(…): Good morning to everybody. I am sorry that we are rather delayed by a welcome that the President Rafael Estrella to my right was receiving outside. Simon Lunn, Secretary General of the Assembly, is also here to Rafael’s right. So I give the floor to Rafael Estrella.

 Rafael Estrella: Thank you very much for coming. You all know that we have just started today what some people in the media in Lithuania have called the biggest event held in Lithuania during the last ten years. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but for many of us these are the biggest yearly events in the spring and particularly on this occasion is a unique opportunity to be at a country which is a serious and consistent candidate for NATO membership, which is participating through the Parliament in the activities of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly since the very beginning, since 1991, which has hosted several activities of our Assembly already, seminars, visits, and with which we share the desire of living together in a Europe without any borders, without any veto rights, where we are all engaged in building a more stable and secure Europe, and that’s why it’s important and we value that the commitment that your country together with the other Baltic countries is doing in participating in the international effort in Bosnia or in Kosovo, the participation through programs like  The Partnership for Peace, etc., etc. I am very glad that a few days ago, I think, 11 political groups in your parliament gathered round a common platform on the future of your defense and security policy, in the line of support to Lithuania’s NATO membership, and also round the will to fully participate in what is starting to be a European defense and security policy. I think that is a clear message to all of us that you are committed with your own future and you have a clear vision of your own future, and that kind leadership is what allows representatives to galvanize public opinion with a vision of a common future. And I am at your disposal for any question you want to raise.

 Smith Benjamin from the Wall Street Journal Europe: I guess, I’ve just been reading the statement, the draft statement that’s supposed to come out of this Congress, it seems there’s a general call for NATO enlargement, but a reluctance to name names, and this institution seems to kind of shown a reluctance to name the names, to call for specific countries, and I wonder if there is a reason for that?

 Rafael Estrella: I will explain to you the reason why. Now the current state of the situation is that in the North Atlantic Council the general mood, and I was in front of all the ambassadors a few, a couple of moths ago, is that this issue of whether there will be (…) a second wave of enlargement is not on the table, so that ambassadors have been instructed that this issue should not come yet to the table of the North Atlantic Council. We made a move in our Berlin Assembly, following discussion in the Committee, but there was a plenary solution saying that we strongly and firmly ask the North Atlantic Council to already take a decision in 2002, so that those countries which desire to join NATO and which fulfill the conditions which are prepared, should be invited to join NATO as the only way to make visible the open door policy. So we still are in the hard job, I have to say, of convincing our respective countries, the North Atlantic Council that we cannot miss the opportunity of already taking a clear decision, of sending a clear message in 2002, and it will be a mistake to, for a variety of reasons, saying that in 2002 the Council will just review the state of preparedness of the different aspirant countries, so we are now, in this stage, trying to overcome the reluctance of the Council to already take this issue in 2002, but in our debates, and tomorrow there will the meeting of the Political Committee, you can witness what each and any individual member in the Assembly thinks and which are his option about the potential candidates; I think that you will hardly find a single member in the Assembly who will say: well, I don’t think this the right moment to take a decision or I am against this country to come to NATO, but you’ll find people who will say: no, I think that we will first bring in couple of more countries, so as NATO to digest that within its structure, but there will other who will say: no, no, we should bring in the three Baltic States or we say, no, two countries plus Lithuania, by the way, Lithuania if NATO politics were a betting office, will be ten to one, I think, because it appears in most of the bettings, and I am just, I am not expressing my own position, I am just describing the reality that we are living in our Assembly, so this is the reason why we acting that way, but each individual member  is expressing their views and you will find tomorrow, if you follow the Political Committee, which is the general mood.

 A Russian reporter from Interfax, Russian agency: Mr. President, Interfax reporter, Dear President, the Duma of the Russian Federation and the Congress have come to the decision of not sending any representatives here. By making use of this opportunity, would you like to say anything to the Duma, to the Parliament of Russia? Thank you.

Rafael Estrella: I will have a better opportunity than this that you offer me. In eight days time I will be in Moscow, in an official visit as President the NATO Assembly, invited by the Duma and the Federation Council. That invitation expresses the degree in assisting a state of our relation, and that’s important for me that there is a clear wheel on the side of both the Duma and the Federation Council to maintain and brain-force, and deepen our relationship. I can tell you that in the last months we have agreed to continue our joint monitoring job on the NATO-Russia agreements. And we have a special group with top-officers on both sides to monitor those agreements, that we have agreed to hold yearly meetings of committees of the Assembly and committees of the Duma, that I have received this invitation, that I am responding to next week, and I will be with the top officers of the Parliament and also of the Government. And apart from that, I can understand, although I do not share, the concern, that some people in the Russian Parliament have, that this meeting, particularly in this country, and perhaps following the Bratislava meeting might lead to a momentum with an emotional component on enlargement and that they might feel uneasy in such a situation. I think their perception is wrong, the reality will show that the saying that will follow our debates and they participated freely in our debates in Berlin where we made such a strong statement on the right of any country wishing to do so to join NATO and on the need for the Council to take a decision in 2002 and nothing happened there. That nothing will have prevented them from being a part of our debates expressing what they want, what future they want for Europe and which role Russia wants in Europe as well, in Europe where there are no borders, there is no veto rights and I think that some leading persons in the Russian Duma are assuming publicly what most of them tell you in private, and I have read some excerpts from what Mr. Yavlinsky said very recently and I think that that’s what many people in the Duma think in private and say in private. And that’s the reason why I am going there. I will not give much more importance to their absence here. They might have contributed to our debates and they will in the future, I am quite convinced.

