Latvian Link
News
Picture Album
Bush/Putin Transcripts

June 21, 2001

 
 
Sveiki, all!

Happy "Jani" to you all, as red-blooded Latvians everywhere celebrate the summer solstice! We'll be celebrating this weekend, as well!

In the news:

When we have a chance, we will also be making Bush's speech in Poland (which reassured the Baltics on NATO membership), and the Bush/Putin press conference from Yugoslavia available as part of the mailer when it gets archived to our web site.

This week's link is to the Library of Congress.

This week's picture is a peek down the side streets of Vecriga.

As always, AOL'ers, Remember, mailer or not, Lat Chat spontaneously appears every Sunday on AOL starting around 9:00/9:30pm Eastern time, lasting until 11:00/11:30pm. AOL'ers can follow this link: Town Square - Latvian chat. And thanks to you participating on the Latvian message board as well: LATVIA (both on AOL only).

Ar visu labu,

Silvija Peters

  Latvian Link

From this week's news:

  Library of Congress accounts on Stalinist-era repression:
   http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html

  News


Latvian tax official killed in mafia-style hit
Reuters World Report
Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:42:00 AM
Copyright 2001 Reuters Ltd.

    RIGA, June 14 (Reuters) -- An unidentified gunman shot a regional tax official dead in Latvia on Thursday, in a gangland-style murder which revenue officials called a declaration of war by the mafia.
    Vjaceslavs Liscovs was shot three times, once in the head, as he and his driver walked through a car park near his office in the small town of Ludza, a local police official said.
    "The general director of the revenue service, Andrejs Sonciks, called this a declaration of war by the mafia. That is how we perceive it," Dita Klavina, a spokeswoman for the revenue service, told Reuters.
    Liscovs, 49, headed the revenue service in the eastern Ludza region, some 200 km (125 miles) from Riga. It is a key transit point for rail and road cargo to and from neighbouring Russia and a focal point in the war against smuggling.
    Liscovs gained a reputation as a hard-nosed tax official in that war since taking up his post in November 1999, Klavina said, and had received threats recently.
    Mafia-style hits were common in the first years after Latvia regained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, but have waned in recent years amid a crackdown on organised crime. But mafia-type organisations are still thought to be active, especially in smuggling.

Baltic states mark 60th anniversary of first mass deportations under Stalin
AP WorldStream
Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:56:00 AM
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
By MICHAEL TARM
Associated Press Writer

    TALLINN, Estonia (AP) -- Two 12-year-old friends sat on prison trains 60 years ago, peering out barb-wired windows and listening, confused and afraid, to the clickety-clack of wagon wheels against the rails.
    Their families, like thousands of others across the three Baltic states, were awakened by Soviet troops on June 14, 1941, marched at gunpoint to cattle cars and packed in. There wasn't room to lie down; holes in the wooden floors served as latrines.
    In a surreal interlude, their trains -- already in Russia and en route to Siberia -- drew side-by-side a few days later and young Lennart and Ulo suddenly saw each other. They shouted excitedly across the gap for several minutes until their trains finally diverged for good.
    Lennart Meri, now Estonia's president, and Ulo Johanson were lucky enough to survive cruel conditions and return safely home, years later. Both Johanson's parents died in Siberia, as did thousands of the estimated 200,000 Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians deported through the 1940s and early '50s on orders of Soviet leader Josef Stalin.
    "What a wonderful feeling to meet him again," said Johanson, now 72, after seeing Meri earlier this week. "We played as children and we shared the same tragic fate. When we shook hands just now, he said, 'You see, we survived after all.'"
    Meri spent the past three weeks criss-crossing the country to personally greet as many surivors as possible, and thank them, he said, for persevering. At a park in Tallinn on Wednesday, 2,000 people waited in a cold, blustery rain for up to three hours to exchange words with the president. One of the last in line was Johanson.
    "This isn't our day of glory, but neither is it a day of infamy," Meri told one gathering in southern Estonia on Monday. "We have won and they have lost."
    After Stalin and Adolf Hitler signed a non-agression pact dividing Europe into spheres of influence, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed the Baltic states in 1940. The Nazis invaded in 1941, and the Soviets returned in 1944. The Baltic states only regained independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
    The three Baltic states consider the deportations as national tragedies which they now commemorate every June 14.
    "Estonians were also arrested and killed before June 14, though this was done mostly in silence," explained Estonian historian Toomas Hiio. "But that day was when all Estonians saw with their own eyes what the new regime meant."
    Flags draped with black ribbons flew across all three Baltic states Thursday. In Estonia, church bells tolled at noon. In Latvia, people lit candles by a railway where they or their relatives had been herded onto Siberia-bound trains.
    Nearly 10,000 Estonians, including 4,000 children and infants, were arrested on June 14, 1941. That was one percent of the country's population. Another 50,000 followed. Many didn't return and presumably died of overwork, disease, starvation, abuse -- or were executed.
    Meri's office said Thursday that during his three-week tour, he personally met about 7,000 former deportees.
    He has actively supported the prosecution of a handful of ex-officials who helped carry out the deportations. Estonians aren't out for revenge, he insists. But they do want to understand and shed light on what happened.
    "We don't have the luxury of living in the past like some old French aristocrats," he said in an interview. "It's our duty to live for the future. And this can only be achieved without hating the past and without seeking revenge."
    He told an audience of deportees that Estonia needs to focus on integrating with the West, including by joining the European Union and the NATO military alliance.
    Baltic leaders often cite Soviet repression as an inspiration for their bids to join NATO. The alliance says the door is open to them, but Russian opposition has made the question of Baltic entry politically sensitive.
    "Estonia is expecting to join NATO," Meri said. "It'll mean our children and children's children won't have to be worried about their security. Let them be worried about their math homework instead."
    -- -- --
    On the Net:
    Library of Congress accounts on Stalinist-era repression:
    http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intro.html

Analysis: NATO enlargement grows as issue
COMTEX Newswire
Saturday, June 16, 2001 6:59:00 AM
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Chief International Correspondent

