12 June 2001

U.S. Official Briefs on President Bush's Visit to Spain

President Bush and Spain's President of the Government Jose Maria Aznar held their first meetings June 12 and "hit it off quite well," according to a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters later at the Hotel Occidental Miguel Angel in Madrid.

"It was clear that they share a basic world view, basic approaches, and they were proceeding on that basis," the official said.

The main topics of discussion, the official said, were Bush's vision of a new strategic framework -- including missile defense; climate change and the Kyoto Protocol; and relations with Russia and the upcoming meeting between presidents Bush and Putin. They also discussed Latin America, Cuba, China, terrorism, and the Middle East, as well as politics -- "center-right versus center-left" -- and Bush's goals for his first trip to Europe as president.

"There was a lot of back and forth," the official added. "It was exactly the kind of meetings we hoped we would have the first day in Europe."

On June 13, Bush will be in Brussels for an informal session of the North Atlantic Council at the level of heads of state and government, where the main topic of discussion is expected to be his strategic concept for the 21st century, including missile defense.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have already held consultations on these issues with their European counterparts, but the briefer said the NATO allies also need to hear directly from President Bush, to know that he has "thought this through comprehensively."

"I think what will be new is to have the President of the United States, in his first trip to Europe, make very clear that a new strategic framework is needed ... to defend against common security threats; that it is not directed against Russia; that, indeed, we want to work with Russia and cooperatively with our European allies. I think that's an important message," the U.S. official said.

Following is the White House transcript of the background briefing in Madrid:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
(Madrid, Spain)
June 12, 2001
Press Background Briefing By Senior Administration Official
Hotel Occidental Miguel Angel
Madrid, Spain
7:35 P.M. (L)

Ms. Countryman: Good evening. We're going to do a background briefing by a senior administration official now. He'd like to give you a readout, some more details of the meeting today and also help set up for you tomorrow's meetings with NATO.

Senior Administration Official: This is on background, yes?

Ms. Countryman: Yes.

Senior Administration Official: Very good. Today was a terrific first day to the start of the President's trip. Obviously, the high point was the three-plus hours of discussions the President had with President Aznar. He also met briefly with King Juan Carlos, here in town; then helicoptered out to the Spanish government country house, I guess is the best way to put it, and met with Aznar there; came back, did the press conference, as you saw.

Tomorrow, we're off to Brussels, and I thought I would walk through the day just a little bit. Tomorrow's meeting is an informal session of the NAC, the North Atlantic Council, at the level of heads of state and government -- informal, partly because there won't be a communique, it was never our intention to try to negotiate a piece of paper. There will be the usual NAC format, which is that each leader of the alliance speaks, in turn. Those are closed sessions, although, I understand, Mary Ellen, that the top of the President's remarks will be open to the press.

The leaders will discuss, then what you want to look for is what Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, will do right after. He's expected to come out after the NAC and characterize the discussion, speaking in the name of the alliance. So you'll want to listen carefully to what he has to say. I say that somewhat guardedly, because I actually don't know what he's going to say, but that will be the summary of the discussion, so you'll want to pay close attention to that.

After that, there is a lunch, where the NAC leaders meet again and continue their discussions.

Following the lunch, the President will give a press conference, I believe, with Lord Robertson accompanying him. And, of course, you can expect other leaders to speak to the press and people running around, talking and giving their various versions. So we'll be busy. Afterwards, the President will meet with the Belgian leadership. So that is tomorrow.

Today, the discussions were actually terrific. It was a very, very warm meeting. The two leaders hit it off quite well. It was clear that they share a basic worldview, basic approaches, and they were proceeding on that basis. I think you caught some of that at the press conference today.

During the meeting, the main topics discussed were the President's vision of a new strategic framework, including missile defense, Kyoto, and relations with Russia and the upcoming meeting between President Bush and President Putin.

At the lunch, the discussion covered regional issues, including -- and bilateral issues -- including a long discussion of Latin America, Cuba, a discussion of China, a discussion of terrorism, a discussion of -- a long discussion of the Middle East, because Spain plays an important role. And it was relaxed as time went on. So, interspersed with it, there was discussion of politics, center-right versus center-left, the President's goals for the trip. There was a lot of back and forth. It was an extremely good atmosphere, and actually a pleasure to see all of that. It was exactly the kind of meetings we hoped we would have the first day in Europe. We had them. And I think I will stop here and answer questions.

Question: Do you feel that Spain is pretty close to your position on missile defense? Here your joint statement it says, "We agree on the need for comprehensive security strategy." During the news conference, Aznar went out of his way to defend the President's right to argue. What do you feel they are?

