[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Number 24 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Pages 891-896]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With NATO Secretary General Lord 
Robertson in Brussels

June 13, 2001

    Secretary General Lord Robertson. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you 
for coming. The NATO heads of state and government have just completed 
our informal lunch, where we continued to discuss many of the things 
which were raised in our formal session during this morning.
    It's very rare that the Prime Ministers, Presidents, and the 
Chancellor have an opportunity to discuss privately among themselves the 
broader issues before the Alliance and our long-term strategies, but 
that's what we've been able to do today. And I personally believe it was 
an exceptionally useful meeting.
    I had a chance to speak with you earlier on, on the discussions in 
the formal session, and I've already issued a formal press release, and 
I have nothing further to add at this time. But let me take this 
opportunity, on his very first visit to the headquarters of the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, to introduce the President of the United 
States, President George W. Bush.
    President Bush. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much for your 
hospitality. I've got a statement to make, and we'll be glad to answer 
some questions.

[[Page 892]]

    Before I talk about the meeting, I do want to say a brief word on 
some important developments in the Middle East. I'm encouraged that both 
Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to a cease-fire plan, 
and I'm proud of America's role in helping to achieve it.
    Today, on my flight from Spain to here, I talked to CIA Director 
George Tenet, who has worked very hard to bring the parties together. He 
is cautiously optimistic about the agreement that's been signed.
    Our country recognizes that an end to violence is a necessary first 
step toward implementing the Mitchell committee report and a resumption 
of real negotiations. All the parties must now take additional steps 
that will place them on the road to a just and lasting peace. All the 
parties must build trust by demonstrating good faith in words but, more 
importantly, in deeds. This process is difficult. But hopefully, it has 
now begun.
    And as for the meeting today, I'm most pleased with the meeting. I 
did think we had a great discussion. We reaffirmed the deepest 
commitments of history's most successful alliance. We discussed new 
security challenges. We outlined the work ahead as we move towards next 
year's summit in Prague. It was a good start on a long and important 
agenda.
    First, there was broad agreement that we must seek a new approach to 
deterrence in a world of changing threats, particularly the threat posed 
by the spread of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. I 
told the Allies I'm committed to working closely with them to address 
this common threat by developing a new framework for nuclear security. 
This framework must include greater nonproliferation and counter-
proliferation efforts, decreased reliance on offensive weapons, and 
greater transparency so that responsible nations can have greater levels 
of confidence.
    I also spoke of my commitment to fielding limited but effective 
missile defenses as soon as possible. I explained that the ABM Treaty 
embodied the cold war nuclear balance of terror between rival 
superpowers. But it no longer makes sense as a foundation for relations 
that should be based on mutual confidence, openness, and real 
opportunities for cooperation.
    All this marks a major shift in thinking about some of the most 
critical issues of world security, and I was pleased by the open and 
constructive reactions. I'm encouraged that in today's meeting we saw a 
new receptivity towards missile defense as part of a new strategic 
framework to address the changing threats of our world.
    As one of our close Allies noted, the world is changing around us, 
and NATO's great strength has been a willingness to adapt and move 
forward. Another noted, NATO is a defensive Alliance and, thus, an 
increasingly important role should be played by defensive systems to 
protect all our citizens from terrorist blackmail.
    Secondly, we agreed that we must reach out to Russian leaders and to 
a new Russian generation with a message that Russia does have a future 
with Europe. The United States will seek to build this strategic 
framework with Russia. Now that Russia has recognized a weapons of mass 
destruction threat to Europe, future cooperative work on a new strategic 
framework could be a great task which brings NATO and Russia together.
    Third, we agreed on the need to commit the resources that will allow 
NATO's force to do their jobs. The decline in defense spending amongst 
NATO nations must be reversed. And when we do spend, we must spend 
wisely. It shouldn't be a question of whether to buy American or buy 
European; it should be a question of how to buy transatlantic. North 
American and European companies should collaborate to produce the most 
advanced systems at the lowest costs.
    We agreed that NATO and the European Union must work in common 
purpose. It is in NATO's interest for the European Union to develop a 
rapid reaction capability. A strong, capable European force integrated 
with NATO would give us more options for handling crises when NATO, as a 
whole, chooses not to engage.
    NATO must be generous in the help it gives the EU. And similarly, 
the EU must welcome participation by NATO Allies who are not members of 
the EU. And we must not waste scarce resources, duplicating effort

