Overview of Current U.S. Foreign Policy Priorities

 MR. KARZAI: I am Haider Karzai with the Los Angeles Foreign Press Center. Thank you all for coming. It is my distinct honor to introduce to you Ambassador Marc Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

We will begin the session with opening remarks, brief, five to ten minutes, by Mr. Ambassador, and then after that we will open our forum to questions and answers. Mr. Ambassador.

MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much. Well, first of all, let me thank you all for coming. And I know that this is close quarters so I won't talk for too long, and we'll just be able to have a conversation, I hope. I understand we're on the record, right?

MR. KARZAI: Yes.

MR. GROSSMAN: Great. Okay, that's fine with me. Let me just make a couple of brief introductory remarks about what it is we're trying to accomplish in our foreign policy, and then since so many of you represent so many different interests and points of view, let's have a discussion about where we're headed any place in the world. But I think it's worthwhile to sort of state and see if we can set a baseline for what it is that we're trying to accomplish.

First, I want to say a couple of words about the State Department because I think it's a worthwhile thing. We are, as you might imagine, delighted to be able to working with Secretary Powell. I think he has brought an energy and a focus to what we're trying to do at the State Department. You all know, I think as journalists, that the world has changed tremendously, and one of the things that the State Department has to do now is change as well. And we have huge, huge responsibilities, responsibilities that are changing.

If you look at the 17 or 18 things that the State Department is supposed to accomplish in our national security strategy, you see some of the things that are very, very traditional, things that you and we have been writing about and talking about for many, many years. But you see also now a huge number of items, what I would consider to be the new items -- the transnational items, crime, organized crime, trafficking in women and children, trying to promote sustainable development, to promote democracy around the world. These are new things that we are working on, and very important things.

And so the Department itself is trying to change, and one of the ways that we would like to see that change is to have much more interaction with all of you. And so I hope this will really only be the beginning of interaction here in Los Angeles and in other places, as Secretary Powell has asked us to sort of get out and around and talk to people about what it is that we're trying to accomplish.

I think, from our perspective, we are trying very hard to work with our allies, work with our friends around the world, because as President Bush has talked about, our objective is to pursue a policy that is, as he described it, a distinctly American internationalism. And so Secretary Powell, as you all have seen, has engaged leaders now from around the world, from Brussels to Kampala to Africa, where he just was, Cairo to Quebec, to try to pursue this idea that democracy, economic freedom, individual liberties, are the cornerstone of a stable and responsible government and the pathway to long-term prosperity.

So let me, if I could, just sort of give you a couple minutes, I think, in the major parts of the world. First, Africa. And I start there because the Secretary has just returned from Africa. He met leaders in Mali, in South Africa, in Kenya and Uganda. And I know that all of your papers carried not only written reports of what the Secretary said, but I know in some of the sort of gripping pictures his emphasis on what it was that we were concerned about in Africa, which is democracy and stable development and very much the issues of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.

I think the Secretary spoke more eloquently, certainly than I could, about HIV/AIDS, but it is something that all of you I think really need to pay attention to, and something we're going to pay more and more attention to over the years. The United States is now the single largest donor worldwide in all HIV-AIDS programs, almost $800 million a year. And the Secretary announced, as the President had, that we are going to contribute $200 million to this HIV-AIDS trust fund that the United Nations will organize. And that's not the end of our contribution; we hope that that will only be a beginning and that countries all around the world will join us in doing that.

The Secretary also, I think, spoke -- and we can talk more about it if you want -- about some of the things that we're doing to try to promote trade and investment in Africa: the African Growth and Opportunities Act, for example, which will allow African countries to export more to the United States; and meetings that we want to hold in Washington later this year to make sure that we're paying attention to that.

If I could turn for a moment to the Middle East, I know that there is some interest in that in this group. And obviously we are hugely focused on issues in the Middle East. Our effort right now, kind of on an operational basis, is to work very hard in terms of with the Mitchell Report. And all of you saw Secretary Powell's press conference the other day endorsing the Mitchell Report, talking about the importance of the Mitchell Report to us; but, more importantly, talking about the Mitchell Report's importance out to the region, a report that calls for the immediate and unconditional cessation of violence, resumption of negotiations, implementation of confidence-building measures, within really closely defined framework and timelines.

This is a very, very difficult problem and I don't think anybody should underestimate the challenge that's here, but as you all will have seen from your own papers and from the wires and the television over the last few days, Ambassador Bill Burns, who was our Ambassador to Jordan and is now going to be our Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, has been in the region. He has met now with Prime Minister Sharon, with Mr. Arafat. He was in Cairo yesterday, and he will be returning over the weekend to report to President Bush and to Secretary Powell about what to do next. This is obviously a major, major effort and interest of ours.

In Europe, just for a moment, we want very much to keep focused on the themes that we have been pushing for many years, actually -- it's a consistent policy of the United States -- which is for Europe to be whole, free, and at peace. Obviously that means that we are working very hard with our European allies to solve remaining problems in Europe -- the Balkans for example -- but we are also trying to work very hard with our European counterparts to help solve problems outside of Europe. And you can consider questions of Africa, trafficking in women and children, organized crime, things that we're working with Europeans on.

