For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 18, 2005
Press Briefing with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on APEC Summit Meetings
Commodore Hotel
Busan, Republic of Korea
APEC Summit 2005
6:55 P.M. (Local)
MR. HADLEY: Good evening. I thought I might go through a little
bit of the day the President had today, give you a little bit of the
highlights, and then answer some -- give you a preview of tomorrow and
answer whatever questions you've got.
The President had a meeting with President Putin. They talked a
little bit about the state of the relationship between the two
countries, noted that there's been an intensification of exchanges
between the two sides. The two Presidents have met probably three times
in the last six months. Secretary Rice was in Moscow; I've recently
been in Moscow. So there is an intensive dialogue between
representatives of the two governments and between the two Presidents,
and both expressed satisfaction with that.
They talked about the need for progress on the WTO round in
December at Hong Kong, and the need for a successful conclusion to the
Doha process. And they talked about the challenge of Iran's pursuit of
and intentions to achieve a nuclear weapon capability, and compared
notes on the latest efforts to try and get Iran back into a negotiated
framework in which it will reassure the world that it's not pursuing a
nuclear weapons program and give up on a permanent basis enrichment and
reprocessing, and how to try and achieve that.
There was some discussion about Syria and a reaffirmation of the
need for Syria to -- the Syrian government to cooperate with the Mehlis
investigation, and also with the importance that the Syrian government
stop threatening or interfering with Lebanon.
There was some discussion about North Korea, a review of the status
of the six-party talks, some sympathy expressed for the need to address
human rights and the flight of the North Korean people as a part of that
process. There was -- they talked about the war on terror and recent
progress in the war on terror, the challenged posed by avian flu, and a
little discussion about Iraq. So it was a discussion about the broad
range of issues in which we are engaged with Russia.
The President then had a meeting with the members of ASEAN who are
here at the APEC summit. There is a statement that was issued at the
conclusion of that meeting that talks about an enhanced partnership
between the United States and ASEAN, a variety of areas in which the
United States will be able to cooperate with ASEAN. There was a
affirmation of the importance of success in the Doha Round, which, of
course, is something that is -- the World Trade Organization
negotiations, and the impetus that can be given to that progress here at
the APEC summit.
There was an emphasis that it is important to proceed on trade as
an effort -- as an element of a more prosperous world and as an element,
also, of raising people out of poverty. But it was also recognized that
there are other elements that are required in order to achieve progress.
We need to deal with the issue of terrorism. There was discussion about
cooperation on the war on terror, progress in the war on terror, and a
mutual reaffirmation of the commitment to succeed; discussion about
energy security and the need to, over time, move beyond a hydrocarbon
economy; cooperation -- the need for cooperation on avian flu.
There was also a discussion about Burma and expression by a number
of members in the meeting of the importance that Burma move forward on
the road map to democracy, which was set out some time ago -- the need
for progress on that, which we have, to date, not seen.
The President made clear to those in the meeting that the United
States remained engaged, and would remain engaged, in Southeast Asia;
that it was an area of strategic importance to the United States. He
expressed concern about the plight of various peoples in distress: the
people in Pakistan struggling to recover from the earthquake, the people
of Burma and North Korea.
I think what was noteworthy, of course, was the participation of
Vietnam in this discussion. The President of Vietnam indicated the
support of his government for the range of issues that were discussed at
the meeting, and it's an indication of how far we've come in that
relationship from 30 years ago.
Finally, there was a meeting that the President had with President
Fox, Prime Minister Martin, and President Toledo. It was an opportunity
for the four of them to review progress on seeking freer and fairer
trade. They all agreed that this meeting at the APEC summit is an
opportunity to advance the prospects for the Doha Round, how important
that is. They restated their approach -- their support not only for
progress at the global level, but also at the regional level, and the
importance of, therefore, continuing to try and find a way to go forward
with a free trade agreement of the Americas, as well as various
bilateral negotiations.
There was, today, the first meeting of -- or what they call the
first retreat of the APEC summit. There was strong support from all the
speakers. The format, basically, is introductory remarks by four
designated speakers -- the President was one of them -- and then an
opportunity for other heads of state and government to comment. All of
them did so in this first session. There was strong support for the
opportunity that is presented in December in Hong Kong to move forward
the Doha agenda of free and fair trade to enhance prosperity. There was
a recognition that in order to achieve success, everybody needs to do
its part, or their part. And for countries like the United States and
Europe and Japan, it is progress in the agricultural sphere to get rid
of tariffs, barriers and trade distorting subsidies, but that this
progress and commitment needed to be matched among other countries for a
commitment to move towards freer and fairer trade, open markets on the
issue of industrial products and services, as well. So, a recognition
that for success we have to be ambitious and everyone needs to do their
part.
