U.S. Participation in the Summit of the Americas

 4:00pm EDT

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, out of respect for the knowledge that I know you have about this thing, I won't be very long, but I guess you know the obvious, which is this is the third summit. It was a start in 1994 in Miami, but more importantly -- I always like to put it in context -- it has really been a period that I call a sustained engagement in our hemisphere, certainly from the U.S., on or about 1990 or so with the President Bush 41st, with the, you know, NAFTA, as you know, and the creation of that Initiative of the Americas. And it was picked up by President Clinton, and of course his first thing was to fight the very difficult fight of ratification of NAFTA, which was a political bloodbath, as you recall.

     And ironically, that vote in the Congress led to the calling of the first summit, which at the time was an invitation to the democratically elected leaders of this hemisphere to gather together.

     It's been institutionalized in Santiago in 1998, Quebec City 2001, and it's fundamentally a common now accepted -- common agenda. It is the only summit -- you know, I know there are summits, summits, summits, summits, summits, but this is the only summit that includes everybody in the hemisphere democratically elected, who are not part of Andean Group, Mercosur or any other subregion.

     And it's a really common agenda of shared values, and basically, in the simplest form based on two fundamental pillars: one, democracy and strengthening democracy, and underneath that a lot of things; and the other one, a commitment to free-market economies, which implies an abandonment of the -- or a rejection of the model of centralized economies, whether of the left or the right, as a failure to create prosperity, and a commitment to free-market economies. And then a sister to that, of course, is then creating a larger market and therefore we get to the creation of a common market of the Americas, commonly referred to as the FTAA, a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is a date specific coming out Miami, 2005, and subsequently refined, which we can talk about.

     And that's kind of the big picture. You know, we are heading to Quebec City, reinforcing certain of the United States -- certain issues. We are very strongly on the, both democracy and FTAA, and trying to make this summit process a more -- we went from 27 action plans in Miami, 23 in Santiago, to 17. So we're trying to narrow -- eliminating what we call the "Christmas tree effect," and to make the plan of action tangible and measurable and fundable -- fundable, so that we can have a better measurement as we go forward.

     So that's kind of the general brief overview. Of course you all know the content of the Times are different from Miami and Quebec. They are most -- very, very substantive, as Quebec is, and we can talk about it, but the mood outside of the leaders meeting is going to be one of demonstration in the post-Seattle world and the forces of anti- globalization, et cetera, et cetera. So you have two events, if you like, going on at the same time.

     So that's kind of a quick overview. I don't want to bother you. You're all on -- I look around; I know most of you are pretty informed.

     Q Question --

     MODERATOR: Can you wait for the mike?

     Q Sure. I'm -- (name inaudible) -- of Reuters. Your Canadian counterpart, Mark Leurtie (ph) is selling the line that the democratic clause are going to include a trade link; in other words, the countries in the future would be expelled from the FTA. What I'm hearing from Latin American sources is that's not the case, that hasn't been agreed to and that's not going to fly. Will there be a trade link in the democratic clause or not?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, I don't like to -- I don't know what Mark Leurtie (ph) has said. All I know is what the clause says, and the clause talks about the Summit of the Americas process, and you can draw your own conclusions. And it calls for -- we finish this weekend -- forgive me, I'm not too versed; I'm not a diplomat. This is all non-attributable, so --

     Q I attribute it to the senior administration official.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Oh.

     MODERATOR: Whatever you say in answer will be in the newspapers in quotes as "a senior administration official."

     Q With your photo. (Laughter.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I understand -- well that makes -- if it's just exactly -- the Washington Times, I understand, ran a good picture of me and the president yesterday, but they named -- they put the name that I was Cesar Gaviria. (Laughter.) And I promptly, this morning, called Cesar Gaviria and told him it was the first new coup and that I was going to be taking over his job, effective Monday, and his big office.

     Anyway, that's really off -- REALLY off the record. (Laughter.) I'm joking.

     So, no, that's the answer. It's the Summit of the Americas process and it calls for the president to consult to make that decision. And, by the way, ?????? most of the democratic clauses and the other instruments in the hemisphere; Mercosur and others. People have made the constant -- mistake constantly and I have read them 27 times, so I don't want to engage in the discussion. There is no automatic expulsion. There is -- it calls for a consultation, so that the presidents will consult and then -- but it's an insurmountable obstacle. It's the word.