[[Page 893]]

or working at cross purposes. Our work together in the Balkans shows how 
much the 23 nations of NATO and the EU can achieve when we combine our 
efforts.
    Our work together in the Balkans reminds me that I'm going to commit 
to the line that Colin Powell said: ``We came in together, and we will 
leave together.'' It is the pledge of our Government, and it's a pledge 
that I will keep.
    We agreed that we must face down extremists in Macedonia and 
elsewhere who seek to use violence to redraw borders or subvert the 
democratic process.
    Concerning Bosnia and Kosovo, we agreed that this is a major effort, 
an effort that we will continue to work together on.
    Fifth, and finally, we agreed that NATO must prepare for further 
enlargement of the Alliance. All aspiring members have work to do. Yet, 
if they continue to make the progress they are making, we will be able 
to launch the next round of enlargement when we meet in Prague.
    We agreed that all European democracies that seek to join our ranks 
and meet our standards should have the opportunity to do so without red 
lines or outside vetoes. We must never lose sight of what NATO does and 
what it stands for, how it safeguards prosperity and protects democracy 
in an ever-widening Europe. Let us then be true to the great vision of 
our fathers and grandfathers, is what I said: the preservation of peace 
by democratic leadership, the defense of freedom through collective 
strength.
    I'd be glad to answer some questions, starting with Jim Angle [Fox 
News].

National Missile Defense/ABM Treaty

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Your critics at home, sir, suggest that 
you are prepared to deploy a missile defense system that will not work. 
First, Mr. President, will you deploy defensive technologies that have 
not been successfully tested? And second, you suggested that the ABM 
Treaty may be a problem sooner rather than later because, as you put it, 
it prevents us from exploring the future. When does that become a 
problem, and what do you do about it?
    President Bush. First, it's important to--for people who are 
following this issue to understand that we're not asking our Allies to 
sign on to a specific system. We're asking our Allies to think 
differently, and asking Russia to think differently, about the post-
cold-war era.
    The ABM Treaty is a product of the cold war era. It was a time when 
the United States and Russia were bitter enemies, and the whole concept 
of peace was based upon the capacity of each of us, each country, to 
blow each other up. The new threats are threats based upon uncertainty. 
The threats that somebody who hates freedom or hates America or hates 
our Allies or hates Europe will try to blow us up.
    And the fundamental question is, will freedom-loving nations develop 
a system to enhance freedom to prevent that from happening? And I make 
the case, yes. But before we can lay out a specific case, Jim, it's 
necessary to set aside the ABM Treaty so we can fully explore all 
options available to the United States and our Allies and friends. The 
ABM Treaty prevents full exploration of opportunity.
    And for those who suggest my administration will deploy a system 
that doesn't work are dead wrong. Of course, we're not going to deploy a 
system that doesn't work. What good will that do? We'll only deploy a 
system that does work in order to keep the peace. But we must have the 
flexibility and opportunity to explore all options.
    I'm making good progress on this issue here in Europe. There's some 
nervousness, and I understand that. But it's beginning to be allayed 
when they hear the logic behind the rationale.
    I look forward to my meeting with Mr. Putin. There's no question 
this is going to be an important meeting on Friday. And there's no 
question that this will be a topic--it won't be the only topic that 
we'll discuss. It will be--the topic of missile defense will be in a 
part of a larger framework about how the United States and Russia can 
cooperate, how we can find areas to grow our economies, and how we can 
work together to keep the peace.
    Lord Robertson, you're supposed to call on somebody.
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. Am I?