There was also recognition that prosperity was going to depend, as
well, on cooperation in the fight against terror, dealing with things
like avian flu and energy security. These are issues that will be
addressed more tomorrow. I think it was an evidence of the success of
making APEC a forum not only to talk about trade and economic issues,
but also to talk about security issues -- a direction that APEC took
about a year ago, and was reaffirmed today in their conversations.
There was a complementarity between security and prosperity.
Tomorrow there will be a second meeting, or second retreat. The
focus will be on human security. There will be an opportunity to
discuss more broadly the issues of energy security, the challenge of
avian flu, the challenge of dealing with disaster preparation more
generally, and, of course, continuing to work on issues and initiatives
associated with counterterrorism and the handling of the challenge of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. There is in process a
series of statements that will address these issues and will contain
some initiatives on several of these areas.
There will be -- after the second retreat tomorrow, there will be a
lunch among the leaders. There will be then the usual family photo
opportunity, and then a leaders statement. The leaders will then get
together and assemble, and President Roh, on their behalf, will present
to the public the statement that reflects the deliberations and
discussions that they've had.
And that's really the President's state today and what he's looking
at in terms of tomorrow. And I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Q Did you sense any level of frustration with Russia in regards
to Iran's enrichment program?
MR. HADLEY: No. Russia has provided, as you know, a -- has taken
the lead in a couple respects that have been very constructive. One, as
you know, they are talking, and have for a number of years been talking
to the Iranians about completing the Bushehr reactor, and as you know,
this is not new news. They have reached an agreement with the Iranians
for a number of steps that would reduce the proliferation risk that that
reactor would represent, the most important of which being the take-back
of fuel -- that Russia would supply the nuclear fuel that would power
the reactor, and once the fuel was spent, it would be then returned to
Russia.
In order to try and get -- to move forward on the getting Iran back
into the negotiations and a framework whereby Iran, while retaining its
right to enrichment and reprocessing, would, nonetheless, find it in its
interest to give up that right in terms of its own territory, the
Russians have been pursuing an interesting idea which would be to
construct an enrichment facility in Russia in which Iran would have
management and financial interest, but not a technical interest. And it
would be then the facility which could supply reactor fuel to the
Bushehr reactor. It would give Iran a sense that it would have an
assured fuel supply for its civil nuclear power program, because it
would have management participation and financial participation in the
venture, but it would have it off-shore in Russia, rather than in Iran.
This is an interesting idea. The Iranians, probably not
surprisingly, initially, have said, no, this is something that they want
as a sovereignty exercise to have on their territory. We think it's an
area for further conversation. So that was the focus, the things, the
steps that Russia has done that have been very constructive in trying to
lead Iran to a different path.
Q Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant, did you sense any
frustration on the Russians' part in their dealings with Iran? Weren't
they guaranteed by Iran that they wouldn't enrich, and then they turn
around a week later, started? Are the Russians getting frustrated with
Iran?
MR. HADLEY: Well, you know, this has been a difficult discussion
and I think there's some frustration that the EU 3 -- the UK, Germany,
and France -- have in dealing with Iran right now. We certainly have
some frustrations. But they were very focused on a problem-solving
mode. And the Russians -- President Putin talked about Igor Ivanov, who
had just been in Iran, and gave a bit of a report. You know, they -- I
think the notion is, yes, it's difficult, but we're going to keep at it
and they're going to keep pushing this idea.
Q And if I could, sir, while I've got your attention, just one
more quick question. What can you tell us about host TV in China
pulling live coverage of the President's visit? Was that in direct
reaction to the speech he gave in Japan?
MR. HADLEY: I don't know what -- I'm not aware of what you just
said.
Q Steve, was the administration blind-sided by the announcement
today that South Korea intends to pull a third of its troops out of
Iraq? And if so, what do you make of -- is this an affront to President
Bush that it occurred while he's here?
MR. HADLEY: The President had a good discussion with President
Roh, who made it clear he remained committed to the mission in Iraq, and
that North -- that South Korea remained committed to providing troops to
that mission. So they had a very good discussion about this yesterday.
