The White House Briefing Room
April 7, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JIM STEINBERG, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, KEN LIEBERTHAL, AND DEPUTY NATIONAL ECONOMIC ADVISOR LAEL BRAINARD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 7, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY
DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JIM STEINBERG,
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, KEN LIEBERTHAL,
AND DEPUTY NATIONAL ECONOMIC ADVISOR LAEL BRAINARD
The Briefing Room
12:55 P.M. EDT
MR. LEAVY: As you know, the President is going to meet
with Premier Zhu tomorrow. He spoke today at the Mayflower Hotel.
To give you a little briefing and overview on the visit tomorrow is
the President's Deputy National Security Advisor James Brady
Steinberg. He'll talk about the broad overview of the relationship.
Ken Lieberthal, Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National
Security Council, will talk about the nuts and bolts of the visit.
And Lael Brainard, Deputy National Economic Advisor, will talk about
the economic dimensions of the relationship and the visit tomorrow.
They'll take your questions.
MR. STEINBERG: I am largely here in the master of
ceremonies role, because we have the real experts that are going to
brief you on this. And you also have the benefit of having had the
President who gave a very important speech today, laying out our
overall approach to China. So I don't have a great deal to add,
except to reinforce the point that we see this visit of Premier Zhu
as part of an effort that we've launched over the last several years
for regular, sustained high-level dialogue between the United States
and China.
The President has met with the Chinese leaders on a
number of occasions, both in connection with other international
meetings like the APEC meetings and at the U.N., as well as the two
summits that we've had in the last year and a half, and now the
meeting with Premier Zhu.
We think it's very important that these meetings do take
place regularly. They can be an occasion for progress on specific
issues, but perhaps more important, they're an opportunity for
dialogue in which we can explore areas of common interest and also
work on areas of difference. And this visit will fall very much into
that pattern. We expect that the full range of issues will be
discussed.
Obviously, given his portfolio, Premier Zhu has a
particular role on economic issues, but I do expect that the
President and Premier Zhu will talk about the full range of our
relationship; talk about the progress that we're making on
nonproliferation, which has been a very important priority for us in
making progress in terms of China's activities; working together on
the Korean Peninsula and on South Asia, where we have very important
interests in common, as well as our work together at the U.N. and on
what we call "the new security issues," like drugs and crime.
Lael will talk to you about our economic and trade
issues that we'll be discussing here and the President, as always,
will raise and discuss issues such as human rights, where
we are concerned about recent crackdowns by the Chinese government,
particularly on organized political dissent. And the President will
stress the fact that we continue to believe that China needs to make
progress in this area and that China's own self-interest would be
served by granting greater political freedom to its people. I'm sure
they'll touch on Tibet as well.
And we'll also have -- an important component of this
visit will focus on the environment. As you know, the Vice President
will cohost with Premier Zhu the second session of the forum on the
environment and development, particularly with a focus on clean
energy use and cooperation on climate change. So it will be a full
and rich agenda, and you'll hear more about it when it's all over.
Let me turn it over to Ken.
MR. LIEBERTHAL: Thank you, Jim. As Jim mentioned, this
is a visit that really should be seen in the context of a series of
high-level meetings, the third in that series; the first two being
summits between President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin. That
really reflects the effort by both leaders, or by the leaders of both
countries to gain a better mutual understanding of each other and how
each of them understands the problems that both of us confront. And
that's really, to my mind, the fundamental importance of this visit
and of subsequent meetings that we will see between leaders of both
countries.
Zhu arrived here yesterday in Los Angeles. His
itinerary brings him to Washington later today. He will leave here
on the 10th and go to Denver; from Denver to Chicago, Chicago to New
York, New York to Boston and then on to Canada
He will see a very wide variety of people as he travels around. He
will see congressional members at virtually every stop he makes, as
well as here in Washington. He will be addressing MIT while he is in
Boston, so he'll be touching base with the academic community. He
will be seeing civic leaders, Chinese Americans and business leaders.
His agenda tomorrow with the President is very full, as
Jim Steinberg just laid out. This is an official visit, so we begin
with a reception on the South Lawn. From there we go to a welcoming
ceremony on the South Lawn; from there to a brief reception. Then
the two men sit down for their bilateral meetings that will cover the
full array of issues that Jim just laid out for you.
