Scenesetter for the Visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin and the Trip of President George W. Bush to the APEC Summit

 Real Audio of Briefing

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, it's heartwarming to see so many of our friends from the media here today. I guess it shows the star power of -- (names omitted). I'm not sure.

       Anyhow, I'll keep my remarks brief. You all know that the president is going off on some very important travel later this week. He will initially go to Crawford to meet with President Jiang. I think the meeting there underscores the importance that we attach to the relationship with China. We will of course have a number of serious issues on the plate. You can predict the traditional ones, which are non-proliferation, human rights, trade. The Chinese presumably will want to discuss Taiwan issues with us. But of course since you all not only read the newspapers but write the newspaper, you understand that at this point in time there is no way to avoid discussing issues like Iraq and North Korea.

       The president will then travel on to Los Cabos, Mexico for the APEC leaders summit. While there he will hold a continuing series of meetings with Asian leaders. He will hold a territories meeting with President Kim Dae Jung and Prime Minister Koizumi in the morning. He will then hold a meeting with all of the seven leaders of APEC present at the summit. He will also find time to hold meetings with President Arroyo of the Philippine and President Megawati of Indonesia.

       I think this meeting in Los Cabos will have both a multilateral and a bilateral content. It will underscore the key role that APEC plays not only in bringing freer trade to the region, but addressing questions of safety and security for that trade. It will also give the president a valued opportunity to meet with some of the most important leaders of the Asian and Pacific region.

       So end my brief comments there, keeping it as brief as possible. Thank you very much. Be glad to take your questions now.

       Q Hi. (Name omitted) -- Nadia Chao (ph) with the Liberty Times, from Taiwan. We heard a lot that President Jiang is going to discuss mil-to-mil relations with President Bush during this meeting. But that's not -- (seems it was not ?) on the agenda, you just mentioned. And we also know that they already reached a consensus to resume that relationship. So will they touch upon that during this meeting, and what will be followed up?

       And also a question related to that is the mil-to-mil relationship between Taiwan and the U.S. has become a great concern for PRC, and they mentioned that several times during this summit meeting, or a high-level dialogue. Would you have some comment on that? Will the U.S. continue that kind of relationship, even though there is a great concern from the PRC? Thanks.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: With respect to military-to- military relations between the PRC and the U.S., I think that the president views these relations as an opportunity to diminish trust between our two nations and to -- excuse me, to diminish mistrust -- (laughter) -- okay, I saw everybody sort of gaping there, I said, whew, yeah, let's get that one down -- (laughter) -- to diminish mistrust between our two nations and our two militaries specifically. He thinks it can play an important role in trying to ensure that we have a smoother relationship in the future. Will it be discussed specifically? Yes, it will be touched on as part of the overall attempt to strengthen the U.S.-China relationship, and also make it a relationship that helps stability in the region rather than damages it.

       That's sort of a nice segue to the next issue which you raised, which is military-to-military relations with Taiwan. We have been very specific and very clear to the Chinese that we have no intentions of abandoning our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act. We will continue to work with Taiwan to ensure that Taiwan has the capability to mount an adequate defense. And, indeed, when we talk to the Chinese, we point that adequate of defense will of course be determined by the threat. And so it is a three-way issue here. We all play a role. I think all of us want to see stability in the Taiwan Strait, and it's incumbent that all three of us look at our actions and try and diminish the tendency towards trying to militarize a problem that must be resolved through peaceful means.

       Q Hi, my name is Murray Hebert (ph), Far Eastern Economic Review. I would like to ask you about -- you alluded to the fact that North Korea is going to come up in these talks, both at Crawford and at APEC. Can you tell us a little bit from Assistant Secretary Kelly's visit to the three capitals in the last few days, do you have some hunches as to what possible strategy might be employed among the U.S. and its allies in dealing with North Korea?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have been very encouraged by the first round of consultations. Our approach all along has been that this is an issue that requires a number of nations. This is a multilateral issue. It is in no one's interest, we believe, to have a nuclear-armed North Korea. And therefore we need to work together, particularly with those states in the region such as our allies, in the case of South Korea and Japan, as well as with China and Russia, to get North Korea to do what North Korea must do as a next step, and that is the verifiable and immediate dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.