And so what do we know? We know that they remain committed to the
mission. We know that they need to seek here, shortly, an extension
from the National Assembly in order to keep the forces there. Now, I
know there have been some press reports of some comments that have come
out of the Defense Ministry. I just got off the phone before coming
here, and the Foreign Minister has just made a statement to the South
Korean press, and he has said that -- as I understand, I'm getting the
second hand -- that South Korea remains committed to the mission of
trying to support the Iraqi people as they fight terror and build their
democracy; that they are seeking an extension from the National Assembly
so that their forces can remain in Iraq to support that mission; that
they will be taking that issue to the National Assembly next week. He
made clear that the issue of their force levels in Iraq would be a
decision made based on the progress that Iraqi security forces are
making and taking in training, and taking more responsibility for
security in the evolution of the political situation there and the
military requirements and the progress towards stability.
So what the Foreign Minister said just a few minutes ago puts South
Korea's decisions in the same framework that we're making ours on,
basically that the force levels needs to reflect a capabilities-based
approach, and that that will depend on the political evolution and the
security evolution.
In the debate that they have next week, I'm sure you're going to
see a discussion about what should be the mission of the forces, what
should be the composition of the forces, what should be the force level.
We have that debate in the United States every time Congress turns to
this issue. I'm sure you're going to see it next week, as well. But I
think what's important is that the Foreign Minister has just gone out,
made clear their commitment to the mission, clear their commitment of
the government to continue troops there, and to the kind of
capabilities-based assessment that we have said ought to be the
framework for dealing with issues about force levels.
Q Could I just follow -- could you clarify, did President Roh
actually tell President Bush in their meeting, did he give him a
heads-up that this announcement was coming that they may reduce those
levels, that that's what they were considering?
MR. HADLEY: I think the question is -- I don't think there's an
announcement. I think what the press is reporting is some statements by
Defense Ministry spokesmen about the question of force levels. So what
I have, in terms of authoritative statements, is the one just made by
the Foreign Minister. And what the President heard from President Roh
is what you would expect. The President expressed thanks for the
commitment that the South Korean people have made by keeping -- by
deploying forces in Iraq, expressed his appreciation for that. And what
President Roh said to the President is, we remain committed to Iraq,
it's important to bring democracy to Iraq, and we will continue to
provide troops to that mission.
Q But he didn't say, I may not have the votes to keep the troop
strength where it is?
MR. HADLEY: Not at all. Quite the contrary. He was pretty
confident that the mandate would be extended.
Q And he didn't say that he -- that the Defense Ministry would,
in fact, be briefing lawmakers about a 1,000 troop reduction? He didn't
give him a specific heads-up on that?
MR. HADLEY: He didn't, and I don't know what the nature of that
briefing was. I mean, I know what's reported in the press. And again,
when you go into one of these situations, is there a lot of discussion
about missions and force levels and all the rest, and are there people
doing a lot of planning? Sure. It goes on in our government, it goes
on in their government. But I think what we have now is a statement of
intention by the -- by this administration.
Q Steve, can I take you back to Iran for a minute? At the
beginning of your briefing, you, I think, said that both men were
convinced that Iran has a nuclear weapons program --
MR. HADLEY: No, I --
Q -- or at least I -- that you referred to their weapons
program. Is President Putin, at this point, persuaded that Iran's
ultimate goal is to build a weapons program?
MR. HADLEY: I think what I said is that the two men expressed the
concern that we all have -- they have, the Russians have, the United
States has, the EU 3 have -- that based on the fact that Iran had a
nuclear program undisclosed for 15 years, held covertly, not disclosed
to the IAEA, in violation of safeguards agreement, we all have concerns
about the nuclear intentions of Iran. That's why we're in this
negotiation; that's why we're talking about trying to get them out of
the business of an enrichment and reprocessing capability. We all have
that concern. And we also share the concern, and the two Presidents
share the concern, that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a destabilizing
thing for the region.
Q On that point, Russia was among the countries that was
recently briefed on the warhead information that the U.S. had. Did they
indicate either in this meeting or in any other meetings you've had with
them that they found this persuasive, or not?
MR. HADLEY: Well, as you know, David, as we've talked about in the
past, there have been reports about that. There's obviously -- that's
classified information. I don't talk about it here. One of the things
I can say generally is, we've been trying to share with countries who
are taking the lead on the issue of Iranian nuclear aspirations, if you
will. We have shared intelligence with them because we think it's
important that we all have the same data. And that's been useful to do.
So I think I've got to leave it at that.
Q Did the subject didn't come up specifically enough that he
indicated that whatever data you have shared with him has changed his
view in any way?
MR. HADLEY: That particular subject was not discussed.