 Burton Frierson from Reuters: excuse me, among the major issues that you are dealing with now are, of course, the Turkey-EU question about the ESDP as well as missile defense. I wonder if could comment briefly on both of those issues and how you are expecting them to be resolved, particularly the Turkish issue as their Foreign Ministers’ meeting is coming up soon, and, of course, what role the Assembly is going to play in helping to find a solution?

 Rafael Estrella: Thank you very much. As you know, well, ESDP was an initiative based on what was said and decided in the first visit of the former President Clinton to Europe. It was President Clinton who pulled in a high degree of leadership ambition, launched a clear support for European defense and security identity that was the words he used at the time. It was the way of saying that it was good for NATO and it was good also for American interest that the Europeans were able to develop their own identity, since then Europeans have been taking steps and the process that we are now living, following the two European Councils, particularly Helsinki and during the German presidency, are placing us in a situation in which some have fear that the European move might be divisive on the one hand, might duplicate efforts on the other, or might even discriminate some of the NATO countries which are European countries but do not belong to the European Union. I think that since then, in the last year, on the one hand the progress made by the European Union in designing and adopting agreements to create that European defense and security policy is tremendous, one could hardly imagine that will happen, but second that the European Union together with NATO have advanced in eliminating most of the reasons for those reluctances, it is clear now that duplication will be minimized absolutely, it is clear now that the EU has an aspiration to create its own defense and security policy in cooperation with NATO, although it is an autonomous exercise, but that there is a desire for somehow to use NATO’s assets and capabilities as a means not to duplicate them. And as regard the discrimination, although, for example, the Americans are happy with all the arrangements for cooperation between EU and NATO in the use of assets in designing operations, etc. It seems likely that the Turkish authority perhaps looking to keep some liberty on EU’s decision are objecting an agreement that will allow general framework for the use of NATO assets. If that does not evolve, if there is not an agreement that will be very negative, because that will be an invitation for the EU to already duplicate those assets and capabilities, that will be negative for the EU, it will be negative for NATO as well, and I hope that through a number of provisions that will be made, for consultation with allied countries, for participation of those countries Turkey has already committed forces for the EU lead force which is going to be built that everything will be solved in that the Turkey’s veto will be lifted. And finally on M&D very briefly, all things are mentioned not only about Turkey but about how the military capabilities of NATO and the EU are evolving will be discussed in the Assembly, in our Committees, this morning already there was quite interesting debate on European defense and security policy in the Defense and Security Committee, and on national missile defense. Now missile defense, I think that there is clear attitude among most European members of NATO to first respect the ambition and desire of the American administration to better guarantee the security of their country, while at the same time expressing them our concern that some of the decision that are envisaged might alter negatively the current strategic balance, might provoke negative consequences in the strategic environment, it is positive the signs that we have got that both Russia and the United States have initiated soft talks to approach for a common vision on missile defense and technologies, etc., but we are concerned about that, we concerned about the reactions that China might take, and above all, we are concerned about the new emergency of unilateral moves within the Alliance, we are thankful that President Bush sent envoys to explain and to share with Allies his vision, and anyhow I am confident that for the time being we are in the very first stage, design, research of something that will take a long way to go. Missile defense is not something that we will see in the coming years, nor even in most likely in five –ten years, it will take longer, but we have to continue discussing and we need as much information and discussion with our American Allies as we can. 

News agency Žinių radijas: what is your opinion what is the weakest point as far as Lithuania is concerned in its integration into NATO?

