The NATO Summit

The NATO Summit

Dan Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Foreign Press Center Briefing
Washington, DC
April 7, 2008

10:45 a.m. EDT

View Video




MODERATOR: Good morning, and thank you for coming to the Washington Foreign Press Center this morning. We're extremely pleased to have Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Daniel Fried with us this morning to talk about the aftermath of the NATO summit.


Ambassador, thank you.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity. Last week's NATO summit was one of the most open and sometimes dramatic and productive summits that I can remember. It was certainly the least scripted summit in many, many years. We literally went into the summit not knowing what the outcome would be. And the language on some of the issues was wrapped up by leaders at the table in informal sessions.


It was a remarkable summit for the progress we made on some of the key issues. And in the course of 36 hours of intense discussions, one of the most interesting, complicated issues -- that is, of a Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine -- produced a higher level consensus than anyone would have thought possible the day before. There were some tough issues having to do with Macedonia, but in the end even there we see that there can be a way forward, and we certainly support continuing efforts to resolve the issue of the name.


There were four major issues on which progress was made last week. One was Afghanistan. NATO's leaders adopted a statement of our commitment to see that Afghanistan is a success and that we support the Afghan Government, the elected Afghan Government. NATO leaders adopted a major statement on Afghanistan to that effect, called "ISAF Strategic Vision." And this was adopted not only by NATO members, but by the nations' contribution to ISAF; in other words, some of NATO's new partners around the globe were involved in this statement. And by the way, that indicates that we are making progress on a vision of NATO -- a transatlantic organization with global responsibilities and missions around the globe.


We made major progress on missile defense. Allies recognized the threat that ballistic missiles can pose, endorsed the concept of missile defense, agreed to work not simply with the United States but look forward to the possibility of a more general architecture involving NATO, American assets and working, hopefully, with Russia.


On the Membership Action Plan, as I said, after a remarkable series of discussions, a higher order consensus was generated which looks forward to Ukraine and Georgia becoming members of the alliance. A flat declarative sentence to that effect was adopted by the NATO leaders.


And finally, in a major move which has gotten less attention than it might otherwise, France has announced its intention to reintegrate with NATO.


There were other advances made during the NATO summit: a strong statement on NATO's commitment to Kosovo and keeping the peace there; work on issues like cybersecurity; NATO taking on a role in energy security; and NATO's overall transformation as a kind of underlying theme of the summit.


Fifteen years ago, NATO was an alliance which had never actually engaged in operations anywhere, though it was prepared to do so. Now, NATO is an alliance in action. And those aren't merely words; that is a description of reality. And what we are seeing is NATO becoming the transatlantic community's security arm for the 21st century with potential missions in far-flung places.


It was, as I said, a remarkable summit in which leaders participated. There were some remarkable moments. Poland played a particularly strong role in forging this higher order consensus on a Membership Action Plan. Foreign Minister Sikorski, President Kaczynski were active and were joined by Romanians, Czechs, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians; and the Poles worked very hard and successfully to forge a consensus. The consensus wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the creative work of the German leadership. And, of course, Secretary Rice and Steve Hadley were both personally involved in drafting the language.


So this was not, as they say, a bureaucrats-supported solution, though we bureaucrats did our best. It was something that leaders, ministers were personally engaged with. It was quite exciting to be in, and I will tell you a piece of atmospherics. When it became clear that we were going to find a way forward, everyone -- Germans, Poles, Americans, everyone on all sides of the Membership Action Plan issue -- felt pretty good. The atmosphere at NATO was that we had really achieved something, and achieved it through an open discussion, not something preset. So there were moments of excitement, I can assure you, and then moments -- following that, moments of considerable satisfaction. This was a good couple of days for NATO, a good couple of days for the alliance and a good day for the advance of NATO's mission, which is the security of its members and the advance of freedom.


And I'm happy to take your questions about this. Just arrived last night, of course, from Sochi an the meetings between Presidents Bush and Putin. So, yes, please.