There will be a lunch hosted by Secretary of Albright at
the State Department, after which there will be a joint press
conference, and then tomorrow night an official dinner.
On Friday, as Jim mentioned, the Vice President will
cohost with the Premier a forum on the environment and development.
This is actually the second forum on that topic in a series that the
two leaders have developed. The first one occurred in 1994.
Let me mention, finally -- since Jim reviewed the basic
agenda for you, I don't want to repeat what he said -- this is only
the second time these two men have met. Last year there was a lunch
meeting in Beijing during the summit. That was a large
meeting. And so the two had an opportunity to go through a number of
issues, but they really have not, I believe, had a chance to get to
know each other. And this meeting will certainly provide ample
opportunity for them to take each other's measure, to understand each
other's perspectives, and hopefully, therefore, to build a basis for
further progress in this
important relationship.
One of the key components of this meeting will be
economic and trade issues, and let me turn it over to Lael Brainard
to brief you on those.
MS. BRAINARD: Thanks, Ken. Jim and I were just
laughing -- I think this will be the first meeting where they can
actually hear each other, since the last meeting the audio was all
screwed up. Let me talk a little bit about -- sorry?
Q How do you know?
MS. BRAINARD: We were there.
Let me talk a little bit about the full range of
economic issues, and then I'll talk a little bit about the WTO
negotiations at the end. But the agenda on the economics front is
multidimensional. As Jim and Ken have mentioned, Zhu is really the
principal architect of China's reforms, and since our economic
interests in China are really multidimensional, the President will
want to engage with Zhu on the full range of issues.
In particular, there is an enormous reform challenge
facing China's leadership. The growth prospects for the next year
are more favorable than for many Asian economies, but there are
concerns in the outlook. Internally, China faces challenges
associated with an enormous restructuring task, trying to restructure
the state-owned enterprises and to create more room for the dynamic
private sector.
Externally, the strength of the recovery of Asian crisis
countries and Japan will continue to have a major impact on China's
prospects. Premier Zhu clearly recognizes the importance of the
fundamental reform agenda for China. He has been very focused on it,
and the need to address the restructuring of state-owned enterprises,
the banking system, and I'm sure that the President will want to talk
a lot with him about those issues. Premier Zhu will also discuss
these issues in a meeting on Friday morning with Secretary Rubin and
Fed Chairman Greenspan.
The second area that we will be advancing when Zhu is
here is our cooperative reform agenda. We have a host of initiatives
that create commercial opportunities for our firms even as they help
to advance the reform agenda in China. Secretary Daley signed an
agreement with China, for instance, when he was there last week which
will further advance their desires to develop a private housing
market and will create opportunities for our companies as we
introduce energy-efficient housing, new housing technologies, and
also work on the creation of what is now a very incipient private
mortgage system.
Last week here in Washington, Secretary Herman and her
Chinese counterpart, Minister Jiang established for the first time a
U.S.-China labor dialogue where they talked about things like
employment creation policies, which is a major, major challenge for
Zhu, labor market training, social security which, again, is a huge
challenge, trying to delink that from the state-owned enterprises,
and on our side the importance of fundamental labor rights that are
recognized by the ILO.
In addition, Secretary Daley initialed an agreement for
an Ex-Im financing line of $100 million that will help to support
clean energy projects in China, which serves both our environmental
and our energy goals.
On the commercial engagement front, there will be any
number of additional breakthroughs. Tomorrow, in particular, we
will sign a civil aviation agreement between China and the United
States that will double passenger and cargo flights between our
countries, allow an additional U.S. airline to enter the Chinese
market and enable more U.S. cities to have direct air service to
China. That obviously serves a whole variety for goals for us -- it
will mean new jobs and millions of dollars for a variety of local
communities. That's something that has really been spearheaded by
Secretary Albright and Secretary Slater, as well as lots of support
from Congressman Oberstar.
Q Which airline?
MS. BRAINARD: The airline designation process is
actually one that takes place in an independent regulatory process
that is conducted by the Department of Transportation and the timing
on that will be a little bit longer-term.