     Q Can you explain what exactly is it --

     Q (Off mike.)

     MODERATOR: Wait. I called on this gentleman. We'll give you the next one, okay?

     Q It's Barry McKenna (sp) from the Toronto Globe and Mail, Canada. A couple of questions, one just on logistics. Who else from the administration is accompanying the president? And secondly, you've probably heard a lot about the security arrangements around Quebec City and I was wondering whether the administration had had any input on the nature of the security arrangements?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: The answer to your last question is, to the best of my knowledge, is no, other than the security of the president of the United States. The security overall is in the hands, able hands, of the Canadian government. And I'm not sure that we have a final list of who is going.

     Q In terms of senior administration officials?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Secretary Powell is going.

     Q Robert Zoellick?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: USTR Zoellick, the Commerce Secretary --

     Q (Off mike.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, yeah, but I mean, Cabinet first. Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of Commerce. And I believe -- again, this is moving, so don't hold me to it, EPA administrator Whitman.

     Yes?

     Q (Off mike.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yeah. What did I say?

     Q (Off mike.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: It's been a long week, and it's going to be long. Sorry.

     Q This Corbett Daly with AFX News. I just wanted to ask you if you could explain a little bit more, for those of who haven't covered Latin America as extensively, what you're talking about on the trade link and democratic clause.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, see, I didn't ask the question, but I'll explain it anyway.

     Q If you could explain the issue, since --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: There are -- there are people -- first of all, the Summit of the Americas process, from its birth, has a democracy clause, and that means in plain language that you have to be a legitimate democracy to attend the meetings, to be invited. It has been always implied, and all we're doing this year is making it explicit; that is, it's in writing. There's a paragraph that specifically says it.

     There is a school of thought -- or there were some people who tried to make the argument that you can have a separation from the summit meeting to the -- one of the things, one of the parts of the summit, which is the FTA negotiations, and you could conceivably have a scenario where you would have a democracy overturned in a country. Let's just pick Peru, which could have been a possibility six, seven months ago; that they would also be not allowed to participate in the negotiations. And there are strong feelings on both sides about what that means. And the agreement is that if you're not a democracy, or if there is an alteration or disruption of a democratically constituted government, it becomes an insurmountable obstacle to be a member of the Summit of the Americas process. And that explains what he was trying to get at this -- I guess some Latin Americans are trying to still -- doing what I would call decoupling the two things.

     Q And I have a follow-up.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes, go ahead.

     Q I guess, then, as a follow-up to that, could you explain why, from the administration's point of view, the democracy initiative is so important if, as President Bush said yesterday at the OAS, he's talking about bilateral trade agreements, which lead to -- as a building block towards regional trade agreements, which lead toward a full, multilateral new round in the WTO. And one of the countries is not a democracy, is not part of the --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Who is that?

     Q Cuba.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Cuba is not --

     Q But Cuba is in the WTO. So why is the democracy element so important in the first place, from the administration's point of view?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, the democracy clause that I'm speaking about, and qualified to speak about here today, is about the Summit of Americas process in this hemisphere, and in that, Cuba is not included.

     What the president said clearly, and it's his policy, that there is no contradiction between pursuing bilateral negotiations, like with Chile, and the overall commitment, a very strong commitment that he has made to negotiate the overall Free Trade of the Americas negotiations with all of us, that they're not necessarily inconsistent.

     Q Edward Alden (sp) from the Financial Times. I apologize for splitting hairs here, but my understanding on the democracy clause was one of the early drafts had talked about it as an "insurmountable obstacle." A later draft had used the word a "formidable obstacle." Has there been an agreement on the exact wording on that clause?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: You've caught me, but I think it's "insurmountable."

     Q It's a stronger word. "Insurmountable" is stronger than "formidable", I think.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes. The stronger word is the one who was approved this weekend, and it is "insurmountable."

     Q (Name inaudible) -- with La Nacion, from Argentina. But would it be fair to -- you said that you read it as you want. I understand that there was --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: No, I didn't say that. (Chuckles.)

     Q Yeah, you said you can read -- you said --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Some people can read it how they want.

