U.S. Policy Toward the East Asia Pacific Region

2:18 P.M. (EST)

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045, USA.   For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202) 824-0520.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I'm very happy to be back with you.

Since we met, President Bush, of course, has made his second visit to East Asia in a period of four months. He was, as you well know, in Tokyo and Seoul and Beijing. We in the U.S. government are very, very happy with the way all three of those visits went. The objectives of the visits were to, first of all, offer thanks to each of these three governments in their respective ways for the very fine responses that they've made in support of the U.S. and our global campaign against terror in the aftermath of the awful events of 9/11.

Beyond that, we, of course, have all kinds of bilateral issues. The president wanted to continue his close acquaintance with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan and to note the continuing vibrance of our alliance that we have and has served us well for so long with Japan. He wanted to underscore our support of Prime minister Koizumi and his policies of reform. And we wanted to hear from Prime Minister Koizumi explanations for the way that Japan hopes to emerge from the economic difficulties that have characterized Japan for too many years.

In Korea there were several objectives.

Here too is a long-standing ally, and we wanted to celebrate that.

This is the last year of the presidency of President Kim Dae Jung of Korea, a gentleman who has accomplished in his life an enormous amount, and President Bush wanted to call attention to that and to personally meet with and thank President Kim for his service to Korea and to the world. The enormous changes in the Republic of Korea in terms of democracy over the years now in so many ways is very deeply rooted, and yet it -- that was not the case all that many years ago -- and Korea's rapid response to the economic crisis of four or five years ago, which has really been quite dramatics.

But he also wanted to underscore our support of President Kim's policy of engagement with North Korea. The two presidents met at length in a very small meeting, and really had the best opportunity they had had in the three times that they had met to communicate with each other. And the joint statements and the briefing of the press up at the DMZ and the statements that were made up there, I think, went to underscore our commitment.

Because of the mention of North Korea in the State of the Union address, a lot of people wondered about things in South Korea. And the president wanted to explain personally to President Kim what it was that he meant and to respond to the questions to make it clear what he did not mean. And of course while he was there he mentioned the support to President Kim's policies, and he also noted that -- for those that seemed to want direct reassurance, that we had no plans to invade North Korea, that dialogue is the preferred way, and that the U.S. offer of talks with the North Koreans remains very much on the table.

In China a very short visit, some 30 hours, but it was there for two solid meetings, a dinner, a nice lunch with President Jiang Zemin, a speech a Tsinghua University that was carried nationally on television, and response to questions, a joint press appearance, a lengthy business breakfast with Premier Zhu Rongji, and a meeting with the vice president of China, the first time Vice President Hu Jintao has met with an American president. And the president was able to announce while there that Vice President Hu will be coming to the USA later this spring as a guest of the U.S. vice president and that President Jiang Zemin will also be coming to the U.S. this fall before the APEC meeting that's to be held in Mexico.

So with that little summary of the trip, I'll be happy to try to respond to your questions.

MODERATOR: Please introduce yourself by name and organization.

Yes.

Q My name's --

MODERATOR: Wait for the microphone.

Q Yeah.

My name is Choi (ph). I'm from Korean Broadcasting System.

In Spanish embassy in Beijing, now 25 North Koreans are demanding asylum. And what's the U.S. government's position and opinion on that?

MR. KELLY: Our position is that's a matter for the Spanish -- the government of Spain and China. It's apparent these are -- possible that these are people from North Korea, and that very well may bring them under the United Nations' definition of refugees and become a matter for the United Nations high commissioner on refugees. And so I think those governments are working hard on a solution, and I hope and expect that some arrangement will be devised.

Q Hi. Fin Si Dik (ph) of Hong Kong.

During your meeting with the Taiwanese official, Mr. Tang, was Taiwan given assurance that if there were a war in the region, the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against China? (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: No. (Laughter.) No, I had a brief courtesy meeting with Minister Tang Yao-ming in Florida. We were both attending a private business meeting that was there. And we not only didn't discuss atomic weapons; we didn't discuss any other weapons systems. It was just a polite meeting. I'd never met the gentleman before.

MODERATOR: One more question up here, and we'll start with the back.

Q At that --

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Oh, I'm Charlie Snyder of the Taipei Times.