       Q Charles Snyder of the Taipei Times. (Name omitted) -- in your opening statement you said something -- I think you said China will want us to discuss Taiwan. What exactly did you mean by that? Do you mean that you would rather not discuss Taiwan, but you expect to have to discuss it because Taiwan's (sic) going to, you know, bring it up? And, aside from the mil-mil relation, what sort of things would you be telling the Chinese?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, again, I never predict exactly what the president is going to say. He is his own man. But I would say that if you look at what has been going on in recent months, I think we've made clear that our policy toward the Taiwan Strait area has not changed; that we still have a one-China policy, that it is based both on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act; that we won't abandon our commitments under that act; that fundamentally the issue has to be resolved peacefully, and that in that context we do not support moves towards independence by Taiwan.

       Q The New York Times reported that the U.S. decided to scrap the agreed framework of 1994. And yesterday Dr. Rice and Mr. Powell said it is a political agreement. So it -- so it nullified -- one party nullified it, so it is nullified. What's the difference between them?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think both Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell said essentially the same thing. They said that it is North Korea who has violated this 1994 agreement. I believe the description was it -- you know, North Korea's behavior, North Korea's actions have blown a wide hole in this agreement. And the North Koreans themselves have said that this is nullified. If there is an agreement, and one party says it's nullified, then it's nullified. I don't think there's any difference of view on that.

       Q Norman Swan (ph) with the China Times of Taiwan. The question is directed to -- (name omitted.) How would you characterize President Jiang's visit to the United States? It's definitely not a state visit, but he's having a summit with the president on the ranch. But he's also going to places like Chicago, Houston and San Francisco. It seems to me it's something like his swan song before he steps down. This is my first question.

       I have a follow-up on Mr. Snyder question about U.S. policy vis- a-vis Taiwan. You know, recently when Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage was in Beijing, he was asked this question. He specifically said our policy is not to support Taiwan independence. And he went on to say the wording is important. It's different to saying we oppose Taiwan independence. Somehow or other I think AP goofed by saying that the United States does not oppose U.S. (sic) independence because of what he said. So my question to you is: Can you clarify, you know, somewhat as to what's the operative word for U.S. policy vis-a- vis the ticklish issue of Taiwan independence? Is it "not support" or is it "oppose" or what? Okay? (Laughter.)

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Laughs.) I'll take the easier one first, which is your second question. The operative language is we do not support. And the deputy secretary in Beijing was making the differentiation with the question of opposing Taiwan independence, because I think we are all fairly intelligent people here, and if at some point in the future, the PRC and Taiwan work out something that looks suspiciously like independence for Taiwan, we are not going to come in and oppose that. So you know I mean that's really all the deputy secretary was saying. And, you are right, the AP didn't get it quite right.

       In terms of characterizing -- characterizing Jiang Zemin's visit here, I am not going to get into that. I mean, it's obviously his last overseas visit before the Party Congress that will presumably put into place the transition. How that transition plays out, I don't think anybody on this stand or anybody out there knows for sure. We welcome him as the leader of his country, and we also welcome the opportunity to continue improving the relationship, no matter who is sitting in the leadership a year from now in Beijing.

       Q Stephen Colinson (ph) with AFP. I wondered if you could perhaps characterize the help, or give us some impression of the value you place on the help of China in the U.S. campaign against terrorism. Some analysts have said the help hasn't been that detailed, but it's a useful platform for both sides to at least find something they can cooperate on and advance their relationship in that way.