On the telecommunications side, Secretary Daley and his
counterpart signed an agreement for the first time to allow foreign
commercial deployment of the CDMA technology, CDMA wireless
technology, the co-division multiple access. This is a U.S.
technology, as many of you know. This is a very, very significant
achievement for our companies.
AT&T has been successful for the first time in
concluding a cooperative agreement with Shung-hi (phonetic) Telecom
Authorities to jointly deliver value-added services. Again, this is
a first.
And, finally, the State Planning Commission will,
following years of negotiation, issue a directive to ensure all
Chinese government agencies use only legal computer software. And as
you know, this has been a real problem for our software industry.
The PC market there is enormous, the fifth largest in the world. And
if we have legal protections it will then become a large software
market, as well.
Finally, the WTO. This year really represents a pivotal
opportunity for China to move forward on opening its markets. That
is in their interests for a variety of reasons that I think there is
new recognition of in China. In particular, this coincides with
their reform agenda. In addition, this is the last year for China's
entry before the beginning of the new century, the beginning of a
whole new round of negotiations and they're very cognizant of that.
Negotiations on this important issue have been underway
for over 13 years, as the President said this morning. We were,
frankly, disappointed last summer that we were unable to move further
on this issue. At that juncture we were unable to accept a deal
because China wasn't prepared to make the difficult decisions.
Premiere Zhu's visit and the launch of the new global
round present another opportunity, perhaps the best for several years
for China. We support China's membership in the WTO; we have for a
long time, but we have been very clear that accession must take place
on commercially meaningful terms and that there are no artificial
deadlines for accomplishing that.
What is important I think to recognize in terms of what
does it mean to be commercially meaningful, China already has
effective access into the U.S. market, and what this deal, what this
negotiation is about is creating comparable access into China's
market, as well as assuring that China plays by the rules of the game
in its exports, as well as the way it takes in imports. And so we
will continue with the negotiations. If China is ready to play by
the rules -- and we have been very clear what the rules that we are
seeking, the market access guarantees that we're seeking -- as the
President said this morning, we believe it would be a mistake not to
take them up on it.
Thank you.
Q Jim, why did you not mention Kosovo and the
disagreement with China over the policy there? And why did the
United States object to China taking over the Belgrade embassy
functions here?
MR. STEINBERG: I should probably say before I get up
here that the general rule when you say what the two are going to
talk about is "expressio unis" does not "exclusio alterus," and I am
confident that they are going to talk about Kosovo. I'm sure the
President will want to explain to the Premier why we're doing what
we're doing and why it's so important for stability and security in
Europe. And as you know, this question has been asked of the
Premier; he's obviously given some thought to this, too. So I'm
confident that they are going to have a discussion on this. As
members of the Security Council, they'll want to talk about it in
that context as well.
I think that in terms of why we thought it was not a
good idea for China to be the protecting powers, the normal practices
for a neutral party who has no role or view in a conflict to play the
role of a protecting power. And we suggested the Chinese, that given
the fact that they had been outspoken on this issue, plus in light of
their role on the Security Council, that a more appropriate country
which had less particular involvement in the question would be a
better choice as a protecting power.
Q Do their disagreements cast any kind of pall over
the meeting?
MR. STEINBERG: On Kosovo?
Q On Kosovo.
MR. STEINBERG: I don't think so. I mean, I think it is
obviously an issue that they have a difference on. I think it is one
in which they can certainly discuss. I think it is important that
the Chinese understand why NATO is doing what it's doing. I think it
is really an opportunity for the President to go through this for him
to deal with -- so he can understand better what our perspective is
on it.
Q Is the President receiving conflicting advice on
China's entry in the WTO? There were stories that some people
wanted, thought it was strategically important to conclude a deal
now. Others thought it was economically important to hold out for
exactly the right terms.
MS. BRAINARD: The administration is unified in its
desire for China to accede to the WTON in commercially meaningful
terms. And there is a set of rules, a set of market access
commitments in areas like agriculture, like industrial products, in
services, that we've made very clear to China must be part of what we
consider to be a commercially meaningful package. And negotiations
continue towards that end.