At that meeting, Minister Tang also met with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. In the past, it seems that the level of contact allowed between Taiwanese and American officials has been at your level -- at the assistant-secretary level. Does this meeting mean that this is ratcheting up the level of contacts that will be allowed between Washington and Taiwan from now on? Is this a change in policy there?

MR. KELLY: There is no policy change, and I'm not aware of a particular limitation on meetings. The fact is, Cabinet officers have met in the past with people from Taiwan, and so I wouldn't read anything into that particular situation.

MODERATOR: Let's go to this gentleman, and then work our way down --

Q Chris Caucal (sp) from the China Post in Taiwan. Also in connection with the meeting down in Florida, I understand the president was also down in Florida in the same place last Friday. Do you know if there was any connection or any meetings held in connection with that conference?

MR. KELLY: I -- frankly, you're telling me something I had no idea, that the president was down there. And I am quite certain that it had absolutely nothing to do with that conference.

MODERATOR: The gentleman right there. Yes.

Q My name is Dung Shung Li (ph) from (World ?) Affairs magazine. If I may, I would like to clarify one answer and raise one question. Just now you said no to the question about using nuclear weapons in Taiwan Straits. Does that mean U.S. does not -- is not going to use, or -- my question --

MR. KELLY: No, it means the U.S. did not discuss nuclear -- I didn't discuss nuclear weapons with anybody. And, in fact, that's not a usual topic of U.S. discussion.

The fact is, you're all beating around an issue that the president and Secretary Powell have given substantial explanations to within the last few days, and which I myself would characterize as a kind of a media frenzy based on a leaked planning document at the working level that is not a policy paper at all. And -- of a tiny part of it. And the president and the secretary have made the point that there is not a change in policy. And because important writers do a story does not automatically mean that everything an important writer writes is important.

Q Actually, my question is what are the expectation of achievements from Hu Jintao's visit?

MR. KELLY: For when the vice president of China comes to the U.S., there is going to be the expectation of, first of all, having Americans -- individuals and ordinary people and officials -- get to know the vice president because we have not met the gentleman except in his brief time before, and because he has an important position in China, and there are not, I guess, completely confirmed reports that after the party congress of next fall, that he may succeed to higher positions. And so the primary objective I think will be starting to know Mr. Hu.

The fact is that China and the U.S. are big countries with interests all around the world, a huge trading relationship, and many other common interests. And it's necessary for our top leaders to get to know each other and to be able to speak frankly to each other when and if problems arise. And so that's, I think, the general context that we'll expect to be realized when Mr. Hu comes to Washington.

I don't think there will be any particular objectives. Vice President Cheney and the vice president of China are really just going to get acquainted.

Q Jay Chen, Central News Agency, Taiwan. Sir, four months ago at the same podium, you told us that an announcement could be expected about the new AIT director in Taipei. I wonder whether that statement still holds true today.

MR. KELLY: Yes, it does. (Laughter.)

Q When can we expect an announcement? And specifically, is Douglas Paal still being considered for that job?

MR. KELLY: I can't comment on any appointments that might be made before they are made, but I was hopeful then and have been disappointed that we haven't been able to make an announcement during that time. But I, frankly, do expect that we will be able to make an announcement within the next few weeks. But you know, it's the nature of the world and of the bureaucracy that until something actually happens, it doesn't happen. So I'm just telling you my best guess and expectation that there should be an announcement of a representative to be director of the American Institute in Taipei before long.

MODERATOR: The gentleman in the blue shirt.

Q Thank you. Roy Eccleston from The Australian newspaper. Yesterday the president was asked a question in relation to the war on terrorism, where he was asked about the prospects for the United States going into a country, when it was uninvited, as part of its war on terrorism, and Indonesia and Somalia were both mentioned. The president's answer was, we'll take whatever actions were necessary to protect American people. So he did not rule that out.

First of all, can you say what -- how concerned is the United States about Indonesia as a breeding ground for terrorism? And secondly, would the United States consider going into a country such as Indonesia uninvited if it felt the problem was sufficiently severe?

MR. KELLY: You're asking two things that a bureaucrat needs to stay away from, and one is a hypothetical question, and the other is to amplify the president's explanation, which speaks for itself.

But the fact is, the war in Afghanistan and the introduction of American forces in there was and is a unique set of circumstances, is a set of circumstances that is not finished. There are also situations in Somalia, historically and currently. I don't have responsibility for that country. Indonesia, on the other hand, is an emerging democracy with a legal and duly elected president and a functioning parliament and a functioning government with which we have excellent relations.