[[Page 894]]

    President Bush. You don't have to if you don't want to. [Laughter]
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. You're very observant, but I'll--
--

Macedonia

    Q. Mr. President, you stressed the continuing vitality and 
importance of NATO as a collection of freedom-loving democracies. 
Nowhere in Europe is democracy more threatened at the moment than in 
Macedonia. There is, I see--I note from today's meetings a growing sense 
of alarm at developments there on the ground. For many people, it seems 
an obvious question: Why is this huge, well-armed military alliance not 
willing to put even perhaps a small number of troops into Macedonia, if 
the Government there were to request it, to bring about some sort of 
stability after which the very significant political reforms that are 
acquired there can be enacted?
    President Bush. The conversation I heard approached the subject from 
an opposite direction. Most people believe there's still a political 
solution available before troops are committed.
    I want to remind you, KFOR does have troops on the border, and we 
must continue the presence on the border to prevent insurgence and arms 
from reaching the Albanian extremists. But the sentiment I heard here 
was that there is still a possibility for a political settlement, a good 
possibility, and that we must work to achieve that settlement. Lord 
Robertson can speak to that very clearly; he is on his way to Macedonia 
in short order.
    Have you told them that?
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. I did.
    President Bush. Okay, good. Well, if you didn't, I just did. 
[Laughter]
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. I told them before, but they may 
not have been listening. [Laughter]
    President Bush. Anyway, he's going. And--but the idea of committing 
troops within Macedonia was one that most nations were troubled over. 
They want to see if we cannot achieve a political settlement first.
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. That is a good one behind the 
program of President Trajkovski that was signed up to by the National 
Unity Government yesterday. And there will be talks among all the 
political parties about the reform program at the week's end.
    That is a big breakthrough, and I think that that is something we 
all want to put our support behind. We're not talking about other 
options. Bilaterally, countries have supported the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia. On the border, as the President has said, there 
are large numbers of troops, including extra troops that have been sent 
down from the boundary between Kosovo and Serbia, who are policing 
aggressively that border and interdicted only the other night quite a 
number of those who seemed intent on mischief in that area.
    What we need now is a continued cease-fire and a continuation of the 
existing cease-fire, a recognition by the armed insurgents that the 
reform process that they claim they are interested in can be achieved 
through democratic means, and an international community that stands 
full-square behind the territorial integrity of that country.
    So we're not considering any other options at the moment than the 
bilateral support that has been given at present and by encouraging a 
political process, which is the only way to a sustainable peace in the 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

National Missile Defense

    Q. Mr. President, are you prepared to say here and now, sir, that 
you will go ahead with a limited missile defense, with or without the 
agreement of NATO and the European Union? And are you prepared to 
unilaterally abandon the ABM Treaty, or is it crucial for you, sir, to 
have Russia's agreement on that point?
    President Bush. John, I have made it clear to our friends and Allies 
that I think it's necessary to set aside the ABM Treaty, but I will do 
so in close consultation with not only members of NATO and EU countries 
who are not members of NATO but, as well, with the Russians.
    I believe strongly it's necessary to move forward. I think it is 
necessary to do so in order to make the world more peaceful. I

[[Page 895]]

can't imagine a world that continues to be locked into a cold war 
mentality when the cold war is over. Along these lines, I'll also assure 
our Allies and friends that we will move to reduce our offensive weapons 
to a level commensurate with keeping the peace but one that is below 
where our levels are now.
    I mean, I think it's important to go through these committees and 
arms control agreements, and those are important stabilizers. But rather 
than wait for hours of endless negotiations in order to show the world 
that we're sincere about peace, on the one hand, we will consult on 
defensive weapons; on the other hand, we'll move by ourselves on 
offensive weapons.
    It is the right signal to do; it is the right signal to send that 
the cold war must be abandoned forever. And I believe we're making 
progress. I don't think we're going to have to move, as they say, 
unilaterally. I think people are coming our way. But people know that 
I'm intent upon doing what I think is the right thing in order to make 
the world more peaceful.
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. How would you--the questions all 
appear to be for you, Mr. President, anyway.
    President Bush. Fournier [Ron Fournier, Associated Press]. Yes, you 
always get to ask a question.