    LJUBLIANA, Slovenia, Jun 16, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- President George Bush began his first summit with Russian President Vladmir Putin a day early, with a dramatic speech in Poland that put the day's summit partner on notice that NATO enlargement is going ahead anyway, whether Russia likes it or not.
    "All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe -- as Europe's old democracies have," Bush said in the big policy speech of his European trip.
    The last public statement by Putin on the issue, in a speech at the Russian foreign ministry in February, warned that such enlargement to parts of the former Soviet Union, like the three Baltic states, was "unacceptable."
    The issue of NATO enlargement now threatens to be an even bigger issue at the Saturday summit in the ex-Yugoslav republic of Slovenia then even the thorny problem of missile defenses, which had hitherto looked to be the main challenge.
    First, it is more immediate. Missile Defense technology has yet to be developed or deployed. NATO enlargement is coming in November next year, at the NATO summit in Prague.
    Second, NATO enlargement is a matter of supreme urgency for those countries still clamoring to join the Alliance, and they will not let the matter drop. Missile defense has its advocates, but not in the form of countries and political leaders and foreign ministries and embassies determined to keep NATO at the top of the international agenda.
    Third, NATO enlargement is inescapable at the very site of this first Bush-Putin summit. Slovenia is one of the states on the front rank of candidates to join NATO next year.
    "We are firmly knocking on the door and I expect the door to NATO to open in 2002 at the Prague summit," said Slovenian President Milan Kucan, host of the Bush-Putin meeting.
    Fourth, the alternative hope of many eastern European countries, to join the European Union, is faltering. Ireland's referendum last week rejected the Treaty of Nice, which must be ratified by all 15 current EU members before the Treaty provisions, including the institutional changes required by EU enlargement, comes into force. The EU summit in Sweden, still sitting Saturday, was trying to find a way to solve the Irish issue and go ahead with enlargement. But even if they succeed, the target date for the first new members is 2004, two years after NATO's second phase of enlargement next year.
    Fifth, President Bush has now made NATO enlargement into an issue of high moral principle, a stand from which it would not be easy to back down. In his Warsaw speech Friday,
    "I believe in NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings. The question of "when" may still be up for debate within NATO; the question of "whether" should not be," Bush said. "As we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a pawn in the agendas of others. We will not trade away the fate of free European peoples. No more Munichs. No more Yaltas."
    Munich, the 1938 peace conference where Britain and France appeased Hitler by trading away chunks of Czechoslvakia, and Yalta, the 1945 summit between the wartime allies of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, are the two dirty words of Europe's diplomatic history. By putting his determination to enlarge NATO in such terms, Bush has issued Putin a powerful challenge. Swallowing NATO's enlargement to the gates of St Petersburg could be a major political problem for Putin in Russia, where leading political figures warn this would be seen as a national humiliation.
    Five countries are leading candidates for NATO's enlargement next year: Slovakia, Slovenia, and the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Romania and Bulgaria are thought to be less prepared. Croatia, Macedonia and Albania have all declared their hopes to join eventually.

Russia welcomes Latvian move to ease naturalization requirements
AP WorldStream
Saturday, June 16, 2001 2:37:00 PM
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press

    MOSCOW (AP) -- The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed approval Saturday of moves by Latvia to simplify the naturalization process for ethnic Russians, whose status has been a touchy topic between the two countries.
    Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko praised Latvia's decision to lower the fee for applying for citizenship, and to make a school exam in Latvian equivalent to the government language exam required for citizenship, Interfax reported.
    Russia has criticized Latvia's policy toward ethnic Russians, many of whom immigrated to the small Baltic nation or were born there after it was occupied by Soviet forces during World War II.
    After the Soviet collapse, only people who were residents of Latvia before the Soviet occupation and their descendants were granted automatic citizenship. Out of a 2.5 million population, some 550,000, mostly Russian-speaking residents have not yet qualified for citizenship.
    Yakovenko was quoted as saying that a speedy resolution of the citizenship issue "is a key element in improving the unfavorable situation regarding the rights of non-Latvians, most of whom are our compatriots.
    Many Russians speak little or no Latvian and so couldn't pass the required exam, though some 300,000 Russian-speakers have qualified for Latvian citizenship.
    Latvia has defended its language requirement for citizenship, saying preservation of the country's language is crucial to protecting Latvian culture.

Slovenia summit: 'Putin wins by knockout'
COMTEX Newswire
Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:42:00 PM
Copyright 2001 by United Press International
By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst

    WASHINGTON, Jun 19, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Not all the European and U.S. analysis and commentary on President George W. Bush's first summit meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia was as laudatory and uncritical as a sample of U.S network television news coverage would have you think. Putin won serious political points and international credibility in the weekend summit at Brdo Castle in Slovenia. He came out of it looking far more statesmanlike and dignified than the U.S. president. He presented himself as moderate and willing to compromise on issues like missile defense. And he did all of that without giving an inch on any of his hard-line policies.
    Putin even succeeded -- with Bush's enthusiastic support -- in getting the U.S. president to set a precedent of avoiding any criticism of Putin's relentless drive to crush independent expression in the Russian electronic media in his effort to recreate a centralized authoritarian state. In other words, Putin came out of Brdo looking presidential and Bush, the tall, lean macho Texan cowboy, left it looking, well, weak in comparison. The English language Moscow Times newspaper, which has been unrestrained and fearless in its criticism of Putin, pulled no punches in its assessment of who "won" the political clash of presidents and systems at Brdo. "There can be little doubt that Russia's president emerged by far the more statesmanly, despite the poor hand that global political and economic circumstances have handed him," the paper concluded in an editorial Tuesday.
    Half a world away, The Washington Post newspaper reached a similar conclusion Tuesday. Bush "detracted from a generally successful and important trip to Europe with his excessive praise of ... Putin's character," the paper concluded in an editorial.
    Nor "was the mistake without consequence," it continued. "It undercut (Bush's) professed commitment to democracy in Russia. ... It was a surprising mistake for the new president."
    Bush also followed in his father's footsteps towards China rather than Ronald Reagan's towards the Soviet Union a decade ago in taking care not to upset Putin by pushing hard on human rights issues with him.
    Analyst Yevgenia Albats in the Moscow Times on Tuesday noted that Bush in Brdo "did not raise the question of human rights violations in Chechnya. He said nothing about freedom of the press in Russia. He seemed to leave words such as 'democracy' out of the conversation."
    Bush presented himself during the election campaign as a hard bargainer. He repeatedly criticized former President Bill Clinton for giving Russia and China far too soft treatment in negotiations.
    But at Brdo, he gave Putin major concessions for free -- or at least, for the price of a few smiles and soft words spoken so that he could present the summit as a major foreign policy success. He freely offered Putin U.S. support to win Russian entry into the World Trade Organization. He also urged U.S. businessmen to invest in Russia.
    Albats compared Bush's enthusiasm for unilateral economic concessions combined with his reluctance to raise human rights issues with the policies of Presidents Richard Nixon in the 1970s and Bush's father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, towards in the late 1980s towards the Soviet Union. But there was one major difference.
    Nixon and Bush Sr., or "41," as the U.S. Secret Service, at the urging of Bush Jr.'s staff has taken to calling him, both saw economic concessions and public restraint on human rights issues as part of a broader detente strategy.
    It included trading real U.S. concessions for real Soviet ones on nuclear missile capabilities. Both Nixon and Bush Sr. saw adherence to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as central to that grand strategy of engagement with Moscow.
    But Bush Jr. is determined, as he repeatedly reiterated during his European trip, to abandon strategic partnership or engagement with Russia. He remains determined to scrap the ABM Treaty and push ahead unilaterally with a U.S. built anti-ballistic missile defense system, although the technology to build such a defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles does not yet exist and is not remotely close to being developed. Bush also said in his speech in Warsaw -- in the heart of what Russians regard as the historic Western invasion route into the heart of their great nation -- that he remained determined to expand NATO to the borders of Russia.
    In plain terms, that meant defying Moscow by welcoming three former Soviet republics -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- into the Western Alliance.
    While Bush remains committed to these policies, if he dreams for a second that his personal charm, his concession on WTO membership and his restraint on human rights issues will cut any serious ice with Putin, he is sadly mistaken.
    Putin's behavior both before and after the summit made this very clear. Immediately before it, he held what the Moscow Times called " a successful, orderly and businesslike Central Asian summit in Shanghai." At that summit, Putin took another measured, major step towards nailing down Russia's strategic alliance with giant China, which for the past three decades has been the key "swing" major power of the world.
    For a quarter of a century, it threw its weight behind the United States to neutralize the Soviet Union. Now it has decisively switched to support Russia to break the United States' global hegemony since the end of the Cold War.
    And after Brdo, Putin flew to the Yugoslav capital Belgrade to support President Vojislav Kostunica of Yugoslavia, the leading opponent of U.S. and NATO policies in the Balkans. He joined Kostunica in calling for a regional security conference there and won widespread sympathy for his initiative around Europe.
    It is certainly true that Bush performed far more impressively in Europe than his -- many -- European critics had anticipated. But then, their prior expectations of him were so low that almost any performance would have done that.
    But to call Bush's first European tour as president and his first summit with the president of Russia a triumph, as his tame -- and entirely predictable -- courtiers in the press have done is a gross distortion of the facts. It willfully ignores a large body of evidence and commentary to the contrary.
    Bush won the illusion of partnership with Russia but failed to strike any deal -- or offer any real prospect of one -- that would induce Russia to abandon its world-spanning strategy of building up America's enemies and undermining U.S. global leadership.
    He committed himself in Warsaw to enraging Russia further by extending the NATO security alliance to including three former Soviet republics, all of whose populations are fiercely anti-Russian.
    And in his Warsaw speech, by pledging no diplomatic retreats or sell-outs around the world, he also locked the United States further into a looming clash with China over Taiwan that could lead to limited conventional war between America and China. That was guaranteed to throw Russia and China even more into each other's arms.
    Nor, despite his widely reported and applauded personal informality and warmth, did Bush budge an inch on his policies on global warming and missile defense that have angered so many European governments.
    Effectively, the president of the United States told the leaders of the European Union and Russia they would have to swallow his unilateral policies whether they liked it or not. He had already given the same message to China.
    Any policy more guaranteed to diplomatically isolate the United States across the entire Eurasian landmass from Paris to Hong Kong and Berlin to Beijing could hardly be imagined.
    The Moscow Times got the outcome of the Brdo Summit entirely right in its assessment: "Putin won by a knockout."

