![2004 G8 Summit](/peth04/20041102191407im_/http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/images/g8banner.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 8, 2004
Briefing on Meeting with German Chancellor Schroeder
Background Briefing by a Senior Administration Official on the President's Meeting with German Chancellor Schroeder
Sea Island, Georgia
6:46 P.M. EDT
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll start out, if that's all
right, with a short characterization and statement of the meeting.
This was, I believe, the warmest meeting that the two leaders have had
since 2003, since before the Iraq war. It was a warm meeting, it was a
productive meeting. It ran considerably over the scheduled time. My
strong sense was that the two leaders would have continued the
discussion, but the American protocol team informed the President that
his next meeting with President Putin was scheduled to start so the
meeting with Chancellor Schroeder had to end.
It was, as I said, an extremely good meeting. It was colored, of
course, by the fact that the vote in New York was about to take place.
It took place -- it has since taken place, 15 to nothing, a unanimous
passage of a very strong Security Council resolution on Iraq. Iraq was
the first topic of conversation. Both leaders stressed their
determination to move forward together. There was no discussion of the
differences last year. Last year belongs to last year -- that is, it
belongs in the category of history. What the two leaders discussed was
now what Germany and the United States can do together, moving
forward.
They discussed the Security Council resolution. Chancellor
Schroeder expressed his determination to see it passed and his optimism
that it would be, and of course it was. They discussed their hope that
the Iraqi interim government would be able to leave the country and
deal with the many political and security challenges it has. They
discussed the fact that NATO will be meeting at the end of this month
at a summit, and that NATO may have some role in Iraq. They did not
discuss -- they did not come to an agreement, and they did not seek to
come to an agreement, and they did not seek to come to an agreement
about the specifics, but they did agree to discuss a possible NATO role
in the future, and agreed that this was something NATO ought to take
up.
They also discussed the wider Middle East initiative, and I think
it's fair to say that there was a strong community of views.
Chancellor Schroeder and President Bush agreed that this was the right
initiative at the right time. They both noted that this was not an
imposition of any outside values, but it was an encouragement to
reformers in the region, in and out of governments to proceed with
their reforms. The President thanked Chancellor Schroeder for
Germany's strong role and leadership in seeing that this initiative
took shape in the way it has, and that be launched at Sea Island. The
President was grateful to Chancellor Schroeder and to Foreign
Minister Fischer for what they have done to see this initiative take
shape.
They discussed Iran and the importance of the world community and
the transatlantic community, in particular, giving a strong, united
message to the Iranian government that nuclear programs and nuclear
weapons -- nuclear weapons programs are a very bad idea, and that Iran
needs to cooperate with the international community and the IAEA,
without reservation, to the fullest.
They discussed the war on terrorism and the need to help Saudi
Arabia, which is under real pressure after the terror -- recent
terrorist attacks. They also discussed Turkey and the need to support
Turkey's European vocation and a European future for Turkey as Turkey
continues its reforms. They both spoke frankly of how impressed they
are with the Turkish government moving ahead with reforms and moving
ahead on various important issues.
I will stop here and take questions. Let me reiterate, though,
that this was a very warm meeting. It was the warmest that they have
had in over a year, and I think that both leaders felt that they are
now in a very good place to make progress on a common agenda. We and
the Germans have now come back together and are working together on a
common agenda.
So, with that, I will take questions. And I believe there's a cut
to Savannah, and the first -- is the first question supposed to come
from Savannah?
Q Has the question of U.S. troop removal from Germany come up at
all in the meeting?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Simple question, simple answer.
No, it did not come up. Of course, Under Secretary of Defense Feith
had a very good set of consultations with Germany very recently, so the
German government is well-informed as to the state of American
thinking. But this did not come up in the meeting between the two
leaders.
Q You said that the two leaders discussed a possible role of
NATO in Iraq in the future. What kind of role could NATO play in the
concept of the administration? And did the Chancellor signal any
support for a role of NATO in Iraq?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I don't want to get into
specifics because the two leaders were not trying to come to a definite
agreement. They were discussing possibilities of what NATO's role
might be. And of course, remember that 15 NATO members are already in
Iraq, that non-U.S.-NATO members are leading two multinational
divisions -- the Polish-led multinational division in south central,
the British-led multinational division in the south. NATO is already
providing support for the Polish-led multinational division.
However, they did discuss the possibility of NATO supporting the
Iraqi security forces through training and agreed that this might be
one thing -- one idea to be further developed. They agreed to stay in
touch as we approach the NATO Summit. And they had, what I would call,
a very good and positive exchange.
Q Have there been any discussions about the dangers of the oil
price? And was there common sense between the two politicians?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Actually, there was a brief
discussion of oil prices and economic issues. It came up in the
context of discussing Saudi Arabia. The President talked about recent
developments in oil prices. They both talked about economic growth and
about OPEC's decision to start increasing oil production. It did not,
however, come up in great detail.
Q Just to finish up on the NATO point with Chancellor Schroeder,
he had expressed a fairly definitive statement a month ago or so that
German troops would not be involved in Iraq.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That is correct.
