Statements by U.S. Officials

Under Secretary Of State Nicholas Burns

Excerpts from his Press Conference at 14th OSCE Ministerial Council

Brussels, Belgium, December 4, 2006

It’s been a very good day.  The United States is a strong champion of the OSCE.  We think about it this way; it’s the vanguard organization of human rights, the protector of human rights in Europe, in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans.  It’s the major organization promoting democracy and free and fair elections and it’s also the organization that prevents and resolves regional disputes.  So it’s a very important institution; we strongly support it.

We are very pleased by the last year because we believe the Belgian leadership has been very strong.  And the man I’ve just left, [Belgian Foreign Minister] Mr. Karel de Gucht, has done a very, very good job in our view, of leading this organization.  We were very happy when Belgium wanted to become the permanent chair.  The Foreign Minister would be very upset with me if I suggested that it wasn’t a lot of work.  But he did an excellent job, particularly on the issue of Georgia which, as you know, is a very complex issue.

There are several issues that were dominant today and have been dominant throughout the past year – the first is Georgia, and Moldova.  They are sovereign, independent states, and so they should be fully in control of their national territory, and if they choose not to have foreign troops on their soil, then they should not have to live with foreign troops on their soil.  It was back in 1999 at the Istanbul Summit that Russia agreed to conditions to withdraw its military equipment and its forces from both countries.  Now that’s not to mean that progress wasn’t made by the Russian Government over the last seven years, but not sufficient [progress].  Russia military equipment is still in Moldova.  Russian military forces are still in Georgia.  And if both countries are to be fully sovereign, independent and truly in control of their territory, then the Russian troops should leave.  And that’s what I said in my statement this morning.

We also discussed the organization, ODIHR, which is the OSCE arm that is responsible for implementing the monitoring of elections across Europe and the Balkans and the Caucasus and Central Asia.  This is the most effective international organization in the world today---the most professional and the most competent---in monitoring elections and judging whether the elections have been fair.  ODIHR has a brilliant record of success.  It’s the gold standard by which all other efforts are measured.  Therefore, to see that some countries in the OSCE are beginning to complain about it, complain I think, because such a tough organization is objective.  It calls them as it sees them.  It speaks truthfully and honestly about elections.  Our view is that we will not support any attempt to weaken this organization.  Europe needs this organization---as we look forward to see the evolution of democracy, particularly in Europe’s East, in the Caucuses and Central Asia. 

We also talked a lot about the OSCE’s role in promoting tolerance.  This is a process that I think Americans and Europeans both believe in.  All of our societies can be more tolerant of minorities.  All of us have to worry about actions in our society that are anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or anti-Semitic.  The OSCE has launched a campaign to prevent intolerance against Muslims, against Christians, depending on country.  This is very important work to redeem the values that brought the OSCE together in the first place:  democracy, human rights, rule of law.  So we Americans are encouraging the OSCE to go further on this issue in 2007 and support efforts and conferences and initiatives to support tolerance. 

The Romanian Government has agreed to host an OSCE conference in 2007 which will go well beyond [that held in] Cordoba several years ago, in dealing with intolerance in all its forms, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic.  We all need this; we all can learn from it; all of us can do a better job in all our societies, and so we believe in this. 

There was an agreement today, that I’m sure Mr. De Gucht will announce at the right time.  I think we made substantial progress on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.  Now we haven’t resolved the problem, which dates back to 1991-1992.  The Minsk Group which is chaired by Russia, France, and the United States is working together [on this].  I believe we’ve agreed to a joint statement among all the delegations here about what we wish to see: which is a way to resolve the problem that is fair to both the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Finally let me say [something] to the issue of Kosovo, which has kind of hung over this conference because Serbian elections will be held on January 21.  We expect that Matti Ahtisaari, the United Nations representative, will provide a plan for the future and final status of Kosovo.  And we hope, the United States hopes, that the Security Council will then deal very quickly in February-March with this final status issue.  There’s been a lot of talk today about Kosovo.  I think a lot of us, including the United States, will support a future OSCE mission in a host final status, or a final-status, I guess I should say, Kosovo. 