     Q Well, whatever. You can draw your own conclusions. But I understand there was a debate whether it should be a clause to which people could draw its own conclusions, or whether you would have a clause which would not be open to different interpretations; that it would be an insurmountable, or formidable, whatever, obstacle not only to be part of the process of the summit, but also to be part of the negotiations of the FTAA. Could you take us to the debate that was going on before you got to this final draft?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Okay, let me -- I'm trying to see actually -- yeah, give me one minute because I want to also see if I can find the word that -- the word before it, by the way, was "fundamental." Did you say that? It was "fundamental" that had been agreed, and it was reinforced this weekend to "insurmountable." And I think that's a substantial higher standard. So I apologize for not -- (pauses).

     And your question is about the debate? I'm sorry, I --

     Q Yeah.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: -- about the debate leading up to this democracy clause?

     Q Well, I understand that the debate was whether it would be something that would be straightforward, that not only you had to be democracy to be part of the summit, but also to be part of the FTAA negotiations.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes. Well, I'm trying to split hairs here, because there is nothing harder than getting 34 people to sing out of the same book in 34 diverse countries, which is nothing short of formidable to have consensus. Everything in this thing is by consensus, and you know the size differences and everything else in this hemisphere.

     But the fact of the matter, the Summit of Americas process, that phrase, FTAA is part of the Summit of the Americas process, is it not? I mean, if -- I keep telling people on record, FTAA -- the summit is not FTAA, in spite of the headlines and in spite of the protests. FTAA is part of the summit.

     That's why I said at the beginning there are two pillars to this edifice; one is democracy and strengthening democracy, the other one is the commitment to free, open markets and creating a free common -- and they're both -- they're the two pillars, and they're independently -- and they're reinforcing to each other.

     And we believe very strongly that they reinforce each other not only in practicality but in principles, because the same concepts -- and I think the president spoke about it yesterday -- that the same behavioral patterns that are developed in an open society, an open economy are -- reinforce their democratic principles and democratic behavior.

     Q Yes, but the president also said open trade will reinforce labor standards and all that, and he doesn't want that on the agreement. So you still --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Who says that the president -- (inaudible) -- the agreement. You know, we have got -- we have got to do a reality check. That we have come so far in five years, in 34 countries, ranging from 250 million and an enormous gross domestic product of the country I represent, the United States, two small island states of 60,000 people, with all the differences in language, cultures and everything else. And we have come so far in creating this incredible idea of creating a common market, which is nothing short -- and I'm sorry to be too dramatic, because I know you're all skeptical, as you should be -- nothing short of a historical challenge, much more progress than was done in the sophisticated Western Europe in its path towards a common market, in five years.

     And I'm not even giving -- I'm not even giving due credit to the already enormous progress that's been made within the context of Mercosur in terms of integrating the economies and spilling over into a quasi-political body whereby which, you know, trade has been used as the leverage. As you know, there have been attempts in Paraguay and others. So I'm just perplexed about why we're always looking at the glass as half-empty when it's more than half-full.

     And in terms of all these little details, we've still got four years to negotiate. Trade and -- labor and environmental issues are very important issues. And when you say that they're very important, they're very important on the one side you're for, on the other side you're against it. And so you need to reconcile. That's the whole process of negotiation. If we were in the business of imposing, then we would impose. The United States is not in the business of imposing, it's in the business of negotiating equally with mutual respect for the independent sovereignty, totally independent of size or power, in mutual respect of our neighbors and allies in this hemisphere. And we're going to work through these problems together. I mean, I know it sounds corny, but it's exactly what it is.

     And you're going to be so bored, because you all wanted to have the negotiating text made public, and it was all a big issue with the protests and the press and even the business community. And so you know the big news coming out of Buenos Aires, I think, was, well, an agreement among all of us on some dates and defining the dates, and also that those documents will be made public after Quebec.

     So you'll have to go through 300 pages of the most boring, arcane stuff that you'll ever see, because trade negotiations are boring, are difficult; working out little detailed products, services, as you develop up. I mean, and there are -- adjustments are being considered, and the president talked about it yesterday, very specifically, you know, that small economies need some times and some things to adjust.

     But I mean the bold move, the big picture is we're moving forward and we're moving together aggressively and it's nothing short of a visionary future. I mean, you know, and we're confident we can pull it off together.

     MODERATOR: Sir.