NATO will expand next year
COMTEX Newswire
Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:16:00 PM
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
By PAMELA HESS

    WASHINGTON, Jun 20, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- NATO will admit at least one new member next year, NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said Wednesday.
    NATO decided to expand its ranks at a meeting last week in Brussels, a decision overshadowed in the press by the international debate about President Bush's desire to build a missile defense system.
    "The zero option is off the table," Robertson said. "There will be an enlargement of NATO next year ... At least one invitation will be extended" at a conference in Prague in the Czech Republic next year, provided the prospective member continues to make democratic and economic reforms.
    The NATO alliance holds as a central principle that all members should be "producers" rather than "consumers" of security, meaning the government must be stable and economically healthy and have professional, well-funded armed forces to contribute to NATO's arsenal.
    Robertson did not predict which of the supplicants would be granted entry into the 50-year-old alliance.
    Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1997, and Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, formerly Warsaw Pact countries, are all looking to become members of the alliance. It is an idea Russia is not comfortable with.
    Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern as to why NATO is pushing into Eastern Europe.
    "Look, this is a military organization," Putin said in a news conference with President Bush last week. "It's moving toward our border. Yes, it's moving toward our border. Why?"

Analysis: Fooled by a smile
COMTEX Newswire
Monday, June 18, 2001 12:34:00 PM
Copyright 2001 by United Press International
By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst

    WASHINGTON, Jun 18, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- "Can I trust him? I can," George W. Bush said of Vladimir Putin at their first summit meeting in Slovenia this weekend. But on Monday, right after the summit, the president of Russia took the president of the United States by surprise. He flew unexpectedly to Pristina, capital of the NATO-occupied Yugoslav province of Kosovo, and blasted U.S. and Western policy there.
    Less than five months into his presidency, Bush's shoot-from-the-hip, publicly announced conclusion that Putin was "trustworthy" already seems certain to haunt him as surely as Franklin Roosevelt's conclusion that Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was a man with whom he could do business.
    Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman, wrote to his family from the 1945 Potsdam Conference that he "liked" Uncle Joe -- who murdered even more people than Adolf Hitler -- and found him refreshingly straightforward. Putin is not Stalin. And he is indeed trustworthy. That is to say, he can be trusted to advance the national security interests of Russia at the expense of those of the United States. And, indeed, he did so the very week before the Slovenia summit, when he concluded a far-reaching extension of strategic cooperation with China over Central Asia in Shanghai. Bush and his top advisers appeared oblivious to this in their summit sessions with Putin at Brdo Pri Kranju outside the Slovenian capital of Ljubliana.
    Many photographs were taken of Putin smiling and laughing with Bush. After the summit, White House spinmeisters argued that Bush had pulled off an impressive achievement by keeping Putin in such a good mood despite the president's tough -- and well-received -- speech in Warsaw and his repeated determination to expand the NATO alliance to the borders of Russia, while still keeping Russia out of it.
    Bush's officials appear to be so obsessed with the stereotype that Russians always snarl and say "nyet," as their diplomats did so often in the late 1940s and 1950s during the height of the Cold War, that any smile and polite agreement must be a huge diplomatic triumph by comparison. They seem blind to the rather radical idea that Putin may actually have lied to them and that the smiles may -- Shock! Horror! Outrage! -- only have been an act.
    But if one ignores the smiles, it is clear that the summit revealed the United States and Russia to be set on a collision course in virtually all major foreign policy areas. The smiles were just a thin crust of glittering ice over a dangerously simmering volcano of deadly distrust. Putin warned Bush not to push ahead with his beloved plan to develop an anti-missile defense system without Russia's approval. But Bush remained determined to do so anyway.
    Bush had earlier in his European trip made clear that he was determined to extend the shield of the NATO alliance to every Central European nation not yet within it.
    This would mean a vast extension of U.S. military commitments at the very same time Bush and his Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are talking openly about radically downsizing U.S. conventional forces, especially the Army.
    Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon high-tech guru who is Rumsfeld's favorite weapons planning adviser, even believes main battle tanks are obsolete and wants to slash production of them to make way for his believed ABM systems and space-based wonder-weapons, even those have not even been successfully created yet.
    Bush in his Warsaw speech also pledged not to make any strategic withdrawals from commitments to defend America's far-flung allies around the world. "No more Munichs; no more Yaltas," he declared. That means that the United States remains committed to confront mainland China to defend Taiwan, even while it is similarly committed to defending Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from neighboring Iraq and Iran. And it will also simultaneously be extending its military commitments in Europe to defend the Baltic States, Romania and other nations as well.
    All these policies are anathema to Putin and his strategists in Moscow. They fear the United States may be emboldened to use its global supremacy to eventually dismantle the Russian Federation itself. They see U.S. criticism of their ruthless crushing of the national secessionist movement in Chechnya as possible preparation for an eventual U.S. military intervention on behalf of Chechnya or other rebellious ethnic minorities. Russia has 300 of them.
    But Putin is not remaining fearfully or distrustfully on the defensive. He has long gone on the attack. Even commentator William Safire, one of the most triumphal hawks in the U.S. media, noted in his column Monday that an alliance between Russia and China "would challenge America's status as the world's sole superpower."
    He took Putin's meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin in Shanghai last week as a threat by Russia to force the United States to support Russia "lest we undermine your hegemony with a Beijing-Moscow axis."
    But Safire was behind the curve. The Beijing-Moscow axis already exists. It has been gathering speed for years. Russia already sells China as much of its crown jewels -- its state-of-the-art weaponry that China wishes to buy, even on highly unfavorable terms. That is because Russia wants China to be capable of militarily standing up to, and defying, the United States in any eventual confrontation over Taiwan.
    Putin's smiles and soft talk with Bush and his eagerness to nod sagely and laugh at Bush's jokes in Brdo were just a brief, and highly successful, tactical diversion from the serious business of forging even closer global cooperation with China. And the purpose of that cooperation is to topple the United States from its increasingly isolated and over-extended perch of global leadership.
    Putin's surprise, lightning visit to Kosovo Monday, like his previous visits to Vietnam and Cuba, was a deliberate tweaking of the American eagle' s tail. And it was also another careful probe for weaknesses in America's overextended global deployment.
    Bush and his spinmeisters should not be misled or deluded by their superficial diplomatic success at the Slovenia summit. They have "lost" Russia by failing to offer Putin any real or serious concessions. And the consequences of that will be far more devastating than they appear to be capable of imagining.