Responses to Questions:
QUESTION – What is going to happen if Russia blocks the Final Status for Kosovo?  Is the United States going to make a bilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independence?

Well, I know that the last thing in the world you really want me to do is answer a series of hypothetical questions of events that haven’t occurred.  Let me just talk about the facts.  We were surprised to hear the allegation or the report that the Russian Ambassador in Belgrade threatened [a Russian] veto.  I’ve not heard any Russian diplomat in the last several years threaten a veto.  I think everyone knows it’s been seven years since the war ended, since the attempted ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians---one of the greater crimes in Europe since the second World War, one of the most horrific crimes---and the people of Kosovo have waited too long.  Seven years is too long.  So it’s time to get on with this; it’s time for the final status to be adjudicated.  The United Nations is in charge of the process.  President Matti Ahtisaari will make the recommendation.  He has the full support of the United States; we are a leading supporter of him.  And now he has agreed to wait until after the Serbian elections on January 21 and we know that that is the right decision.  But shortly following those elections, he’ll make his recommendation, and then the issue will be turned over to the Security Council, and we would hope that all countries will support a final status recommendation that President Ahtisaari makes, because he does speak for the United Nations, and he has spoken, I think quite effectively, for the international community over the last year since he began his position.  Our hope is that the people of Kosovo will remain patient, that no one will resort to violence, that Kosovars will respect Serb minority rights.  Serbs have a right to live in Kosovo, they’ve been there for 1,000 years, and they’ve a right, as do Albanians, to live there.  And so tolerance and patience and non-violence is the way forward in Kosovo, and I think all of us here at this meeting support those virtues.

QUESTION ABOUT ODIHR:

I think all of us know what democracy means.  This organization was built on democracy.  And ODIHR has become the most professional and competent instrument to adjudicate whether or not an elections meet the standards of this organization…. I said in my statement this morning, and I repeat it again, the United States will not support any effort to weaken ODIHR.  It’s an autonomous arm of this organization; it does not need to be micromanaged; there is no evidence to support any of the more serious allegations made against it.  And we are champion supporters of it, and I should tell you that the great majority of countries at this conference also support ODIHR and do not wish to see it weakened.  ODIHR, at our request, from the Ljubljana meeting of a year ago, did undertake its own review of itself – how it can strengthen itself, how it can broaden its geographic purview, how it can be more inclusive of all the nations, in terms of the people who work for it, of all the nations that are represented here.  And ODIHR has importance, and we think is very good.  So one of the great issues of this conference in Brussels is ODIHR, and my country is standing up to be a strong supporter of it.  You need an objective, independent institution to determine whether or not elections are free and fair, or that their governments violated international precepts of an election.  And you’ve seen the impact that OSCE had in Ukraine, we’ve seen the impact it had in Central Asia.  It’s been the voice of authority.  Why would one want to weaken that?  That’s the position we’re taking here.

QUESTION ABOUT KAZAKHSTAN’S BID FOR THE OSCE CHAIRMANSHIP IN 2009:

I had an excellent meeting with Foreign Minister Tokayev of Kazakhstan.  Kazakhstan is a great friend of the United States and of a lot of countries in the OSCE, and is a strategic partner of ours.  We had a very good conversation.  Of course, Kazakhstan had an ambition to become Chairman-in-Office, and the United States would very much like to be in a position to support that at some point.  Now, decisions have to be made at some point in 2007 about who becomes Chairman-in-Office in 2009 and 2010 and 2011.  I think that we are likely to end up by tomorrow morning that a decision will be deferred, which is not a bad result.  It’s a good result.  What it means is that we can take further time to reflect, and I think all of us have great sympathy for Kazakhstan, wishing to see Kazakhstan smashing glass ceilings.  It would be the first country from Central Asia, if it is elected to be Chairman-in-Office, to achieve that distinction.  But the stars are not just in the right constellation yet, and I think that with a little bit more time they might be.  And so, we’re hopeful that there could be a way to work with this in 2007, and it was actually Kazakhstan’s, I think, wish that this be deferred.  Our view was that Kazakhstan is such a close friend of ours, you know, whatever it wishes.  So that we can make that whenever.  So, I don’t think it’s a big problem.

