NOVEMBER 2007

Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy
02/10/2007

Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!

I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.

Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.

But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.

Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.

In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.

This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.

The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.

I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest -- and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.

According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.

We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.

Remarks with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov After 2+2 Meetings

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Moscow, Russia
October 12, 2007

View Video

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Dear colleagues, the meeting of foreign ministers and defense ministers in the forum of the so-called 2+2 was held in accordance with instruction by the two presidents. This instruction by the presidents was dictated by our joint strive to give a new quality to our strategic relationships, and in particular the questions related to military and political issues for both our countries which have particular responsibility for the world security and strategic partnership.

Our meeting today reaffirmed that all participants in this meeting realized this responsibility. We agreed to turn this format into a permanent one, and our American colleagues suggested that we meet in Washington in the United States in, say, half a year and to follow up on this work.

We agreed that this mechanism will deal with the practical implementation of initiatives put forward by our two countries jointly and implemented jointly in the area of strategic stability. This primarily has to do with such areas as the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the strengthening of appropriate regimes, fighting with nuclear terrorism, and the development of cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy.

We also added up one more subject to this list. It involves the universalization of the INF Treaty. As you know, this treaty limits the Russian Federation and the United States in their ability to have appropriate military systems. And since the threat of missile proliferation is growing, we agreed that we need to invite all the countries, without exclusion, to engage in this regime.

And of course, within the framework of the 2+2 mechanism, we will not only implement the initiatives already put forward by our two countries, but we will also address issues on which our views diverge. And one of such issues is missile defense.

The Russian Federation, during President Putin's visit to Kennebunkport, put forward a proposal which is a constructive alternative to the deployment of the third positioning region by the United States and Europe.

Today, our American colleagues put forward a counterproposal which aims at finding common ground and common solutions. We will examine this proposal. Today, we asked questions, we got preliminary answers to these questions, and we agreed that our experts will go on working.

And at this stage, we do not hide from our American colleagues that we now see at least two serious problems with their proposals. The first problem is that we still diverge about the assessment of the character of missile proliferation threat against which this third positioning region is creating -- is being created. And we agreed that our experts will focus on the elaboration of joint understanding of threats.

And the second problem is that we believe for the joint work of Russian and American experts to be efficient, the plans to deploy the third positioning region in Europe should be frozen. There is no agreement on this, but we encouraged our experts to discuss the existing divergences in a very concrete and specific way. We also agreed to continue work on the CFE Treaty.

In summer this year, we put forward our (inaudible), our own proposals, about how to save this treaty and how to make it viable. During this visit today, our American colleagues made their own proposals and we sensed that this is a step to the right direction, but this step is insufficient. And we expressed our common willingness to work to see the situation when the adapted Treaty on Convention Forces in Europe can enter into force and how can we jointly address issues on how to make this treaty viable.

And we haven't finalized yet the work which was given to us by the instruction of the presidents in Kennebunkport to work out an arrangement which will be in force following the end of the action of the START Treaty. We realize the relevance of this treaty and the arrangement following its lapse for a strategic stability, and we agreed to actually implement the instruction given by the president to get a new one, a new version.

All in all, we (inaudible) the intensiveness of the work of our experts on all tracks and we also focused on the importance to have a holistic approach to all aspects of strategic stabilities, which are -- stability, which are on the agenda of Russian-American relations.

And as I mentioned in the beginning of my speech, we agreed that this format is useful and efficient, and we agreed to develop it further.

Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much and thank you Sergey for welcoming Secretary Gates and me here to Moscow. And thank you Minister Serdyukov for I think what were constructive discussions about a full range of issues on the political military agenda, the strategic agenda between the United States and Russia.

Let me begin where Sergey left off. We have agreed that this mechanism is a useful one. We also believe that we would benefit from putting together all of the various issues of a strategic policy that the United States and Russia face. We are going to work therefore on a strategic framework for the 2+2 to review and to hopefully finalize when we invite our Russian colleagues to Washington in the next six months or so.

Many of the elements are indeed elements on which we are already agreed in which we are implementing, for instance, on global nuclear terror, on various elements of the safe use of civilian nuclear power. These are elements that the presidents have had very forward-leaning initiatives on and we want to make certain that they are fully implemented.

Others, like missile defense and how to push forward the work that the presidents achieved in the Moscow Treaty on the limitation of deployed strategic nuclear warheads, remain to be agreed. But we have agreed that our experts should work very urgently. The United States did come with some new ideas that we hope are responsive to some of the concerns that Russia has had. But obviously our experts will need to work through these concepts so that we can see if we can make progress on these very important issues.

Some of the ideas on transparency and joint monitoring we would hope we could take up fairly soon; others are still to be worked. In any case, the work before us is the work to complete the task that the presidents gave to us at Kennebunkport which is to reflect in our work on our strategic relationship the very different relationship that the United States and Russia enjoy. It is not the relationship that the United States and the Soviet Union had, and so all of our work is to be carried out in that context, the context of a relationship that is not indeed adversarial, where there are, of course, still differences from time to time, but in which there is a spirit of constructive work. Our presidents have charged us to do that. We believe that the 2+2 is a good format in which to continue that work and we look forward to welcoming our Russian colleagues to the United States to finalize the work that our experts will undertake.