Situation in the Middle East

    Q. I appreciate it, sir.
    Following up on your comment in the Middle East, I'm wondering 
whether or not, because of the negotiations your administration 
succeeded on with the cease-fire, if you or your administration is going 
to get more involved, even more involved in the Middle East. 
Specifically, do you plan to send the Secretary of State to the region 
in the near future? What would it take for you, yourself, to go to the 
region?
    President Bush. First and foremost, we're very involved. After all, 
it was George Tenet of the CIA that has been working long hours to bring 
people to the table. But this is just the first step. It's one thing for 
folks to sign a piece of paper; it's another thing for the parties to 
act. And as you notice in my statement, I called upon both parties to 
act.
    It is still a fragile situation there. As I understand, Mr. Burns is 
still coming to talk to Colin this evening. He's very much engaged in 
the process. And we'll decide whether or not the Secretary of State or 
myself will become more directly involved, based upon the positive steps 
toward peace that now must be taken.
    It's wonderful news that we've signed the document. But the 
fundamental question is, will parties take steps to peace, concrete 
actions that will help build the confidence necessary so that peaceful-
loving countries can say, the cycle of violence has been finally broken, 
and then there is the opportunity to have political discussion. But 
until the cycle of violence has been fully broken, as the Mitchell 
report calls for, that we will delay political discussions. It's 
important that these parties now take the document that's been signed 
and implement it with concrete actions.
    Ed [Ed Chen, Los Angles Times].
    Q. We're not----
    President Bush. You only get one question at a press conference.

U.S. Approach to Allies

    Q. Good afternoon, Mr. President, sir. There has been a lot of talk 
on this side of the Atlantic about a unilateralist approach out of 
Washington. I think in Washington, those of us who work there have heard 
that it's leadership--I wonder if you could differentiate the two for 
us.
    President Bush. Well, I hope the notion of a unilateral approach 
died in some people's minds today here. Unilateralists don't come around 
the table to listen to others and to share opinion. Unilateralists don't 
ask opinions of world leaders.
    I count on the advice of our friends and Allies. I'm willing to 
consult on issues. Sometimes we don't agree, and I readily concede that, 
but there's a lot more that we agree upon than we disagree about. And 
no, I think the people of NATO now understand they've got a strong, 
consistent, loyal Ally, one that supports the mission of NATO and one 
that understands not only the history of NATO but the importance for 
NATO as we go down the road.

[[Page 896]]

    That's why our Government believes in the expansion of NATO. We 
believe NATO is the core of a free and peaceful Europe. And as Lord 
Robertson will tell you, ever since he came to my office in Washington 
at the Oval Office, I have been a loyal supporter of NATO and its 
mission.
    A unilateralist is one that doesn't understand the role of NATO and 
one that won't fully support NATO, like my Government is going to do.
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. It's worth making the point, I 
think, that all of the heads of state and government today very much 
welcome the fact that the United States, and the President in 
particular, was willing to share the thinking process on these key 
issues before any decision was taken.
    I would say that the statement that the President made, underlining 
what Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld have said about the 
Balkans, also was a clear signal of the inclusiveness that the American 
administration has in view for NATO.
    ``We went in together, we will come out together.'' There will be no 
unilateral decisions taken by this Ally or by any other Allies. We have 
common missions. And there was a warm welcome today for the fact that 
the thinking process on this whole new landscape of such urgency was to 
be the subject of detailed consultations, not just around this table 
today but in detail and among experts, as well. That was a very good 
signal, and it was widely welcomed.
    President Bush. Steve [Steve Holland, Reuters].

Troop Reductions in the Balkans

    Q. You campaigned on a pledge to reduce the troop presence in the 
Balkans. Do you now see that as politically impossible to do at this 
point?
    President Bush. Actually, the troop presence in the Balkans has been 
reduced since I have become the President. It's been reduced on a 
reasonable timetable, one set with the United States and in consultation 
with Allies. It's a timetable that was embraced by NATO.
    I said today in my talk that it's important for our nations to work 
together to put civil institutions in place that ultimately can become 
the framework for the reduction and, ultimately, the removal of NATO 
troops. But we recognize it's going to take a while. And so, what I said 
was, ``We came in together, and we'll leave together.'' And that's 
important for our Allies to hear.
    Secretary General Lord Robertson. And in the meantime, we'll get the 
job done together.
    Thank you very much. I think that's it; we need to go.
    President Bush. See you next stop.

Note: The President's eighth news conference began at 3:35 p.m. at NATO 
headquarters. In his remarks, President Bush referred to President 
Vladimir Putin of Russia; and President Boris Trajkovski of the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. President Bush also referred to KFOR, 
the NATO-led security force in Kosovo.