Russian colleagues, are quite serious about this. Wherever we see the chance to make progress, to avoid conflicts, to improve things on the ground, we’re willing to work together.

Question: Can I ask a basic question? The United States can protect itself against long-range missiles by locating the third phase on its own territory. So American officials keep saying that it’s not only for our protection but also to protect Europe.

Assistant Secretary Fried: Yes, that’s right.

Question: But Europe didn’t ask you for the protection. Why do you insist on locating the third phase in Europe?

Assistant Secretary Fried: It is in our interest that Europe be protected as well as the United States. We have discovered that if Europe is not secure the United States is not secure. And during the Cold War there was a concept called decoupling, meaning that Europe and the United States would find themselves no longer linked in a common security space but decoupled. We find that to be something very much not in our interest, and we fear that if the United States were protected against, let us say, an Iranian nuclear arsenal and Europe was not, the impact on us would be bad as well.

I don’t agree with your characterization that we’re insisting and Europe is resisting. I think Europe is having a debate about this. Poland is having a debate about this. I think as Europeans examine this issue beyond the sound bytes and rather primitive political rhetoric that’s been thrown around at first, they will come to see that it is in Europe’s interest to have this system.

Now by the way, European countries — Germany, the Netherlands — are developing national missile defense systems of their own. Smaller range, but they are doing so. And NATO has determined that there is really a threat. They determined this at the Riga Summit last November. This was reaffirmed in NATO-Russia meetings in the last two weeks.

So there is agreement by NATO governments that the threat exists. We are discussing the best ways to combine NATO systems, possible American systems if the Poles and Czechs agree, and even possibly linking this up with a cooperative system with the Russians. So we’re at the early stages of this debate.

Question: Israel was part of the debate yesterday on the Hill and I was a little confused. Geographically a missile defense arrangement in Europe would have no impact on Israel’s security so far as I can tell. Maybe I’m wrong. But why was this part of the discussion on the Hill yesterday?

Assistant Secretary Fried: In strategic terms if Iran were able to threaten Europe with nuclear weapons, it might increase Iran’s ability to intimidate countries in its own region. In fact in my testimony I quoted remarks by President Ahmadi-Nejad which said exactly that. He said Europe might get hurt, America is far away, and we may have our own business in the Middle East. Now he may be an extremist, but he is not stupid. What he was saying is we, Iran, may develop the capability to intimidate Europe which will give us the ability to further intimidate countries in the region of the Middle East. That’s a complicated, strategic argument, but it’s a valid one, I believe.

Question: General Obering has said 2013 is the timeframe for having a full capability in Eastern Europe if negotiations can be wrapped up this year with Poland and the Czech Republic. To what degree are you concerned — given the estimate that Iran will have its capability by 2015 — that the funding debate on the Hill might delay that 2013 date General Obering has talked about?

Assistant Secretary Fried: As I said earlier, you don’t want to wake up and find that the Iranians have a nuclear missile capability and that you are five, eight years away from developing a credible defense. That’s not a situation I want to be in.

Look, I think it’s a very disturbing prospect to think that a country whose President denies the existence of the Holocaust and has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map will have nuclear weapons. Okay? That’s not a very comforting prospect. It doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence.

We don’t want to be in that situation, so I hope as a result of serious discussions such as we had yesterday in the Hill that the funding will be restored and this can go ahead.

Of course we have to negotiate this with the Poles and Czechs. They are sovereign countries. They’re going to ask a lot of tough questions, and we have to have answers.

So the fact that we’re beginning negotiations doesn’t mean these will succeed. The Poles and Czechs have to think this through themselves, and we have to be ready to answer their questions.

Question: To go back to the Russians. After the Gates trip there was, as you said, some modest encouragement that the Russian objections were pretty narrowly focused. Subsequent to that we’ve had this next Putin speech, the state of the union address, that sort of repeated a lot of the rhetoric from the Munich speech.

Assistant Secretary Fried: Although he did not address missile defense per se, he was talking about the CFE Treaty, which I thought no one — there’s probably nobody in this room who really knows the CFE Treaty except maybe a couple of experts.