  Picture Album

A peek down the side street off of the Dom Church Square... someday we'll have a full walking tour of Vecriga, but there's all those slides to scan... for now, we catch a glance down Rozenu iela.

Rozenu iela - Vecriga Tour

  Transcripts

This past week saw President Bush embrace Eastern European aspirations to NATO, giving the Baltics cause for hope. Reviews of Bush's statesmanship were mixed, however, as we read in the news.

Following are transcripts of:

  • Bush's speech in Poland, stressing there shall never be a divided Europe again
  • Bush's and Putin's news conference wrapping up their meeting in Yugoslavia

Bush's speech in Warsaw
AP US & WorldFriday, June 15, 2001 1:32:00 PM
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
Transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.

    BUSH: Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. President, thank you very much for your gracious hospitality that you and your wife have shown Laura and me.
    Mr. Prime Minister, members of the government, distinguished members of the clergy, distinguished citizens from this important friend of America, students, Mr. Rector, thank you very much for your warm greeting.
    It's a great honor for me to visit this great city, a city that breathes with confidence, creativity and success of modern Poland. Like all nations, Poland still faces challenges, but I am confident you'll meet them with the same optimistic spirit a visitor feels on Warsaw streets and sees in the city's fast-changing skyline.
    We find evidence of this energy and enterprise surrounding us right now in this magnificent building and, you can hear it in the air.
    Today's own -- Poland's orchestra called Golec's -- is telling the world, "On that wheat field, I'm gonna build my San Francisco; over that molehill, I'm gonna build my bank."
    Americans recognize that kind of optimism and ambition because we share it. We are linked to Poland by culture and heritage, kinship and common values. Polish glassmakers built and operated the new world's first factory in Jamestown, Virginia in 1608.
    Seeking the right to vote, those same Poles also staged the new world's first labor strike. They succeeded. It seems the Poles have been keeping the world honest for a long period of time. Some of the most courageous moments of the 20th century took place in this nation. Here in 1943, the world saw the heroic effort and revolt of the Warsaw Ghetto; a year later, the 63 days of the Warsaw uprising and then the reduction of this city to rubble because it chose to resist evil.
    Here communism was humbled by the largest citizens' movement in history, and by the iron purpose and moral vision of a single man, Pope John Paul II.
    Here Polish workers led by an electrician from Gdansk made the sparks that would electrify half a continent. Poland revealed tothe world that its Soviet rulers, however brutal and powerful, were ultimately defenseless against determined men and women armed only with their conscience and their faith.
    Here you have proven that communism need not be followed by chaos, that great oppression can end in true reconciliation, and that the promise of freedom is stronger than the habit of fear.
    In all these events, we have seen the character of the Polish people and the hand of God in your history. Modern Poland is just beginning to contribute to the wealth of Europe, yet for decades you have contributed to Europe's soul and spiritual strength. And all who believe in the power of conscience and culture are in your debt.
    Today, I have come to the center of Europe to speak of the future of Europe. Some still call this the East, but Warsaw is closer to Ireland than it is to the Urals. And it is time to put talk of East and West behind us.
    Yalta did not ratify a natural divide; it divided a living civilization. The partition of Europe was not a fact of geography; it was an act of violence.
    And wise leaders for decades have found the hope of European peace in the hope of greater unity.
    In the same speech that described an iron curtain, Winston Churchill called for a new unity in Europe from which no nation should be permanently outcast.
    Consider how far we have come since that speech. Through trenches and shell fire, through death camps and bombed-out cities, through gulags and food lines, men and women have dreamed of what my father called a Europe whole and free.
    This free Europe is no longer a dream; it is the Europe that is rising around us. It is the work that you and I are called on to complete. We can build an open Europe, a Europe without Hitler and Stalin, without Brezhnev and Honecker and Ceausescu and, yes, without Milosevic.
    Our goal is to erase the false lines. Our goal is to replace the false lines that have divided Europe for too long. The future of every European nation must be determined by the progress of internal reform, not the interests of outside powers.
    Every European nation that struggles toward democracy and free markets and a strong civic culture must be welcomed into Europe's home. All of Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between, should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as Europe's old democracies have.
    I believe in NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibility that NATO brings.
    The question of when may be still up for debate within NATO.
    The question of whether should not be. As we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a pawn in the agendas of others. We will not trade away the faith of free European peoples -- no more Munichs, no more Yaltas.
    Let us tell all those who have struggled to build democracy and free markets what we have told the Poles: From now on, what you build, you keep. No one can take away your freedom or your country.
    Next year, NATO's leaders will meet in Prague. The United States will be prepared to make concrete historic decisions with its allies to advance NATO enlargement. Poland and America share a vision. As we plan the Prague summit, we should not calculate how little we can get away with, but how much we can do to advance the cause of freedom.
    The expansion of NATO has fulfilled NATO's promise, and that promise now leads eastward and southward, northward and onward.
    I want to thank Poland for acting as a bridge to the new democracies of Europe and a champion of the interests and security of your neighbors, such as the Baltic states, Ukraine, Slovakia. You're making real the words "for your freedom and ours."
    All nations should understand there is no conflict between membership in NATO and membership in the European Union. My nation welcomes the consolidation of European unity and the stability it brings. We welcome a greater role for the EU in European security, properly integrated with NATO. We welcome the incentive for reform that the hope of EU membership creates.
    We welcome a Europe that is truly united, truly democratic and truly diverse, a collection of peoples and nations bound together in purpose and respect, and faithful to their own roots.
    The most basic commitments of NATO and a European Union are similar: democracy, free markets and common security.
    And all in Europe and America understand the central lesson of the century past. When Europe and America are divided, history tends to tragedy. When Europe and America are partners, no trouble or tyranny can stand against us.
    Our vision of Europe must also include the Balkans. Unlike the people of Poland, many people and leaders in Southeast Europe made the wrong choices in the last decade.
    There communism fell, but dictators exploited a murderous nationalism to cling to power and to conquer new land. Twice NATO had to intervene militarily to stop the killing and defend the values that define a new Europe. Today, instability remains and there are still those who seek to undermine the fragile peace that holds. We condemn those, like the sponsors of violence in Macedonia who seek to subvert democracy.
    But we've made progress. We see democratic changes Zagreb and Belgrade, moderate governments in Bosnia, multiethnic police in Kosovo, the end of violence in southern Serbia .
    For the first time in history, all governments in the region are democratic, committed to cooperating with one another and predisposed to join Europe. Across the region, nations are yearning to be a part of Europe. The burdens and benefits of satisfying that yearning will naturally fall most heavily on Europe itself.