One of the main issues obviously for us right now, not only in our relationship in Europe but in Asia as well, is the whole question of missile defense, and I just wanted to spend a minute or two to refer you back to President Bush's statement on the 1st of May at the National Defense University where he tried to lay out some new thinking about a strategic framework for the future, one that kind of moves along from where we were in the past. And that past is easy to describe, where the Soviet Union was an enemy, there were hundreds of thousands of troops massed across a border in Europe, thousands and thousands and thousands of nuclear warheads, one aimed at another. And we want to see if there is a way now to recognize that that 2001 is not the same as 1972, and whether there is a strategic framework out there that has to do with non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, reduction in strategic offensive weapons, which I think is a very important part of this, and defenses, to see if we can't make sure that deterrence is going to be as effective over the next 50 years as it has been over the last 50 years.

And so after the 1st of May, a number of us went out and visited with allies. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage went to many of our major Asian allies, I had the good fortune to visit some European countries, and then Deputy National Security Advisory Hadley and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz also went out and tried very hard to consult with people about what it is that we were trying to do.

These were real consultations. I'm glad to talk some more about them in the question-and-answer period. But there is no question that dealing with these threats, the threats of missiles and their weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems is going to be an important one over the future.

Asia, obviously a huge interest in Asia. I think one of the best things that has come from this new Administration has been a very explicit recognition that we've got to work with friends and allies here, and the questions of our relationship with Japan, relationship with Korea, are very, very important. And as I say, I'm glad to talk some more about that.

I mean, in Korea, just to say the obvious, we obviously support President Kim Dae Jung's policy of engagement with North Korea, but we are concerned about North Korea's development, production and export of ballistic missiles. And again, it is one of the reasons that we are interested now in this question of missile defenses.

China. There are some people here from China, and I just want to say that obviously our relationship with China is a vital and complex part of our relationship with the region. We share many, many interests with China. We've got a lot of differences with China as well. I'm glad to talk some more about that in questions and answers.

I think Secretary Powell got this about right in talking to Congress, you know, talking about China as a competitor, a potential regional rival, but also a trading partner willing to cooperate in many areas, and that China is not an enemy. We don't need another enemy, and the challenge that we have is to make sure that it stays that way. And I would just highlight that today. Actually, this morning in Washington, President Bush sent to the Congress the documents that are required to extend Normal Trade Relations with China. We hope that vote will be coming up. And I don't know, you might be able to give out -- when I'm done, there is a good editorial this morning by Secretary Powell in The Washington Post about that, I think which lays down our -- it lays down our policy pretty successfully.

Finally, I'm going to talk for a minute about South Asia. I'm sorry, I don't mean to just sort of do Asia and not do South Asia, because one of President Bush's real priorities has been enhancing our relationship with India. And it's very interesting that Deputy Secretary Armitage went to New Delhi on these missile defense consultations. The President has accepted an invitation to visit India. But obviously we don't believe that our relations there have to be a zero sum game; we want to work also as best we can with Pakistan, and we also want to stand firm in Afghanistan where the Taliban, I think, continue to be major violators of human rights and also protectors of terrorists, especially Usama bin Laden.

There is a huge challenge out there in Afghanistan, though, and I know some of your papers have covered it, which is the humanitarian crisis -- all these years of war in Afghanistan, then compounded by a drought, and I think there is a substantial chance of very, very large starvation, as the United Nations has said. So in the middle of this month we announced some additional aid, $43 million, to the people of Afghanistan and also in food aid, and that brings our total for the fiscal year to about $125 million.

Finally, in our own hemisphere here, obviously relations with Mexico are a hugely important part of what we do. I just thought this was a really interesting statistic. In 1965, America traded mostly with Europe. Mexico ranked fifth as a trade partner. Today, our trade with Mexico is secondly only to that of Canada, and the passage of NAFTA has only accelerated these trends. Trade with Mexico has more than doubled to $250 billion a year in trade with Canada, and nearly doubled to $400 billion a year. So that's a huge, huge increase. California has obviously played a hugely important role in all of that, and I'm glad to talk about that as well.

I also just wanted to highlight in closing the sort of way we're trying to build on the success, I think, that we've had in this region. And one of the most important ways will be with the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Those of you who followed the Quebec summit know that the summiteers there laid out the proposition that by 2005 we would have a Free Trade Area of the Americas which would be an $11 trillion economic zone shared by 800 million people.

There are obviously a lot of challenges in this area as well. One of the reasons that we have moved forward from last year's Plan Colombia, which is only now beginning to move forward, or I should say our support for Plan Colombia, to the 882 million Andean Regional Initiative is because we wanted to support those regional countries who have a drug problem, who are fighting drugs and working with us, not only to stop organized crime and the drug trade but also to provide additional alternative development and support for democracy.

I think, why don't you let me stop there and, as I say, I'll be very glad to answer any questions. Let me just end with one additional point, and that is I guess all of you as correspondents here know better than anybody how much this world has changed, as I say, because the issues that you are dealing with and writing about are not the same ones that we were all dealing and writing with 25 years ago.