Thank you.

SECRETARY GATES: Secretary Rice and I welcome the opportunity to meet with President Putin and Ministers Serdyukov and Lavrov. Our talks today reflected the complex multifaceted relationship Russia and the United States have, a relationship with many common security interests.

We have a robust strategic agenda and many of these topics were discussed in today's meetings and we put some new ideas on the table in several areas. I would just like to emphasize that the missile defense system being proposed in Central Europe is not directed at Russia. It would have no impact on Russia's strategic deterrent.

We remain eager to be full and open partners with Russia in missile defense. We discussed a range of proposals we hope Moscow will accept. If we succeed in working together it would mark a major strategic shift. We are concerned about Russia's stated intention to suspend its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. We hope the differences can be resolved. The experts will continue to try to find a way forward that other participants in CFE will find useful.

We appreciate the hospitality of the Russian Government and the Russian people, and I look forward to speaking at the military academy of the general staff tomorrow.

Thank you.

DEFENSE MINISTER SERDYUKOV: (Via interpreter.) Just a couple of words. I'd like to say that during our consultations with our American colleagues we discussed a number of issues related to the development of our strategic partnership in the security area. And we are satisfied with this format which is 2+2.

We believe that this cooperation has a great potential in it. But the principal thing to which we do not agree today is the deployment of anti-missile defense elements, which have an anti-Russian character and which are placed in Europe. At the level of experts, we're going to continue to find common grounds on this issue.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Now questions.

QUESTION: Thom Shanker, New York Times. Thank you very much. To Secretaries Rice and Gates, can you please describe for us the new proposals you brought today on missile defense, in particular how you hope they will resolve Russian concerns on this topic? And will you freeze American efforts for the European sites as talks continue, as Minister Lavrov asked?

And to Minister Lavrov, is any compromise possible with the American sites in the Czech Republic and Poland? In other words, must those sites be canceled for Russia to agree to the system?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, on the issue of Poland and the Czech Republic, the United States is engaged in discussions, negotiations with our allies, and those will continue. We will work during this time to address Russian concerns about the nature of the system, about what is a not-yet-shared view of the missile threat.

We believe that we can address those concerns and we are prepared to do it. Many of the ideas that we have go to the heart of trying to address Russian concerns both about how we come to a shared understanding of the missile threat and how we give some transparency, and indeed certainty to Russia that this is not a system that is aimed in any way at the Russian deterrent. We believe that given the size and nature of this missile defense deployment that it could not possibly undermine the Russian deterrent, but we want to continue to have those discussions.

SECRETARY GATES: There were several components to the suggestions that we made. I think the one that I'll just mention is in furtherance of transparency. We put forward some thoughts about the presence of individuals from both sides at sites so that there was complete transparency both at -- perhaps at third sites, but also in the United States, and if there are radars and other facilities here in Russia, that there would be a presence there, too. So some of the proposals affected the transparency and sharing of information.

I would just add that we also addressed the possible concern on the Russian side that while the sites in the present design form pose no threat to Russia or its deterrent, the concern that in some future date years from now they might do so, and our willingness to work with the Russians to provide assurances and reassurances on that -- in that respect.

SECRETARY RICE: If I could just add, these ideas were conceptual at this point. We did not attempt to get into details about how these proposals might be carried out, and so that is the purpose of the follow-on expert discussions, because we recognize that we were not in a position -- there is not time nor the level of expertise -- to give a full discussion or full accounting of how this -- how these ideas might work.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: On my behalf, I'd like to say that as Secretary Gates assured us and American colleagues assure us that the third positioning region does not aim against Russia. But as Mr. Gates himself recognized, there is a potential threat for us here. And we, as our President numerously said as well as other governmental representatives, will have to take some measures to neutralize this threat. We would prefer to avoid such a scenario.

And as I have pointed out in my introductory remarks, we are convinced that the principal thing is the analysis of real threats, real existing threats. If it has to do with the protection of Europe and the United States, let's realistically look at who can threaten them.

And in our discussions today, we moved to a very specific task; that is, the need to identify the criteria of whether the threat exists or not. Our experts will follow up on this subject. And if we succeed in hammering out these criteria, it will become clear that there is no need in this third positioning region. Therefore we have proposed and we are still proposing for the period of this expert work that our American colleagues freeze all their activity to set up this region.

QUESTION: My question goes to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. How technical and possible is the modernization of the radar in Gabala taken into account its possible joint use together with the United States?

DEFENSE MINISTER SERDYUKOV: As you know, American experts had a visit to the Gabala radar and I can say that it is already ready to carry out all tasks assigned to it. But if necessary, we can modernize it. What we initially proposed, by the way.