So I think, given that context, that you're heading in a direction that probably would be misleading.

MODERATOR: Okay. Let's go to Nadia.

Q Nadia Tsao with the Liberty Times. The first question: that we -- as we were told that in the meeting in Florida, you mentioned the six assurance(s) again to the audience. Can we ask you more clarification, that -- why, you know, you mentioned six assurances again? This is something to do with the arms sale policy in Bush administration?

And the second question: that -- can we expect President Bush to visit China as annual things? I mean, U.S. and China are going to, you know, make it -- systemize the high-level visit every year? Thank you.

MR. KELLY: I think probably the U.S. and China will have high- level visits. I think it's very unlikely that President Bush will visit China every single year. But you never know how the circumstances develop.

I earlier commented about the importance of communication at the policy and senior level between two countries of this sort. But I think a visit every year by our president to China would be too much.

The so-called six assurances are something that were given by President Ronald Reagan to Taiwan at the time of the August 1982 communiqu‚, to make clear what was also made clear in testimony by the officials who were in government at that time, some 20 years ago. That has never stopped being policy, and the part that I wanted to mention is that with respect to cross-straits issues, the U.S. has no intent to be a mediator, and it certainly has no intent to try to compel Taiwan to enter into talks. And so that was what I happened to mention, and I'm happy to mention it here.

It does not represent any change of policy. Our cross-straits policy in fact is unchanged, and it has to do with the familiar language of our one China policy, the -- bounded by the three U.S.- Sino communiqu‚s, governed by the Taiwan Relations Act, and focused on peaceful resolution across the straits.

Q I am Satoru Suzuki with TV Asahi of Japan. Mr. Secretary, the president said on Monday that we've entered a second stage of the war on terror. Are you expecting that Japan will continue to be an important member of the coalition in the second stage, beyond Afghanistan?

And secondly, about North Korea, Japanese authorities have concluded that another Japanese woman was abducted by the North Koreans back in 1983, based upon the detailed accounts by one of the participants in the alleged abduction.

Now, does the United States support the Japanese government's efforts to resolve these and other abduction cases before normalizing relations with Pyongyang?

MR. KELLY: The -- I read that press account of that abducted person with some considerable interest today. I hadn't seen that or heard that story before. The fact is, the Japanese government has certainly brought to my attention in the past these abduction cases, and we view them very seriously, as does the government of Japan. I don't think I would want to characterize, you know, any permanent relationship to any particular policy, but we do view these as a serious matter.

Now, there was a first part of your --

Q (Off mike.)

MR. KELLY: Oh, oh, the stages. The war in Afghanistan is not over yet, in case anybody hasn't noticed. And so that stage and the support of Japanese and of Japan to our forces is very valuable. It's not clear to me with responsibility for East Asia what elements will compose the next stage. But I think it would be a mistake to find them to be symmetrical or identical to what we've had in Afghanistan.

So as always we'll be in very close consultations with Japan and with our other allies. But exactly what Japan would feel like it could contribute would, I think, depend on the circumstances. And we really don't know what those circumstances are right now.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Hi. I'm Julia (Sable ?) from Radio Free Asia. And I have two questions. Has there been any word from North Korea since the president's trip that indicates any kind of progress to talks between the two governments? And my second question has to do with Burma. Does the U.S. government have any information other than what the Burmese government has public announced as to the situation: was it really a coup attempt in Burma, are the people still under arrest, and do you know if this is going to affect the talks between the military government and the NLD?

MR. KELLY: With respect to North Korea, some of the statements emanating from Pyongyang have been fairly strong, but not of -- not easily interpreted. And we're not sure what they have meant. We have, of course, kept up our contacts in many ways with the DPRK. And, in fact, yesterday Ambassador Pritchard, who is our special envoy, did meet in New York with the DPRK permanent representative.

And we had a useful meeting. And both sides pledged to continue their discussions from time to time. And I won't go into them -- into these talks in any detail, but they were not out of character with past talks that we've had -- not so much talks but past contacts that we've had with the North Koreans, and our offer of dialogue with North Korea remains on the table but not yet accepted.