I think from our perspective anyway -- and I don't say it's anyone else's perspective -- but from our perspective, what hasn't changed is the leading role that the United States will try to play in meeting some of these new challenges. And as I say, that's why we're trying to get the State Department ready to do business in the 21st century, to have a 21st century foreign policy. And I think all the themes and the programs that we've tried to lay out over the years will put us on that direction.

As I say, with that I would be very glad to answer any questions you might have.

Q: Tom Cusick*, (inaudible) Post. I understand your position is number three in the State Department. What is the number two, and could you just give a -- (laughter).

MR. GROSSMAN: I would be very glad to do that, of course. And I apologize, I really should have done that in the beginning. I have been the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs now for about eight weeks. The way the State Department is organized is there is the Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is the Deputy Secretary of State Ambassador Richard Armitage, and then there is me. And I would imagine that is a frightening fact is some people's minds, but here I am. I was confirmed by the Senate about eight weeks ago and have been on the job since.

The way the structure works with us is that I am basically responsible on a day-to-day basis, I guess you might say for the operations of our diplomacy. The regional bureaus and the Bureau of International Organization Affairs try to keep me informed of what they are doing and seek my help when they need it. And obviously my main job each day is to do anything that the President and the Secretary of State tell me to do.

Traditionally, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, as I say, has kind of watched over the conduct of our diplomacy, been a crisis manager when that has been required, and I hope to do also lots more of this. But that's how it works.

Q: I did (inaudible) Voice of America (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: Please, yes.

Q: In a few days, we will have presidential election in Iran. Based on this election, won't you comment on that and about the improvement or not improvement of the relationship between (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: I would say this, that obviously who the Iranians elect to be their president is their business, and how they wish to structure their society is their business. What we would like to see is a democratic Iran, is an Iran that is part of general sort of the international community and world society.

And for many, many years we have been absolutely clear that we would look forward to some kind of dialogue with Iran as long as it was transparent and when Iran had met a certain number of conditions that we think are important to us: number one, that they stop trying to undermine the peace process in the Middle East; secondly, that they get control of the terrorist elements that they support; and third, a little bit to go back to the conversation we were having about missile defense, stop the pursuit they have of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery.

So we would like to see this happen, but how Iran wants to pursue its interests is really up to it.

Q: Mr. Secretary, a follow-up to that.

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, please.

Q: (Inaudible) Iran (inaudible) what they want but (inaudible) religious future (inaudible) from 800 -- for 800 just to (inaudible) now choose from one of these men. Is not both of (inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I think the United States has been very clear about our support for democracy and human rights in Iran. But how people in other countries organize themselves really is a matter for people in other countries.

Q: Mr. Grossman, Chris Fauts*, FT. I believe Mr. Bush is going to Europe in the next --

MR. GROSSMAN: He is, next month.

Q: Next month. You didn't make any mention of things like that they're going to go to the Euro, the single European currency, the possibility of joint military developments in Europe and the concept of a federalist Europe. What is his position on that? Is it again that it's up to them to decide how they run themselves?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, partially. I mean, one of the reasons that I didn't mention it was I think to go into all of these issues in every single area of the world would have violated my ten-minute rule. But I would be very glad to talk about all those things. First, although you kind of toss it off, yes, it is actually up to other people to decide how they want to organize themselves. And I would rather be defending this -- that position -- than the opposite one, especially in your newspaper. (Laughter.)

And so it's up to Europeans to decide what kind of organization in life Europeans want to live. But let me sort of talk about each one of the points. President Bush will visit Europe next month and he'll visit Spain and then an informal summit of NATO leaders on the 13th of June in Brussels, then go on to the US-EU summit in Sweden, and then visit Poland, and then visit our troops in Aviano in Italy, and then in Slovenia where he is scheduled to meet with President Putin of Russia.

I think the President's objective -- and obviously he would speak for himself here -- is that we hope at the end of that tour, in terms of Europe, that Europeans will have heard from the President firsthand about what our vision is going forward; and that is, as I say, about a Europe whole, free, and at peace. And it does encompass, sir, all the points that you raised, first in terms of the Euro. Again here, I think three points are relevant. One is if Europeans wish to have a unified currency in Euro, it's absolutely totally and 100 percent their business. Second, I think that those Europeans who thought that they would have the Euro to kind of drive us crazy are completely wrong. We want, number three, the strongest possible currency in Europe. This is a trillion dollar trading relationship, and so what we want is an economic system across the Atlantic that is going to work successfully. And so to do that, however European governments organize themselves, we want it to be strong and sensible and ready to trade and invest with the United States.

The second point, in terms of European Security and Defense, I think your paper does a particularly good job of covering this issue. We support European Security and Defense Policy. We support a strengthened European pillar in NATO. We support what the European Union is trying to do. And we have always said that we hope that this would be done in such a way to support NATO and support the transatlantic relationship. That's why, for example, when Prime Minister Blair and President Bush issued a joint statement after the Prime Minister's visit to Washington that talked specifically about this. And what did they say? They said that the European Security and Defense Policy should be a serious policy; it should be additive to the Atlantic alliance; it should be available to the European Union when NATO is not engaged as a whole; and it should really bring additional European capabilities because we support that increased European role as strengthens the transatlantic relationship.