Senior Administration Official: I actually think that's right. I think the Spanish are very close, conceptually, and they bought -- they were -- Aznar wanted to hear the President's arguments. They spent a lot of time on this. He asked questions. It was clear when he was -- he gave his own summary of his position in the press conference, which was very similar to what he said during the meetings. And I thought it was actually excellent, where he said it surprised him that some people were dismissing out of hand the possibility of taking a new look at the terms in the post-Cold War age. What he basically said is, gee, it makes sense that we would look at the new challenges for security, along the lines you suggest.

It's clear that Aznar wants this to be a Europe and American project, a NATO project -- something that does not isolate the United States, something that does not decouple, to use a term from an earlier era, decouple American and European security.

And when the President made clear, as he has publicly and in other meetings, that it was precisely our intention to work with Europe and with Russia, it became clear to me that Aznar was pleased. I should leave it, really, to the Spanish to characterize their position more than that. But it does seem to me that Aznar is one of several European leaders, and several NATO leaders, who are -- who have a far more open mind on missile defense than one would believe if I read nothing but certain newspapers.

Q: The diplomatic niceties aside, what concerns do you expect to be raised tomorrow about missile defense? And what points does the President feel he has to make, both in that informal meeting and also publicly, to a wider audience, that he has not said so far?

Senior Administration Official: Oh, I think the President needs -- and I think he very much looks forward to making the point that in a post-Cold War world, with radically different threats, we need to think differently about the strategic solutions for the 21st century.

Missile defense is a piece of a much larger conceptual framework that the President has in mind, and he's talked about this -- it's in the joint statement, he's talked about this publicly.

I think he's going to make the case strongly to the allies that this is not some sneaky way to achieve a strategic superiority over Russia; that, in fact, that is not his intent, at all. It is directed against rogue states, terrorist states, states, as the President said, who would quite happily blackmail the United States by threatening to fire one, two, three primitive, but quite ugly, nuclear armed missiles to a European or even American city.

I think he will make that case, and I think that there are a number of European leaders who are clearly moving in that direction.

I should also add that since the beginning of the administration, it's been clear, at least where I sit, that many of the European leaders were, in fact, willing to listen. That the notion that we're running up against the barbed wire and meeting stiff, uniform resistance is not consistent with the record.

Go to the Blair joint statement from Camp David, even take a look at the Schroeder joint statement from the end of March. Take a look at this joint statement. Take a look at what the Hungarian and Polish governments have said, what Berlusconi has said, although not -- before he was Prime Minister -- what the Turks have said, and you're beginning to get a number of Allied governments in NATO who are listening to the President. So I think he will want more. He will want to keep working the issue.

Q: Are they just listening, or are they coming around? Which is it?

Senior Administration Official: I mean, listening in the active sense, listening and coming around. And I think what you heard from Aznar was quite striking. As I remember the exchange -- and all of you were there -- someone said, well, Mr. President, aren't you being rebuffed by the Europeans. And Aznar said, well, that's a strange question. Why are some people a priori rejecting the exploration of new solutions to new threats? And Aznar was pretty forward-leaning.

Q: -- defense ministers and foreign ministers have received fairly detailed briefings on the U.S. position for the last two weeks from Rumsfeld and Powell. Will the President be providing new information tomorrow, or is his goal to take the same sort of arguments up the leadership ladder to the top?

Senior Administration Official: Well, I think the President -- I think the NATO allies need to hear from the President what his thinking is, directly. They need to hear what his strategic concept is. I think they want to know that we have, in fact, thought this through -- the President has thought this through comprehensively and it is not -- it isn't simple missile defense standing in splendid or not splendid isolation.

I think what will be new is to have the President of the United States, in his first trip to Europe, make very clear that a new strategic framework is needed to secure common -- to defend against common security threats; that it is not directed against Russia; that, indeed, we want to work with Russia and cooperatively with our European allies. I think that's an important message and I think it will impress the allies.

Q: You mentioned they had discussion about center-right and center-left. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I mean, did the President ask about center-left governments or did he express an interest in policies of center-right?

Senior Administration Official: Well, I don't think I should get into that kind of a discussion. But it is clear to me that they were both -- the President was very taken with President Aznar as -- in my words, not the President's -- a progressive center -- modern, center-right European leader who believes in opportunities, free markets, social advancement through free market democracy and believes for a role in his very successful country in 21st century Europe.

Q: On the issue of NATO enlargement, is the U.S. any closer to setting a timetable for this? You know, is it going to be done this year, any sense of when it will happen?

Senior Administration Official: Well, NATO has announced that in November 2002, its next summit will take place in Prague. So the speculation about timetables should really focus on Prague, and I think the President is going to be looking to Prague and trying to get people to focus on Prague as a place where we've got to address this issue.