Question: My general point was you still express some optimism because of some ministerial discussions. Can you give us a sense of why you’re so optimistic on the Russian response while most of the rhetoric we’ve heard from both the Foreign Ministry and from Putin himself has still been rather contentious?

Assistant Secretary Fried: In my experience it’s important not to take initial Russian rhetoric as the final word. It’s important when faced with, initially, let us say skeptical or hostile Russian rhetoric, to do a couple of things. One is work with your allies to make sure you’re in sync, and we’ve done so. Another is to make sure the Russians understand that you are very serious about cooperation and let them know that they have something to gain through cooperation.

So I think if NATO unity crystallizes as it has been, and if the negotiations with the Poles and Czechs go reasonably well, and if it becomes clear to the Russians that we are serious about addressing what legitimate concerns they may have, that they might find a way forward, at least I hope so.

Question: Can I just clarify your point about the CFE. Are you saying there is some hope that he focused on CFE and not missile defense in that speech? Is that a sign that he is actually -

Assistant Secretary Fried: Oh, no. I would not want to read that into it. I was just pointing out that many commentators said he [inaudible] CFE and missile defense. In fact he did not do so. He linked CFE to the Istanbul Commitments. That’s a completely different subject.

Question: Any expected timeframe for this 2+2 meeting, or anything expected in terms of the Putin -

Assistant Secretary Fried: I thought that the general timeframe we were looking at was September, early fall. I don’t think that’s agreed in terms of date, but that was what we were talking about.

It struck us as a good idea. The Russians came to us some time ago and said we really do need to increase our strategic dialogue. We agreed with them and I think we’re in the process of doing that, and we’re going to have quite a number of channels up and running.

Question: It seems to be put on paper after -

Assistant Secretary Fried: Oh, I don’t know. I think that we need to get the working groups established, we need to get our dialogue intensified. I look forward to that process and we’ll see what happens.

Question: And CFE working group will be separate.

Assistant Secretary Fried: Yes, there are four working groups that have been agreed. One is CFE, one is missile defense, one has to do with I believe Trident modification, and START. Post-START regime.

Question: Those are all linked?

Assistant Secretary Fried: No, those are all separate groups but they will fall under two more senior level groups. One group headed by Eric Edelman at Defense; the other headed by John Rood here. And those two will fall under the 2+2 format which the Russians proposed. So you have then quite an elaborate structure of bilateral discussions on a lot of security issues and we’re all looking forward to it.

Question: You’re looking in Geneva?

Assistant Secretary Fried: I certainly hope not. [Laughter]. No offense to Geneva, but I am not so fond of the 1980s that I want to see it repeated.

We are not adversaries. Russia is not the Soviet Union. We do not threaten each other. We face common threats. I do not have the slightest bit of nostalgia for the Cold War. None. It was a rotten waste of resources, a terrible time for a divided Europe. I don’t know why anybody would wish for any of that back. I certainly do not.

Question: A slightly different topic. On Kosovo, after the Contact Group in London, Nick Burns said Russian objections of the Ahtisaari Plan were not insurmountable. Are there signs that there are compromises that could be made in the Ahtisaari Plan, or simply that the Russians are going to ease up on their opposition possibly by -

Assistant Secretary Fried: I don’t want to characterize the Russian position. Nick Burns has returned from London but I haven’t talked to him in detail.

I will say this. We are now prepared to move ahead in the Security Council. The Security Council Permanent Representatives visited Serbia and Kosovo last week. We know that the situation in Kosovo is not inherently stable, and we must move ahead. We know that we cannot go backwards to the situation of 1999.

We look forward to working with our Russian friends to find a way forward to resolve this in a way that is practical, that protects the Serbia community in Kosovo and does so in a way that is lasting and genuine.

Now Ahtisaari’s plan is often commented on by people who have not looked at it, and those who condemn it need to read it because most of Ahtisaari’s plan involves very detailed provisions to protect the Serbian community, the Serbian churches and their lands, the monasteries, and provides very strong and detailed guarantees for that community in the future. It is a good plan. We support it.

Question: Is there room for improvement that might meet some of the Russian reticence?

