'This Is A 180 Degrees From Where We Were'

Dr. Rice:  Good afternoon.  I've just come fromthe lunch at the end of the meeting, and President Putin is getting ready todepart.  It was really a wonderful meeting, quite remarkable meeting,very relaxed.  The two men spent a lot of time together.  Theirwives spent a lot of time together.  Despite the rain, the Presidentdid take President Putin, yesterday afternoon, on a tour of the ranch.  Butthey had a lot of time to talk together about a number of substantive issues.

I think the dominant issue really was about Afghanistan and the war onterrorism.  They continued that conversation yesterday afternoon.  Theytalked about it at great length this morning again.  So that turnedout to be the dominant issue of this part of the trip, just as it was really thedominant issue in the more formal part of the trip.

So I'm now happy to take questions.

Q: What did they say about Afghanistan?  What did they agree on?

Dr. Rice:  Well, they were really reviewing the situation onthe ground.  They were reviewing the progress of the NorthernAlliance.  They were sharing with each other information, what theyknew about the situation on the ground, what they knew about the intentions ofvarious parties.  They talked about the importance of getting thepolitical arrangements accelerated now, given the accelerating situation on theground.

Both instructed their Foreign Ministers to press that point very, very hardwith the United Nations, as well as with their colleagues in other places.  Theytalked about the importance of continuing the message to the Northern Allianceabout a broad-based government.  But I have to say that they are bothpleased that, so far, the Northern Alliance has continued to talk about theimportance of a broad-based government.  So it was pretty detailed andpractical, and they were really trying to problem-solve about a number of theissues that they face.

Q: Can you tell us anything about the time line, moving forward on plansfor the ballistic missile system?  And was that time line adjusted inany way as a consequence of these three days of meetings?

Dr. Rice:  Well, these meetings continued the discussionsthat they've had about how to move forward in a new strategic framework, how todeal with the issue of defenses in the context of a new strategic framework.  Iremind you, the President has always said there are three elements to this. Theytalked quite a bit about the offensive force reductions, about thenonproliferation efforts, and they did talk some about defenses.  They'regoing to continue those discussions, but I think the time line has not reallychanged.  The President continues to believe that he has got to moveforward with the testing program in a robust way, so that we can really begin toevaluate the potential for missile defenses.

I think that President Putin, himself, said this morning, and he's saidseveral times during this visit, that he understands the President's argumentabout the threat, although he may still continue to believe that the ABM treatyhas a certain importance to the post-Cold War era, as it did in the pre-Cold Warera.

Q: Can I follow up?  You said the President has made clear thatdifferences remain.  Can you tell us, from your perspective, whereprogress was made, where understanding has changed on the ABM Treaty, and wherethe main difference --

Dr. Rice:  I think the main progress that's being made isthat they continue, both at their level and then at the expert level, to sharemore and more information about how U.S. plans are developing for missiledefenses.

I want to remind everybody this is a robust research, development and testingprogram, evaluation program.  So there was another briefing for theRussians when we were in New York, prior to the meeting in Washington, about theprogress of those plans, about some of the time lines that are driving thoseplans.  And they continue to talk about that.

But there was, I think, a real understanding that whatever happen -- and Ijust here quote President Putin -- whatever we do to address our concerns aboutmissile defense, this is in the context now of a substantially changedrelationship from where we were several months ago. And that's just an extremelyimportant point to keep in mind.  This is a smaller element of theU.S.-Russia relationship than it was several months ago, and certainly than itwas before September 11th.

Q: Speaking of time lines, did the President give any indication that thesix-month time line could be triggered if Mr. Putin doesn't get on board andjointly withdraw?  Did that come up in any hint or any way, shape orform?

Dr. Rice:  They simply talked as they have talked beforeabout the President's desire to get on with his testing and evaluation program.  Ithink that everybody, including the Russians, understand that we're soon goingto run up against certain constraints of the treaty.  And we'recontinuing to work with them, continuing to work through those.  Butthat was the context in which it came up.

Q: So it wasn't like the end of the year we're going to start the timer?

Dr. Rice:  They're continuing to just work through theissues.  I think I said when I was with a group of you before, this isa set of issues that they're working progressively over a period of time.  Andno particular kaboom breakthrough is to be expected at any particular time, butthey are continuing to work the issue.  And we'll see how long we cango before we have to actually begin the testing and development program.