The President made very clear that he thinks NATO enlargement is a good thing. And I must say that President Aznar, whose country joined NATO only in 1982, tended to agree.

Q: If one of the questions to the President from the leaders tomorrow is, you say you want to lay aside the ABM Treaty -- if they ask him, what would you replace it with, what would his answer be?

Senior Administration Official: Well, the President has spoken in terms of a new strategic framework which will encompass various elements, including nonproliferation, counter-proliferation, deterrence in its classic form -- although, with reduced reliance on offensive weapons -- and limited -- limited, but effective, missile defenses.

Q: Those are existing things, other than missile defense --

Senior Administration Official: Well, but the President is talking about a strategic framework which includes and pulls together all of these elements. How it is done is something we want to explore with our allies and the Russians.

Q: In other words, in a multi-national --

Senior Administration Official: I would not -- we want to start the discussion -- we want to build a conceptual understanding of what we're trying to do, and provide the basis for exploring technology so we know what's feasible in the area of missile defense and what isn't.

The various forms that this might take will be something we will address in detail when we know how it all works. But conceptually, it's moving beyond the ABM world, means developing a new framework, not simply stepping into the unknown. The President has been articulating and will continue to articulate his vision of what the future, post-ABM strategic stability should be like.

Q: Did President Aznar encourage the U.S. to take a bigger role in the Middle East peace process?

Senior Administration Official: Not in that way. There was a long discussion of the Middle East, there was a discussion of Arafat, the current situation, Sharon, the prospects for making progress on the situation that exists. So there was not -- I heard a lot from -- we heard a lot from Aznar, but what we didn't hear is: and you Americans have to do this. It was more, if I can characterize the tone, it was more: we're in this together trying to help; here's what we're doing, what do you think, and how can we work this together.

Q: Did the subject of the protest demonstrations in Madrid and elsewhere come up in the talks between Bush and Aznar?

Senior Administration Official: No.

Q: There's been a lot of talk about the Europeans listening to President Bush and his vision, his strategy. Has President Bush learned anything from the Europeans?

Senior Administration Official: Oh, I certainly think so. In the campaign, the phrase that was used was national missile defense. And I remember in the first weeks of the new administration, Europeans came to us, and the first thing they argued was, how can you tell us this isn't de-coupling when you use "national"? And it sort of stopped the conversation and, frankly, none of us had a really good answer, so we dropped national, because they had a point.

The kind of interaction we want with the Europeans is to bring us together in a common project. And if the Europeans are concerned about American unilateralism, the best -- they can reach out and work with us and then it becomes a joint project, which is better for everybody anyway.

Q: It's unclear to me from the answers at the press conference whether there was any discussion of the death penalty in the meetings that took place today. Can you tell us whether there was, and to what extent?

Senior Administration Official: There wasn't.

Q: Can you give us a sense of what the United States is prepared to do to help Spain in its fight against domestic terrorism? Are we talking intelligence sharing, or --

Senior Administration Official: I'd rather not.

Q: Can you give us any sense?

Senior Administration Official: I'd rather not get into details like that, but it was very clear that -- the President's support for Spain's struggle against terrorism is something that was clear. It was clearly expressed in the meeting. It was clearly expressed in the press conference. And I'd like to leave it at that.

Q: One follow up, if I may. Is the President at all concerned that by supporting Spain in this battle, there may be a greater propensity for U.S. targets to become objects of such terrorist activity?

Senior Administration Official: The President expressed his support for Spain, and his opposition to terrorism, both generally, globally, regionally and in the specific case here. So that's -- the President was quite firm on the subject.

Q: Has the President -- can you hear me now?

Senior Administration Official: Yes.

Q: Has the President ever met Aznar physically, or only spoken on the phone with him before today?

Senior Administration Official: I don't believe they had ever met, and so it was also just great to see them hit it off so well. That was really nice.

Q: -- the danger that extensive and intensive discussions or consultations on missile defense could eventually lead to a holdup of the whole plan because the Europeans say, well, if we have to do it together, we just discuss as long as we need, until the whole thing is killed.

Senior Administration Official: No, I don't really see that as a danger, because I believe the President is very committed to proceeding.

Q: How does he make that distinction clear in his meetings with European leaders?

Senior Administration Official: He's made it clear that proceeding in this direction is something that is very important for American security and also for NATO security and European American security, and he very much wants to work this with the Europeans.

Q: Yes, but how does he make it clear that they're not going to have veto power?

Senior Administration Official: The question hasn't arisen. I think the Europeans understand that the President is determined to move ahead, and he is inviting them, urging them to work with him. But the kind of exchange that you're trying to elicit from me hasn't come up.

Q: The idea of consultations implies some way of changing the eventual outcome of the missile defense project. In what possible ways could the outcome of missile defense be changed by these consultations?