Q And one last thing, just on that point -- just finishing the
loop on President Putin on this. You said that they've made this offer.
And by virtue of the fact that President Putin was involved in the
discussion, should we construe that if the Iranians took the offer on
the table by the Russians that they would bring the enrichment out, that
that would be acceptable to President Bush as a solution?
MR. HADLEY: We have talked to the Russians about this, and we have
supported their proposal. It has been something that the Russians have
been talking to the EU3 -- the U.K., France and Germany -- who are
taking the lead in the negotiations with the Iranians. They also
support it. We think it's a good avenue to explore, and we've said so.
Q Good avenue to explore --
MR. HADLEY: Good avenue to explore --
Q -- or acceptable to President Bush --
MR. HADLEY: If we didn't think it was acceptable, we probably
wouldn't encourage it to be explored.
Q On the Putin meeting real quickly -- sorry -- you didn't
mention the NGO issue. Can you describe what conversation there was on
that?
MR. HADLEY: This is an issue with a legislation that is pending in
the Duma that regulates non-government organizations. This is an issue
that we have raised with the Russian government officials in the past.
Secretary Rice raised it when she was in Moscow; I raised it when I was
in Moscow recently. It was a subject of discussion today. And as I
say, that legislation is still pending, and I'm confident it will
continue to be a subject of discussion with the Russian government.
That's really all I can say on it.
Q What was the President's message on it?
MR. HADLEY: That's really all I can say, Peter.
Q Why is that?
MR. HADLEY: Because it's a confidential discussion between the two
leaders, and sometimes there are issues which can more be --
productively be discussed outside of public view.
Q Two -- the first is, the Iranian compromise is a good avenue
to explore -- the Iranians have rejected it. What's the next step on
that?
MR. HADLEY: Well, they've had a spokesman come out and reject it
and insist it is a matter of sovereignty, they want this on their own
territory. We think that doesn't end it, and that this will be an issue
that we will return to with the Iranians, certainly now, and maybe
again, as this issue unfolds going forward. So we think it remains to
be a -- it remains a good idea and is a potential avenue out that
respects Iranian sovereignty, and says, yes, we know you insist that you
have a right to these facilities, but countries can decide that it's in
their interest to take other alternative arrangements. And we hope that
over time Iran will see the virtue of this approach, and it may provide
a way out.
Q The second one, on Burma. The Southeast Asian leaders -- some
of their aides are saying that they told the President that they agreed
the situation is not great in Burma, in fact, it's bad, but they think
that rather than isolation, rather than pressure, they'd like to see
some constructive engagement. What is the United States' position on
that?
MR. HADLEY: Well, they have -- our position is that the Burmese
government ought to do what the Burmese government said it would do, by
progress down the democracy road map, and that the problem is we have
not seen that progress. I think the other leaders who spoke it on
agreed, and they undertook in their various conversations to be speaking
with the Burmese authority about it. And they suggested that other
countries in the region who might have interest -- have influence with
the Burmese government should pick up and make this an issue in their
dialogue, as well.
Q You said you were going to look ahead to tomorrow. Let me
ask, on the eve of the arrival in China, do you have any indication of
any movement by China on issues like IPR?
MR. HADLEY: I don't have anything in the last 24 hours. We, of
course, hope that that's one of several issues that we can make progress
on, if not at the meeting, itself, then in the weeks that will follow,
because, obviously, they will be subject of discussions between the two
leaders.
Q Do you think that Congressman John Murtha is out of the
mainstream with the Democratic Party with regard to Iraq? He is
somebody I assume that you know pretty well in terms of his position on
defense issues. Do you think he's out of the mainstream?
MR. HADLEY: He's a veteran, a veteran congressman, and a great
leader in the Congress. On this issue, the President believes he's
wrong. And it was interesting that just two days ago the Senate of the
United States, in voting on the Levin amendment, had an opportunity to
reject the position of deadlines or immediate pullout of troops. So we
think it's the wrong position. We do not see how an immediate pullout
contributes to winning the war on terror, bringing stability to Iraq,
how it makes America, the United States more secure. It doesn't seem to
achieve any of the objectives that we have. And so we simply believe
that the Congressman is wrong on this issue.
Q Did the President have a brief meeting with the Representative
of Taiwan? And if so, is the President concerned that his praise of
Taiwan democracy in Kyoto would implicate his talks in Beijing with the
Chinese President?