So we're interested in all these things. I think it's good that the President is visiting both NATO and the European Union because both of those are going to be, I think, huge players in the transatlantic relationship over time.

Q: (Inaudible) major European countries, if I could say that, for example, throughout Germany, the United Kingdom, with all due respect to other small countries.

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, Prime Minister Blair came to the United States. I think this President has been in close touch with almost everybody. And don't forget that the President will go back to Europe in July where the Italians are hosting the G-8 meeting, and so he'll see not only senior European leaders there but also representatives from Japan and Russia.

Q: (Inaudible.) In order (inaudible) in Europe about the American rejection of the Kyoto agreement, is that something that concerns you that America, the United States, is being seen to show less interest in global warming than (inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I think I take slight issue with your last comment. I don't believe the United States -- and certainly President Bush -- is taking less interest in global warming. I think whenever the President has spoken on this and Secretary Powell and everybody else, the United States is interested in the problems of global warming and is concerned about the problems of global warming.

What we have perhaps done is taken less interest in the words and documents of the Kyoto treaty. And what the President said in his campaign and the President has said since is that we don't want to sign up to anything that (a) it's not going to be possible for people to live up to; and secondly, that might be damaging to the United States.

But there is a huge and very important cabinet review of our whole policy going on. Secretary Powell and others have been participating in this with the President. And so it's not that we're not interested in global warming; we are; we're just looking for a way that is good for us, and we hope good for the rest of the world, to try to address that problem.

Q: (Inaudible.)

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, please.

Q: A lot of discussion about the abandonment of strategic (inaudible) and also many criticisms of China about the (inaudible). So is it correct to say that the US Administration has abandoned this (inaudible)? Also, the changes in the Senate, do you think that the changes in the Senate will bring any changes to the foreign policy? And the other one is China policy (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. We'll have to see. The Senate will have to organize itself and the Senate will have to organize itself in the way that it sees fit. That will happen probably next week. So I don't know how to answer your second question.

On the first, I think the President, the Secretary of State, the White House Spokesman, State Department Spokesman, have all spoken to your question. We continue to believe in a One China policy, the three communiqués, and I don't think anything the President said has really changed any policy at all.

Q: Michael Sullivan of VOA. On the China issue, public opinion seems to be a factor in determining or at least influencing Chinese Government policy at this point. And I wonder if the US has lost ground. When you think back to 1989 and the image of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, it's hard to imagine anybody putting up that kind of image today with what seem to be the popular attitudes toward the US over there.

Is this complicated? And you know it's due to two specific incidents, the spy plane incident and the bombing of the Embassy, but has this set back and does it complicate our efforts to deal with China?

MR. GROSSMAN: I don't know if I'm an expert enough to give you a view on public opinion in China. I mean, I've read in kind of lots of the press -- and it has been very interesting to me -- how much Internet talk there is in China. And one of the things that you read about, and certainly one of the things that our colleagues in the former USIA have been working on, is how to talk to people in ways that they are listening to them. So we now have websites and ability for people in China to sign on to information that we're giving out. And so I think it's really for Chinese leaders to judge Chinese public opinion, but clearly there is something out there and Chinese leaders have had to respond to it. I think it's a very interesting phenomenon that there is all this, as I say, there is kind of all this Internet talk there.

We try to pursue a policy with China that is based on our interests, and we hope that will work well with China's interests. And so we deal with our public opinion, we deal with world public opinion. I suppose as best we understand it, we deal with Chinese public opinion as well.

Q: A Japan question, and this is related to the recent submarine incident in the water. We have heard that there are plans and negotiations going on between Japanese officials and the Navy officials to schedule a visit by Commander Waddle to Japan. Do you have any comment on that or any insight as to when that might be?

MR. GROSSMAN: I don't have any insight in that at all. I'm sorry.

Q: That's okay. That's all (inaudible) try.

MR. GROSSMAN: That's okay.

Q: And then if this visit does come through, do you have any idea how this might impact the US-Japan bilateral relations?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, again, I have no idea about the visit or anything surrounding the visit. I think obviously that incident was a terrible thing. In fact, I read a very, I thought, eloquent transcript of former Ambassador Foley at the Foreign Press Center in Washington talking about this incident, and I think he couldn't have been any more clear. And the President and the Secretary of State couldn't have been any more clear about what a tragedy this is. And we have tried our very best to be clear about this and make amends.

Obviously these kinds of events have an impact on the relationship between countries, but not in any way doing a disservice to the people who lost their lives, people then have to kind of go back to figure out what their interests are. And I believe the Japan-US relationship is a very, very strong one. And as Ambassador Armitage said when he was there on missile defense consultations, we are very sorry about what happened, but the United States and Japan still have a lot of work to do together.

Q: (Inaudible.) North Korea (inaudible) Mr. Clinton dispatched Mrs. Albright, and what kind of (inaudible) Mr. Bush will have? And Mr. Powell is now (inaudible) to North Korea. Why not?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, you have to step back, and that is to say that there is a review of our policy toward North Korea that is going on right now. And as Ambassador Armitage said, he hopes that it will finish here over the next few days. And then the President will decide what he wants to do.