Senior Administration Official: We don't, as the President said, we don't have a blueprint -- I'm not carrying the missile defense architecture in my briefcase. This is at a research-testing-evaluation-development phase right now, and how it is put into practice is -- and the different ways in which it is put into practice could depend very much on what the Europeans are interested in doing.

So the whole question of the different methods that are used down the road, when we get that far, is something that's dependent -- if not dependent, could be affected very greatly by European cooperation.

They're in, or they're not, or some countries are in, some countries are not, or all of NATO is in. Or Russia is in. And what you get 10 years out is going to depend very greatly by who is starting with you. So it's at a very early age.

It's an irony. If we come to Europeans with a blueprint and say, you know, here it is, we're accused of not consulting, of being unilateralists. And if we come and say, look, we're just launching this, this is where we're going, work with us, we're accused of not having a plan. But we decided to -- if we're going to offer consultations, they have to be real, which means starting upstream enough that what happens downstream is really -- depends on what the Europeans say when we get past the conceptual stage down to the putting it together stage.

Anybody else for the first time?

Q: Apart from learning not to call national missile defense, with the word national in it, has the President been influenced by anything else in the Europeans have said so far?

Senior Administration Official: You mean in general, or on strategic thinking?

Q: Either on strategic thinking or on any other concrete action so far. For example, on Kyoto.

Senior Administration Official: Yes. I think the President has been very much affected by his conversations with key European leaders with whom he's met. He met with Chirac before the inauguration, with Blair, with Schroeder, with Viktor Orban of Hungary, Kostov of Bulgaria, now with Freiberga of Latvia, now with Aznar. And of course, by tomorrow, this time, he will have met with far more. And by 48 hours from now, he'll have met with most -- almost all of the West Europeans.

Yes. Sometimes, of course, as you come out of meetings and interactions, of course your thinking is affected. The President is well aware of views in Europe, of concerns that Europeans have, and he has designed this trip keeping very much in mind some of the European concerns expressed publicly in the media and by European leaders.

But at the same time, I must say that the discussions with European leaders have been almost uniformly closer with more congruence on the main issues than one would expect having merely read the European press. So there is a difference.

For example, to dredge up last week's story, the press reporting about the NAC ministerial in Budapest was of a clash, and the accounts of all the Americans who were there was of a very constructive discussion. So the official channels are far more constructive and develop far more common ground than one would believe if you were just reading some of our newspapers, for what that's worth.

Q: Is that true, the European Union reaction on Kyoto, as well?

Senior Administration Official: Well, I think that the concerns about Kyoto are pretty deeply felt, and I think that we've made -- I think we've made more conceptual headway on strategic issues and missile defense than on Kyoto. That's obviously an issue on which Europeans are greatly concerned.

I must say, President Aznar today was pleased by the President's commitment to address the problem -- the challenge of global warming, pleased that the United States is going to be -- is launching research and going to work within the U.N. framework and believes in consultations with Europeans and others, pleased by the President's overall commitment -- and clearly said, as he said today, that his country does back Kyoto, but wants to work with the United States to develop common ground, and develop solutions, which is -- and we've heard that from a number of leaders.

Okay? One more.

Q: For Americans sitting at home, why should this person be particularly concerned about whether the Europeans, they should come around on a missile defense or not, given that what they're hearing from their President is that he's determined to move on, with or without the Europeans?

Senior Administration Official: Americans should care because the 21st century world will be a far better, more secure, more prosperous place if security is general, if trans-Atlantic security is deepened and advances -- and broadened. And not the time for a review of 20th century history, but when Europe and the United States drift away, which happened in the 20th century, we usually learn much to our regret that that's a bad thing.

Q: Does that mean that the administration --

Senior Administration Official: Americans should care because common security has, since 1949, since NATO was formed, or since 1945, has brought about the world's greatest period of sustained general peace in the West, and trans-Atlantic prosperity which has no equal, in terms of length or economic achievement. That's a hell of a thing.

Q: Does that mean the administration believes that this missile system would work better if it were a general system, and not a U.S.-specific program?

Senior Administration Official: Our President has made clear it is in everybody's interests, including the American interest, if Europe is also secure from threats of blackmail. And think about it, if you're worried about rogue state X, with three missiles, with three primitive warheads, but enough to hit Europe, and -- the shadow of insecurity, and the ability of that rogue state to implicitly blackmail Europeans, and therefore the European half of NATO, is something which is profoundly unsettling. We're obviously all better off if we can handle a threat like that. And so, yes, we're better off if we're secure together, much far better off than if we're trying to be secure alone. Lesson of the 20th century.

Thank you. See you tomorrow.