       And, secondly, how importantly is President Bush viewing the APEC summit as a chance to talk to other world leaders about a possible U.S. campaign against Iraq and the building of a coalition around that kind of action?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, with respect to cooperation from the Chinese against terrorism, it has been very good. And I would suggest that officials who assert that it's less than very good just don't know the full story. And I am not at liberty to discuss with you here the full story. But I would say the highest levels of the U.S. government are pleased with the cooperation we have gotten to date against terrorism from China.

       On the second issue, the question of will the president be seeking to use APEC as a vehicle to garner support for whatever we end up doing on Iraq-- of course, yeah. I will also stress that as of right now, we haven't taken any final decisions as to what exactly we are going to do on Iraq. So any discussions in this vein will be rather general.

       Q Eric Shi (ph) with TV-BS Channel Taiwan. Secretary Jim Kelly's counterpart, Mr. Hoyaf (ph), in Beijing, briefed reporters saying that there will be a joint statement between the two presidents in Crawford. But then we heard the news from Washington, quoting unnamed administration officials quickly to point out that there was not going to be. So what's your point of view?

       And, secondly, it has been the media's impression that it was President Jiang who really wanted to visit the Crawford ranch. But we also know that Tony Blair and President Putin, as well as Crown Prince Abdullah, all spent a night in the ranch. And obviously this Chinese president will not be staying overnight. (Laughter.) So is there a difference between sort of allies or your strategic competitors, you know, those diplomatic subtleties?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Laughs.) Well, unfortunately I don't think President Jiang will be bringing his pajamas to the ranch -- (laughter) -- so you are right there. Actually, I would like to point out the timing right now, that in essence we are in a very, very tight portion, a very crowded portion of both our domestic an international schedules. The president will be flying down to Los Cabos immediately after the event, and we are coming up with congressional elections shortly. In addition, of course, we are working two major international issues at the same time. So I would not read anything into the fact that President Jiang is not overnighting at Crawford, other than the fact that no time to do it.

       Now, what was your first question, please? I had a brain lock there for a second.

       Q The joint statement by the two presidents in Crawford.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think we are going to release a joint statement. I think we probably will meet with the press, at which point I would assume that the two leaders will give a fairly similar take on their conversations -- not a joint statement as such though.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I wanted to clarify one thing. Crown Prince Abdullah did not stay overnight in Crawford.

       Q Chris Reugaber (ph) at DNA Publications. You had mentioned trade at the outset of the opening statement. I was wondering if you could expand a bit on the visit from President Zemin, whether or not some of the issues surrounding China's WTO compliance and some of the agricultural trade issues that have come up, whether that will be discussed, and if you anticipate any resolution or progress on those.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, there will be some discussion of trade issues and -- and I would not put it in terms of WTO compliance, but our efforts to ensure that China implements a good, healthy WTO regime within its own country.

       With respect to the specific issue you mentioned, I would call your attention to the announcement last week on soybeans by the Chinese, which removed one of our biggest concerns in the run-up to the meeting in Crawford. So, yes, we have concerns about trade. We will at this summit and in other venues raise those concerns -- also talk to the Chinese about how they improve their own capacity. But I would argue that as of right now, trade is basically a pretty good news story between our two countries.

       Q Thank you. My name is Ju (ph) from Chosun Daily, South Korean newspaper. Let me ask -- (name omitted) -- who has star power, as -- (name omitted) -- mentioned. (Laughter.) As you may know, a North Korean high-ranking officer named by Kim Jong Nam said to the South Korean delegation visiting there that if the United States showed their intention not to try North Korean regime change, and then that they want to solve the whole issue, including nuclear weapons development, by package deal, what is your opinion on that? Thank you.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was with Jim Kelly in Pyongyang, and we met with Kim Jong Nam on the second day of our visit shortly before we met with First Vice-Minister Kang Sok Ju. Kim Jong Nam made a similar vague, very broad statement that all things would be possible with dialogue if the U.S. respects North Korea's system. The we went into our meeting with Kang Sok Ju, and he defiantly and belligerently acknowledged that the North had this enriched uranium program and had more. Made various kinds of extremely bellicose statements. And then the meeting ended.