MR. HADLEY: No, and no. He did not have a meeting with the Taiwan
-- any Taiwan representative, so far as I'm aware. And the President's
speech was a speech about democracy and freedom, which is an agenda that
he has had, and has talked about almost in every region and in every
forum. And the point he was making is that the success people see in
Asia, in terms of economic prosperity and stability, is a result of the
commitment that was made 40, 50 years ago to democracy and freedom, and
the progress of democracy and freedom in the region in that period of
time, and what it has done for the people. And he went through a series
of examples, and Taiwan is clearly one that has moved in the direction
of democracy and freedom and greater prosperity for their people. South
Korea is another, Japan is another. There are other examples. And he
wanted to make the obvious point that in the way that progress -- that
democracy and freedom have brought stability and peace in this region,
it can do the same thing in the Middle East.
And that's one of the things that's at stake in Iraq, and why an
immediate pullout of troops would jeopardize our interests. So that's
-- it's a theme that I think didn't surprise the Chinese to hear the
President talking about freedom and democracy.
Q Were you the administration official who talked with Bob
Woodward about the identity of a CIA operative?
MR. HADLEY: I have seen press reports that -- and only press
reports -- that Bob Woodward has talked about, I guess, three sources
from the administration that he had. I've also seen press reports from
White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources. As you
know, there is an ongoing investigation of this matter. We have all, at
the White House, been instructed to cooperate with that investigation,
as we are requested to do so, and to not talk about it. And that's all
I can say.
Q The South Korean government wants the return of wartime --
South Korean Defense Minister has mentioned about the issue last
Tuesday. Did the President discuss this issue --
MR. HADLEY: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question.
What issue?
Q Wartime --
MR. HADLEY: Oh. That issue really did not come up, or it came up
sort of inferentially in the following way. One of the things that the
two Presidents noted was the range of bilateral issues that had been --
some of which of longstanding -- that have been resolved here. And a
lot of those issues centered around the reposturing of U.S. forces in
the Korean Peninsula, which both, taking advantage of technology and
what we learned over the last 10 years, allows us to actually increase
the capability of forces while moving them out of areas so they're less
intrusive on the South Korean people, and sometimes easier for the men
and women over here in uniform.
And they celebrated the resolution of the issue and a lot of issues
associated with that. The issue of the efforts to further strengthen
the U.S.-South Korean relationship, to recognize the increased
capability of South Korean forces, and of South Korea to take more
responsibility for its own security was talked about. And in that
context, there are a number of issues that we have been engaged,
discussing on. That is one; there are a number of others, as well.
They're being discussed at the appropriate levels, and the two
Presidents basically just noted the importance of continuing to make
progress on these issues, but they didn't talk about them in any detail.
Q What did the President and Mr. Putin discuss on Iraq?
MR. HADLEY: It wasn't a -- it was not a lengthy discussion. One
of the things we've been anxious to do is to get Russia to find ways to
be supportive of what the Iraqis are doing, and they talked about a
couple of ways that might be done. I can't talk about either of them
right now from the podium. But I think they both recognize the
importance of progress in Iraq. And again, we're trying to find ways in
which Russia can contribute to that progress.
Q Should we expect the President tomorrow to use the Osan speech
to respond in any way to Congressman Murtha or other Democratic critics
of the Iraq policy?
MR. HADLEY: I think you can expect the President to pay tribute to
the men and women in uniform serving in this theater and the importance
that they continue to serve in helping maintain stability here. I think
you can expect he will talk about Iraq, and talk about our strategy in
Iraq, and the progress -- the elements of that strategy, and the
progress we're making, and the importance for us to continue to remain
committed to that strategy.
I think there will be -- you know, he, obviously -- the debate in
the United States that we're having has sort of been commented on over
here, but I think he will -- he's outside of the United States -- I
think he'll probably focus on the way forward in Iraq and explaining to
these men and women in uniform the way forward in Iraq and on the war on
terror, and how Iraq fits into the broader framework of helping to win
the war on terror.
Thanks a lot.
Q Does that mean he's dropping the -- reference that he's been
pursuing for the last week?
MR. HADLEY: No. It's -- I'm just talking about the speech he's
making tomorrow, outside the country, to men and women stationed in
Seoul.
Q -- just drop it for tomorrow's speech, though, right?
MR. HADLEY: No. I'm trying to answer the question, which is, what
do you think the focus will be of the speech? The focus I think will be
of what I just said.
Q But that will still be in there, right?
MR. HADLEY: We'll see what he says tomorrow. I've said all I can
say.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
END 7:27 P.M. (Local)
|