With respect to Burma and the events of last week, this is another one that we've read your various reports from around the region with interest and puzzled over them just as you have. I was out of government for 12 years. Sometimes people think the U.S. government knows everything, but the fact is, governments are just governments of people. And I don't -- I don't happen to know much more about it, and I don't think very many people in the U.S. government know much more about this house arrest of Ne Win and his family and in Rangoon than what's been reported.

So I don't know what it signifies for the future, frankly. I do know that the United Nations secretary-general's special envoy, Ambassador Razali Ishmail, who happens to be a Malaysian, is going into Burma again next week. His talks have been generally encouraging over time, and we're delighted that his visit is going ahead, and we wish him good success in trying to bring a straightening out, and I very much hope a release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Q John San (ph) of Power TV of Taiwan.

Mr. Secretary, you said that six assurances to Taiwan have remained U.S. policy since the Reagan administration. But they were rarely publicly spoken of in previous administrations. Could you tell us why there is such a need for you to, you know, reiterate them time and again? And one second question: How do you distinguish between calling on the both sides of the Taiwan Straits to resume dialogue and, you know, exerting pressure upon them to do so?

MR. KELLY: I think there's a big difference in expressing the hope that dialogue that would lead to peaceful resolution will proceed and trying to bring pressure on one government or another to proceed into a particular kind of negotiations.

With respect to the rest of it, these have been mentioned over the years in congressional testimony and in speeches by a lot of different people at a lot of different times. I don't think they were made very public at the time, but they were certainly discussed in congressional testimony going way back when. It just seemed that there had been some apprehension that maybe the U.S. was going to try to come up with some model for a cross-straits solution, and I just felt that the audience of business people and other private types that were there needed to understand that our policy had never been to do that, and it still was. And so that was the context. We weren't trying to reaffirm them anew, because they've always been out there.

Q My name is Ogata (ph) from Japanese News Agency, Kyodo News, State Department correspondent. I have one simple question. What do you describe of the current Japanese economic situation? The Tokyo stock market is becoming a little bit better, but how is your impression, please?

MR. KELLY: I'm not an economic analyst. And I'm, frankly, a little puzzled about this, what, 25 percent surge of the Japanese stock market. And so I'm very happy to be a State Department official and not responsible for investing other people's money -- (laughter) -- in anticipation of something of this sort. And of course, our ethics rules prevent me investing my own money, if I were silly enough to do that. So, I don't know what's going on with the Japanese stock market.

Clearly, though, the overall Japanese economy continues to have some fairly serious problems that have plagued your country for many years, and we hope the way can be found out from that.

MODERATOR: Sir?

Q My name is Kwong-cho Goh (ph) from Korea Economic Daily. Let me turn back to North Koreans in Spain's embassy. I think it is not the first time North Korean people area seeking political asylum. We are expecting more and more. If my understanding is right, China keeps refusing to allow political asylum for North Korean people. What do you think on their position from the humanitarian point of view?

MR. KELLY: This is -- this is not a situation I find that a simple answer can be given.

I was questioned about this in the Congress not long ago, in the House International Relations Committee, and I tried to give some sense of that, and I won't repeat it here. I think that's probably available out there -- what was said.

North Korea is North Korea, and China is China, and we're not like that. But everyone who crosses the border is not necessarily a refugee, and that is true even on the North Korean border. The fact is, people cross borders for a lot of reasons, and often they have to do with trying to make some trade for a temporary economic advantage, if they think they can do it. Others are seeking a new life in a different place. Others have been driven out because of a situation that may be completely untenable and in gross violation of human rights.

Our human rights report, given the very limited access we have to North Korea, I think, tries to call (sic) the problems that exist in that country, which are very, very severe and no doubt contribute to people trying to go somewhere else. But whether they apply to these particular -- or others, I don't know.

The Chinese, it is true, are reluctant to do this, but this is in a way understandable, because if -- I'm not sure how many people would be left in North Korea if it were understood that anybody who could get out could go somewhere else or live somewhere else. It's, I think, a difficult country to live in, and people would try to go.

So I don't know a simple solution for this answer. I do know that the South Korean government has been concerned about it for a while. I think the Chinese government and their provincial governments are concerned about it. The U.S. people, NGOs -- and I think this is an area where nongovernmental organizations can make a contribution -- are also concerned about these people, and I prefer not to generalize beyond that.