       So we took note of the report from the South Korean delegation with Kim Jong Nam, but I have to say, from my perspective, it's a sort of consistent theme that he throws out. And as -- (name omitted) -- pointed out, the important thing now, the thing that must be done, the thing that not only the United States, Japan, South Korea, but the EU and all other peace-loving countries are calling for is that the North has to immediately and visibly dismantle its nuclear weapons programs.

       Q Michael Backfish (ph), German business daily Handelsblatt. You have said that North Korea is a multilateral issue. Does that mean that there are also multilateral incentives for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear capabilities? Or would you say there is no range of maneuver at all?

       Secondly, as far as a tough Iraq resolution is concerned, China's stance has been pretty soft compared to France and Russia. How do you explain that?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll take the second question, which is, I think that the Chinese do acknowledge the need for the Iraqis to take serious measures to disarm themselves. They know the history of the resolution, so they are not going to be seen as opposing anything that means the U.N. takes effective action against the Iraqis. They don't want to be in that position.

       They understand the history of this issue. And they also understand, frankly, the importance that the U.S. attaches to this issue. They realize that this is an issue that has to move forward, that we cannot indefinitely put off the question of addressing Saddam's attempts to gain weapons of mass destruction.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would say that North Korea's nullification of the agreed framework is not an issue of what incentives can we now put forward in order to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That's not what this is all about.

       We, of course, tried the incentives route in 1994. That's what the agreed framework was all about. And the North Koreans have now said that they are developing nuclear weapons in violation of that agreement. So it's not about doing the same as we did in 1994.

       Q Japan's Kyoto News -- (inaudible). I still want to clarify -- I want you to clarify about the status of agreed framework. At the news show yesterday, Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell both kind of refused to say that framework agreement is dead. Dr. Rice said there's a big hole in the agreed framework. So at the same time, you are still considering further to continue those specific obligations coming from the agreed framework, notably heavy-oil shipment and construction of light-water reactor.

       So first I'd like you to clarify about the status. And second, when are you going to decide about those specific obligations? Is that going to be after APEC, or when?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I don't know that I can be any more clear than Dr. Rice was or the secretary of State was yesterday. And in particular, as I mentioned, the secretary of State said that the North Koreans have said explicitly that this agreement has been nullified. And when one party nullifies an agreement, that means the agreement is nullified.

       In terms of our obligations under the agreed framework, well, if the framework is obligated, we don't -- is nullified, we don't have obligations. In terms of what steps we are going to take, we are consulting very closely with our allies in the region, with China, with Russia, with other states. We are consulting very closely with Congress to come up with a strategy that can best achieve our objective. One objective, of course, is the complete, verifiable and immediate dismantlement of their nuclear-weapons program.

       Q Yes, quick follow-up. Nikkei Newspapers -- (inaudible). I just want to double-check with you. What's your posture concerning that framework agreement? I mean, do you have any intention to scrap that from your side, or you don't have any intention, first of all?

       And second one is, you said you're going to have consultations with allies, including Japan, South Korea, other countries, and also you're going to have a session with lawmakers here on the Capitol Hill. But also in relation to them, do you have any intention to keep your New York channel, for example, with North Koreans so that you can keep your dialogue or dialogue path with Pyongyang people? Thank you.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me answer the New York channel question and then -- (name omitted) -- can answer the question about the agreed framework.

       The New York channel is -- it exists because North Korea has a diplomatic representation at the United Nations. And from time to time, consistently from administration to administration, that channel has been used to pass messages from Pyongyang. It's not a negotiating channel. It's the way that messages are passed. That has always been there. The North Koreans will continue presumably to have some representation in New York. So there's nothing sort of special about the New York channel in the sense that you're suggesting in your question.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And, again, I would add that this, at least at the beginning, is not about dialogue. It's about the dismantlement of their nuclear-weapons program. It's not about incentives. It's about the dismantlement of their nuclear-weapons program.