MODERATOR: Arshad Mohammed, Reuters.

QUESTION: Secretary Rice, turning to your meeting with President Putin this morning, did you raise with President Putin his recent suggestion that he might seek to serve as a prime minister? And given the concerns that the United States has had about the evolution of democracy in Russia and has periodically expressed, if you didn't raise or broach that subject or it did not come up, why not?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, I think my record on raising issues of human rights and democratization in Russia is quite a sound one. Each time that I've been here, I've done so. And tomorrow, I will indeed speak with members of civil society about some of the concerns we have. And I will raise and have raised on many occasions such concerns with my Russian colleagues, indeed sometimes in great detail. But frankly, I'm not about to join the speculation about what will happen in terms of Russian domestic politics and who might be president and who might be prime minister. I'm not doing that about the United States, nor Russia.

QUESTION: My question goes to the Secretary of Defense of the United States. You know that in summer when your experts visited the Gabala radar, they promised that they will analyze its capabilities, including through computer modeling. What actually -- what did this modeling show and why can't the Gabala radar be an alternative to the third positioning region you are deploying?

SECRETARY GATES: Well, I'm not familiar with the technical details of the evaluation of the radar, but my understanding is that our experts came away with the feeling that the radar had some very useful characteristics that could be used. My understanding, though, is that the radar is of primary use as an early warning radar and would not be useful in terms of terminal guidance for intercepting a missile coming from that direction. But I think our overall view is that the Gabala radar could play a very useful role in this system.

MODERATOR: The last question from Al Arabiya.

QUESTION: My question goes to both Minister Lavrov and Secretary Rice. In a few days President Putin will visit Tehran for the Caspian summit. Iran has demonstrated interest in cooperation with the international community and hopefully Tehran will do some steps to build on this cooperation, how you evaluate the present stage of the nuclear program of Iran.

FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: We discussed this issue in the context of agreements reached at the six-party talks which took place in September in New York. We have a common position in terms of arrangements hammered out at this meeting. We are actively encouraging IAEA to carry on its activity to clear up the remaining unclear issues about the nuclear program of Iran.

We also support the upcoming contacts between the EU representative Mr. Solana and the Chief of the National Security Board of Iran, Mr. Larijani. All these efforts are aimed at making Iran abide by the decision of the Governing Board of IAEA and the UN Security Council. In mid-November, we are expecting reports from both Mr. ElBaradei and Mr. Solana. We will examine these reports closely and we will agree on how to proceed further, including how to act within the UN Security Council, the capacity of which should be borne in mind if we want to achieve purposes we set before us.

So we welcome and abide by all collective arrangements. And we will carry them out in good faith, as far as Russia is concerned. We believe that this work can be much more effective if there are no parallel steps in terms of sanctions against Iran, leaving alone and periodically -- periodic sayings to use military force against Iran. These unilateral steps stick out from the agreed upon agenda. They undermine and they impede our collective effort. And hopefully, this will be taken into account in our future work.

It is important to preserve the unity of the international community and to avoid this parallel unilateral actions, and this will make Iran feel that it should maximally cooperate with IAEA and the entire international community. We need to preserve this unity of the international community to avoid any pretext by Iran that it should move less actively and less slowly because someone would anyway take unilateral steps.

And in his conversation this morning with Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates, President Putin underlined that while visiting Iran he will continue the same line, the line which reflects the collective will of the six parties and the UN Security Council.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, I would just add then, in fact, we do have a way forward that we agreed in New York. It is, as Minister Lavrov said, to support the diplomacy of Javier Solana and the work of the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues. We look forward to a report in the November timeframe from both. In the meantime, our political officers are working to finalize a text for a Security Council resolution should Iran not comply with the will of the international community.

I think there is no doubt that the unity of the international community has been extremely useful in showing Iran its isolation. But of course, Iran's continued defiance is concerning and the fact that Iran is under Chapter 7 resolutions means that there are those who are making decisions based on reputational risk and investment risk to stop doing business with Iran. And it is also the case the United States does not intend to allow Iran to use the international financial system to pursue ill-gotten gains from proliferation and/or terrorism. Therefore under American law, when we find that Iranian entities or individuals are engaging in such activities, we will sanction them.

But let me close on a point that Sergey Lavrov made. The whole purpose of this exercise that the six countries are engaged in is to convince Iran that the best way to achieve its stated goal of civil nuclear power is to engage in negotiations, to do so from the basis that is required of it in two Security Council Chapter 7 resolutions and an IAEA Board of Governors resolution, and that is to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing capability, come to the negotiating table. The United States has made clear that at that point we would reverse now 28 years of American policy and engage fully in discussions with Iran and with our colleagues about anything that Iran wishes to put on the table.

So I would just close by saying, I think the question is not -- as I've been asked sometimes: Why will the United States not talk to Iran. The question really is: Why will Iran not talk to the United States.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you. The press conference is over.

2007/T17-2