Q: Did the two Presidents discuss the apparent attempts of al Qaeda andbin Laden to obtain nuclear devices?  And can you address the reportthat manuals on nuclear construction were found in Kabul?

Dr. Rice:  I've read the same report, Bill.  It'sa press report.  I can't address it from any more authoritative standthan that, but obviously, we will look into it.

The Presidents did discuss the problems of the proliferation of weapons ofmass destruction and they did discuss their joint concerns about bin Laden'sdesire to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  And they pledged againvery close cooperation in intelligence-gathering, in information-sharing to tryand thwart this problem.

So, yes, they did discuss it, and there is actually a line in the jointstatement that obliquely refers to their concerns about all aspects of this,including nuclear proliferation.   And they did discuss it at somelength, but mostly to agree to continue sharing intelligence and to deepen thatcooperation.

Q: You made it clear that the President has made clear to President Putinhis desire and his intention to get on with the testing of a missile defenseshield, which as it's now constructed would be a violation of the ABM.  Sohow does President Putin respond to that?  Does he express hisdispleasure?  Does he do anything to suggest that he would block suchan effort by the United States?  Or does he suggest that he's willingto lay the groundwork for an agreement down the line?

Dr. Rice:  What they are moving forward on and whatPresident Putin has been saying is that this is an issue now in the context of alarger relationship that continues to be a source of disagreement between thetwo sides, but in this larger relationship, it's not going to have an effect onthe relationship as a whole.  I mean, he said that there in the highschool.

They understand, the two of them, and President Putin has clearly made clearto the President that he understands, the President's view of what he has to doin terms of missile defense, the President's view of how to address the threat,and that he's sympathetic to that, even though he, himself, continues to believethat this ought to be done within the context of the ABM Treaty.

So I think the most important statement that President Putin made here wasthat this is in a much broader relationship.  And I just want to sayagain, we are not where we were six months ago, both because we have a lotgreater understanding on both sides of how we view strategic stability; theRussians have a much clearer understanding of what it is we're thinking ofdoing; and the relationship has moved to one that is not centered just onnuclear weapons and the ABM Treaty.

Q : If I could follow, so, from the United States' perspective,Russia will not stand in the way of testing of nuclear missiles?

Dr. Rice:  David, that is not what I said.  I saidwe understand each other considerably better on this, but the President has madeclear that, one way or another -- and we're still in the one way or anotherphase -- one way or another, the United States is going to have to get out ofthe constraints of the ABM Treaty so that we can begin to explore in a robustway, rather than in a constrained way, what our options are under -- for missiledefenses.

Q: Dr. Rice, in their conversations when you talked about the U.S. -- thePresident talked more about what U.S. intentions are, did you discuss in detailthe testing program -- in any more detail than in previous briefings?  Andthen, also, was there any kind of ultimatum offered at all by President Bushabout a need to get out of the ABM Treaty by any certain time?

Dr. Rice:  The President has continued to say what he hasbeen saying, that this is -- the testing program is going to eventually have tocommence in a way that we believe is inconsistent with the treaty.  We'renot going to violate treaties, so we're going to have to find a way to get outof those constraints.

The testing program has been outlined to the Russians in some detail. Thatwas done again.  We are continuing to give them updates and moredetail about what is being planned.  But I just want to caution, it'sintended to be a robust program, but not every test that we are going to do iseven known to us at this point, and we've made that clear also to the Russians.

Q: At the press conference with the students, President Bush said todaythat we would dismantle and destroy our warheads.  When they went toPutin, he said, we will dismantle them, but he didn't seem to say they'lldestroy them.  What is your understanding what Russia will do withthose warheads?

Dr. Rice:  I think the understanding of what both will dohere is that this is a draw-down over a long period of time.  It takesa long time to bring nuclear arsenals down, over 10 years or so.  Thedisposition of warheads, I believe that what the President was referring to iswe will not have these warheads near the places at which they could be deployed.  Inother words, they will truly not be deployable warheads.  In thatsense, their capability will not be accessible to the United States.

Now, how you then dispose of them, how you deal with the materials, how youdeal with reliability issues in the existing stockpiles, so do you want to keepones that are not on station someplace else -- those are all details to beworked out.  Remember, this is a review that just began -- or justconcluded in the United States, and so we've got a little work to do on some ofthe issues about disposition of warheads.