MODERATOR: If I can just remind everyone to state your name and media organization, and please wait for the microphone.


QUESTION: Lambros Papantoniou, Greek correspondent, Eleftheros Typos, Greek daily. Mr. Secretary, on the name issue between Athens and Skopje, what happened in Bucharest? What is going to happen from now on, since you are (inaudible)? And why are you supporting the last proposal of Matthew Nimetz, which (inaudible) the proposal of February 19th? And what was the purpose of the today's telephone call with the Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Of course, the position of the United States is well known. We wanted an invitation to Macedonia, either based on the Nimetz proposal or as FYROM, or as FYROM. Greece didn't accept that; however, Greece has made clear that it wants a solution to the name issue, and the Macedonian Government has made clear that it wants a solution to the name issue. Both sides want to move ahead.


And this became clear during the course of the discussions we had and President had with the Macedonian leaders, and it became clear in the course of conversations that Secretary Rice and I had with the Greek Foreign Minister. It's clear that both governments don't want to get into a cycle of mutual recrimination, and I think that the press in Skopje reflects this. If you see, it is -- the Macedonians do want to move forward. They're obviously disappointed, but I applaud their constructive approach.


And, frankly, I'm quite heartened that the Greek Government seems ready to engage intensely, and it's our intention to try. We're not going to give up. We support the Nimetz process. Nimetz -- well, I can't speak for him, but I believe he is ready to engage, certainly not throw in the towel. We want to move ahead.


QUESTION: And your telephone call to Mrs. Bakoyannis today?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I didn't speak to her today.


QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


MODERATOR: (Inaudible) the microphone.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I will simply say that I confirmed the -- I can speak only for myself -- confirmed America's interest in moving ahead. And I was quite satisfied with that phone call. I think it's important that we prepare to move ahead. There is plenty -- there are ample opportunities for recrimination and paralysis. Let's not take them.


QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay, let's come on --


QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Please.


MODERATOR: Let's move on.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay. We may come back to this. Yes.


QUESTION: Excuse me. Voice of America, Inna Dubinsky. Why did President Bush want to meet with outgoing Russian President, and not wait until new president inaugurated, especially that there were not much expected from this summit?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, first, the two presidents have met many, many times. They've forged a strong personal relationship. We have areas of agreement with Russia. We have areas of strong disagreement. But the two leaders have worked together well, and I think you saw that in evidence yesterday and the day before. Both presidents wanted to see each other while they are still presidents.


President Bush, as you know, wrote to President Putin suggesting that there were opportunities to put together a strategic framework to help guide relations through the leadership transition sin both countries, and this was concluded yesterday. And in fact, we made good progress yesterday, including significant progress on missile defense. So it was well -- the Sochi meeting was well worth it. Of course, President-elect Medvedev was there and he met with President Bush. President Bush says he looks forward during the remainder of his time in office of working with President-elect Medvedev. So this was well worth it. But given the history that the two leaders have together, it was a good thing to meet. And as I said, it was a productive meeting.


MODERATOR: Can we do one -- can we do one here and then go to New York, please.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay.


QUESTION: Sort of a follow-up. Andrei Sitov from TASS, the Russian News Agency. How much of the strategic framework do you expect to accomplish before the end of the year, basically before the end of the Administration? If you could give me specific examples of what you expect to be done, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, the strategic framework document speaks for itself. Some of the items included there are ongoing. Others, such as missile defense, will obviously be the subject of intense work in the weeks and months ahead. I also suspect that START -- post-START -- work on a post-START arrangement will be the subject of the intensive work.


The document mentioned WTO and singled that out in particular for intensive work, hoping to see Russia, if it meets the terms, joins the WTO even this year, as I recall the document.


So we're not going to stop working on these issues. We're going to move ahead, and I think the meetings yesterday opened the way for us to do so.


MODERATOR: New York, please, go ahead.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay.