QUESTION ABOUT GEORGIA:

Georgia is a big problem.  The basic problem is that it is an independent European country.  There are two separatist movements, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  And there are countries giving support to those separatist movements, and there are foreign forces stationed on the soil of the country.  And so it is very important that this issue of Georgian sovereignty be resolved in a way satisfactory to the Georgian people.  It’s also very important that Georgia and Russia learn to develop a better relationship, a way of working out problems, and we’ve seen some indication in recent weeks that they can talk to each other.  And I said that there has been some progress over the last seven years in the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgian soil.  I have to give credit where credit is due.  But not sufficient [progress].  Not yet.  And so we ask the Russian Government to find a way to meet in full its Istanbul 1999 commitments, a complete and verifiable withdrawal.

QUESTION ABOUT EU SANCTIONS AGAINST TURKEY:

Well, Turkey is a close friend of my country and  I’m actually not familiar with sanctions against Turkey; I’m familiar with the great debate that us taking place about the possible accession of Turkey to the EU.  But the United States would never want to sanction Turkey or be party to a process of sanction against Turkey because Turkey is a friend and a democratic ally.  Maybe I’m not as caught up in the details of the EU’s deliberations as I should be, but I’m not quite familiar with the sanctions question.

QUESTION (clarification) ABOUT THE EU’S POSSIBLE SUSPENSION OF AREAS OF NEGOTIATION  WITH TURKEY ABOUT ITS EU CANDIDACY:

Ah, that’s very different.  Yes, okay.  So not sanctions at all.  But the question is about what will happen to the accession process when the EU Council meets in ten days’ time here in Brussels.  Well, I think both President Bush and, before him, President Clinton, have been very clear in the United States.  Both of our leaders from two different political parties in the last ten years, have both supported Turkey’s future accession to the EU.  We see it as a strategic question.  Turkey is a European country.  Europe won’t be complete without Turkey, and we hope that the various problems that are currently separating the EU and Turkey can be overcome.  The problems concerning the accession talks and the various baskets, and so on and so forth, are not for us to get involved in the details; we’re not members of the EU.  But we are friends of Turkey and friends of the EU.  So we hope that the two can resolve their differences.

2^ND QUESTION ABOUT U.S. POSITION RE KAZAKHSTAN’S BID FOR THE OSCE CHAIRMANSHIP:

You know, with all due respect, I don’t want to look at it negatively.  I prefer to look at it positively.  Kazakhstan is a country that has made enormous progress since December of 1991, when they became an independent state.  It’s one of the leading strategic partners of my country, in many ways.  It’s now volunteering to take on this responsibility to lead the OSCE for a year.  All decisions here are made by consensus, so everybody has to agree.  A decision like this sometimes takes a little while, so I think it’s a good decision perhaps to defer this.  And the United States is very sympathetic to Kazakhstan.  But maybe some more stars need to be aligned, maybe some further progress needs to be made, more discussion needs to be held, and there’s a very high probability of a positive outcome to Kazakhstan’s interest in becoming Chairman-in-Office, a high probability.  But it does depend on continued reform in Kazakhstan.  I think many countries believe that.

So I believe positively that the meeting I had with Mr. Tokayev was uniformly positive and supportive, very supportive of Kazakhstan, but we’re not quite there yet to make a decision [about] leading our organization, leading the OSCE.

3^RD QUESTION ABOUT KAZAKHSTAN CANDIDACY:

I prefer to deal with the reality of December 4, 2006.  The reality is we’ll find a way forward, I’m sure, at some point in the future, but the organization is not yet ready to make a decision.

QUESTION

I think as a friend, we’ve commented before - Kazakhstan is in a unique position.  Think of the Chairman-in-Office, Belgium, an established European democracy; Slovenia, a country that’s been a democracy for a very, very long time; Romania is a good example of a country that’s made dramatic progress forward, was a great Chairman-in-Office.  So I think Kazakhstan can certainly make the progress that most of us are looking for, in terms of a consistency and in applied reforms.  It is its own democracy, and especially concerning elections.  So I think it’s very clear that those are the issues.  We hope that that progress can be made.