As I said in my opening statement, we certainly support the efforts of Kim Dae Jung to have this conversation with North Korea and the Sunshine Policy. Our concern really is, as Secretary Powell has said, has talked about verification. Don't forget, we have a very large number of troops on the ground there in South Korea and so we pay very close attention to this.

And so I hope that, as Ambassador Armitage said, our policy review will be finished in the very near future and then the President will decide how we want to proceed.

Q: A general -- specific question about the Middle East. It seems that when President Bush came in there was a lowering of the American profile and the involvement compared to President Clinton's very intensive personal hands-on. And now with the appointment of Mr. Burns and the last developments, it seems like the involvement is becoming more intense.

One, if that is correct, to what do you attribute this apparent change in policy? And specifically, I see that (inaudible) has (inaudible) meeting with President Bush as the United States to in effect issue an ultimatum to both sides to cease the violence. Could you comment about these?

MR. GROSSMAN: Sure, let me try to do all those things. Maybe this is just a perspective from sitting where I sit, as I explain to you what I see each day. I actually think that the involvement of the United States of America in the Middle East, and certainly trying to get the violence down, since the very beginning of this Administration has been quite intense. The President has been on the phone with numbers of Middle East leaders. The Secretary of State, no matter actually where he is, whether he's in Africa or in Washington, is on the phone to Middle East leaders. The Secretary's very first trip was to the Middle East.

And so I think that although probably an interesting story to write about, the idea somehow that the United States was unengaged or stepped back from being interested in the Middle East isn't right. It's certainly right to say we didn't pursue this in exactly the same way, but the opportunities don't exist to do that right now. And so the objective at the moment is to try, as you say, to lower, lower, lower the violence. I mean, I think the Secretary has been absolutely clear about that, that the violence has to stop. There is no way that anyone can go forward any farther at this unless the violence stops. I think that's why when Senator Mitchell came to see the Secretary and said, look, the Mitchell Report started in a previous administration; should I continue, are you interested in this, the Secretary was very clear and said yes, he was. And so the Mitchell Report, I believe, is a very important document in all of this, and that's why Secretary Powell went out of his way to highlight it the other day. And I hope that it will give people the perspective to stop the violence and to move forward, as I said in my statement, with sort of some specific program and timelines to go forward.

You talked about the appointment of Ambassador Burns. Ambassador Burns has been appointed to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs; in other words, the President appointed him to become an Assistant Secretary of State. That's why he was going to leave Jordan. And the Secretary asked him now to pay attention to see if we can get something going here on the basis of the Mitchell Report, and that would be his responsibility as Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.

Q: On the --

MR. GROSSMAN: I'm sorry, I had one more question to answer, which was President Katzav. Obviously the issue here is stopping the violence, and we want to use the Mitchell Report and use all of the capacity that we have to make it clear to everybody that the violence needs to stop. I had the good fortune to represent the government the other night at the Israeli Embassy's dinner for President Katzav and had the chance to sit next to him. And I reported to him that not two hours before we were together Secretary Powell had spoken to Chairman Arafat and to Prime Minister Sharon. And with Mr. Arafat, as Richard Boucher said yesterday, he said he needed to make a 100 percent effort to stop the violence.

Q: You said that you support the Mitchell Report, which includes a recommendation that there should be an immediate freeze on settlements. Do you support that recommendation? And if so, what would you do to try and ensure that it -- because (inaudible) ending the violence, one imagines, but one of the key points by Mitchell would be (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: I think as the Secretary said in introducing our endorsement of the Mitchell Report is that the violence has to end first, and then there are a series of confidence-building measures that the Mitchell Report talks about. And one of them is the issue of settlements. And as Secretary Powell said, settlements are going to be a huge and important part of this conversation.

But as he repeated and repeated and repeated, both in his press conference to introduce our views on the Mitchell Report and since, the first step really has got to be the end the violence.

Q: (Inaudible) Turkey has cooled on the back burner and the idea (inaudible) the idea for the change in future the situation for the Kurdish people.

Q: That was actually my question.

MR. GROSSMAN: Okay, great. Do you want to ask it, too? (Laughter.)

Do you want to be a little more specific?

Q: Right now, the Kurdish people you don't hear (inaudible) you know that they never forget their identity. And right now the Palestinians are on the front burner, but later on, eventually, Kurdish will come up again. What is the best interests of the Kurdish people?

Q: Actually, just once again, is your question Kurdish people situation in Iraq, Iran and Turkey, or just only in Turkey?

Q: Obviously around them. Usually (inaudible) and they have the same problem.

Q: My question --

MR. GROSSMAN: We'll just sit back, and you two -- (laughter.) It's okay with me.

Q: (Inaudible) actually, yes, you lived in Turkey and you're very aware of the situation. So my question is going to be obviously what is your opinion of Kurdish situation in Turkey.

MR. GROSSMAN: Sure, let me try to answer both questions. First of all, I think it's wrong to say that United States interest in what is happening in that part of the world, especially with Kurdish people in Northern Iraq, has lowered in any way, shape or form. I mean, for ten years we have continued to patrol an area of Northern Iraq for the specific purpose of protecting Iraqi Kurds. So you all may be writing about the Middle East, and that's what is interesting to people, but every day we have American pilots flying from Turkish bases who are, I think, carrying out a very important mission to protect Kurds in Northern Iraq.