 Rafael Estrella: I will tell which is the strongest point. The strongest point is the commitment made by Lithuania the participation in international operations, the political agreement that happened few days ago in the parliament these are the strongest points of Lithuania, as for weakness that depends on how do you envisaged your participation in NATO. If you think that by being a member of NATO you have to stick to territorial defense and guarantee as a member of NATO the entire defense of your own territory, and if you think only in terms of the Cold War times, maybe you are a certain to go before being in condition to be a part of NATO, because perhaps what you get in military terms is more than what you can provide because Lithuania is a small country, but I don’t see, sincerely, I don’t see the NATO of today and future membership of NATO of today in those terms. We are not in the Cold War time, the Cold War is over, we are talking about how can we expand a stability and security and how can each individual country better contribute with their military means, their military efforts, you have increased your budget, your are participating in what NATO is trying to do multi-national operations, interoperability, I think that’s going the right way, I am not an expert, I am not say I am in condition to evaluate, but from what I see, what I know, what I here from your Minister, from your Chief of Staff or I know from your international participation, it indicates that your are clearly in the right track and in the forefront of the right track.

 Lithuanian TV, LNK TV, news: But you know most Lithuanian people think that NATO will protect them from Russia in case of aggression. Can you assure them that you can and that you will do that. Thanks.

 Rafael Estrella: If there is an aggression against Lithuania and Lithuania is a member of NATO then there is an immediate response (that’s the Treaty of Washington). If Lithuania is not yet a part of NATO and there is unrest or a threat over Lithuania who is a part of the Europe that we are building there will be a reaction. I don’t know by which means, but diplomatic, threatening to use other means, by economic boycott, etc. I insist the Cold War is over. Now NATO and Russia have an agreement in which they declare themselves partners in building stable and secure Europe. So there are no NATO missiles pointing to Russia, there are no Russian missiles pointing to NATO countries although they, both sides, have still missiles and we have to work to diminish their number. But the answer is clear if a member country of NATO is attacked or is even threatened, there will be a collective response, but even without being a member there will be response from international security to guarantee peace and stability in Europe. And I remind you that Kosovo was not a part of NATO, and there was a response because that was an attack to the stability in the heart of Europe.

 Thank you very much Mr. Estrella, Vladimir Vadov from ‘Kommersant’ Daily, Moscow: Going further with your issue of safeguarding peace and stability in Lithuania, could you tell the same to the people in the Kaliningrad oblast?

 Rafael Estrella: As you mentioned the Kaliningrad oblast is a part of Russia, it’s Russian territory under Russian sovereignty, and I think that stability and security there has another dimensions that have to be tackled. I am talking about the environmental risk, I am talking about the risk of the degradation of military hardware and pollution with a nuclear component. I don’t see military threat coming from there, but that’s a real challenge, and also we have to devise how can we cooperate with Russia, in particular, with the authorities in Kaliningrad, for the future situation in which Lithuania, also Poland, etc. will be a part of the European Union, and how can we improve the economic and social situation in Kaliningrad because it cannot be a hole of poverty, of social depression, surrounded by an area where all the benefits of being a part from European Union apart from the obligations are emerging. And the European Union is an area of peace and prosperity and we have also to work to expand those elements to the surrounding areas. Sorry.

 (Vladimir Vado): But the Russians view NATO exclusively as something military, as a military block, and they don’t have another explanation of this abbreviation?

Rafael Estrella: I don’t understand, could you repeat?

?:(…) he says that the Russians see NATO as a military block (…)

 Rafael Estrella: Oh, I’m sorry. It’s true that the Russians see NATO as a military block and it’s worth recalling that many of us have seen for years Russia or the Soviet Union as a threat to our security. But that’s over. No one is threatening each other. We are now, I’ll say more, countries or group of countries which are competing in the global world and we have to cooperate to ensure the prosperity of our people, and NATO is an element that gives, on the one hand, psychological guarantees because it’s able if required to provide physical guarantees. But I don’t see in the foreseeable future the need to resort to the effective NATO physical capacity. But the fact that they are there provide a high degree of psychological security and guarantee.

 (...) Baltic News Service: (…)

 Daily ‘Lietuvos rytas,’ Vytautė Šmaižytė: My question is don’t you think that there is a big need for one NATO country, for one member country, just to say ‘let’s take the initiative and open the door for new countries’ that one country should take the role or maybe you already know the country which can do that?

 Rafael Estrella: There are various ways (…) it’s coming (…). I can tell you that six months ago I was concerned that we have not the same level of debate that happened when the first wave of enlargement. But now I see that in the American Congress that debate is emerging. You have today members of the American Congress there outside in the square committing themselves with pushing for decision to be taken and that decision to already include the Baltic countries or at least Lithuania. The same happens with the German Bundestag, there are members of the German Bundestag who are publicly signing articles in the major Germany’s newspaper in the ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’ in favor of decision to be taken and that is to include the Baltic countries. Some of us are expressing also (…). So I think that would leave the governments to already take a decision. And I think that no government is yet ready, but that would happen most likely in the coming six months. And I hope, I mentioned before President Clinton in the Brussels Summit. I think that the coming visit of President Bush to Europe to attend meeting with the European Council and to visit several countries among them my own country Spain and then also Poland will be a great chance for President Bush to express clearly the views of the new American Administration on Europe, on the American role in Europe, to clarify the references that we have here up to now from Secretary Ransfield, from Secretary of State on their participation in missions in Bosnia, and that will be a great occasion for President Bush yet again to prove his commitment and his leadership regarding the American policy on Europe. I think that that will happen around those days and in the coming months.