Assistant Secretary Fried: Let’s see what the discussions on the Security Council Resolution come up with. The Ahtisaari Plan is a balanced, strong plan. Those who criticize it need to become more familiar with its provisions. But we look forward to discussions of the Security Council Resolution. That’s the way ahead. And I think those will begin; I think Nick Burns said next week.

Question: You mentioned that you are just at the beginning of negotiations with the Czechs and Poles.

Assistant Secretary Fried: We have not even started our formal negotiations.

Question: But [inaudible] expressed [inaudible] conditions [inaudible]. Could you confirm the strategy of those two sides, on the Czech Republic and Poles? Are [inaudible]?

The other question is from diplomats I heard they already begin kind of [inaudible] what will be negotiation between the EU and Russia, [inaudible] too far over the heads of [inaudible], in the middle of something.

Assistant Secretary Fried: We have been very transparent not only with the Czech and Polish governments but with all of our NATO allies about our discussions with the Russians. We will continue to do so. The period of negotiating about you without you is over, it is not returning. We don’t do that.

At the same time I can’t comment about differences between the Czech and Polish positions because the negotiations haven’t started, so by definition we don’t have any positions whatsoever. It is true, though, that in my conversations with Czechs and Poles that they want to determine that this system will improve their own security. There’s a very lively debate in both countries about this. And there’s a need for their populations to understand what this is and what this isn’t, and I look forward to having those discussions.

Question: The non-White Paper on missile defense has been presented to NATO -

Assistant Secretary Fried: The non-White Paper, is that a brown paper, a blue paper? [Laughter].

Question: There’s a punch line coming here. The non-White Paper was [inaudible] in NATO, the proposals in the non-White Paper are now before the Russians. So my non-question about the non-White Paper is can you tell us what’s in it?

Assistant Secretary Fried: That paper was a proposal for detailed cooperation on missile defense: technical cooperation, systems integration, all kinds of joint testing of components. There were all kinds of very specific elements. When the Russians saw it they were quite taken aback. They had obviously not expected a proposal that was this far-reaching and this serious.

These are smart people. They knew exactly what that paper meant. They are perfectly capable of telling the difference between empty words and real proposals and they knew that this was real.

I should say that the Czech and Polish governments are perfectly aware of that paper because we also distributed it to NATO. After all, we are talking about integrating NATO systems, possible U.S. systems, and maybe even a Russian system so we’re not doing this in the dead of night. We’re doing this in a way that is cooperative and transparent with our allies and our Russian friends, and we hope that as the discussion continues the sense of cooperation will take hold rather than rhetoric from 25 years ago being tossed around Europe as if nothing’s changed.

My pleasure.

Question: Thank you very much.

US, Russia Agree to High-Level Missile Defense Talks

By David Gollust, VOA, State Department
May 5, 2007

The United States and Russia have agreed to hold special cabinet-level talks in an effort to resolve a dispute over U.S. plans to put elements of a missile defense system in central Europe.  Russia contends the U.S. plan would undercut its strategic deterrence. VOA’s David Gollust reports from the State Department.

A senior State Department official says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will meet with their Russian counterparts later this year in an effort to defuse tensions over U.S. missile defense plans.

Russia has strongly objected to the Bush administration plan to put missile interceptors in Poland and a related radar system in the Czech Republic, which are intended to counter missile firings from Iran or other Middle East “rogue states.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who alleges the U.S. system could negate Russia’s strategic missile deterrence, escalated the dispute last week by saying Moscow would suspend its role in the treaty concluded at the end of the Cold War limiting conventional forces in Europe.

In a talk with reporters, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried said the United States has agreed to a Russian proposal for the unusual “two-plus-two” meetings of foreign and defense ministers, which are tentatively planned for September.

He said the talks may be expanded to also include White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov.

The Bush administration says the plan to put ten interceptor missiles in Poland could in no way counter Russia’s huge arsenal of long-range strategic missiles.

It also rejects the notion advanced by Moscow that the facilities planned for Poland and the Czech Republic are precursors of a larger anti-missile system.

Fried, who accompanied Defense Secretary Gates to Moscow last month, said Russian concerns appear based on a misunderstanding of the limitations and capability of the envisaged system.