Q Did he repeat that in any form? And then, I've got a question
on Iran for you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. He did not say so, but the
President raised the issue and said, of course, the United States
understands the German troops will not be going to Iraq, and that this
is not the question. And we've always respected the German position on
the subject. So that was not -- this was a positive discussion, it was
in no way contentious, and they were discussing what NATO's role might
be, understanding the German position that it will not send troops to
Iraq.
Q On Iran, Germany was one of the three countries that struck an
agreement with the Iranians back in the fall, which discussed a
cessation of their nuclear activities with an eye toward beginning to
dismantle them completely. Does -- was there any discussion that Iran
had backed off on that agreement, that they had reneged on it? Was
there any sense that the Germans felt that they have been misled by the
Iranians?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the Chancellor did not say
so in so many words. The American skeptical position about Iran's
intentions is pretty well-known. I think it's fair to characterize the
Chancellor's view as being somewhat skeptical in a general way. He did
not use words like "misled" or "lied" or "not fulfilling commitments."
He did not use those words. But it was -- I would say that the two
leaders shared a healthy degree of skepticism of Iran's intentions, and
I would call that portion of the discussion a good one.
Now, our view is pretty well-known. We've been working with the EU
3. We've been urging them to take a strong, consistent position. And
from what I heard from the Chancellor, his experience with Iran to date
has -- seems to be convincing him of the virtues of healthy skepticism
and keeping a jaundiced and open eye. That's my characterization. I'm
trying to be fair.
Q Did the President and the Chancellor discuss the question of
Sharon's plan of Gaza and the Occupied Territories? Was that an issue
which they discussed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They did not discuss this in great
detail. The Chancellor pointed out in the context of the broader
Middle East initiative that it would be all to the good for the success
of this initiative if there were peace between the Palestinians and the
Israelis. And of course, Germany has, from the very beginning, in a
formula developed by Joschka Fischer, described the relationship
between Israel- Palestinian peace and reform in the broader Middle East
as proceeding -- these are my words -- along parallel tracks, one not
being a condition for the other, but both being necessary in progress
and one helping the other.
So I would say that that's the position the Chancellor took. The
President didn't disagree. But the bulk of their discussion was about
the broader Middle East initiative and the need to support reform.
They obviously agree that progress is important, but this was not a
major subject in their discussions this time. They've talked about it
in the past, however, of course.
Q Did the Chancellor mention the role of the United Nations
concerning the Middle East? And Secretary Powell said the other day
that three countries which did not participate in the war promised him
that they might participate in a multinational force for the protection
of the United Nations. Was that a topic in one way or another?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This didn't come up. Of course,
the Security Council resolution does provide for a discreet force to
protect the U.N., as well as call for regional organizations to
consider contributing to the multinational force in Iraq to provide
security altogether. But a discreet U.N. force did not come up in the
discussions.
I would say that there was a -- the two leaders are clearly on a
rapidly converging path with respect to Iraq. Both the substance, but
if I could put it this way --the subtext of the discussion was that
Germany and the United States, having had different views last year,
have views which are running in parallel and getting very close to each
other about what needs to be done from this moment forward. And we are
looking to build on that developing community of views, not looking to
re-fight the battles of last year, which is, again, why I call this a
very warm and productive meeting.
Q Maybe a rather naive question here, but who is going to pay
for this broader Middle East initiative? Has there been any talk about
where the money is going to come from?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, you're going to have to look
at the documents from the broader Middle East initiative as they come
out. Some of -- both the European Union and the United States have
already set aside significant sums to fund some of the programs.
In my experience, the funding process and the process of developing
and rolling out large initiatives like this goes in a kind of iterative
process. You start the initiatives, you see what programs are working,
and the money thereafter shows up. This was very much the experience
in 1989 when Europe and the United States started supporting reform in
a new way in what was then known Eastern Europe.
There are a number of programs -- of new programs being
contemplated. We've -- the American administration internally has
already discussed funding. EU's Barcelona process has a lot of money,
and we will see as things develop.
But, on the broader Middle East initiative, since I am, after all,
speaking to journalists, I feel compelled to point out that a storyline
from January in the media has been that the broader Middle East
initiative has been killed, dead, destroyed, pulled back, watered down,
vitiated, and taken off the table. Either it is an immortal initiative
that cannot be killed, no matter how many times you have -- you
collectively have buried it, or, in fact, your reporting was -- not
yours, personally -- but the collective reporting was, in fact, wrong,
and it was never dead or vitiated or watered down or pulled back.
And, in fact, this is the case. It was a bold and strong
initiative to put reform and support for reform and reformers front and
center of the international community's agenda. This was the thrust of
Foreign Minister Fischer's speech at Wehrkunde, which, I was present
for that. It was, frankly, a stirring, dramatic, powerful, and
persuasive speech.
The broader Middle East initiative that has taken shape and will be
launched tomorrow is consistent with the original motion that the
Germans and the Americans started sharing many months ago. And so I
hope you look at the papers, and before you pronounce it watered down,
vitiated, cut back, that you remember where it was we started -- which
was nowhere -- where it is we have gotten -- which is a considerably
advanced place -- and then what it is we have to do -- which is a great
deal. And I will make that my speech on the broader Middle East
initiative.
Q I just wanted to know if there was any talk about
nonproliferation between the both leaders?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not at this meeting, there was
not.
Thank you.
END 7:04 P.M. EDT
|