    That is why I welcome Europe's commitment to play a leading role in the stabilization of Southeastern Europe. Countries other than the United States already provide over 80 percent of the NATO-led forces in the region.
    But I know that America's role is important and we will meet our obligations. We went into the Balkans together and we will come out together. And our goal must be to hasten the arrival of that day.
    The Europe we are building must include Ukraine, a national struggling with the trauma of transition.
    Some in Kiev speak of their country's European destiny. If this is their aspiration, we should reward it. We must extend our hand to Ukraine, as Poland has already done with such determination.
    The Europe we are building must also be open to Russia. We have a stake in Russia's success. And we look forward to the day when Russia is fully reformed, fully democratic and closely bound to the rest of Europe.
    Europe's great institutions, NATO and the European Union, can and should build partnerships with Russia and with all the countries that have emerged from the wreckage of the former Soviet Union. Tomorrow I will see President Putin and express my hopes for a Russia that is truly great; a greatness measured by the strength of its democracy, the good treatment of minorities and the achievement of its people.
    I will express to President Putin that Russia is a part of Europe and, therefore, does not need a buffer zone of insecure states separating it from Europe. NATO, even as it grows, is no enemy of Russia. Poland is no enemy of Russia. America is no enemy of Russia.
    We will seek a constructive relationship with Russia for the benefit of all our peoples.
    I will make the case, as I have to all the European leaders I have met on this trip, that the basis for our mutual security must move beyond Cold War-doctrines. Today, we face growing threat from weapons of mass destruction and missiles in the hands of states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. So we must have a broad strategy of active nonproliferation, counterproliferation and a new concept of deterrence that includes defenses sufficient to protect our people, our forces and our allies, as well reduced reliance on nuclear weapons.
    And finally I'll make clear to President Putin that the path to greater prosperity and greater security lies in greater freedom.
    The 20th century has told us that only freedom gets the highest service from every citizen: citizens who can publish, citizens who can worship, citizens who can organize for themselves without fear of intimidation and with the full protection of the law.
    This, after all, is the true source of European unity. Ultimately, it's more than the unity of markets, it is more than the unity of interests. It is the unity of values.
    Through a hard history with all its precedents of pain, Europe has come to believe in the dignity of every individual, in social freedom tempered by moral restraint, in economic liberty balanced with humane values.
    "The revolutions of 1989," said Pope John Paul II, "were made possible by the commitment of brave men and women inspired by a different and ultimately more profound and powerful vision: the vision of man as a creature of intelligence and free will, immersed in a mystery which transcends his own being and endowed with the ability to reflect and the ability to choose, and thus capable of wisdom and virtue."
    This belief successfully challenged communism. It challenges materialism in all its forms. Just as man cannot be reduced to a means of production, he must find goals greater than mere consumption.
    The European ideal is inconsistent with the life defined by gain and greed and the lonely pursuit of self. It calls for consideration and respect, compassion and forgiveness, the habits of character on which the exercise of freedom depends. And all these duties and all these rights are ultimately traced to a source of law and justice above our wills and beyond our politics.
    An author of dignity who calls us to act worthy of our dignity. This belief is more than a memory; it is a living faith.
    And it is the main reason Europe and America will never be separated. We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance. We share a civilization. Its values are universal, and they pervade our history and our partnership in a unique way.
    These trans-Atlantic ties could not be severed by U-boats. They could not be cut by checkpoints and barbed wire. They were not ended by SS-20s and nuclear blackmail. And they certainly will not be broken by commercial quarrels and political debates.
    America will not permit it. Poland will not allow it.
    This unity of values and aspirations calls us to new tasks. Those who have benefited and prospered most from the commitment to freedom and openness have an obligation to help others that are seeking their way along that path.
    That is why our trans-Atlantic community must have priorities beyond the consolidation of European peace. We must bring peace and health to Africa -- a neighbor to Europe, a heritage to many Americans, a continent in crisis and a place of enormous potential.
    We must work together to shut down the arms trafficking that fuels Africa's wars, fight the spread of AIDS that may make 40 million children into orphans and help all of Africa share in the trade and promise of the modern world.
    We must work toward a world that trades in freedom, a world where prosperity is available to all through the power of markets, a world where open trade spurs the process of economic and legal reform, a world of cooperation to enhance prosperity, protect the environment and lift the quality of life for all.
    We must confront the shared security threats of regimes that thrive by creating instability, that are ambitious for weapons of mass destruction and are dangerously unpredictable.
    In Europe, you are closer to these challenges than the United States.
    You see the lightening well before we hear the thunder. Only together, however, can we confront the emerging threats of a changing world.
    Fifty years ago, all Europe looked to the United States for help. Ten years ago, Poland did as well. Now we and others can only go forward together.
    The question no longer is what others can do for Poland, but what America and Poland and all of Europe can do for the rest of the world.
    In the early 1940s, Winston Churchill saw a world war and a cold war to a greater project. "Let the great cities of Warsaw and Prague and Vienna banish despair even in the midst of their agony," he said. "Their liberation is sure. The day will come when the joy bells will ring again throughout Europe and when victorious nations, masters not only of their foes, but of themselves, will plan and build in justice, in tradition and in freedom a house of many mansions where there will be room for all."
    To his contemporaries who lived in Europe of division and violence, this vision must have seemed unimaginable. Yet, our fathers, yours and mine, struggled and sacrificed to make this vision real.
    Now it is in our grasp. Today, a new generation makes a new commitment: a Europe and an America bound in a great alliance of liberty, history's greatest united force for peace and progress and human dignity.
    The bells of victory have rung. The Iron Curtain is no more. Now we plan and build the house of freedom, whose doors are open to all of Europe's peoples and whose windows look out to global challenges beyond.
    Our progress is great, our goals are large, and our differences, in comparison, are small.
    And America, in calm and in crisis, will honor this vision and the values we share.
    Poland in so many ways is a symbol of renewal and common purpose. More than a half a century ago, from this spot, all one could see was a desert of ruins; hardly did a single unbroken brick touch another. The city has been razed by the Nazis and betrayed by the Soviets. Its people were mostly displaced.
    Not far from here is the only monument which survived. It is the figure of Christ falling under the cross and struggling to rise. Under him are written the words: "Sursum corda" -- "lift up your hearts." From the determination in Polish hearts, Warsaw did rise again, brick by brick. Poland has regained its rightful place at the heart of a new Europe, and is helping other nations to find their own.
    Lift up your hearts is the story of Poland. Lift up your hearts is the story of a new Europe. And together let us raise this hope of freedom for all who seek it in our world.
    God bless.