He stressed the Bush administration is sincere in its efforts to allay Russian concerns, including an open invitation to Moscow to take part in the program:

“Our answer is to offer cooperation with the Russians, bilaterally through the NATO-Russia council, and to be completely transparent in everything we do. That’s the right answer. Partly because we’re serious about working with the Russians, it would not be a concession on our part, it would actually be a good thing, to work with the Russians,” Fried said. “So we mean it and we will continue to offer that cooperation. Our offers remain on the table.”

Fried said he believes opposition to the missile defense plan elsewhere in Europe is softening amid a U.S. lobbying campaign to explain the purpose of the envisaged system and the threat seen from Iran.

He also said he expects that opposition will recede over time in the U.S. Congress where a key subcommittee voted this week to cut, by half, an administration request for more than $300 million for the program next year.

Some members of Congress accused the Bush administration of trying to rush an unproven system into operation, but Fried says it is prudent to get the program moving before the expected Iranian threat materializes.

“It isn’t so much of a rush as it is a movement in a deliberate way to get this program on track, so that there is something fielded by the time we estimate the Iranians might have this kind of capability,” he said. “You don’t want to have them develop the capability and then only begin to develop your system.”

Formal negotiations over the project with Poland and the Czech Republic have not yet begun and U.S. officials say it could take five years to have the proposed systems in place.

In congressional testimony Thursday, Fried cited intelligence estimates that Iran, which the U.S. believes is trying to develop nuclear weapons, will have long-range missiles by 2015.

He said multi-national diplomacy to dissuade Iran from continuing its nuclear program offers the best course and may succeed. But he said if it fails, the administration has a responsibility to defend the American people and U.S. allies.

George Tenet: Rewriting History

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

George Tenet has a very mixed legacy. On the one hand, he presided over the two biggest intelligence failures of this era — Sept. 11 and the WMD debacle in Iraq. On the other hand, his CIA did devise and carry out brilliantly an astonishingly bold plan to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Tenet might have just left it at that, gone home with his Presidential Medal of Freedom and let history judge him.

Instead, he’s decided to do some judging of his own. In his just-released book, and while hawking it on television, Tenet presents himself as a pathetic victim and scapegoat of an administration that was hellbent on going to war, slam dunk or not.
Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example: “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat.”

Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, ” Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent” — and he was not one of them. That in a post-Sept. 11 world, we cannot wait for tyrants and terrorists to gentlemanly declare their intentions. Indeed, elsewhere in the book Tenet concedes that very point: “It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.”

Tenet also makes what he thinks is the damning and sensational charge that the administration, led by Vice President Cheney, had been focusing on Iraq even before Sept. 11. In fact, he reports, Cheney asked for a CIA briefing on Iraq for the president even before they had been sworn in.

This is odd? This is news? For the entire decade following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was the single greatest threat in the region and therefore the most important focus of U.S. policy. U.N. resolutions, congressional debates and foreign policy arguments were seized with the Iraq question and its many post-Gulf War complications — the weapons of mass destruction, the inspection regimes, the cease-fire violations, the no-fly zones, the progressive weakening of sanctions.

Iraq was such an obsession of the Clinton administration that Bill Clinton ultimately ordered an air and missile attack on its WMD installations that lasted four days. This was less than two years before Bush won the presidency. Is it odd that the administration following Clinton’s should share its extreme concern about Iraq and its weapons?

Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent past. One of the major myths (or, more accurately, conspiracy theories) about the Iraq war — that it was foisted upon an unsuspecting country by a small band of neoconservatives — also lives blissfully detached from history.

The decision to go to war was made by a war cabinet consisting of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. No one in that room could even remotely be considered a neoconservative. Nor could the most important non-American supporter of the war to this day — Tony Blair, father of new Labor.

The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely “realist.” On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd– voted yes.

Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neoconservative Weekly Standard but — to select almost randomly — the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the center-right Economist. Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum — from the leftist Christopher Hitchens to the liberal Tom Friedman to the centrist Fareed Zakaria to the center-right Michael Kelly to the Tory Andrew Sullivan. And the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton’s top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.”

Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com