Q Where are we on the negotiations? Supposedly, they
weren't going to continue until last night. The Chinese are saying,
we're very close. We're saying, maybe we're not so close. Why the
discrepancy and what are the remaining differences?
MS. BRAINARD: The negotiations are continuing at this
time. Lung Yung To (phonetic) has been here since Sunday afternoon
and negotiations have continued throughout this juncture. They went
until about midnight last night. There are actually a whole variety
of issues that continue. The general sort of pace of the
negotiations tend to be that the team concentrates on one issue at a
time, and then they sort of go back to their own side and try to
figure out whether or not in fact they have authority to move
forward, so it's actually a very time-consuming process.
Just let me kind of remind you the scope of the
negotiations is enormous. This is like a round in terms of every
single has to be completed before any of the issues are truly
completed, and so, for instance, there are some 5,000 tariff lines
that need to be negotiated. There are a whole variety of pieces --
non-tariff trade barriers, licensing, tendering, quotas, investments,
standards. There's safeguards. The whole range of issues is really
quite enormous, and each one of them takes a lot of time.
So there are outstanding issues in all of the baskets,
and the question about whether we get them all done I think is still
an open one.
Q Are both sides making --
Q How would you characterize where you stand right
now?
MS. BRAINARD: The discussions have been good, we
continue to move forward. We're trying to narrow differences, but
we're not there.
Q Are both sides making compromises as you move
along? Is it a matter of China coming over to the U.S. views, or the
other way around?
MS. BRAINARD: I think the way I would characterize it
is that we are narrowing our differences. The one thing I would
remind you, that this agreement is really about access into China's
market and China's commitment to play by the rules. These are
commitments that China must make.
The U.S. has already entered the WTO and has made the
whole variety of commitments that are necessary to be in the WTO. So
this is all about China's rules, China's commitments.
Q Are you ruling out the possibility of some kind of
a framework agreement where you lock in the things you largely agree
on and set a timetable to negotiate the rest?
MS. BRAINARD: I wouldn't want to rule out anything at
this juncture. I think what we've been very clear about is we don't
have anything until we've got everything in terms of an agreement.
But we would like to move forward on as many issues as possible and
narrow the differences as much as possible. And in fact, if China
comes forward and meets all of the issues we put on the table, we are
ready to say yes.
Q I didn't see the word "strategic partnership" in
the speech. Maybe the President gave it as delivered -- I didn't
hear him actually deliver it, but is that a significant omission?
MR. LIEBERTHAL: No, it's not. I, frankly, did not
notice that it was not in the speech, but we are looking -- what the
President focused on in his speech was what China's future will be
like and what America's interests are in that future. If we end up
in the 21st century with a China that is successful in coping with
the problems that confront it, and that acts internationally in a
constructive fashion, able to deal cooperatively with us and with the
other countries of the world, then we will have what will be termed a
constructive strategic partnership with China, which is to say we'd
have another active, constructive member of the international arena
with whom we can deal effectively on the major issues that confront
that arena.
So if he omitted that term, don't take that as a
significant omission. That's what the whole speech was really about.
Q Jim, another question about the speech. The
President mentioned his warning about a campaign-driven Cold War on
China. What motivated him to decide to sort of referee the upcoming
campaign on the China issue, and how does it square with what he said
about President Bush's China policy during the '92 campaign?
MR. STEINBERG: I think the President thinks it's very
important for everybody involved in this process to focus on our
long-term interest. I think there is obviously a legitimate debate
along the full range of policies having to do with China, but the
important thing is to have a substantive debate to look at what our
national interests are, what is the best way to pursue them.
He's obviously persuaded that our strategy of engaging
with China and trying to bring it into the international community,
while speaking candidly about our differences, is the best way to
promote national interest. And I think he would welcome a debate
about that as long as there is a focus on national interest and it is
done in a way that really focuses on what the American people need to
hear about what we are trying to achieve and how we're trying to
achieve it.
Q And again, how does it square with the tact that he
took in '92 when he accused Bush of coddling the Chinese?
MR. STEINBERG: I think the President -- again, I said
-- would welcome a substantive discussion about the policies, and
that is what we are discussing here. And I think he sees that as
part of it. But he thinks that it should be done in terms of what
our national interests are.
