ON-THE-RECORD BRIEFING
Daniel Fried

US Department of State
September 24, 2008
DC

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: The Secretary met with the EU foreign
ministers, then – late this morning, then back here had the
Transatlantic Lunch, which is an – I should explain, an informal lunch
to which all – almost all of European foreign ministers are invited –
NATO members, EU members, both. It’s an informal session. She then met
with the Quint foreign ministers, and then finished up with Foreign
Minister – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov before going to
meet with Armenian President Sargsian. That meeting just took place.

A theme of the meetings today, in fact the principal theme that ran
through all of these, was the implications of Russia’s attack on
Georgia, what the consequences are, what the West’s response is. That
issue also came up, naturally enough, with Minister Lavrov. And let
me give you a flavor first of the European meetings, and then I can
discuss the meeting with – between the Secretary – between Secretary
Rice and Foreign Minister Lavrov. So don’t worry, I will get to
that. Okay? (Laughter.)

The strong sentiment in all her meetings with the Europeans was that
transatlantic solidarity has prevented the situation in Georgia from
getting even worse, that it was a critical component of our efforts
to make the situation better, and that we needed to work together
so that Russia’s attack on Georgia does not succeed in destroying
Georgia’s sovereignty, and that Russia comes to realize sooner or
later, hopefully sooner, that this attempt to change international
borders through force was a grave mistake.

The discussion with the Europeans, which started at the formal
EU session, continued over lunch was what I would call probably
the most sustained, concentrated general discussion of Russia in
a very long time that we have had at that level. It was marked by
an overwhelming consensus, unbroken consensus, that our task was to
support Georgia, including by the way supporting Georgia’s efforts to
deepen its economic and political, particularly political, reforms,
but also to reach out and work with other countries in the region that
may feel threatened by what Russia did, and to make clear that the
transatlantic community is not going to accept Russia’s recognition
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and that we are prepared to be quite
strong in making this point to the Russians over time.

Now, ministers – many ministers had individual and particular takes on
this, but it was – the solidarity shown was quite striking. Several
ministers at the beginning of the EU meeting, the U.S.-EU meeting,
pointed out that Secretary Rice, as Secretary, had presided over a
considerable improvement in transatlantic ties, the strong implication
being that the coordinated – the highly coordinated U.S.-European
response to Russia’s attack on Georgia was much easier because of
the improvement in U.S.-European ties after all the disagreements
about Iraq.

Now let me turn to the Secretary’s meeting with Lavrov, because then
we can get to your questions. It was a small meeting. I accompanied
Secretary Rice, and Russian – the new Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak
accompanied Foreign Minister Lavrov, and nobody else in the room,
no interpreters. They discussed Georgia, and this was a – I would
call it a polite, thorough exchange of views where the disagreements
were quite clear. Secretary Rice’s point is that – well, she said
to him many of the things she said publicly, that the recognition of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a mistake, it was quite a serious one,
that Russia did not enjoy any significant international support. And
this – and Russia had created grave difficulties for itself. It’s not
right of me to characterize what Foreign Minister Lavrov’s response
was, but he – I would – I think it is fair to say that he presented
the known Russian positions. And again, this was – there was not
shouting, table-pounding histrionics. These – the two ministers are
professionals, they know each other well.

But this was not the only issue that was discussed. They also discussed
North Korea and discussed the current difficulties and challenges that
we face, given North Korea’s current behavior. And they discussed ways
to send the right kind of messages to the North Korean Government. And
I would call this a business-like discussion and a constructive one.

They also discussed Iran. And I would also call this a constructive
discussion. They discussed the fact that we both agreed it was
premature to have a P-5+1 foreign ministers meeting right now. They
agreed that political directors should work together, and agreed
that there would come a time for another P-5+1 foreign ministers
meeting. They also agreed that the two governments should be in close
contact about the best way to signal that the P-5+1 process is intact,
and grappling with the issue of how to proceed — given the recent
developments, proceed in the wake of the IAEA report. And I would
call this a constructive discussion.

Now it is – the new Russian political director is not in town, but
Ambassador Kislyak, who has vast experience, his previous – Ambassador
Kislyak’s previous job was as the Russian Foreign Ministry political
director. He has vast experience on the Iran issue. He was Nick Burns’
counterpart briefly, my counterpart when I was doing it — the Iran
portfolio temporarily, and is Bill Burns’ counterpart now – well,
he would have been Bill Burns’ counterpart when he was political
director. But he is in town and I think he and Bill Burns are also
in touch about the way ahead. So this was a good – I would call this
a constructive discussion.