QUESTION: Hi. Apostolos Zoupaniotis, Alpha Television in Greece. Mr. Secretary, I see many similarities in your negotiating tactics on the name issue and 2004, before the referendum, in Cyprus. And I wonder why you kept pushing in Bucharest for a decision and actually, by doing that, you were taking sides with Skopje, when you knew that Greece would veto it and when you knew that the latest proposal of Nimetz was much worse than the previous one in February 19?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, I'm not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal by Ambassador Nimetz. We support the UN process. So does Greece. So does Macedonia. Of course, we thought -- we hoped that there would be an invitation to Macedonia. We said so. That remains our view. I see no reason to apologize for very active American role. We have, as you know, encouraged Skopje to negotiate in good faith. We have encouraged Greece to do the same. We don't take sides. We do -- our side is the side of a resolution on the most favorable terms possible for both sides, mutually acceptable terms. And I'm glad that we have -- that the United States is supporting Nimetz, and we intend to do so in the future.


Yes, ma'am.


QUESTION: (Off-mike.)


MODERATOR: The microphone, please.


QUESTION: Dilshad Ali-IOL, Voice of America, Azerbaijani Service. Russia has made it clear it does not agree with the decision to establish sites in Poland the Czech Republic, and reiterated its proposed alternative. So how real is the possibility of using Azerbaijani radar site in near future and how real is the possibility of stationing NATO bases in Azerbaijan in near future? Thank you very much.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: NATO bases in Azerbaijan is not a subject that has come up or is being considered, so I can answer that pretty easily.


With respect to the radar site, President Putin, as you know, made the offer last year in Kennebunkport to have Russian radar site in Azerbaijan part of a missile defense system. His offer, as we saw it, opened the way to greater cooperation between the United States and Russia on missile defense, and we accepted his proposal and we also said that we would like to see the American facilities under negotiation with the Poles and Czechs also included in part of an overall architecture.


Now, if you look at the document adopted yesterday, you'll see that Russia does continue to have differences with us about the Polish and Czech sites. However, Russia also said, also agreed to language, that if the U.S. proposed transparency and confidence-building measures with respect to these Polish and Czech sites are agreed and implemented, Russia's concerns would be assuaged. And in that context, Russia has also agreed, has expressed its interest, in a system including Russia, Europe and the United States participating as equal partners.


So the short answer is we see every possibility for continued cooperation with Russia, including the Gabala site, including the possible future American assets in Poland and the Czech Republic, and doing so in cooperation with NATO, in cooperation with Russia.


Yes.


QUESTION: My name is Daniel Anyz with Czech daily Hospodarke Noviny. It remains to be seen whether the agreement will be ratified in Czech parliament, and it's quite uncertain now. So do you have any backup scenarios, because at this moment you have NATO agreement (inaudible) which is strong language and (inaudible) on the NATO side? But if you don't the ratification from Czech parliament, do you have any other scenarios what to do with the NATO agreement?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I'm far more optimistic about our discussions with the Czechs and the Poles now because we have a NATO endorsement of missile defense. I should say that some wise -- we received some wise Czech and Polish advice in the course of last year, which amounted to: Please, you Americans, do more with NATO and make a serious effort to reach out to Russia. This was advice from some very serious people, people in Poland and the Czech Republic whom I've known for many years.


We took that advice seriously and, as you notice, we acted on it. We have indeed embraced a much greater NATO role and we have indeed reached out to Russia. We had similar advice, by the way, I should add, from other Europeans, from some in the American Congress, all of which encouraged us to move in the direction we moved, which was to, as I said, increase our efforts with the Russians, increase our efforts with NATO. And as a result, I think some of the initial concerns expressed by our Polish and Czech friends have hopefully been addressed or are on their way to being addressed.