4^th QUESTION ABOUT KAZAKHSTAN: WHAT MUST IT DO TO BE DEEMED SUITABLE FOR THE CHAIRMANSHIP?

You know, I understand why you’re asking the question.  But I think that’s really for Minister De Gucht, he’s the Chairman-in-Office.  He speaks for our organization; I just speak for one country, the United States.  And we’re such a good friend to Kazakhstan, I don’t want to give them a lot of public advice.  I want to be supportive in my comments on them.

QUESTION ABOUT TURKEY DRIFTING AWAY FROM EUROPE:

That’s a very interesting question, and here is how I look at it.  A decision was made some time ago by the European Union to open the door to the future accession of Turkey to the European Union.  It was a major strategic decision.  It’s one of those decisions that if you look back at our period of time, from the 70s to maybe the next decade, historians will say this was one of the most important decisions that the Europeans made at the end of the 20^th century and the beginning of the 21^st, to open the EU up to this major Moslem secular democracy.  And now that it’s in question, and leading European politicians are beginning to say “no”, close the door.  It’s our view that that would be a major strategic miscalculation.  Turkey is a part of Europe. 

When we faced the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, we of NATO, over five decades, Turkey held down one of the major fronts.  Turkey has proved its democracy, has proved its secularism, its friendly alliance relationship with us for decades now, and for Europe to turn away in our judgment would be a major miscalculation.  Europe can’t be complete without Turkey; Turkey is fundamentally a part of this continent.  And one of the major strategic challenges, beyond building Europe, is to build bridges between all of us in the western community, North America, Europe, and the Moslem world.  Is there a better country than Turkey to be that bridge?  In a world that now has all these divisions between religions, between Middle East and Europe.  Turkey is the bridge, and so our position is emphatically that that door should be opened for Turkey.  Now, honestly, the Turks need to meet the requirements of the EU.  We understand that that’s a perfectly legitimate European request.  If they want entrée, they have to meet the requirements.  But everyone knows that’s a long-term process.  The Turks have been underway in this process since 1963.  It’s been a long time.  And we believe that the decision should remain constant---to keep that door open.

QUESTION ABOUT CIA OVER-FLIGHTS AND RENDITION:

 My Government has been very open, in answer to your question on those topics.  Secretary Rice, I remember---it was a year ago this week, when she began a week-long trip to Europe.  She spoke very openly, consistently, and at great length about these allegations---the first [point] that you made.  And secondly, the United States has invited NGOs, the International Red Cross, the United Nations, and many Member States of the EU, to visit Guantanamo and to look at the facilities there.  So, we have answered every question that’s been asked of us.

QUESTION ABOUT TOLERANCE:

Part of the OSCE’s mission is to bring people together, not just governments.  And in America, we live in a multi-religious country.  Many European countries are also now multi-religious – Moslems, Christians, Jews, Hindus, others.  So, we’ve had so many examples in my country, in Europe, European countries, of intolerance---and even Moslem countries of intolerance.  That’s certainly one of the values, whether it’s [from] the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, the OSCE values and Helsinki Final Act, [on which] we should want to build a better, more peaceful world and understand each other and accept each other’s differences.  And so we in America find great value in working on these problems and having conferences and having discussions and bringing people of different faiths together. 

I received two letters from members of Congress on my way here, asking me to advance this cause of tolerance; Senator Brownback of Kansas and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey wrote me.  Senator Voinovich wrote me, and Congressman Lantos talked to me personally before the conference and said: Please stand up for this issue of tolerance.  So I think that all the countries are ready to do this.  This is something we all agree on and that we should continue to do.