     Q Guy Gendron, CBC News, Canadian Television. In the context of this closer integration of the hemisphere, how do you see the OAS structure evolving? It's still a small organization. How do you see the next steps?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: One of the big parts of the political declaration that the presidents and heads of states will agree to is a charge for the -- to their foreign ministers to pursue and deepen reforms in the OAS so that the OAS can become a better mechanism for implementing the Summit mandates. It also calls for a better integration of Summit mandates for the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank and other multilateral lending institutions so that we meet that fundable part that I talked about. In other words, if there is a project or an idea that is being put out, and a plan of action, it should be fundable. It should be --

     So for the first time, it's breaking through some organizational problems and the presidents are very aware of it. And it is a central theme of the president of the United States, the reinforcement of the OAS and, obviously, in his most dramatic gesture of going to OAS yesterday to speak formally to the Permanent Council.

     Q Yes, Jose Lopez of Notimex, Mexico. Drugs. The cooperation is still a major -- (inaudible word) -- in the hemisphere. What should we expect to come out of the Summit in terms of drug cooperation, especially this mechanism implemented by OAS, the MEM? Should we expect that Quebec can become like the symbolic burial of the drug certification unilateral of the U.S.?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: (Laughs.) Symbolic burial. No, it is a reaffirmation of a commitment by the president applauding the progress of the MEM as a step in the direction of a multilateral and effective -- an effective vehicle to continue to war against drugs throughout the hemisphere.

     MODERATOR: Other questions?

     Q Do you have any information on bilateral meetings that the president will be making and what the timing is on some of those -- with other leaders?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes, the president will be meeting with some bilateral and mostly group meetings of groups in the hemisphere.

     MODERATOR: I'll just say that tomorrow the White House is having a briefing at 4:00 and Ms. Condaleeza Rice will lay out the president's schedule.

     Q Right, so we'll stay out of it.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Because everything like this is still evolving.

     MODERATOR: This gentleman.

     Q Yes, Mr. Acada (ph) from the Associated Press, the Latin American Division.

     And what do you say would be real new for the administration on trade, coming out from this summit?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, this is a president that is very -- during the campaign has had very strong commitment to trade, so he's already on record. And yesterday he went on record very strongly, saying he's already -- him and the Cabinet met with over 100 members of Congress, and they're working together to come up with a specific formula. And I think he used the phrase yesterday, "Upon my return from Quebec, we will be starting a campaign to get trade promotion authority." And that's very important.

     Q So you think in early May he'll send the bill up to Capitol Hill?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I don't know about whether it would be a bill or whatever, but -- I think I can find the words he used yesterday, but there is a strong commitment to this area. There's no -- in the case of this administration, the big picture thing, you shouldn't get anything but a very clear signal. This is a free trade administration. This is a very strong commitment to the FTA process.

     I mean, I don't think you've seen it in more direct language. I can't even reinforce it more than his own words, including yesterday.

     Q Are we hearing that there may be a separate -- hearing there may be separate statements on Haiti and Colombia? Is there anything on that?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I think that they are probably -- the summit documents, which are basically composed of a political declaration, a plan of action, and a stand-alone document that -- talking about connectivity; the use of electronic and Internet and telecommunications for enhancing education and economic prosperity. Those are the -- the documents have been worked on and are mutually agreed to.

     Whether they will go into country -- and none of those are country- specific; they are thematic and programmatic. There are discussions about whether they will -- when they meet, they will make some statements about those two places that you mentioned.

     Q There's been some talk that President Chavez might bring up the Cuba conflict within the summit discussions, and the United States is not willing -- that your position is that since Cuba is not part of the process it's not appropriate to discuss that in the summit; is that right?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, Cuba is not an issue. I don't understand, whether Chavez or anybody else. The summit is about democracies, it's not anti anything. Cuba is not excluded from the Summit of the Americas process; Cuba has excluded itself by having a system of government of 42 years of arbitrary rule by one man, which basically fails even the most liberal definition and generous definition that we may be willing to give ourselves, whether you're from the left or the right, about what democracy is about.

     So, obviously, it would be wrong to put the focus on Cuba. The focus should be that this is a democracy and a democratic club. And I alluded to it earlier, that we could be facing -- could have been facing a situation where it would have been two countries not there, because we've had, as you know, a difficult time with the Peruvian elections and, you know, what the heads of state might have decided did not constitute. So the issue here is not Cuba, it's democracy. Cuba has time to have open and democratic institutions, elections, internationally supervised elections. The OAS would be very happy to lend its skills in that area. It could be in the fourth summit.