       And in terms of us scrapping the agreed framework, the North Koreans have scrapped it. They have done that by their actions, and they have acknowledged doing that in a very bellicose fashion.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And with respect to next steps, I think we've made it very clear that we have been in consultation already with the Japanese and South Korean governments. I would stress that probably the main topic of conversation, as you could predict, at Los Cabos between the three of them will once again be what do we do jointly with this issue?"

       Q This question is to -- (name omitted.) I am -- (inaudible) -- with NHK. The United States is going to put maximum diplomatic pressure on North Korea. In that sense, how do you see the opportunity of coming Japan-North Korean normalization negotiation on 29th? And do you think Japan should be cautious in normalization?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's an important question. And this is a good opportunity to provide the background and the context. The president discussed with Prime Minister Koizumi our information that the North was pursuing this program. He did this before Prime Minister Koizumi went to Pyongyang. He asked the prime minister to raise, in the strongest terms, Japan's expectation that North Korea will remain non-nuclear, but he asked that the prime minister not be too specific yet at this point.

       Prime Minister Koizumi did exactly that. He was very firm with Kim Jong-Il and did exactly what the president wanted. The president supported him going and also supports this opening of normalization talks.

       The president has -- both -- (name omitted) -- and I have heard him discuss this with Prime Minister Koizumi, and I can tell you he takes certain issues, such as the abductee issue, very seriously; I think personally is quite impressed with this humanitarian problem and with the prime minister's determination to resolve it. And he certainly supports efforts to do things like that.

       I also would note that -- I guess it would have been yesterday Japan time that Prime Minister Koizumi said that this issue, this nuclear issue, will be at the very forefront, the very top of Japan's agenda, together with the abductee issue. And I think that's most welcome.

       Q I'm -- (inaudible). I'm with the -- (inaudible) -- newspaper in Australia. Just getting back to APEC, does President Bush plan to use the meeting to form some sort of coordinated move to stamp out terrorism in Southeast Asia?

       Secondly, when he meets with the Indonesian leader, Megawati, is the U.S. administration now happy with the Indonesian response to terrorism in the wake -- you know, following the Bali bombing? And does he intend to have a bilateral with the Australian prime minister, John Howard, and what's likely to be on the agenda there?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: With respect to the question of the war against terrorism and APEC generally, I would point out that one of the key topics of this entire APEC meeting is going to be counterterrorism. How do we build trade that is both secure and efficient?

       I think you're also going to see a response to the most recent terrorist incidents. The leaders will discuss it. They'll probably try and figure out ways to move jointly against it. And, of course, as I said, the president will be meeting with the seven leaders of ASEAN. And I can guarantee that terrorism will be very high on the agenda in that meeting.

       With respect to the question of where we see things going in Indonesia, I would say that we are encouraged by news over the weekend. It does look like the Indonesians are beginning to move against the terrorists in their midst. They have admitted the problem. They have taken some steps that we welcome. We hope to see them move even more briskly against the threat over time.

       And finally, with respect to the bilateral with Prime Minister Howard, these are two very close friends. I mean, these are people who are on the phone together constantly. We don't have a formal bilateral scheduled. I do think that they will find the time to sit quietly in a corner and discuss where things are going.

       The president greatly values Prime Minister Howard's advice on the issues that he's facing. He understands the sheer horror of the attack in Bali and its impact on the people of Australia. And he will discuss these topics with him.

       Q Mohammed Arami (ph) with Abu Dhabi Television. Some Republicans are furious at this approach that the administration is taking, and they are accusing of almost appeasing the North Koreans. Is the military option completely off the table with Pyongyang? And what specifically President Bush will be asking of President Zemin to help with the North Koreans, since there's no incentives, as you said earlier? So do you expect the Chinese to go along with more pressures on the North Koreans?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll do the second one first. When you talk about incentives for the Chinese to go along in pressuring North Korea to abandon its enriched-uranium program, I would argue that the strongest incentive is China's own national interest. I think a Chinese nightmare is a nuclearized North Korea. The Chinese do not want another declared nuclear power on their border. This has nothing to do with the U.S., everything to do with our own national interest.