As you know, in NATO, Foreign Minister Schwarzenberger met with Secretary Rice. We've announced that we've concluded our missile defense bilateral agreement with the Czech Republic. This is a very good step forward. And I think both Poland and the Czech Republic ought to take some satisfaction in the fact that they helped forge a missile defense policy which is more NATO and more multilateral than where we were 14 months ago. So these countries have had real input, and successfully so.


MODERATOR: Can we go to New York, please?


QUESTION: Thanasis Isitsas, Greek newspaper Elefthe Rotypia. Mr. Secretary, a year ago, regarding Kosovo crisis, you said for the Serbians that nationalism is like a cheap alcohol; first it makes you drunk, then it makes you blind and it makes you kill. A year later, February 27th, you gave an interview in Radio Kanal 77, before the summit in Bucharest, and you practically justified nationalism coming from the government of the former Yugoslavia of Macedonia. You said that Macedonian patriots have struggled for this moment more than a hundred years to get in Europe Atlantic institutions. Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, is it a double standard? How come did you call in the first statement the Serbians nationalists and the secondly the Macedonian patriots? Isn't this a kind of double standard? Don't you think you encouraging by certain statements the nationals in FYROM?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Not at all. You completely misunderstood my remarks, and I should explain them to you so you can understand them properly.


Nationalism -- and Greece knows this very, very well -- in the Balkans has generated wars and bloodshed and killing and instability. And I think nationalism is a grave danger. When I spoke of Macedonian patriots, I spoke of a country which is a successful multiethnic state with ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians in the government and in opposition. Thanks to the Ohrid framework, the government in Skopje averted a major domestic problem, perhaps even a civil war. Of all the post-Yugoslav states, Macedonia has been among the most successful in avoiding precisely this kind of extreme nationalism. The government in Skopje, the Macedonian Government, is looking at a future in Europe and a future with NATO, and in doing so it is rejecting exactly the kind of nationalism which has brought so much pain to the Balkans.


In the future, a Macedonia in Europe, a Greece already in Europe, are destined to be good friends and partners. This is the best outcome, and that's the outcome we want. We want to see an outcome where nationalism of the kind that has brought wars is rejected. We want to see a future with irredentism belonging to history, not current-day reality. And I think that Greece has sometimes shown a great vision, a positive vision of this kind of cooperation, and I hope that Macedonia and Greece, FYROM and Greece, as you say, will be able to find this vision. We want to help.


Yes.


QUESTION: Tomas Zalewski, Polish Press Agency. You said that you're now more optimistic after NATO summit --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes.


QUESTION: -- on reaching agreement on a missile defense, but that concerns Poland because Czech Republic has already finalized the talks. So are you noticing some signs -- precise, concrete signs of approaching this to position between Poland and United States in recent days after the NATO summit and this declaration of support for the inter-missile defense in Europe?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I would put it this way. I would say that some of Poland's concerns, some of Poland's concerns, have, hopefully, been addressed by the strong support that NATO gave to this system. Now, Poland -- I'm not going to speak for the Polish Government. Poland has -- will make up its own mind what it wants to do. Poland is a sovereign country.


My point was that many of my Polish friends urged the United States to move missile defense in a NATO-friendly direction and to reach out to Russia, and we've had significant progress on both accounts. And I think this helps. And as I said, Poland played a major role in the success at the NATO -- at the NATO summit on Membership Action Plan for Ukraine, and I have to applaud Polish leadership. It was extraordinarily effective.


QUESTION: But if I may follow up?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes.


QUESTION: Because you said success, but Poland wants, as you know, to include Georgia and Ukraine --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Of course. As did we.


QUESTION: -- for NATO membership --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: As did we.


QUESTION: And NATO didn't.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: As did we. I'd put it this way. We didn't get everything we wanted, but we got a lot. And what NATO did was of tremendous importance. By saying that Ukraine and Georgia will someday be in NATO, NATO made a momentous strategic decision that avoids drawing a line in Europe. Now, it is true that Georgia and Ukraine have a lot of work to do themselves. They acknowledge themselves that they're not ready for NATO membership and it will take work. But NATO's decision means that the language about the open door is something NATO really means. So it was a good day. It was a good day.