Bush-Putin News Conference
AP US & WorldSaturday, June 16, 2001 2:17:00 PM
Copyright 2001 The Associated Press
A text of the news conference Saturday by President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Brdo Pri Kranju, Slovenia, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc.:

    BUSH: Good afternoon.
    President Putin and I have just concluded two hours of straightforward and productive meetings. We had a good discussion of our views of Russian-American relations and of the changing world at the beginnings of this new century. Our countries have common interests, and we share great responsibilities.
    My meeting with President Putin today is an important step in building a constructive, respectful relationship with Russia, a relationship that has the potential to benefit not only our two countries, but also the world. Russia is an important country with vast potential. When Russia and the United States work together in a constructive way, we can make the world a safer and more prosperous place.
    I enjoyed the opportunity to meet President Putin in person for the first time. I am convinced that he and I can build a relationship of mutual respect and candor, and I am convinced that it is important for the world that we do so.
    More than a decade after the Cold War ended, it is time to move beyond suspicion and toward straight talk, beyond mutually assured destruction and toward mutually earned respect. As we work together to address the world as it is, not as it used to be, it is important that we not only talk differently, we also must act differently.
    We have great opportunities to cooperate on economic, commercial, regional and security issues. President Putin and I have agreed to launch an extensive dialogue about a wide range of issues that we can constructively address together.
    We also discussed the importance of a sound investment climate to improve Russia's future economic prosperity. I was so impressed that he was able to simplify his tax code in Russia with a flat tax. I'm not so sure I'll have the same success with our Congress.
    We must continue a dialogue, so I am prepared to send both Secretary O'Neill and Secretary Evans to Moscow soon to further our discussions. I want to encourage Russian and American businesses to become more involved in our discussions so that together we can foster meaningful investments. President Putin agrees with this approach.
    And we've agreed to launch regular, detailed and serious consultations on the nature of our security relationship.
    I said to President Putin that we need a new approach for a new era, an approach that protects both our peoples and strengthens deterrence by exploring and developing a new attitude toward defenses in missile defenses. I directed the Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to work with their Russian counterparts to begin discussing a new security framework. I have invited President Putin to Washington this fall; he accepted. He invited me to Russia, and I accepted, and I look forward to the visit.
    We also agreed to continue our cooperation and work toward common solutions on important regional issues, from the Balkans to Nagorno-Karabakh to Afghanistan. And we discussed our common interests in developing the energy resources of the Caspian Basin in a way that benefits all the countries of the region.
    Respectful relations require honesty, and we did discuss areas where my country has differences with Russia: over Chechyna, over media relations. I also expressed my hope that Russia will develop constructive relations with its neighbors, like Georgia, that are trying to find their own way in a challenging but hopeful world.
    This was a very good meeting, and I look forward to my next meeting with President Putin in July. I very much enjoyed our time together. He's an honest, straightforward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well. Russia and America have the opportunity to accomplish much together. We should seize it, and today we have begun. And finally, I'm especially pleased we were able to have this meeting in Slovenia, one of the success stories of southeast Europe.
    In my meetings today with the president and the prime minister, I reaffirmed America's support for Slovenia's integration with Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community.
    I especially thank the people of Slovenia, and I want to thank the leadership for such warm hospitality and congratulate the people on the 10th anniversary of its independence on June 25. I only regret not staying long enough to see Lake Bled or to climb Mount Triglav. Who knows, maybe I will have the opportunity down the road.
    Mr. President?

    PUTIN (through translator): First of all, I want to confirm everything that's been said by President Bush when he characterized our meeting. I would even add that I was counting on an open, frank dialogue, confidential dialogue. In this regard, as they say in cases like this, reality was a lot bigger than expectations, because this was not only a confidential discussion, but extremely and all the way to more than what you could expect from frankness, because President Bush, as a person who has studied history, proposed a very global, wide-scale approach and view to history.
    And it is very interesting and positive. We sat and talked about the past, about the present, about the future of our countries and about the development in the situation in the world for many years into the future. This was really a very interesting discussion.
    I think that we found a good basis to start building on our cooperation.
    We are counting on a pragmatic relationship between Russia and the United States. We compared our approaches in key areas, and once again we established our common ground.
    I want to return now to what the president said very recently, that Russia and the United States are not enemies. They do not threaten each other. And they could be fully good allies.
    And taking into account the fact that the United States and the Russian Federation, as no one else, as no other country of the world, have accumulated huge amounts of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, we bear a special responsibility for maintaining common peace and security in the world -- for building a new architecture of security in the world.
    All of this presupposes a very close cooperation for strengthening security in the 21st century. I'm saying this, any unilateral actions can only make more complicated various problems and issues.
    One of the central topics of our discussion was the strengthening of strategic stability. We exchanged our views on our approaches. It was very important for me to hear how and what the president of the United States thinks and to hear directly from him.
    In turn, naturally, I expressed the approaches of Russia in this sphere. The differences in approaches do exist, and naturally in one short moment, it's impossible to overcome all of them. But I am convinced that ahead of us we have a constructive dialogue and the will to talk about these topics, to discuss, to hear each other. And to my mind, this is very important.
    The president and I have agreed that we're going to tell our ministers of defense, secretaries of defense, foreign ministers, to continue in this vein, to continue this discussion without any pauses.
    Of course, we discussed some very difficult regional issues in the Near East and Afghanistan and the Balkans. I have to say that this discussion showed that the differences in our approaches in the very fundamental areas are much less than that which unites us.
    The differences in our positions, positions of the two countries really are not of a fundamental nature, a global nature, something which cannot be solved, not at all. I think that it would be very incorrect for us to start forcing on issues and arguments and not take into account the very fundamental, main concepts and issues in our relationships, which are the basis in the whole foundation of the relationship between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.
    The president and I are united in saying that the economic ties between our two countries do not correspond to the potential of our two countries. The government of the Russian Federation, businessmen of both countries and the U.S. administration, of course, can do a lot more to support the effectiveness of our economic ties. And the president expressed that we need an additional impulse for our businessmen, and we will do everything possible to receive a very high-level business delegation of the United States to Russia. Moreover, especially if it is headed by one of the senior officials of the U.S. administration.
    Here there are a lot of very specific issues. We talked about energy resources. We talked about using the Caspian Basin. You know, very soon the new pipeline system is going to go into effect, which is going to be transporting energy resources from the Caspian Region through Novorossiisk. And this is a joint project of two companies -- Russian and American companies. I am sure that this will not be the last such project.
    I want to stress here that the issues that were discussed in Ljubljana are going to be the subject of our continuing dialogue. And we really in fact did agree that we're going to talk in Genoa. We're going to talk in Shanghai at the APEC conference.
    And I'm very grateful to the President of the United States for inviting me to the United States. I would do it with great pleasure, especially because he invited to have me over at his ranch.
    And I'm going to receive him in my own home, not just in Russia, but in my own home.
    And the last, in the last few months, at the very threshold of our meeting, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that U.S.-Russian relations are overburdened by problems and issues that are somehow reaching a critical stage. I think the very nature and the result of our discussion today between myself and the president of the United States will put an end to all of these rumors.
    We see very clearly, very positive prospect of our relationship in the future, and we are all geared up to work in the future constructively, pragmatically and to establish very good, predictable relationship.
    And of course, I cannot but say the very highest about the hospitality of our hosts, who provided us with all the conditions necessary for holding this very good meeting -- good, moral atmosphere.
    Thank you, thank you ever so much.