In terms of Turkey, I did live in Turkey for a long time, and I'll give you the answer that I gave all the years I was there, not because it's the only one I can remember but because I think it's right. The question in Turkey is about more democracy for everybody in Turkey, and I don't really believe that -- let me put this positively. I think the more democracy there is for all Turks, the better off everybody is going to be, and that includes Turks of Kurdish origin. And so I have always said in public and in private that there aren't very many questions in Turkey to which the right answer is more freedom, more democracy, more individual rights. And that is something the United States has always supported.

Q: Adam (inaudible) from (inaudible) news. The APEC summit meeting will be held in Shanghai in a few months, and do you think that it is a good opportunity to relieve tension over leadership between China and the United States?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I would hope that the relationship between China and the United States would -- we wouldn't be waiting that long. There are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. As I said, the President today sent the papers to Congress for normal trading relations with China. We hope that we are coming to the end here of the surveillance plane issue on Hainan Island. China has got some work to do to finish its negotiations with the World Trade Organization. We've got some concerns obviously about people who have been arrested in the last few months in China. And so there is lots of work to do, and so I wouldn't want to leave the impression that we'll just wait somehow and see what happens till November. We are going to continue to work on this relationship all the way through.

Q: My name is Henry C. Fidman* (inaudible) Manila (inaudible). Since the kidnappings of Americans and Philippines, is there any way that the government is planning some aid to help the Philippine Government? Obviously they can't do it themselves.

MR. GROSSMAN: I think -- and you understand I think I've just got to be careful in answering that question. Yesterday and the day before at our press briefing I thought Richard Boucher has dealt with this by saying we are obviously in the very closest touch with the Philippine Government. I mean, there are not only hostages which concern all of us, but three of those hostages are American citizens and so we have a particular concern here.

And so we are doing our best to keep in touch with the Philippine Government, and when they are seeking our views and what we have to say, I think we are trying our very best to talk to them about it. But I would be loathe actually to do much more than that. I apologize.

Q: The reason I ask is because suddenly they haven't had the US military (inaudible) for a long, long time, and suddenly they've got Blackhawk helicopters arriving and all kinds of air force personnel. Everybody in the Philippines thinks that the American Government is actually mounting a military operation to rescue the hostages.

MR. GROSSMAN: The responsibility --

Q: Or the military --

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I mean, let's be clear about where responsibility lies here. I mean, responsibility for taking the hostages and holding the hostages rests solely and wholly with the people who have them. And so I don't think we ought to turn this story into what America is doing in the Philippines. This story is about people who have been held hostage by a group of people who shouldn't be kidnapping people. And this is not the first time. I mean, we had a hostage held in the Philippines by this group for over nine months some years ago, and he only got out I think three or four months ago.

So let's keep this focused where it belongs, which is that we want all these hostages to be released, and we want them to be released right now and unharmed. The Philippine Government has responsibility for this, and we are trying to do all we can to keep in touch with the Philippine Government. And as I say, I think to turn this story into anything else is not right.

Q: (Inaudible) with the LA* (inaudible). A question about policies in relation to Mexico. I wonder if there has been any changes or planned any changes in immigration policies, the amount of immigration allowed and as well as illegal immigration and border patrol issues. Is there going to be any changes (inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, there has certainly been a huge change already in the intensity of the conversation between the United States and Mexico on this issue. I think when President Bush went to see President Fox, one of the key things obviously was this question of immigration. And, you know, if it had to be brought into any clear or more human terms was this terrible tragedy of last week out in the desert.

On the 14th of April for the very first meeting of the working group that the two presidents set up, our side chaired by Secretary Powell, the Mexican side chaired by the Mexican Foreign Minister, on immigration issues met. And I think this is actually going to be a good way to lay all this out and try to figure out what the right thing to do is. The number of border crossings is high. Obviously we want to maintain our law, Mexico wants to maintain its law, and to do this in as humanitarian a way possible.

But I think that the way President Fox and President Bush have been talking about this means that, as I say, the intensity of this is going to pick up.

Q: Excuse me, one more question on this?

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, of course.

Q: (Inaudible) create a greater number (inaudible) and then completed the report on the (inaudible) to this Administration. What are you going to do with that report? What have you done to it -- the volume of the --

MR. GROSSMAN: I understand. I'm not sure how to answer that question. Obviously the President will decide what he wants to do about anything that has come from this investigation, and so that is really not for me to say here, not for me, and certainly not for me to say here.

Q: Mr. Grossman, back to Mexico. It has been suggested (inaudible) that US Border Patrol and containment policy has actually contributed to the increase of this sort of situation where people are forced to illegally cross inhospitable parts of the desert because they're not going to stop coming. I think there seems to be an interest and recognition in that. But is there any contemplation changing this containment policy in some way?

And a broader question, this event was billed as US priorities. Could you give us a little bit (inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: Okay.

Q: And you've spelled out lots and lots of things, but in your business things change very quickly.

MR. GROSSMAN: Sure.

