Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Breakthroughs Not Expected in Bush, Putin Meeting

Aired June 16, 2001 - 09:02   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIAN NELSON, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour in Ljubljana, Slovenia, where Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin are meeting at a 16th century castle. It's a high-profile meeting with low expectations for any breakthroughs.

Key items on the agenda, though, include missile defense, trade, NATO expansion, and Russia exporting arms to nations that the United States distrusts.

The meeting is expected to last about two hours. The White House says the most important thing on the summit agenda is for the two presidents to establish a personal rapport and trust.

And for the latest on the meeting now, CNN's Major Garrett joins us now live from Ljubljana, and we welcome him.

Good morning again, Major.

MAJOR GARRETT, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Brian.

The two presidents know the eyes of the world are upon them, and they're doing their level best at the very top of this meeting to set a good tone. President Bush and President Putin came out on the veranda of Brdo Castle, which you said is a 16th century castle. It was once the summer retreat for then-Yugoslavian strongman and communist dictator Josef Tito.

While out on the veranda, the two exchanged some remarks with reporters, Mr. Putin starting off by saying, good first impressions, that of Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush then responded, "I rest my case," an implicit sentiment that he got off to a good start with Mr. Putin.

Then Mr. Bush said, "We're going to have a good meeting. We have so much in common. I'm glad he could make the trip. I know it was inconvenient for him." Whereupon Mr. Putin said, "I am familiar with what the president said in Warsaw, Poland. I consider it a very good foundation on which to proceed." In his remarks in Warsaw yesterday, Mr. Bush said that not only should Europe expand toward Russia, that is, the European institutions of NATO and the European Union, but that Russia should not be afraid of such expansion, and that there could be a lot for the Russians in such expansion, more economic freedom, more democratic freedom. He also wants to persuade Mr. Putin and the military bureaucracy that he leads that it should not fear U.S. plans to test, develop, and eventually deploy a missile defense system, because, Mr. Bush says, that could save Russia from the accidental or intentional launch of a ballistic missile from a hostile nation.

There are other agenda items, of course. Mr. Bush would like to see more democratic reforms in Russia, and also see an end, or at least a diminishment, of Russian sales of military technology to nations the United States contends -- believes could be potentially hostile -- Brian.

NELSON: All right, thank you. CNN's Major Garrett joining us from Ljubljana on the president's trip -- Kyra.

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Now more on that top story on the Ljubljana summit. It's going to be a key test of President Bush's power of persuasion. He's trying to sell a missile defense program to a very skeptical Russian president.

For some perspective on how difficult it will be for Mr. Bush to win over Mr. Putin on this contentious issue, we're joined by Dr. John Reppert. He's a retired Army general and former U.S. defense attache to Russia.

Dr. Reppert, good to see you this morning.

GEN. JOHN REPPERT (RETIRED), U.S. ARMY: Thank you, Kyra, good to see you.

PHILLIPS: Well, let's begin by talking about the -- both post- cold war visions of these presidents. Overall, do you think these two presidents can become partners?

REPPERT: I think that they can, because they share a common goal in integration, bringing Russia into the community of nations as a productive and contributing member.

PHILLIPS: Bush has talked about amending or terminating the 1972 antiballistic treaty. Do you agree with this? Do you agree with Bush when the president says it's a relic of the past?

REPPERT: I certainly agree it was created in a different period to solve a different problem. However, I do not consider it a relic of the past and do not think it would be a good idea to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty, because so many other treaties that we depend on today are linked to this one.

PHILLIPS: Well, let's talk about that some more. Why?

REPPERT: Well, in terms of our whole strategic arms reductions, the Start I, Start II, and the beginning discussions we've had on Start III, all of the reductions on our offensive weapons are built on the premise that neither side will have a comprehensive security program to protect themselves from ballistic missiles and remain vulnerable, in the case of lower numbers of offensive weapons. PHILLIPS: Now, Bush -- president's main argument here is that it's for mutual security to amend or terminate this treaty. What -- do you see a threat? Where is the threat? How do you see that with regard to security?

REPPERT: The threat that this system was designed to create over the last decade is much different than the original SDI under President Reagan. It was designed specifically to address small numbers of missiles that might be held by what we then and I believe again now call rogue nations, the North Koreas, Iran, and Iraq. So it was not designed at all to address the Russian threat or even the Chinese threat, although they have been the one most disturbed by the suggestion.

PHILLIPS: Dr. Reppert, I'm noticing that you -- you're losing your IFB there. Go ahead, if you can hear me, go ahead and poke it back into your ear on your left ear. There you go. Terrific. I don't want to lose you, make sure we can hear each other OK.

REPPERT: All right.

PHILLIPS: Terrific.

REPPERT: Thank you.

PHILLIPS: You bet. All right.

Interesting points you make. Let's move from that into missile defense system here, and that -- and Bush's plans and what he needs to do or say to convince President -- or -- President Putin, rather, that this is a good idea to make changes and implement this.

REPPERT: I think the challenge for President Bush on missile defense is the same as the challenge that faces him in expansion of the E.U. or NATO, and that is, does the future that we envision for the world include a Russia that is included in the structure, or excluded from that structure?

In missile defense, if Russia can be incorporated as a common ally, and that the defense truly is targeted against those states about which both nations have some concerns, then I think that he can find a cooperative partner in President Putin.

If it appears that the purpose of missile defense is to further isolate Russia from this community, then Russia will resist that with all the means they have available.

PHILLIPS: And then you have Russia and President Putin here definitely wanting some economic support. Could there be a quid pro quo here?

REPPERT: I think there's a lot of possibility for expansion of trade and economic relations with Russia. It's an area in which we have done very poorly as they have transitioned from the socialist system to the market economy. The investment in Russia remains extremely low, and we are looking for opportunities that would expand that. This involves to some extent internal modifications of Russian laws and policies to make investment possible.

But it also could involve some encouragement from the U.S. government to investors in the U.S. to take advantage of the opportunities that now exist.

PHILLIPS: Dr. John Reppert, thank you, sir, for your insights this morning.

REPPERT: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com