       So, yes, I would hope, and I actually expect that the Chinese will find a way to make it clear to the North Koreans that this program is destabilizing, dangerous, and has to end.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have said from the beginning that we seek a peaceful resolution of this issue. And our desire is to avoid a crisis that could escalate. We believe that working with our friends, with our allies in the region, that we can achieve our objective on this.

       We do, of course, maintain forces in South Korea, along with our South Korean allies, but we don't see this as an issue that is going to lead to armed conflict.

       Q Maggie Chan (sp) with Broadcasting Corporation of China. If I may, I would like to ask more juicy questions. (Laughter.) How would you characterize the chemistry between President Bush and President Jiang? Are they going to exchange souvenirs when they meet? And will the first lady cook a special dish to host the Chinese delegation? (Laughter.) Thank you.

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, those are all very juicy questions -- (laughs) -- to which I'm going to claim no particular inside knowledge -- (laughs) -- except for the question of the personal chemistry between the two presidents, which I think is a legitimate topic for somebody in my position to comment on. (Laughs.) I do not go in back in Crawford to taste the cooking beforehand or anything like that.

       I think the chemistry is one of respect. They've met with each other several times. They know each other. They realize that while their counterparts are fierce protectors of their own nations' interests, they understand that their counterparts realize that those interests dictate that our two countries work together to try and solve mutual problems and try and diminish the differences that remain between us. So I'd say the chemistry is one of respect.

       MODERATOR: We'll take one or two (non-juicy ?) questions. (Laughter.) The gentleman in the back followed by the gentleman in front.

       Q I'd like to ask to clarify the definition of nullifying the agreed framework. By saying that, you are going to stop right now the delivery of the heavy crude oil to North Korea? And by saying that, you are going to stop the activity of KEDO and the construction of the light-water reactor in North Korea?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, the North Koreans have said the agreement is nullified. They've violated it. They don't feel constrained by it. In terms of our action, in terms of our next steps, we have -- you know, we have not, you know, made the decision as to what we will do next, because we first want to consult, as one would expect us to do, I think, with those other parties, both nations in the region and elsewhere, who have a special interest, and, you know, the leadership in Congress before we take such measures.

       Q I have a question about Hong Kong. As you know Tung Chee- Hwa's government has proposed an anti-subversion law that has generated a lot of concern about civil rights, human rights in Hong Kong. Is this something that the president plans to bring up, or is Hong Kong in general something that will be brought up? And what, in fact, is the administration's position on the concerns raised by the proposed law?

       And also, if I could just ask, could you give us an idea of how the summit is going to be conducted? What sort of -- the physical parameters, if you wish, or sort of aspects of the summit?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Article 23 discussions that you're mentioning are being followed closely here, and we do have some concerns about them, and we have made it clear that we don't want to see anything that ends up restricting the freedoms that the people of Hong Kong enjoy. Will it come up at the summit? I'm not specifically clear. You can rest assured that the president will raise our human rights concerns with China more broadly. I am not sure -- and I can't even give you the specifics that he'll raise, because nobody knows ahead of time. So, you know, we do share your concerns on Article 23. We are watching it closely. And we do have very broad human rights questions with China.

       With respect to the organization of the meeting at Crawford, I'll tell you that there will be a very small meeting to start with where we expect most of the real business to be conducted, and that will be about an hour and a half or so. And then there will be a -- what I would describe as a social lunch. It's not intended to be a venue for serious work, but of course if issues arise people will address them.

       Q And a press availability?

       SR. ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's not definite yet, but I would assume that there will probably be one at the end of the meetings.

       MODERATOR: Let me remind you, especially those of you who came late, that this was a background briefing, and the only attribution should be to a senior administration official and not to either names or positions. Thank you very much.