Q: What do you think are the real priorities, and which do you think are the most fragile and the most vulnerable to rapid change, escalation, or whatever?

MR. GROSSMAN: On the first, on Mexico, obviously as I said to your colleague, both countries have to meet the requirements of their law. We want to do so in as humanitarian as a way possible. And as I say, I think that this conversation that's now going on between Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister Castaneda started on the 14th of April is going to help us look forward to those issues.

Priorities. You've got kind of philosophical priorities, if you will, and then you've got your practical priorities. And if you think about the philosophical priority, I think it's as I tried to point out in my introduction, which is that the United States of America, I think has to continue to play a role with its friends and allies in promoting the values that we believe in. And that democracy and individual liberty, economic freedom.

And those are hard things to write about and hard things to talk about, but I must say that the longer I have been in my business -- I don't know about your business, but the longer I've been in my business, the more actually these kinds of values matter. When we talk to our friends and allies, always in the rhetoric there is conversation about values. It actually does matter what you believe in. And so I think one of the challenges of this 21st century is going to be how to manage this issue of values.

Second, in the kind of philosophical character is how you manage the issues of globalization. Globalization is here to stay, but obviously there is a lot of anxiety in this world about globalization, and I think those countries like the United States that greatly, greatly benefit from globalization need to have a conversation in this world about how globalization can benefit others. That is why I think these outreach events, like in Quebec and other places, are so useful.

(End of Tape 1, Side A.)

MR. GROSSMAN: (Continuing) -- issues such as trafficking in women and children, issues such as organized crime, issues like the global environment, the global warming we were talking about, HIV/AIDS. Those are not traditional issues that people used to deal with, and I think one of the challenges for us -- all of us, not just the United States but all of international structures, will be how to deal with these issues.

In terms of specifics, I don't know how to do really a better job than I have tried to do in kind of running down what are today's major events. When I give you, for example, in Latin America a highlight about Mexico and a highlight about the Andean Regional Initiative, you know, it leave aside dozens and dozens and dozens of things. So I have tried to set a priority there.

But I say, you've got a kind of need for a 21st century foreign policy and then you've got eight or nine or ten or twelve things, depending on how you count, that have to get done every day. And how you do those things will then lead you -- will lay the basis for how successful you are in that long-term foreign policy.

I know that's too philosophical, but you gave me a chance; I took it.

Q: Ambassador -- sorry, everyone. (Inaudible) Los Angeles Times.

MR. GROSSMAN: Yes, sir.

Q: Can we go back to the (inaudible) issue? As you and your colleagues interact with various countries (inaudible) the Bush Administration (inaudible) United States traditional role of (inaudible) human rights. And very often, the reply, the response to US efforts, is that this is an internal matter, butt out.

Now, as we -- as the court system handles the issue whether the federal government is going to put somebody to death (inaudible) as far as -- as Amnesty International issues a report (inaudible) takes a hard look at our human rights situation, as a panel, including some of our allies and friends, vote us off the UN Human Rights Commission, what do you and your colleagues say when these matters come up? How do you go beyond saying it's an internal matter?

MR. GROSSMAN: I think that's a fair question, and actually it links exactly back to the point you made. What is the big difference in human rights, talking about human rights in this world today, than 30 years ago? Thirty years ago, the comment that, oh, that's an internal affair of Country X, Country Y or Country Z, you can't talk to us about it, I think held some sway. It doesn't hold sway really very much at all today because, in our world today, whether it's through OSCE, the Helsinki Final Act, other organizations that people belong to, human rights has become an international issue. And countries have the capacity, and indeed in some cases OSCE was a good example, the right to comment on other people's human rights. So we don't shy away from that. So it's actually one of those big changes where you have to deal with the issue of democracy, human rights and individual rights and values as you go forward.

The second thing I would say is what we always say to people who say, hey, don't bother us about this human rights business, we're busy doing something else good for our country, is that actually countries are not going to be successful in today's world unless they have both a free economy and free life, and where individuals have space to kind of live their lives in a free and democratic manner. You can't have one without the other.

And maybe that's not something we can prove today, tomorrow or the next day, but I am convinced it's got to be right that over time that a free economy and a free society is going to produce the most successful country. That's our view. People can criticize us all they want. We never, ever, ever go to other people and say, "Hey, America is perfect and you have to be just like us." What we say is, here is what we have been striving to do for 200 years. We have huge problems in our country, huge problems in our country, but we are trying to deal with them and we are trying to deal with them in a way that will ultimately make us more successful. And you ought to get on that same path.

I mean, I was the Ambassador to Turkey for three years. I didn't stand up in Turkey and say you have to become more democratic to please the United States or to please Europe; you have to become more democratic to please yourselves; you have to be more democratic to become a successful country. And that is what we would say to anybody, and that others have comments on the way we live our lives. That's fine.

Q: (Inaudible) believe that John Negroponte, who has the nomination for the United Nations Ambassador, has been criticized over allegations arising from human rights abuses in Central America in the 1990s and that that's the kind of international movement (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: I think John Negroponte is going to become a great Ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate will decide, obviously, whether it wishes to confirm John Negroponte or not. The President has proposed him as our Ambassador, and I believe the Senate will confirm him. But that's their job.