Q I'd like a follow-up at the North Korea refugee issue.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Yes. Choi (sp) from South Korea Samora (sp) Broadcasting. Why do you think on this issue China is a key country, and what are you going to say to the Chinese government? And do you think the silent policy is the best way in the United States, as you mentioned in the confirmation hearings? You said -- I remember you said the less you talk, the more you can get. Is that right? (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: Whoever said that -- (laughter) -- (laughs) -- was clearly a very wise person. (Laughter.)

(Laughs.) No, I still think that, that that is true. And since whenever I said that, I think I've learned a little bit about the issue, and it's not a simple issue.

I do know one thing, though: that the South Korean government has an excellent relationship in Beijing and ability to get its messages through very much, and that the representations of the Seoul government to Beijing are likely to be more useful on this than Americans, who, after all, are far away.

We're not directly involved in this issue.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Ann (Belinging ?) of the World Journal. I'd like to know whether the president mentioned three communiques while he was in China. And if he did, how many times and under what circumstances. (Laughter.)

MR. KELLY: I didn't keep a word count on what the president mentioned in his private and public remarks. But our policy remains -- really remains consistent and unchanged in its summary on our policy towards cross-straits. And I think the president made that very clear.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q (Sijorno ?) -- (inaudible) -- from Indonesia. Mr. Secretary, March 11 Washington Post wrote an article from correspondent in Jakarta, the title is "U.S. Behind Secret Transfer of Terror Suspects". This indicate that urged by the CIA, Indonesia extradite terrorist suspect Saad Iqbal to Egypt without court and/or lawyer. I was just wondering whether you confirm that article. Thank you very much.

MR. KELLY: I saw the story, and I think probably it's best that comment on that be from the government in Jakarta.

MODERATOR: This lady over here by the camera.

Q (Name off mike) -- from the Malaysian news agency Bernama. Sir, I have two questions. The U.S. media recently published an FBI document. They call Malaysia a launch pad, a primary launch pad for terrorists. Does the document represent the view of the U.S. government? And if not, what is the U.S. position on any connection between Malaysia and the September 11 attacks -- and whether the U.S. government is satisfied with cooperation from Malaysia in counterterrorism?

MR. KELLY: First of all, yes, the U.S. government and the policy community that I represent is very satisfied with the cooperation of Malaysia against terrorism. I think the government of Malaysia has done an excellent job on this.

And I am not -- I saw that press account, but I am not familiar with the document you mention. I certainly wouldn't use that description to apply to Malaysia, and in fact I think it's unfair. The fact is, Malaysia has a wonderful airport, and lots of people pass through going from places around the world, and I don't doubt that people who have turned out to be terrorists have gotten off planes in Malaysia. But frankly, I think the government has done a very good job of keeping track of these people when they know about them and when their intentions and record are bad.

So I think the last part of your question is really the key part. We think the government of Malaysia has really done a very good and very responsive -- responsible job on this.

MODERATOR: Time for one more question.

Q Good afternoon. (Inaudible) -- Nikkei newspaper. You said Jiang Zemin, Chinese president, is expected to come to the United States this fall. And I am wondering whether you have already decided to invite him to Texas, Crawford, or not. And if so, you have any idea to invite any Japanese prime minister, whoever it is -- (laughter) -- (long before his time ?) to Texas? Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Well, I would note that the Japanese prime minister went to Camp David on his first visit. So the fact is, the personal relationship between Prime Minister Koizumi and President Bush is an excellent one.

I don't think the final decision has been made on exactly where next October that President Bush will meet with President Jiang. But it is in fact possible, and I'm aware of these rumors, that this might occur in Texas. President Putin was there.

But I don't know. I haven't been to the ranch in Texas. (Laughter.) I understand it's not a very large place, and I don't think the intent is to make this is litmus test of every leader. But if there's a meeting in Mexico, then such a place would be fairly -- would perhaps be more convenient. But I don't think the decision has been made yet on whether any particular leaders is going to go to Crawford, Texas, with the president or not. The president decides that. It's his home and his ranch. And he decides that generally, I think, a little closer to whenever these visits come up and in light of the schedule that he has and what direction that he needs to be traveling then.

Thanks very much. I'm going to look forward to being back with you all some other time. (Laughter.) 

Copyright (c)2002 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.