'Governments Are Not Responsible For What A Free Press Publishes'

Remarks to European Press Roundtable by US Assistant Secretary of Statefor European and Eurasian Affairs, Washington, DC, February 6, 2006

Question: Do you think the Danish government or the European Union shouldapologize for the cartoons?

Daniel Fried: Well, governments are not responsible for what a freepress publishes. So an apology, I don't see why an apology would be in order. Ido think -- I recognize that the cartoons are, in fact, offensive to Muslims,and I think an honest recognition that they are offensive is appropriate. Theyare offensive. The fact of freedom of speech, the fact that a newspaper has theright to publish such a cartoon, does not mean that it has an obligation topublish such a cartoon. Again, this is not for governments to say, but I don'tthink an apology is not quite the right, is not the word I would think of. Ithink a recognition, an honest recognition that the cartoons areoffensive would be useful. 

Of course it works both ways. There are many cartoonsand many articles published in other parts of the world which offend thesensibilities of Christians and Jews. And some that are simply anti-Semitic.This is a fact. And those who call for apologies or those who take offense atthe cartoons that were published last September need to be consistent and lookat what in their own press might cause offense. There is a difference becausethe Danish press, a free press; the Danish press didn't represent the government.Many newspapers in the Middle East that publish offensive cartoons are moregovernment-controlled. 

But this debate, and there is a debate, there's a debatein my country about the cartoons. Different editorial boards are debating thisthemselves. That is quite separate from the question of attacks on embassies orthreats against Danes, Norwegians, Austrians, Europeans in general. There is nodebate about that. That is absolutely impermissible, and governments have aresponsibility not to incite. 

And let me state the obvious, which is that inDamascus demonstrations do not happen without the support of the Syriangovernment. So this is not an expression of honest outrage, it's an expressionof the Syrian government's policy. In Beirut, the Lebanese government hasexpressed regret in a way that seems honest. It is a question that I cannotanswer as to whether these were instigated from outside. 

I've heard reports thatmany arrested in Beirut were outsiders, and it may be. I'm not saying it was,but it may be that there was a substantial outside instigation. It's one thingfor there to be a peaceful demonstration protesting the cartoons. That's alegitimate form of free speech, as well. It's quite another thing to have aviolent protest and quite another to have government instigation of violence,turning a peaceful protest violent, if that's in fact what happened.

Question: The solidarity that you are witnessing today and was stated inthe White House statement yesterday.

Daniel Fried: It was. Saturday.

Question: Was it not a little late? Because the first day of this affairthe United States looked a little quiet.

Daniel Fried: I've heard that said and I've heard that repeated inthe Danish press. But in fact if you go back to what Sean McCormick, thespokesman, said on Friday, I think you will find that -- go read that. I thinkhe expressed it very well. What is important is the solidarity we expressed onSaturday, and that statement by the White House speaks for the whole U.S.government. That was something we took very very seriously. 

And the issue of thecartoons is complicated. The issue of the attacks on the embassies and threats,and threats against Danes and Norwegians, other Europeans, and against theirmissions is not complicated. The debate is a complicated one, and I simply citethe differences among editorial boards in Europe and the United States. Someeditorial boards have decided to publish, others have not. And editorial boardswill come out different ways, and it's not our business to express an opinionone way or another, but we do recognize that the cartoons were offensive.

Question: You say it could be useful if it was recognized that they wereoffensive. Who do you suggest should recognize that? The editors or the Danishgovernment or...

Daniel Fried: Well, I think Prime Minister Rasmussen's statementshave been excellent. I think he has recognized. I don't have his words in frontof me but I think he has recognized the fact that they could be offensive toMuslims, but he's also quite rightfully called for tolerance and demanded an endto the violence. I think his statements have been very strong. It's not for me,a government official, to say what editorial boards should do. That's not ourrole. But again, the question earlier was whether governments should apologize,and I didn't think that was the right word.

Question: What do you mean by solidarity, other than politicalsolidarity? The United States protect the embassies in countries againstprotests?

Daniel Fried: We are and will continue to be in very close touch withthe Danish and Norwegian governments and we are available 24 hours a day in caseof problems. Solidarity means many things. It also means we want to doeverything we can to help our Danish/Norwegian colleagues and provideinformation and do what it is possible for us to do with respect to the safetyof Danish and Norwegian citizens and their property. This is a very generalstatement, and I can't be specific, but the different situations arise, but wewill do what it is possible for us to do.

Question: Mr. Ambassador, are you concerned increased tension because ofthe cartoon controversy might lead Europe towards a more isolationist attitudetoward Turkey's membership?

Daniel Fried: Oh, I don't think so. I think that the statement ofPrime Minister Erdogan, if you read it, the one he made with President Zapatero,was a very good one. That is he did not equivocate on freedom of the press. Hesaid freedom of the press is an absolute and it applies to us, too. Then he alsosaid I recognize that freedom of the press means responsibilities and thesecartoons were offensive to hundreds of millions of Muslims. That's about what hesaid. 