John Negroponte deserves his day at a hearing, like all nominees, and I think after he has his say, the Senate can vote. But I think if the Senate will confirm him, he will be a very good Ambassador to the United Nations.

Q: And on another in Latin America which you mentioned earlier, the (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: Right.

Q: There has been criticism of the use of private companies in Peru and Colombia acting in association with the American Government.

MR. GROSSMAN: Right.

Q: I mean, is there any intention to change that policy in Peruvian --

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, I think all these policies, obviously, are subject to review. And after the terrible shooting down of that plane in Peru, we went through a big review. In fact, it's only being completed now. And so I think we will continue to use contractors, but when you say will that policy be reviewed, that policy will constantly be reviewed, especially where other people, in this case the terrible tragedy in Peru, but the contractors themselves could be in harm's way and could be in danger. So I think whenever you send people into dangerous situations you need to keep these things under strict review.

Q: There have been a lot of talk about your (inaudible) review in your government. What are the objectives of (inaudible)? And are you concerned that the United States, your government, has a shifted its (inaudible) forecast from Europe to Asia?

MR. GROSSMAN: Let me answer both questions. First, there was an election last November, and I think every new administration has a right to review its policies. I think that's right and that's proper. And so it should not surprise anybody that major issues, be they from Kyoto to China to our relations in Latin America, would be subject to a new President's guidance and review. And I think people shouldn't worry about that. That's something that happens in our country.

In terms of a shift, I actually think that the United States is capable of carrying out more than one policy at a time. And I think the idea somehow that we are going to shift our focus from Place A to Place B is just wrong. We are absolutely capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. We can have a policy toward Europe and a policy toward Asia and a policy toward Latin America and a policy toward Africa simultaneously. Really, we can.

Q: (Inaudible) already?

MR. GROSSMAN: Indeed. And as I tried to answer this gentleman's question, we've got priorities in terms of what our philosophy is, and then we've got our priorities in terms of on a day-to-day basis what it is we're trying to get done to pursue that philosophy.

Q: (Inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: No. You know, I realize today -- I realized last night, actually, in flying here from Washington -- that coming to Hollywood and Los Angeles and not having seen all of the latest television is probably not a very smart position for me to be in. But any of the other of you who have young children will know that I actually haven't seen a movie in years.

The story here, it seems -- so I have not seen Pearl Harbor and I couldn't comment on it. But the story here is -- we were talking before -- is about the importance of the United States-Japan relationship, and I think that's the easy theme.

Q: (Inaudible) Japanese army (inaudible) worry about (inaudible) Japanese and -- because of this cinema? So some people, and especially the right-wing Japanese (inaudible). And why (inaudible) about cinema (inaudible) Japan (inaudible) Japanese people and United States people?

MR. GROSSMAN: Having been criticized for giving a philosophical answer before -- (laughter) -- I don't think I'll get into film criticism here.

You know, obviously, as I say, the key thing here is to pay attention to the US-Japanese relationship. And these things are not perfect every day, every place in the world, and people have lots of opinions on many, many, many subjects. So as I say, I haven't seen this film. I don't know how to comment on it. If there are people who have anxieties about it, either in the United States or in Japan, I hope people will keep focused on this important strategic relationship that the United States and Japan have.

Q: A quick last one. What are you doing here?

MR. GROSSMAN: What am I doing here?

Q: It's pretty unusual to see people like yourself here. Are you en route to somewhere else or are you here to visit this other third world country?

MR. GROSSMAN: You mean this one?

Q: Yes, California -- the republic of. (Laughter.)

MR. GROSSMAN: I am a graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara, and a year ago UC Santa Barbara was nice enough -- or foolish enough, depending on how you look at it -- to see if I would like to receive an award as their Distinguished Alumni for 2001. And that occurs tomorrow night.

I should be clear here, unless anyone thinks that this is anything other than what this is, is the two requirements for receiving this reward were: one, that I had to graduate from UC Santa Barbara, which I did; and, two, that you had to come in person to pick it up. And so I have now met both -- I will meet both of those requirements.

Q: You're not really that busy, are you?

(Laughter.)

Q: You can't be very busy, can you? You can go to see a few movies.

MR. GROSSMAN: Right, right. Well, I just took the opportunity. I thought going to university there was great, and if I had the chance to go back for a night, I'd be glad to. So when I was going to come out here, I sort of offered myself to all of you. So I leave it to you.

Q: People say that the (inaudible) for the visit to the Dalai Lama and the President has been purposely chosen (inaudible).

MR. GROSSMAN: Well, as we said at the time, the President received the Dalai Lama as a religious leader. He has got a lot of interesting things to say. He visited with the Secretary of State, he visited with the President, and we took the opportunity to see him when he was in the United States.

Q: (Inaudible)?

MR. GROSSMAN: I tried to answer your question.

Q: One (inaudible) immigration laws again. Immigration if offering the green card lottery. Will the Bush Administration continue such a thing?

MR. GROSSMAN: I believe that the green card lottery is in the law, and I think that it is the law of the land and we'll obviously follow the law of the land.

Good, thanks a lot. Thank you very much.

(Applause.)