Q Given that both sides have said there has been
progress, and I think it would be fair to say substantial progress,
and given the fact that relations with Russia are in a deep freeze --
we're at war in Europe -- can the U.S. afford to send him back
empty-handed?
MR. STEINBERG: I think Lael said, we seek a good
agreement; if we can get a good agreement we will have a good
agreement. But again, it's a question of meeting what we believe is
necessary to advance U.S. economic interests. I don't think you do
-- we're not doing an agreement for the sake of doing an agreement.
We will do an agreement if it's in our interest to do one.
Q Zhu's human rights record has deteriorated since
the President was there. You've complained about a number of
arrests. What impact does that have on U.S.-China relations?
MR. STEINBERG: I think, first of all, as you know, the
United States decided to sponsor a resolution in Geneva this year.
And I think it's a reflection of the fact that we have said that when
it's appropriate and necessary, we will do that; most importantly
because we want to be clear and candid about our concerns and to be
forthright about our perspective on these things. I think that,
clearly, progress on human rights can strengthen the relationship
between our two countries. It is important to Americans, it's an
important part of our foreign policy and it's an important part of
what we believe is necessary for China to be a successful nation.
So I think that, clearly, when there is progress in
human rights, it strengthens the relationship. When there isn't,
it's something that we need to continue to discuss and to work with
them to see how we can encourage them to move down that path.
Q If it strengthens it when there's progress, how
does it hurt it when they're backsliding?
MR. STEINBERG: Again, I think that what we feel is that
we will have a fuller, richer, stronger relationship the more we can
see that what they're doing, both for their own sake and for the sake
of their people, reflects those kinds of values, which they,
themselves, have said that they embrace. I mean, one of the reasons
why we did not sponsor a resolution last year is because they were
moving forward on the international covenant on civil and political
rights. We would like to see them actually begin in word and deed to
implement that.
It's no accident that we have stronger, deeper
relationships with other democratic countries than we do with
countries that don't have those values. It doesn't mean that we
can't do important things together when our interests are in common,
but the strongest relationships we have are with our democratic
friends and allies.
Q Is there a price to pay?
MR. STEINBERG: What I'm saying is, it is a different
character of relationship. It's not a question of exacting a price,
it's a question of countries that are strongest in their relationship
when they have the same values and are pursuing the same interests.
Q Along the same lines, Jim, regarding Los Alamos and
espionage, it doesn't seem the Chinese have paid much of a price for
stealing our nuclear secrets. Is that going to be on the agenda?
MR. STEINBERG: First of all, the full range of issues
will be on the agenda. But let me say, I don't want to comment
specifically -- there are a lot of allegations, there are a number of
investigations underway. We will continue to pursue those
investigations. We take very seriously the safeguarding of our
sensitive information and technology.
Q Will they specifically discuss --
Q Could you or one of your colleagues talk us through
what the WTO agreement, if it was reached, would require Congress to
do. And specifically, if Congress failed to change Jackson-Vanik or,
in some way, to make permanent MFN or normal trading status, would
that put the U.S. in violation of its own WTO?
MS. BRAINARD: First of all, let me just say that we
see, have seen, will continue to see Congress as a full partner in
this effort. There have been massive consultations over this issues,
stretching back six years and more intensively over the last two
months as the negotiations have picked up pace. And Congress will
continue to play a very important role as a partner in this effort.
With respect to the WTO accession process, following
bilateral agreements between China a whole variety of its trading
partners -- among them, ourselves -- then there is a multilateral
process that takes place in Geneva, where the agreement is
reconciled. And that process takes place governing China's accession
to the WTO.
In terms of our own legal requirements, the U.S. cannot
apply the WTO agreement to govern bilateral trade relations unless
Congress graduates China from Jackson-Vanik. So, in fact, that is
what you're referring to. That applies to our bilateral trade
relations, it does not govern multilateral trade relations for China.
But it does govern how we treat each other.
Q Just so that I understand, if it did not pass for
some reason, other nations, then, would have the benefit of all of
the WTO commitments that China has made -- lowering tariffs, opening
markets -- but the U.S. would not, unless it had actually changed
Jackson-Vanik?