QUESTION: A follow-up on the --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Wait, wait. Yes.


QUESTION: Ivo Pulzic, Voice of America. Can we talk about Croatia? Croatia is a step closer to NATO. And what does it mean --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, it's avery big step. It was -


QUESTION: Yeah. Actually, a jump. (Laughter.) Yeah, and what does this mean for a whole region of southeast of Europe and how Croatia can (inaudible) to NATO, maybe some military base? And second question about Bosnia and NATO, please.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay.


QUESTION: Thank you, sir.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, this was a great day, the day we spent in Zagreb and the invitation to Croatia. It was a great day for Croatia, but it was also a great day for the region. Think where Croatia was for 15 years ago. There was war and bloodshed and the prospect of more. Those were terrible years. And now Croatia is a strong democracy with a thriving economy with no barriers between it and Europe. And if Croatia has been so successful, moving from war to peace, from the wreckage of - the sad wreckage of Yugoslavia to a bright European future, then that road is possible for all the other countries that have emerged from Yugoslavia. Slovenia was the first, Croatia is next, it will not be the last. So this is a good day. And the day we spent in St. Mark's Square was inspiring to see how far Croatia has come, considering that it was being - it was attacked and mired in wars, so a good day. And hopefully, all of the countries, whether Bosnia-Herzegovina; Serbia when it's ready, if it so chooses; (inaudible), all of the countries, Kosovo, will all find a European path ahead.


QUESTION: Any military base --


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: No. Not something we're discussing.


QUESTION: Thank you.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes.


QUESTION: Thank you. David Nikuradze, Broadcasting Company, Rustavi 2, Georgia. Why the Western European states - I mean, Germany and France -- were against Membership Action Plan for Georgia and the Ukraine? And what kind of role played Russia in this decision? Thanks.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: If I were Georgia, I would be very heartened by what NATO decided. And indeed, President Saakashvili expressed it very well. You know what the NATO decision was and that flat statement that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO was of historic importance. And I'm going to find it and I will weed it out, just so everyone remembers. We agreed today that these countries, Georgia and Ukraine, will become members of NATO full stock. That's a terribly important statement and it was one that Germany and France agreed to.


I think that Germany and France had some questions about the readiness of Georgia and Ukraine. You should ask them. But it was clear in the course of the discussion that neither Germany nor France was in any way giving Russia a veto over NATO's decisions. And so that second sentence is very important and very significant. And so I applaud that - I think - I applaud that decision obviously and I think that it was a good day for NATO. President Saakashvili understood it exactly right, as did President Yushchenko. They understood how historic, how momentous this was. They also understand that they - their countries have a lot of work to do. Look, I have been involved in NATO enlargement issues for a very long time. And it didn't - the decisions on Poland, the decision on the Baltic states did not happen all at once. We didn't leap from Poland, asking to be in NATO from - to inviting Poland. This took a number of years. It took a number of years with the Baltic states and it took those countries doing the work.


So the decision of NATO means that Georgia can expect to be treated no worse -- no better, but no worse -- than any of the other countries with aspirations to join NATO. It is up to Georgia and up to Ukraine to do the work. But that work will be decisive in the decision of NATO.


Yes, ma'am.


QUESTION: Ahu Ozyurt from CNN Turkey, Milliyet. Could you broaden the scope of the arguments about the missile defense system? There are numerous reports about Turkey being involved in it from the NATO perspective, not from the - you know, missile defense shield project. And a second one on Afghanistan, could you a little bit specify if there were any training battalion commitments that were given to you on the summit?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Sure. Turkey has played a very active role, both at the NATO meetings and behind the scenes on missile defense, on CFE, on relations with Georgia. We have learned - I've learned personally to consult my Turkish colleagues who usually have very sound advice. With respect to Afghanistan, of course, there have been a number of true pledges in - I think, more than 6,000 NATO troops, 3,500 American troops, a full French battalion, 400 additional Polish troops. That's additional to the thousand troops pledged last year plus, I think, eight helicopters. Other countries have come in with similar pledges of troops.