QUESTION ABOUT IRAN AND SANCTIONS:

Frankly, it’s been too long that we’ve been debating in Security Council the sanctions resolution on Iran.  Back on July 12, the Foreign Ministers of the P-5 countries and the German Foreign Minister met in Paris, and those Foreign Ministers and Secretary Rice said, If Iran does not suspend its enrichment program, we will go to sanctions.  On July 31, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696, which said in its penultimate paragraph: We will pass sanctions.  Well, the time was up on September 1.  We gave Iran an extra five weeks to consider the offer, a total of four and a half months.  The Iranians rejected the offer to negotiate---and Secretary Rice said she would personally be in those negotiations---and so now we have to pass a sanctions resolution.  We’ve been in New York, arguing about this resolution, discussing it for the better part of two and a half months.  It is time for Russia, time for China, to agree with Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, on a sanctions resolution.  It’s not that complicated.  It’s very straightforward.  We need to send a strong message to the Iranians.  They have defied the Security Council; they have defied the IAEA; they have unilaterally walked out on talks with the Europeans; and now unilaterally rejected the multilateral negotiations the United States, Russia, China, and the Europeans proposed.  It is time to send a signal. 

And, so, I will be in Paris tomorrow to meet with my Russian, Chinese, German, British, and French counterparts, to see if we can narrow our differences and agree that our ambassadors in New York should pass in the quickest possible time a hard-hitting and decisive sanctions resolution---so that the Iranians get the message that we are all unhappy with Iran.  Iran keeps violating its international commitments. 

QUESTION – How do you propose to do this?

By persuasive diplomacy, tomorrow in Paris at 8:00, at the French Quay d’Orsay. 

QUESTION ABOUT TURKISH-IRANIAN TALKS AND THE U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN NORTHERN IRAQ:

Yes, I think on the first question, Prime Minister Erdogan is a friend, an ally of ours, and we have great respect for him.  And it’s perfectly natural that neighbors would talk.  President Talibani went to Tehran; the United States spoke positively of his reasons for going.  We certainly understand that Prime Minister Erdogan would feel that he needs to talk to the Iranian leadership.  No problem with that whatsoever.  We have complete trust that Turkey, of course, defends the values that we uphold.  We just wish the Iranian Government would stop trying to develop nuclear weapons, stop being the central banker of the four major terrorist groups in the Middle East, stop trying to destabilize Lebanon, which they are trying to do as we speak---over the last three or four days.  We’ve got a lot of disagreements with Iran.  And as various friends or ours visit the Iranians, we certainly understand that the Iranians will have a better sense of our viewpoint, because our friends will tell them how the Americans feel about one issue or the other.  We have complete trust in Turkey. 

I think I probably won’t answer your second question, because that’s really for President Bush.  The State Department doesn’t command U.S. troops; the President of the United States does, and I think that I shouldn’t answer a question like that.

QUESTION ABOUT TURKEY AND IRAN:

Well, we have complete trust and confidence in Turkey.  I’m afraid the Iranians might be beyond mediation.  The Iranians have spoken for 27 years.  They’re the leading support of Palestinian Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, the four terrorist groups that kill/target Americans, target Israelis, target moderate Palestinians, target Lebanese politicians, and…[other] politicians.  The Iranians seem to have formed an axis with these terrorist groups, along with Syria, to destabilize Israel as they tried to do this past summer, and Lebanon, and of course they are adversaries of the United States and of many other countries.  And this is a real problem, and the Iranians know it, and they know there is a great gulf that separates us from the Iranian Government because of these pernicious actions. 

I have time for one more question.

QUESTION ABOUT IRAN AND IRAQ:

We are not beholden to Iran.  And we have to speak truthfully about Iran.  It is the major disruptive force in the Middle East.  Think about what we stand for in the Middle East.  We want to see the Israelis and Palestinians find peace, a two-state solution.  We want to see Lebanon free and independent.  We want to see Iraq free of terrorists.  What does Iran stand for?  It seeks to prevent a two-state solution in the Middle East.  Its preference is that it wants to wipe Israel off the map of the world.  Iran is trying to destabilize Lebanon.  Iran is providing technology, improvised explosive device technology, which is killing American and Iraqi soldiers in Iraq.  We stand for peace and overcoming divisions in the Middle East, and Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace, solving everything through the barrel of a gun.  There is a great chasm between us.  And one has to speak clearly when the stakes are so high.