MS. BRAINARD: If China had acceded to the WTO at that
juncture, each individual country's trade relations with China would
be governed by their own individual laws. And so in cases where, in
fact, they recognize the WTO accession it would govern their trade
relationship. In our case, until China graduates from Jackson-Vanik,
it would not govern our bilateral trade relations.
Q Back on Los Alamos, would you expect the spy issue
to be on the agenda tomorrow? Should we expect the President to
raise this issue with Premier Zhu?
MR. STEINBERG: I think, again, without getting into
specifics, I would expect the President is going to discuss the full
range of issues, which includes national security concerns that we
have.
Q But, Jim, you outlined quite specifically for us
drugs and crime, Korean Peninsula. I mean, you went through some
specific issues that would come up, but you won't say that this one
will.
MR. STEINBERG: I will go back to what I said before.
The fact that I identified some does not mean that it excludes
others. There are a number of other issues that are going to come up
and you'll probably ask me and I'll probably tell you that we're
going to cover the full range of issues.
Q Are you suggesting we don't believe that it's not
clear to us yet whether the Chinese stole our secrets?
MR. STEINBERG: I am not going to comment on ongoing
investigations.
Q Will the President confront the Premier on the
issue of Chinese money having gone to the Clinton-Gore campaign?
MR. STEINBERG: I didn't have to wait too long.
(Laughter.) Again, this is a subject of an ongoing investigation.
I'm not going to comment, edit or confirm or deny any of the reports.
These are matters that are being looked at by the Justice Department.
But as we have in the past made clear to the Chinese at the highest
levels, including in the President's meetings, that we expect full
cooperation by Chinese authorities with any investigations that are
ongoing. And I would expect the President would reiterate that
position.
Q Are you getting it? Are you getting full
cooperation?
MR. STEINBERG: I think you should ask the Justice
Department, because I wouldn't want to judge for them whether they
feel they're getting the cooperation.
Q The President was very explicit today in talking
about how seriously he has taken these national security concerns,
and he detailed what the U.S. has done, so why wouldn't you all want
to make it clear whether this particular issue would be raised
tomorrow?
MR. STEINBERG: I'm confident that the range of issues
having to do with sensitive technology, and the like, are there.
What I don't want to suggest is -- there have been a number of
reports. I don't want to confirm or deny the specifics, and whether
you ask me whether a specific matter is going to be raised -- some of
these things are allegations, some of the things are appropriate in
specificity for the President to raise, or not raise. But the
subject matters that you're discussing, full range of subjects, will
be discussed.
MR. LEAVY: Okay, last question.
Q Jim, last year the President made quite clear that
he was upset that he hadn't been briefed in greater detail on the
status of the Justice Department's investigation into the China
campaign finance situation. Has he been briefed, or will he be
briefed, on that issue this time, before he goes into the meetings?
And can you give us any details of at least the nature of the
briefing, or whether there is contact between the White House and
Justice on that issue?
MR. STEINBERG: I can only talk to you about the
national security part, because that's obviously the part of the
portfolio for which we're responsible. And we have a process with
the Justice Department, with respect to those matters which affect
national security matters or conduct of foreign relations, and in
connection with that we are in regular contact with the Justice
Department and are briefed.
Q Does that mean the President has been briefed on
those issues?
MR. STEINBERG: On the matters within our
responsibility, yes. I mean, other people have responsibility for
other matters.
Q Jim, briefly on Kosovo. Can you give us the
administration's view on what seems to be a Milosevic strategy of
essentially declaring victory, moving refugees back into Kosovo,
withdrawing his troops? What do you make of it? And what's the
administration's response to this latest development?
MR. STEINBERG: Well, obviously, Milosevic wants us to
stop the air campaign. And we've made clear to him what he needs to
do if he wants to have it stopped. It's not enough for him to do
some things that he wanted to accomplish and then try to blunt the
campaign by saying, well, I'm going to stop the fighting now, on my
terms.
He needs to let the refugees come back. He needs to let
them have security when they come back by the presence of an
international security force. He needs to make sure that there is a
democratic, multiethnic Kosovo. And that's why we are not
-- and there is not dissonance at all in the Alliance about this --
suspending the bombing campaign.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 1:24 P.M. EDT
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