Now, there’s a couple more things and then questions. I’m not going
to race out, okay? It’s all right.

Secretary Rice’s speech last week made clear both the depth of our
concern about Russian actions in Georgia, but also said, clearly and
explicitly, that there were areas where we do want to continue to
work with Russia. And based on the discussion today, that work seems
to be continuing despite the very serious disagreements we have and –
with Russia and that, frankly, Europe and the United States together
have with Russia about Georgia.

Let me stop here so I can answer questions. And thank you for all
attending.

Yes.

QUESTION: Dan, Sergey Lavrov just spoke at the Council of Foreign
Relations and he was talking about how, when you talk about these
kind of areas of cooperation, ending discussions with the G-8 was
really hurting the security of the world, because for instance,
the agriculture ministers were supposed to meet to talk about food
security. He said there were all of these issues that are of grave
importance to the world, and you can’t pick and choose what you want
to cooperate – he said, you know, give us a list of what you want
to cooperate with and what you don’t want to cooperate with. He said
that’s not – that’s not really fair.

And while you said that Russia can’t have it both ways, he said that
the United States can’t have it both ways due to what he called a
very emotional reaction to how they handled it. And yes, you have
disagreements, but if you’re going to agree to have a pragmatic
relationship, then it should be across the board.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I’m familiar both with Minister
Lavrov’s style in general and this particular – this particular logic
train. We’ve heard this. This was the basis of — the Russian Foreign
Ministry statement yesterday made the same points. We’re familiar
with it, but the fact is Russia has, by invading Georgia and then
recognizing the independence of these tiny breakaway areas, has created
grave difficulties for itself that cannot be wished away. And it is
not a difficulty with the United States; it’s a difficulty with much of
the world. It’s not just Europe either, though it certainly is Europe.

Secretary Rice’s speech made clear that there are areas where we want
to cooperate and made it clear also that we have grave concerns over
what the Russians did. And I understand what the Russians are trying
to do, but all I can report to you is what the meeting laid out;
that is, they talked about North Korea, they talked about Iran in a
constructive way, and they talked – they basically exchanged views
of Georgia and the disagreements there are very deep and remain.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow – just a quick follow-up if I – can I
just do a quick follow-up, please?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes.

QUESTION: Europeans today, in their discussion with him – obviously,
the whole issue of the G-8 is very important to them. What’s the kind
of long-term trajectory on it with the G-8 discussion?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: No – fair or not – a fair question, but
I don’t have an answer for you yet. I can tell you that we did not
think it appropriate at all to have a G-8 foreign ministers now. We
look forward to Russia adhering to the terms of the ceasefire and the
September 8th supplemental document that the French negotiated. And
we will see how the Russians do in terms of meeting their commitments.

So I think that this was – I understand what Minister Lavrov has been
saying, but the fact is this is – the Russians have created a grave
problem for themselves, and that can’t be – that can’t be wished away.

MODERATOR: Bloomberg, please.

QUESTION: Yeah, just – I’m sorry, this is their first meeting,
one-on-one, since the Georgia conflict, correct?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: It wasn’t a one-on-one meeting because
there were two other people there.

QUESTION: Two others, right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Two-on-two, what —

QUESTION: But not in (inaudible)?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: That is correct. It is the first bilateral
meeting they have had. They have spoken on the phone. I believe she
called him before she made her speech last Thursday. And they spoke
at the very beginning of the —

QUESTION: They spoke on September 11th and they spoke —

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes.

QUESTION: — when she was on the plane flying back to Georgia.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, you have —

QUESTION: Right, right.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Right, thank you.

QUESTION: Okay —

QUESTION: Well, we went through this earlier today.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: So how can you move out of this – how can you move out of
this kind of – seems like a rut that the relations have dropped into at
this point, where the rhetoric continues to escalate or periodically
spike and there doesn’t seem to be any way forward because each side
has staked out its territory. What —

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, that’s why – but the premise of
your question is, I think, not quite right, because we were – the
two ministers were able to have productive, serious discussions about
North Korea and Iran despite the ongoing disagreements. It is – I also
am not sure that I accept the characterization of, you know, a rut,
which is sort of a neutral term, relations are in a rut so we have
to improve relations. Russia invaded another country. It tried to –
it is trying to change international borders by force.