Q: On that point, the President actually said "destroy thewarheads" when he was asked about that.  We are talking aboutreducing and destroying the number of warheads, is that right?

Dr. Rice:  We are in the process right now of examiningprecisely how this draw-down takes place.  You probably know  thateven the warheads that we have already agreed to take off-station in the -- allthe way back to the START I treaties are not yet non-operational.  Sothis is a long process that has to take place.

Q: But is he right that we would be destroying theseweapons?

Q: President Putin said during the news conference that he really wantedto have a treaty that would encompass in the end all of these agreements.  Heseemed to be referring to something that would link the offensive cuts withwhatever you do on ABM.  Did he bring proposed treaty language?  Andin the past you have been very hesitant to get involved in a treaty.  Tellus whether or not your thinking, where the President's thinking has changed onthis.

Dr. Rice:  Well, he did not bring treaty language.  Whatthe final form of the new strategic framework looks like, I think we're open asto form.  We do not believe that it needs to look like the thousandsand thousands of pages that attended all the SALT and START treaties.  Soit clearly doesn't have to look like that.

We are more than willing to talk with the Russians about various levels ofcodification of such an arrangement.  We have not said"treaty." They have said they are interested in a treaty.  Butthis is an open discussion, I think, at this point, David.  Nobody hasruled out --

Q: Did they pursue that at all?

Dr. Rice:  No, we did not pursue that at this time.  Butnobody has ruled out codification.  We have said, both of us, that weare prepared to make this verifiable in some form -- perhaps even using some ofthe verification procedures out of former treaties.  But nothing isoff the table in the regard of what this actually looks like in the finalanalysis.

Q: On that point, if I may, with regard to the ABM Treaty, is it all ornothing?  Do you stay in or just get out?  Are those theonly two options, or is there something else?  And, if I could, on thepersonal relationship, the sort of almost Martin and Lewis routine the twoPresidents did today, what significance does that have?  What glimpseof their personal relationship does it give us?  And what significancedoes it have for the substance of U.S.-Russia relations?

Dr. Rice:  On the ABM Treaty, we've made clear that thereare a couple of reasons the ABM Treaty is a problem.  One is itsconstraints; the other is its very nature in that it really does codify arelationship that we think no longer exists.  We're going to have tomove beyond it.  What "move beyond it" actually means --does that mean that there is a new strategic framework in place?  That'sthe nature of these discussions, and those discussions are continuing.

But I just want to point out again, Jim -- and it gets to your second point-- what President Putin said here is extremely important.  This is nowa very broad relationship in which the nature of our nuclear relationship is asmall part.  This is a 180 degrees from where we were with the SovietUnion, which was where it was the only issue, really, in our relationship.  Sothat is very important.

I do think the personal relationship between the men is going to serve themwell.  But the President made an important point at the high schoolwhen he said, it has to be a relationship that can survive the two of them. Andthat means it has to be a relationship that is also based on interests. And Ithink what we're seeing is that Russia and the United States have a lot ofinterests in common.  Quite apart from the fact that these two men dolike each other, they have a similar sense of humor, they get along extremelywell, the interests of Russia and the United States are moving in a commondirection.  And that's really the very most important thing aboutthis.

And I am going to miss the plane unless I go.  Again, Ron, it takesa long time to bring these down.  The issue of how you deal with thewarheads has a number of facets, including what you do with the materiel, whatyou think the reliability of other forces is.  We'll have to see.

Q: Did he accurately state policy, though, when he said, they will bedestroyed?

Dr. Rice:  We are working -- clearly, a number of them willbe destroyed.  A number of them will be destroyed.

Last one, and then I've really got to go.

Q: On the future of Afghanistan, since they did spend a good deal of timetalking about that, what specifically can you tell us that they agreed upon inthe immediate future for Afghanistan, as far as a government structure, as faras stepping up the humanitarian delivery of food, bringing in other nations tobe helpful in that process?  What specific can you tell us about thoseconversations?

Dr. Rice:  Well, they talked quite a bit, for instance,about getting the land bridge to Mazar opened and active on the humanitarianfront.  They talked a great deal about the Brahimi idea of trying toget a meeting together with various elements.  They talked aboutgetting the -- obviously, Kabul has now become the kind of focal point in a waythat nobody would have predicted several days ago, and so they talked about whatkind of temporary representation one might need to get into Kabul for meetings,so you can begin to design for the long-term.  And it was at thatlevel of specificity.