 Baltic News Service: If I’ve got right, you mentioned that Lithuania is pursuing exceptional policy in the context regarding integration into NATO. Could you be more specific on that and I wonder if I can get a comment on the question whether one country is better than none, I mean Baltic countries. Thank you.

 Rafael Estrella: You mean whether one country is better than none. Well, as to which are the elements of improvement, that’s what I gather and what I get from officers in NATO. It’s not only a political option behind that. I don’t think NATO is still in the level of taking political options, but the technical experts tell you that the country which is perhaps in the best situation to join NATO together with another country, which is not in the Baltics, I’m talking about Slovenia, which was almost already as ready as Hungary, or Poland, or the Czech Republic is. And they name always Lithuania as the country for different parameters integration, civilian control over the military, transparency of the military budget etc., etc., etc. So that that’s what the NATO experts say, and I have to trust them. And when they come to our committees they insist on that vision, but they say it will be up to the political leadership to decide whether they want enlargement now and whether they want to address something that we will sooner or later have to do, which is without confronting, taking a decision that will require a high degree of understanding on the side of Russia as well. But I don’t think that we have to accept that any country has a bit of right on the legitimate aspirations of other country, that’s the Helsinki Act and we have to implement it.

 ?: You mentioned President Bush’s coming speech in Warsaw. I’m interested in what you think he should say there and in particular whether he should continue to sort of outline a fairly vague commitments to enlargement or whether he should name specific countries whose inclusion the US supports?

 Rafael Estrella: Well, I think President Bush in Warsaw must say very clearly whether his Administration is committed or not to the open-door policy. And if he is committed to the open-door policy, then he will hardly be trusted if he says without any argument behind that we have to put it aside for the coming five ­ ten years, unless there are solid arguments for that. The coherence withstand in favor of the open-door policy should lead the American Administration to support that a decision should be taken in 2002 in Prague. And, well, perhaps in the coming days, in the coming weeks the American Administration will have to respond to the bid made by countries recently which have recently met in Bratislava. And my perception is that if the Administration does not clarify its position, he may be under pressure from the Congress and that the Congress and (politically) the Senate where now this Administration using the majority might appear in front of American and international public opinion as the one who is marking the government its own policy concerning enlargement. I don’t think that’s good for the government. I would not like that to happen to me if I were in government that would affect the perception of my leadership. So I think all this reflected considerations should be in the mind of President Bush when he is in Warsaw.

 (…): Would you like to see him (…) to see him (...)

 Rafael Estrella: Sorry?

 (…): Would you like to see him come out on the top issues of enlargement and whether there will be one Baltic state, three Baltic states?

 Rafael Estrella: No. I prefer he to commit to decision to be taken and then we all, because that will open the race, that will give the green light to countries that are thinking that we should already take decisions and that have their own ideas, many of them confidential, but that do not want to put the American Administration now in the position in which from Europe we are dictating what NATO as the whole has to do. I think it will be enough if the American President says there will be designations in Prague. That’s my policy, and then in few months through the work of the Council, and there is a lot of work along, just in case, the candidate countries will come out. And I think there’s high percentage of (...), we think it is reasonable that Lithuania will be there. That’s my personal appreciation.

 (…): If there’s no more question, thank you very much, oh you have one more.

 (Vladimir Vado): Sorry, Mr. Estrella, one more question. Would you please comment on the recent warnings made by Lithuanian MP Mr. Vytautas Landsbergis that is postponing, not inviting Lithuania to NATO yet, would signal Russia’s expansionist victory which should not be assisted. And that no demonstrative talk at the Prague Summit, no promises to invite us later and so on would alter the gravest and NATO discrediting impact that of an impression that the Baltic states have been relinquished and left to Russia. Thank you.

 Rafael Estrella: I think that they are long enough as to be self-explaining, so I will not comment on that. I will not share that view. I don’t think that that it’s a scenario which is contemplated within NATO. I don’t think anyone in NATO is looking for such a kind of deal, or of attitude, but it is not, enlargement is not and shall not, be a confrontational issue, so we have to work. But that you will not do it in thinking in five ­ ten years time with Russia to get changed in Russia. They might have the same attitude but they (…) of the consequences of enlargement, when the first wave of enlargement came there was an absolutely negative attitude from Russia. And enlargement went on and now Russia is well aware that enlargement is not posing any kind of threat to Russia, that it hasn’t been a military expansion of NATO towards Russian border. So the same will apply to the second wave of enlargement, and particularly if that includes the Baltics.

 (…): if there are really no more questions, thank you very much indeed.