That is a problem that Russia has, and it’s not our responsibility to
help Russia mitigate the consequences of such an action. It is our
responsibility to work with Russia where we have common interests,
but it’s also our responsibility, as the Secretary said last Thursday,
to help the Russians relook at some of their actions and reconsider
what they’ve done.

MODERATOR: If we can limit the follow-ons, please. Reuters, I think
we have time, sir, for one or two.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yeah, a couple more. I want to be decent
to my colleagues.

QUESTION: Did you get any sense from Lavrov whether the Russians are
going to follow through on their commitments on the Russian deal? I
mean, did he say to you, yes, by –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I’m sorry. Which deal are you talking about?

QUESTION: The –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: You mean the withdrawal?

QUESTION: The withdrawal deal, yes. Did he say, yes, we’ll —

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: There are – they – I have a somewhat
higher degree of confidence that the Russians will pull out of their
checkpoints beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia than I do that the
Russians will honor their ceasefire commitment to pull their troops
out of Georgia altogether. You remember the September – the August
8th – the August 12th ceasefire provides for all Russian and Georgian
forces to go back to their original positions on August – and before
August 7th. The Russians have said publicly that they’re going to
station much larger forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in clearly
inconsistent with the ceasefire. And I fear that that is what the
Russians intend to do. That would be, of course, institutionalizing
this violation of the ceasefire and that’s, of course, a problem.

QUESTION: So, Dan, did the Secretary make the same points that she made
in her speech to Lavrov today and – obviously a condensed version if
she did, I don’t know – and can you give us any idea about what the
response was? We’re recently hearing about Lavrov losing his temper
on the phone with David Miliband. I’m sure you –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I’ve heard that rumor, too.

QUESTION: Yeah. And –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I’ve heard that rumor, too. I can assure
you, though —

QUESTION: And on Iran, was there any indication that the Russians –
that, in fact, track two, the sanctions, was the way to go?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I have heard the story and many –
I don’t know whether it’s true, but I’ve also heard this story
about that conversation between Secretary Miliband and Foreign
Minister Lavrov. But the conversation today was polite, completely
professional. There was none of – there was none of that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: No foul language?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: It was a completely professional
conversation from beginning to end.

QUESTION: And, well – wait, hold on a second.

MODERATOR: I asked you to limit your follow-up.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: No, no, I’ll —

QUESTION: It was all – I asked it already.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay. So which part do you want answered
now?

QUESTION: The – did she make the same points in her speech that she –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: She didn’t give him a condensed version
of the speech. She made – many of the points that she made to him you
have heard before about the problem that Russia has created for itself.

QUESTION: And he wasn’t buying that, right?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I didn’t actually expect him
to. (Laughter.) And he had his own position, which we did not find –
which our side doesn’t find convincing. But that’s pretty well known.

QUESTION: And then on Iran?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: And which?

QUESTION: Sanctions.

QUESTION: Sanctions on Iran. Whether sanctions (inaudible).

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: They discussed the way ahead and the
two-track approach, but also the need to send Iran a very clear signal
that the P-5+1 process is intact and that we stand – that the P-5+1
stand by all of their work today. And I think under the circumstances,
that would be an important signal. That’s what they discussed.

QUESTION: He said that you didn’t discuss sanctions at all.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Particular next-step sanctions, I think
that’s right. They didn’t discuss that, but they discussed sending
the larger signal.

QUESTION: And they agreed to do that?

QUESTION: You said the Europeans are completely on the same page, but
they are very concerned that if the P-5+1 process is going slowly, if
it slows down, there is the risk and it would mean that the Russians
are waiting for the next administration and it would also mean that
it would give ground to people in Israel who favor a military strike
on Iran. And they are very concerned about that. So what is your
answer today?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I would – you mean to the
Europeans? I would say that we very much want the P-5+1 process to
continue. Secretary Rice said so in her speech last week. They had a –
Secretary Rice and Minister Lavrov had a constructive discussion about
this. But – and I’m – and we’re – obviously, that’s a good thing. But
the Iran – the problem that Iran’s nuclear program represents is
something that we have to take care of, hopefully through the P-5+1
process. But in any event, it is a problem and we have to deal with
it pretty seriously.