I'm sorry, I'm doing this from memory. But that was a good statement, andI think Turkey has an opportunity to show leadership as a democracy, a countrywith a free press, and an increasingly tolerant public arena, if I can put itthat way. I think Turkey is well placed to stand up and say as a country with aMoslem tradition, a secular republic with a Moslem tradition, we find thecartoons offensive but there can be no excuse for attacks and burning, and Ithink that's pretty much what the Turks have said. So I don't think this willhurt Turkey's EU membership. 

I think there are some who would like to turn thisinto a clash of civilizations, but I don't believe that. I also think, and Ishould say that there are obviously some rulers in the Middle East who wouldlove to use this and manipulate the situation. The Syrian government I wouldcertainly count among them. I think we will look very hard at the role of theIranian regime with respect to the Austrian Embassy.

Question: On another topic, if I might just jump in. I read some reportssomewhere, I don't know how accurate they were, that Hamas had played quite acommendable role in Gaza, preventing an attack on a church. You condemned theSyrians and the Iranians. Do you have any comments on how Hamas behaved inresponse to...

Daniel Fried: I don't, but that's only because I don't have a lot ofdetails. Hamas has some choices, some fundamental choices to make. It won theelections. Now it has to choose what it is going to do with its victory andwhether it will lead the Palestinian people into an even worse situation ofbloodshed, violence, dysfunctionality, poverty, crime, misery -- all of thethings which have characterized life in the West Bank and Gaza -- or whetherHamas will take up its responsibilities and try to lead, try to show leadershipwhich means toward peace, recognition of Israel, renunciation of terrorism andviolence. That's Hamas' choice. We have choices to make, too. That is we, Europeand the United States. Hamas' choices are more stark, and it's Hamas' choices weshould focus on. But I don't have an answer for you.

Question: So your mission there hasn't really provided you thatinformation on it?

Daniel Fried: There may be people who know. I personally do not know.So don't take that as the State Department. Just the European AssistantSecretary hadn't gotten to that piece of information but I'll look for it.

Question: May I ask something about the Dutch troops that were going to[inaudible].

Daniel Fried: Yes.

Question: Looking back on that decision, a lot of pressure had to beapplied on the Netherlands by other NATO partners to get them to this positiveresult. Looking back, do you think that all that discussion has harmed therelationship?

Daniel Fried: No. I think --

Question: You yourself were really surprised that it took the Dutch solong to decide about this.

Daniel Fried: No. I think it's natural that there is a vigorousdebate in a democracy on questions of war and peace. And on the question ofdeploying troops I think a debate is natural. Most of the countries representedhere have had debates in their parliament. The Dutch debate was vigorous, and Ithink in the end there was a sense of a consensus, and I'm glad the debate tookplace. I'm glad the decision came out the way it did. This was a vigorousnational debate and I'm glad it took place.

Question: So if you look back on it you don't have any negative feelingsthat the government didn't really take a decision or waited for parliament and--

Ambassador Fried: No. No. Look, this was a tough debate, opinion wasdivided. The government managed this the best way it knew how, it wassuccessful, and it was an open debate. No one can say that the Dutch people werenot consulted and the Dutch parliament was not consulted. It was. So this was agood thing. I'm glad the decision came out the way it did. I think NATOsolidarity does count for something.

Question: A lot of people thought that if a partner like the Netherlandswho has always been such a good NATO partner takes so long to decide aboutsending troops to Afghanistan, which is a really worthy cause, what does thatsay about --

Daniel Fried: Well, since the debate came out the way it did with astrong, not unanimous but a strong weight of opinion in favor, I'm glad thedebate took place. NATO is composed of democracies. Democracies will debatethese issues. It's important to have those debates. It's also important thatwhen NATO makes a decision that it sees that that decision is carried out, andI'm sure it will be.

Question: You noted that the cooperation between Europe and United Stateson Iran looks much better than it was --

Daniel Fried: Eighteen months ago.

Question: Eighteen months ago. Is that a fact that the Iranian affair ismore solid than the Iraqi affair was? Or anything changed in Europe or in UnitedStates?

Daniel Fried: The two issues are very different. I would say we, theUnited States, especially since President Bush's reelection, have made adetermined effort to reach out to Europe as a whole, and Europe, in our view,has made a determined effort to reach back, and together we have created a muchstronger transatlantic consensus on the need for cooperation than many believedpossible let us say there years ago. 

We want to support the institutions of thetransatlantic relationship. NATO, of course, because we're a member, and theUSEU relationship. And the President has said, President Bush has said he wantsa strong Europe and a strong European Union as a partner. That's easy to say,but as you know a lot of debate on both sides of the Atlantic lies behind thosesimple words. That's a debate we had. There were alternative visions presentedby many, by some in the United States and by some in Europe of multi-polarity,of counterweight, of Old Europe/New Europe. There were lots of theories. 