    BUSH: Good job.

    QUESTION: Will Slovenia get an invitation to NATO at the next summit in Prague, where, according to Lord Robertson, enlargement will happen?
    And what is the Russian position on enlargement?


    BUSH: I went to my first NATO summit, and there appears to be a uniform desire to expand NATO. That is certainly the position of my country.
    But as I reminded the leaders today, there is a process, and the countries must work toward that process. I am impressed by the progress being made in this country, and we will take that under consideration when we meet in Prague a year from this fall.

    QUESTION: Mr. Putin, you are leaving from Slovenia straight to Belgrade. Do you have any concrete solutions for the Balkan crisis?

    PUTIN (through translator): As I understand you, what you have in mind is the situation in the region. Yes, it's working. It's working. It's good to have dealings with the effective people that make things work.
    As I understand it, what you have in mind is the overall situation in the Balkans, right? Macedonia, Kosovo, et cetera, right? Well, we do have our own idea a vision of what's happening here and how we should act.
    Today we did discuss with the president of the United States, Mr. Bush, the most important things that we have to really pay attention to, is to put an effective block, an end, to any kind of extremism and feelings of intolerance, religious intolerance, people who are trying to solve -- no matter how complex an issue of national or ethnic or religious conflict, weapons simply are not those kinds of things which can solve these problems.
    In some of the countries of the former Soviet Union, for instance, you probably know -- we talk about this very often -- in the Balkan states, for instance, we feel that human rights are damaged, especially of the ethnic Russian populations. In Latvia, for instance, 40 percent of the population is Russian-speaking. A huge number of noncitizens, in other words, people who can't even get citizenship. We don't send weapons there. We don't support those people. We don't call it terrorism. We don't try to get people to rise up on the basis of national or ethnic origin or religious feelings. We don't encourage people to take up arms to fight against that.
    I stress again, and I insist, the people who try to do this do not deserve the support of the international community. But on the contrary, the international community must say once and for all, everybody who does this will receive a due answer.
    These things can only be solved through negotiations. It's a very difficult process. It requires patience, but there is no other way.

    QUESTION: A question to both of you, if I may.
    President Putin, President Bush has said that he is going to go forward with missile defense plans, basically with or without your blessing. Are you unyielding in your opposition to his missile defense plans, and is there anything you could do to stop it?
    And to President Bush, did President Putin ease your concern at all about the spread of nuclear technologies by Russia? And is this a man that Americans can trust?


    BUSH: Yes.
    Do you want to go first?

    PUTIN (through translator): As far as the issue of anti-missile defense, the official position of the Russian government is known. I don't think we need to spend time to yet again declare it.
    We proceed from the idea that the 1972 ABM Treaty is the cornerstone of the modern architecture of international security. We proceed from the premise that there are elements which unite us with our partners in the United States.
    When we hear about things like concerns of the future and about threats in the future, we do agree that together we have to sit down and have a good think about this. But we proceed from the idea that these concerns and threats are different kinds of things. Threats have to be defined. We have to look at where they come from and then make some decisions as to how we have to counter them.
    We feel that we can do it best together. Based upon today's dialogue, I have come to the conclusion and the impression that we might have a very constructive development here in this arena. At least the president of the United States has listened carefully, listens to our arguments very carefully. But I think the specialists, as I have said before, have to sit down, have contact to identify the overall platform that we're going to work from and try to find a way together to solve these problems.
    Now as far as the issue of proliferation and nonproliferation, I have to say that, in our opinion, this is a topic that is very, very closely tied to the ABM Treaty, because many other things are hooked on to this same string. And many threshold states, when it comes to the destruction of the previous accord, can only be happy and say, "Look, fantastic. Yesterday we were threshold; nobody agreed to took any account of us, now today recognizes us." This is a problem we're going to have to really think very hard about.
    Can we trust Russia? I'm not going to answer to that. I could ask the very same question.

    BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.
    We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue. There was no kind of diplomatic chit chat, trying to throw each other off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue, and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him.
    Secondly, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk about a new relationship, and we will continue these dialogues. The basis for my discussion began with this simple premise, that Russia and the United States must establish a new relationship beyond that of the old Cold War mentality.
    The Cold War said loud and clear that we're opponents and that we bring the peace through the ability for each of us to destroy each other. Friends don't destroy each other. People who cooperate do not have a basis of peace on destruction.
    Our nations are confronted with new threats in the 21st century. Terror in the hands of what we call rogue nations is a threat. I've expressed my concern and so did the president, very openly, about nations on his border and nations that can't stand America's freedoms developing the capacity to hold each of us hostage, and he agreed.
    I brought up concerns about Iran, and I'm hesitant to put words in the president's mouth, but he said he's concerned as well.
    And I think that's accurately categorized as your position.
    And we'll work together to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And I believe as we go down the road that we'll be able to develop a constructive relationship as to how to use our technologies and research and willingness to keep the peace in a way that makes the world more peaceful. I was so pleased that we were able to begin constructive, real dialogue between our Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Mr. Sergei Ivanov. These will be fruitful discussions, and I believe what people will see is a joint strategy.
    The president is a history major, and so am I. And we remember the old history. It's time to write new history in a positive and constructive way.

    QUESTION: This is a question to both presidents, if you'll allow.
    Mr. Bush, you partially answered -- you talked about issues of strategic security and talked about the future. In this connection, could you tell us anything about what you talked about the expansion of NATO? Thank you.


    BUSH: I did. I said I thought that it was a wise thing for NATO to expand so long as nations met their obligations and met what's called the MAP process.
    I said yesterday in Poland, I felt like a secure border for Russia, a border with safe and friendly nations, is a positive. And I expressed my government's position very plainly. And the president, of course, had a reaction which I'm sure he'll give you right now.
    I thought he was going to give it to you right now.

    PUTIN (through translator): Yes, I'm going to lay it out for you.
    I'm going to lay it out for you.
    I'm going to read to you something which was recently declassified. Speaking for myself -- look, this was printed a while back, but there are attached addendum documents which were secret. The copy declassified was top secret. Look, here it is.
    This is a note of the Soviet government from 1954 sent to the countries of NATO. Here is what it says: "The leadership, holding to its inalienable policy and taking into account all the tensions, this Soviet government announces its intention to enter into discussions with NATO countries about its participation in NATO with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
    And this was the answer. Look, here is the answer. All right, here we go. The Soviet government proposed -- they were talking about the widening of the NATO pact and what they're going to do about bringing Soviet Union in: "There is no need to stress the completely unrealistic nature of such a proposal from the Soviet Union." That's the answer that NATO gave.
    So what we're talking about here -- you remember, about a year ago I think somebody asked the question about, what's your attitude? Is it possible that Russia is going to join the NATO or not? I said, "Why not?" And right away Mrs. Albright, former secretary of state, she was someplace on a trip to Europe, said, "Look, we're not talking about this right now."
    Look, you understand that our attitude toward NATO was not as one toward an enemy organization, of course not. And I'm very grateful to the president of the United States that finally, from the territory of the United States, these words were heard. This is very important for us. We value this. When the president of a great power says he wants to see Russia as a partner and maybe even as an ally, this is worth so much to us.
    But if that's the case, then, look, we ask ourselves a question. Look, this is a military organization. Yes, it's military. They don't want us there. They don't want us there. It's moving toward our border. Yes, it's moving toward our border. Why?
    So this is the foundation of all of our concerns, not just to bring it in or not bring it in or accept NATO or not accept NATO. Look, the positive feeling that we now have developed today with President Bush could be a separate subject of discussion, because, you know, Russia is cooperating with NATO. We have agreement. We have association. We have various accords and treaties. ... And there is no need to fire up this whole situation.