QUESTION: But are you sure that there will be a ministerial meeting
soon?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Am I sure? No, I’m not sure that there
will be, but it is a good thing that the two ministers agree that
they should have a ministerial meeting.

QUESTION: Colum Lynch from The Washington Post. I just wanted –
I know you talked about this a little bit earlier, but if you could
just give us some sense of – Lavrov, you know, was essentially saying
that he was, you know, withdrawing in reaction to the position on
the G-8 meetings and –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: He did not say that. He did not say that
during —

QUESTION: He did not say that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: He did not say that. I mean, I’m
familiar with the argument that that was their motive, but he did
not say that. That did not come up. The -Secretary Rice made clear
that she agreed that it was not the right time to have a P-5+1
ministerial. Political directors needed to do their work. And he
agreed with that assessment.

QUESTION: But a senior official last night said that you thought it
was useful to have such a meeting.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: All I can tell you is what the – what
Minister Lavrov and Secretary Rice said today. She said that she
agreed that, in fact, it was not the right time —

QUESTION: Last night after they said they’re not coming.

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, the Russian remark that you can’t have
it both ways, you can’t ask us to, you know, participate in the
Iranian stuff – I know, but I’ve got to write a story tomorrow, so
I’m sorry. But I mean, you know, he didn’t sort of indicate that there
was no way that they were going to go ahead with high-level meetings
on Iran if you didn’t sort of change your position on cooperation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: He did not say that; in fact, quite the
opposite. He said that he looked – that there should be a ministerial
meeting at the right time. I mean, I understand the logic, okay,
of that line of argument. But in fact, that’s not what happened at
the meeting of the two ministers today.

MODERATOR: Libby.

QUESTION: Yeah, just on North Korea, Dan. You had said that they came
up – they discussed ways to send the right kind of messages to North
Korea. What – did they conclude anything? Are they – are the Russians
going to –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: The Russians are going – I think it was –
the best way to say is that the Russians are going to think about
this in light of the conversation. I think that’s fair.

QUESTION: Think about what?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: The best way to send the messages.

QUESTION: Is there any more detail you can give us on that?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Not that I can give you, no.

QUESTION: Dan, this was —

QUESTION: I mean, you’re not very reassuring.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I’m sorry. (Laughter.) But you know,
I’m not very reassuring about what? About Iran’s intentions? About –
I mean, these are —

QUESTION: About the continuity of the P-5+1.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: No, I – and quite the contrary. I thought
I was quite reassuring that both leaders had a constructive discussion
given the press articles that I read in the morning papers, which were
understandable. I think it’s quite reassuring for me to be able to
tell you that they had a constructive discussion on the way forward
and that Minister Lavrov agreed that there should be a ministerial
meeting and they also agreed on ways to send the right signal that
the P-5+1 process is intact. That actually is pretty reassuring,
I mean, as these things go. It’s not been a great month and a half
in U.S.-Russian relations, so under the circumstances, that may be –
that’s pretty good.

MODERATOR: I think this will have to be the last one, and be brief
because –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Sure.

QUESTION: On North Korea, did Minister Lavrov suggest that the
U.S. needed to show more flexibility on the verification protocol,
that the process was more important at this point than getting a
stringent verification regime?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Fair question. They did discuss – they
did discuss the best tactics for moving ahead. And Lavrov – I should
not characterize what he said, not quite right, but certainly they
discussed some of these issues. And Lavrov said – at the end of the
discussion of North Korea, Lavrov said he would think about sending
the right kind of message.

QUESTION: Are you still wrangling over the interpretation of the
September and August options?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: We’ve not wrangled at all. We think the
French interpretation is the right one.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the Russians don’t agree.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, they can —

QUESTION: So you’ll have a basis for –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: They can talk to the French, who actually
have a very good mastery of both the French language and the documents
that they negotiated. We think that the French know exactly what they
did, and we think that their version is accurate. What the Russians
think, I can’t say.

QUESTION: Dan, did they agree on what is the best way to signal to
the Iranians that the P-5+1 process is intact, or did they just say –
you said –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: No, no, they did exchange some ideas and
they agreed that we’ll be – they agreed that Bill Burns and Kislyak
will be in touch to follow up on that discussion.

MODERATOR: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

QUESTION: Thank you.