     Q If I may, something related, but what about today's "votacion ingeniera", what do you think, I mean, the fact that Argentina was the only country that was willing to --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Who's that?

     Q Argentina was the only country that was willing to go along with the U.S. proposal to condemn Cuba. How do you feel about, I mean, other countries' position in Geneva, countries from Latin America, with regards to human rights in Cuba?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: We have in this hemisphere a very simple policy. And I'll repeat it, because sometimes it makes offense to state the obvious, but I think we need to say it. It is a commitment to democracy. It is totally incomprehensible to anybody who is for democracy to not recognize that there's a regime that is undemocratic and there are severe abuses to human rights over a long period of time. So they have to -- you know, we respect the sovereign decisions of each nation, but you can clearly see that there are inconsistencies. You know, you are either for democracy and believe certain principles, or you don't. And, you know, I don't know how the vote is going to go, but how could a country, for example --

     Q (Off mike.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Huh?

     Q We know that 22 to 20, the (resolution passed ?) -- (off mike).

     Q But only Argentina in Latin America --

     Q No, the U.S.-sponsored resolution passed 22 to 20 -- (off mike).

     Q Yeah, but in Latin America, Argentina was the only --

     Q I don't know the exact breakdown.

     MODERATOR: You might want to repeat that for the mike, just to get it.

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes. The resolution passed, while I was busy and doing other things. But the point is still the same. And -- I mean, I would like to see the tally, but if you're correct -- and Argentina has been the most consistent ally that the -- by the way, not the United States, but the concept of our common agenda of shared values. This hemisphere today, as I said in this summit process, is based on the premise of shared values and shared responsibilities.

     We remember -- you remember a year ago, just about, today, there were a lot of people slipping and sliding on us on shared -- on the responsibility side, when we were facing problems in Peru. I don't know the tally, but -- I don't know, for example, how Peru voted. But it would be quite ironic if it had voted not for the defense of human rights, because, I mean, here is a country who just recently has gone through a traumatic experience that all of us together in this hemisphere helped them, so I would hope that that happened.

     But if -- I think the key question you're making is that -- you know, at least my answer to you is rather direct, is that we believe in democracy and we believe that together we should do within the (content/context ?) of the summit and the United Nations and everything else all we can to strengthen democracy.

     MODERATOR: We have time for one or two more questions.

     Q I just wanted to ask to clarify then, I guess, just one more time. I understand that democracy is a major point of the summit --

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Yes.

     Q -- but as part of the ALCA (sp), why is it a necessary precursor of the ALCA (sp) when it's not part of -- a prerequisite for the WTO?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, I can't mix apples and oranges.

     I'm not the WTO -- I'm telling you, the summit process is a gathering of democratically elected that decide to have a common agenda based on common values in their hemisphere. And that is what the Summit of the Americas process is all about. That's all I'm qualified to talk about. And within that context, they have made democracy a pillar of that process. So I'm not trying to evade the question. It's a good question, but I, you know, -- this is about the Americas.

     Q (Inaudible) -- with Asahi Shimbun newspaper. What kind of a message does -- the president would like to send to the other parts of the world in terms of the democratic (cause ?)? There might be repercussions if the president of the United States makes unnecessarily strong commitment to democracy, for example to the U.S.- China trade or anything like those. Can you comment this please?

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: Well, my comment is the same I made to the gentleman before. I mean, I can only speak about this hemisphere, and there's a strong commitment to democracy in this hemisphere. It's a family of the Americas. It's a family united by the principles of democracy. We all -- and when I say we all, I don't mean the United States -- all 34 nations feel very strongly about it. And that's what this meeting's all about. And that is the pillar of the summit, and all of it, all of it is -- including trade, because trade and those who push for free trade are not doing it because trade for the sake of trade. It's based on the assumption and the goal of prosperity and bettering the lives, the everyday lives of our citizens in this hemisphere both in terms of their personal freedom and in terms of their economic prosperity. And that is the theme that I hope to get through -- a little bit through the clutter of words and images that are going to come out. That's what it's all about, ladies and gentlemen.

     Are you mad at me that you didn't want to ask a question? (Laughs.)

     Q (Off mike.)

     SR. ADMIN. OFFICIAL: I hope it's been helpful. Things are moving.

END.

Copyright (c)2001 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.