Now, the NATO summit was not a pledging conference, but there were significant forces - significant forces committed to NATO's effort. I must say that French President Sarkozy expressed strong commitment not just to the troops, but strong commitment to success. NATO adopted, as I said, a strategic vision document outlining the political basis for strategic rationale for our efforts there. So we made a lot of progress on Afghanistan. There was also a meeting of the contributors to RC South, the countries participating in the tough fighting down there. The Canadians received the reinforcements they needed. So, in all, a very successful day on Afghanistan.


Yes, sir.


QUESTION: Thanks. Mike McCarthy, DPA. Back to missile defense, I know the U.S. view is - well, the U.S. has suggested or advocated allowing Russians to inspect the would-be sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. What's the U.S. position on allowing a permanent Russian presence at those sites?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: We have said that, as part of our transparency and confidence-building measures, we would certainly be interested in discussing with the Russians their presence at American facilities in the United States and arrangements by which accredited Russian officers, that is, accredited to their embassies in Poland and the Czech Republic, could be liaison officers at these sites.


But we've also made clear that any such arrangements, the details, the accreditation, the access arrangements all have to be worked out with our Polish and Czech friends. It's their country. It's not the United States. It's Polish and Czech soil. They are the ones who will have to be part of this decision-making process. And arrangements for some sort of reciprocity will have to be maintained. It's not precisely balanced, but it is -- because there are -- and the situation done perfectly analogous. But the principle of reciprocity is important. That's part of our concept. And we look forward to working with the Russians, Poles and Czechs in fleshing these out.


QUESTION: Thanks. The Pole and Czech Governments have made it clear, though, that they're opposed to a permanent Russian presence there. So do you -- and the Russians are kind of wanting to move in that direction of a permanent presence. So do you see this as a potential sticking point?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, the Poles and the Czechs have made clear that, first of all, they're sovereign countries and any arrangements have to be made not only with their consent, but their active input. And that's, frankly, a perfectly understandable, logical position which we support. We've made this clear.


The Russians are interested in knowing that these facilities are going to be as we say they are, that is, not directed against Russia. We need to find a way to, as the strategic document with Russia says, assuage Russian concerns and address it seriously. So I envision, in the weeks and months ahead, an intensive process working out these arrangements. Since, in fact, we don't intend the missile defense sites to be used against Russia, it ought to be -- in the end, it ought to be possible and I expect it will be.


Yes.


QUESTION: I have a question on Cyprus. Mike Ignatiou from Mega TV, Greece. As you know, Cyprus has a new president who is willing to talk with the Turks. Do you have any plans to support the UN process? And if you are planning to visit Nicosia?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: There have certainly been some rather encouraging signs recently: the -- a new opening seems to be agreed, there's a new spirit of cooperation. We applaud this. We want to work with the Government of Cyprus and our Turkish friends on progress that can be made.


Under Secretary General Lynn Pascoe's recently been there. I think his trip left us with the sense that there is some real opportunity for progress. We applaud that. And we will do -- I will do what is possible to do. Whether it involves -- this involves a visit or not will depend on, you know, timing, how much progress is made. But if this is a moment, let's use the moment. Let's not let it pass. So this is a good time, and if we can move ahead, let's by all means do so.


Yes, ma'am.


QUESTION: National News Agency of Ukraine, Natalia Bukvich. Mr. Ambassador, what is the principal differences between the policy of NATO (inaudible) before and after (inaudible)? Because it's only some years ago, NATO announced that the door was open for Ukraine, and now we have just the same -- the door is open, but we are not still ready even for action plan. So can it be estimated that there are (inaudible) even the good result for Ukraine? Thank you.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I think it is a good result. It's one thing to say the door is open. It's another thing to say, we agree today that these countries will become members of NATO. That is a flat statement, that NATO regards Ukraine's future as a member of the alliance. That is a tremendous step forward, a very important one.