    QUESTION: Mr. President, did you offer President Putin any inducements in this conversation to ease his opposition to a U.S. missile defense plan?
    And, President Putin, to follow up on your comments just now, does the simple fact of President Bush saying that Russia is not an enemy actually change your strategic or military planning?


    BUSH: I offered something: logic and a hopeful tomorrow. I offer the opportunity, which the president is going to seize, for us as leaders of great powers to work together. We have a unique opportunity to address the true threats of the 21st century together. We have a great moment during our tenures to cast aside the suspicions and doubts that used to plague our nations, and I am committed to do so.
    I said in Poland and I'll say it again, Russia is not the enemy of the United States. As a matter of fact, after our meeting today, I am convinced it can be a strong partner and friend, more so than people could imagine.
    The leader of Russia is working hard on behalf of his people to promote prosperity and peace, and I believe our nations can work together to achieve prosperity and peace not only within our respective countries, but around the world. I believe that. And so, we didn't have a bargaining session. We had a session of two men who've come to office for the right purpose, not only to represent our countries, but giving our respective standings to work together to deal with the threats of the 21st century. A threat of the 21st century is energy. A threat of the 21st century is poverty. A threat of the 21st century is the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And as the president said to me, clearly, he said that you're not the only nation that cares about weapons of mass destruction; we care.
    And we have an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to reject extremists that could threaten our respective nations and threaten our alliances. And we will do so. We will do so.
    And today has been a very constructive day. Everybody is trying to read body language. Mark me down as very pleased with the progress and the frank discussion.
    We'll meet again in July, then later in the fall. We're going to have the great Crawford, Texas, summit. And I believe that the people who watch carefully our relationship will see that it grows and emerges. It starts with trust. Ron asked a great question: Can I trust him? And I can. And from that basis, we can begin a very fruitful relationship.

    QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you offered in this meeting?

    BUSH: We did not. I mean, first of all, our relationship is larger than just security relationships. It's bigger than figuring out how to deal with the ABM Treaty. It's much bigger than that. It deals with two leaders who share values.
    The president told me something very interesting. He said, I read where you named your daughters after your mother and your mother-in-law. And I said, Yes, I'm a great diplomat, aren't I?
    And he said, I did the same thing.
    I said, Mr. President, you're a fine diplomat, as well.
    We share our love for our families. We've got common interests. And from that basis, we will seize the moment to make a difference in the world. That's why he ran for the presidency, and that's why I ran for the presidency.
    And this is not a bargaining session. The president didn't say, "Well, if you do this, I'll do that." It's bigger than that. It's a bigger relationship than that, and it's important to understand that.

    QUESTION: President Putin, you will reply my question on whether the simple fact of President Bush saying the United States is not your enemy actually changes your military thinking or your strategic thinking and planning?

    PUTIN (through translator): This is not a question. I think this has become an interview.
    But look, nonetheless, I will respond.
    It's not by accident that I said that it's important for us. And it seems to me that if you start with a mutual understanding that we are partners, that's the way we're going to move to try to solve this very important issue.
    Look, we didn't just sit down and say that our specialists are going to meet and they're going to have an exchange of views. But we agreed that they're going to discuss very specific questions which cause concern to both sides, very specific items. I'm not prepared right now to get into this publicly, but we're talking about specifics.
    Moreover, I have to say that between Russia and the United States, we have two protocols that we signed on non-strategic ABM systems, in New York and I think it was in Helsinki. And this, too, is the subject of very special review. I think the specialists should define all these things. Again, I repeat, define the threats and those things which just stand in the way, to look at the power that both countries have to neutralize these threats. I think we can work out a common approach.

    QUESTION: To both presidents, if you allow.
    Getting back to trade and economic issues, ties between our two countries, how soon do you think we can expect a delegation of American businessmen to Moscow?
    And do you have any plans on creating an intergovernmental commission of various agencies which could stimulate economic ties between the United States and Russia? Thank you.


    BUSH: Well, I intend to talk to the secretary of commerce as soon as I get back, and tell him of our agreement and get him moving.
    Sometimes I worry a little bit about commissions. If commissions exist just to exist, then I don't think it's fruitful. If commissions exist in order to stimulate action, then perhaps.
    Let me say one other area where the United States is in agreement with Russia: We think Russia ought to be admitted into the World Trade Organization, and we will work toward that end. The Russian president has expressed a desire to join the WTO, and I think it makes sense. I think that will help a lot.
    And there are a lot of areas in our business relationships. I reminded the president that oftentimes people speak in terms of, you know, they say Russia is a country of great resources, only referring to the energy resources, the mining resources, the timber resources, and that is true.
    But Russia has got a resource that's invaluable in this new era, and that's brain power. Russia has got great mathematicians and engineers who can just as easily participate in the high-tech world as American engineers and American mathematicians. And that's an area of great interest to me, and that's an area of great interest to the president. It's an area where we can begin a fruitful dialogue.
    The deployment of capital is something that's very important to Russia. It's important to our businessmen. The president understands it's important to have a rule of law, a reasonable tax system, transparency in the economy. He's working toward that. And I'm grateful that our businessmen and our secretary of commerce will hear that when they travel to Russia.

    PUTIN (through translator): You know, I agree with the president in that, to overload our relationship by a variety of bureaucratic structures and organizations, that's not always justified. The most important thing is to create favorable conditions for effective work by the business community.
    We know the plans of President Bush, with respect to his taxation policy and with respect to other measures which he is planning, with respect to the economy of the United States.
    From our part, we still have to do so much that would make Russia attractive for the foreign investors. Although, among international investors, the Americans are in first place.
    Naturally, first and foremost, we have to take care of the issues of the energy problem in the world at large. American business is showing a great interest in this sphere, but we also know that President Bush has plans in the atomic energy field. Here, too, we think we have a couple of things we could talk about. We have the very fruitful area of cooperation we could work in. We have a number of various structures that are working very appropriately now in reprocessing uranium. We've got pretty good cooperation in space now. It seems to me that, to a significant extent, that which exists now is functioning very successfully now -- the international space station and the participation of the United States and Russia. We have so many other areas we'd like to work in.
    But when the businessmen come -- that depends, of course, on the U.S. side -- but we will receive them at any appropriate time, any time that's appropriate to them.

    BUSH: Thank you. Very good job.
 
latvians.com qualifies as a protected collection under Latvian Copyright Law Ch. II § 5 ¶ 1.2.
© 2024, S.A. & P.J. Vecrumba | Contact [at] latvians.com Terms of Use Privacy Policy Facebook ToS Peters on Twitter Silvija on Twitter Peters on Mastodon Hosted by Dynamic Resources