ButPresident Bush, speaking for the United States, decided immediately after hisreelection that the United States wanted to work with Europe, with a strongNATO, with a strong EU, and we have been quite consistent in that. And Europe, Imust say, has responded and worked with us on the basis of a common agenda. Nowthat improved atmosphere, I am sure, though I can't quite prove it, but I'm surehad an influence on the way the debate about Iran developed. Of course theIranians had something to do with it themselves. Ahmadinejad's increasinglyprovocative and occasionally bizarre statements, starting with his UN speech, Ithink focused minds wonderfully on the real problem, which was Iran's nuclearweapons ambitions.

Question: Are you concerned that the next Italian election could have animpact on this new atmosphere of cooperation between the United States andEurope?

Daniel Fried: Far be it from me to get involved or express an opinionon Italian politics before an election. I can't think of anything dumber. Well,I can think of dumber things, actually, but this is among them. Forgive me if Idon't even go there. We have had wonderful relations with this Italiangovernment. We admire its determination to work with us and in Europe. Italy hasbeen a strong active partner with troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan. This has beena difficult mission. The Italians have had their losses. But we will work withwhatever government the Italian people give us.

Question: Can I follow up?

Question: Sorry, [inaudible] Freedom Agenda. What's your evaluation? Isit [inaudible] everybody?

Daniel Fried: Oh it is most certainly, and the President's State ofthe Union speech made it very clear. When the President spoke of freedom he alsosaid that it was a generational commitment. Generational meaning it wouldn't allbe worked out during his time as President. Generational commitment means bydefinition that it takes a generation, at least, to see this done. What theemphasis on freedom and democracy in the world, inducing in the broader MiddleEast, has meant is that those reformers in the region know that they are notalone. I don't know whether or not, well, there have been a wave of elections,and reform is front and center throughout the region. It isn't just Islamistextremism. 

There are also liberal currents throughout the region. It is timethat we not simply assume that Islamist extremists are the only political optionin the region. The option is not simply status quo or Islamic extremists. Thereare democratic movements, and we, that is the we being the United States andEurope, are now increasingly putting ourselves on the side of the reformers.There are reformist governments in the region. Turkey is not part of the broaderMiddle East region, but it is an example of a country with a mostly Muslimpopulation which is deepening its democracy quite successfully. So I do notbelieve that let's say the Hamas election demonstrates that democracy is flawed.I will reserve judgment on the Palestinian elections. They had a free and fairelection. Hamas won. But it isn't as if the status quo under Fattah was sowonderful that we should mourn its passing. It's not that -- Hamas createsproblems for us, but the political acceleration presents opportunities as wellas problems.

Question: On Iran, on the transatlantic unity, Mr. Rademaker on Thursdaygave an interesting speech at the AEI in which he said that one of the firstmoves of the Security Council, presumably in March, on Iran would be to getresolutions or a statement that would enhance the IAEA's authority to carry outinspections in Iran. He talked about strengthening the IAEA's authority. Andfrom follow-up questions with other people on the panel, it seemed pretty clearhe was talking about efforts to inspect the weaponization aspects of the Iranprogram. Is this a common transatlantic position? Have you sort of discussedthis with your European allies?

Daniel Fried: On this I'll have to defer to others. You should ask [Rademaker]or Bob Joseph or Nick Burns, who are doing it. That's a level, I don't want tospeculate on it because I'm one step behind on this one. Sorry.

Question: If we can go back to the cartoons. Norway and Denmark -- yousay it will be helpful if people, if governments say that these are offensive.That will be helpful for the situation. Is there anything else Norway andDenmark should do now, do you think?

Daniel Fried: I think Prime Minister Rasmussen has spoken out in away that is responsible and clear and I applaud what he has said. I think thathis recent statements have been right; they've been very good. And, in fact, aswe were thinking about our own position we took his statements into accountbecause he seemed to have summed up the problem rather well. 

I think it isuseful to recognize that these cartoons were offensive, just as it would behelpful if governments in the Middle East recognized that some of the virulent,violent, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, and occasionally anti-Christian cartoonswere also offensive. That would also be helpful. Again, every time I discuss thecartoons I must also state that the issue of the cartoons is one on whichthoughtful, reasonable people debate, and reasonable people come out differentways whether or not they should be published. But that has nothing to do withthe violent reaction and the threats, the attacks, the incitement, for whichthere can be no excuse, no equivocation, no explanation. I have to differentiateso there is no misunderstanding.

Question: I see, yes, but I'm from Norway. Do you think that theNorwegian government also should say in this matter?

Daniel Fried: All democratic governments recognize press freedom, asindeed the White House statement referred to freedom of the press. That'sessential. So the recognition that these cartoons were offensive is not seen ascompromising freedom of the press.