At the NATO Ukraine meeting that followed the NATO summit, leader after leader addressed President Yushchenko and congratulated him on the progress that Ukraine had made. There was an atmosphere in the room that NATO had done something important and significant and this is a good sign for Ukraine. Now, it is up to Ukraine to decide what it wants. The Government has made this decision. Now, of course, the famous letter of the three, and hopefully, Ukrainian public opinion will begin to consolidate around this future, but it is up to Ukrainians. And the point, of course, is exactly that. Ukraine's future should be in the hand of Ukrainians and it should be clear that NATO now welcomes Ukraine moving in this direction toward alliance membership. And it's up to Ukraine to do the work.


MODERATOR: Last two, please. Here in New York, please.


QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I need your attention. A few moments ago, you said specifically, "Ethnic Macedonians" for the first time in history. That means the U.S. Government is recognizing the so-called "Macedonian ethnicity and language."


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I don't think it is so-called. Macedonian language exists. Macedonian people exist. It's not - you know, we teach Macedonian at the Foreign Service Institute. We teach Serbian, we teach Croatian, now we teach Bosnian. There's a debate in Montenegro as to Crnogorski Jezik, the Montenegrin language. All languages - and I speak now as - not as a bureaucrat, but as - you know, a former --a lapsed historian. All languages are - you know, are human creations and, you know, they develop over time and become codified. And it's not up to - you know, there is a Macedonian language.


There is also the historic Macedonian province, which is different from the country. And it's important. It's quite clear that the government in Skopje, what we Americans call the Government of Macedonia, has no claims. We recognize the difference between the historic territory of Macedonia, which is, of course, much larger than the current country. And we're involved in the - we are supportive of the Nimetz process on the name to make - to settle this issue.


QUESTION: What about the ethnicity? You mentioned ethnicity.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I'm not - I did - I did mention that. But, you know, this is an issue - you know, it is for people to define themselves, ultimately, I suppose. The ethnicity is - you know, it's just a fact as far as I can tell. The issue of the name is something that is on the table. And this is something to be discussed. I'm not the negotiator and I'm not, certainly, an anthropologist or an ethno-historian.


All right, thank you.


QUESTION: I asked (inaudible.)


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Thank you.


MODERATOR: I'm afraid that that's our last one. It's 11:30 and the Ambassador has to go.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, wait, time for one more, time for one more.


MODERATOR: We said New York.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Okay.


MODERATOR: All right. New York?


QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what kind of military help police will offer - will contribute to NATO in Afghanistan?


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: You should - we value Greece's contributions in NATO. We value Greece as an ally. Greece has been a good ally and it is and remains a good friend. It's up to the Government of Greece to announce what it plans to - you know, what kind of contributions it can make, but Greece has been a good ally and a good friend.


Yes, all right, well, thank - all right, one more, yes, from here.


QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Damir Hainski, Croatian news agency. If you could comment -- demands in Croatia for referendum on the membership of NATO? Because public support was really modest in Croatia for membership. Only two months ago, it was 51 percent and after the turmoil with Kosovo rised to 60 percent. So the main opposition party demand a referendum. What is the position of Administration toward that?


And secondly, if you can comment, yesterday results of presidential election in Montenegro? Thank you.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: I'm sure the State Department will have something to say on the Montenegrin elections and I won't usurp my colleagues' right to say it first.


With respect to Croatia, a year ago, when I was in Zagreb the time before, support for NATO membership was only about 30 percent, so it rose rather dramatically. Whether or not there's a referendum is certainly not the business of the United States; it's the business of Croatia. You're a democracy; you'll figure it out. But we certainly welcome the invitation to Croatia. We look forward to having Croatia as an ally. Thank you very much.


MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you all for coming.