• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

07 June 2000

Transcript: Shirk on U.S.-China Relations on "Dialogue" June 5

(PNTR, WTO, cross-strait dialogue top priorities)  (7170)
Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, China's accession
into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a reduction in tensions
between China and Taiwan are among the top priorities of the Clinton
Administration, says Dr. Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs.
If progress can be made on these important fronts, then a good
foundation will have been laid to further develop cooperative
U.S.-China relations, she told audiences of academics and reporters in
Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang, Guangzhou.
Shirk made her remarks June 5 via the State Department's interactive
television program "Dialogue."
"We think the best foundation for building a constructive relationship
between our two countries is frequent contact at every level, to have
frank discussions, to talk about foreign policy issues of common
concern such as how to bring about a peaceful, non-nuclear Korean
Peninsula, how to stop a nuclear arms race from developing in South
Asia, how to keep stability in the Persian Gulf," Shirk said.
"We think it's important to have strategic dialogue, to talk about
those foreign policy issues as well as discussing more contentious
bilateral issues, like human rights for example," Shirk added. "We
shouldn't shy away from areas where we don't have agreement yet
either. And we should frankly confront our differences and work to
narrow them," she said.
Following is a transcript:
(begin transcript)
AMERICAN EMBASSY TELEVISION NETWORK
"DIALOGUE" PROGRAM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of Broadcast Services, Washington, D.C.
GUEST: Dr. Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia and
Pacific Affairs
U.S. Department of State
TOPIC:  U.S.-China Relations
POSTS:  Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang, Guangzhou
HOST:   Wendy Lyle
DATE:   June 5, 2000 TIME:   21:00 - 22:00 EDT
MS. LYLE: Hello, viewers and audience. I am Wendy Lyle, and welcome to
"Dialogue." Peace and stability in the East Asia and the Pacific
region are as vital to the interests of the United States and China
today as they were 20 years ago in the early days of our official
relations with the PRC.
During the last two decades, China has made remarkable economic
strides, raising its diplomatic prominence and quite naturally began
to interact with U.S. and other members of the international community
on issues of vital national security and economic concerns in many
ways. Both countries have persisted in supporting and implementing
policy approaches that engage the other, despite the inevitable
disagreements that we have.
During the past year we have passed through ups and downs that have
often troubled U.S.-China relations, including agreements on WTO
accession, as well as the aftermath of the accidental bombing of the
Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
More recently, the presidential election in Taiwan has focused
attention on prospects for cross-strait relations and resumption of a
dialogue. Here in Washington, the legislative process to PNTR to China
has stirred up much interest. The administration has been working
vigorously in support of legislation that passed in the House of
Representatives last month and is still pending in the Senate.
In this edition of "Dialogue," we will discuss China's relationship
with the U.S. Today our guest is Dr. Susan Shirk, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs. Dr. Shirk,
welcome to "Dialogue." Dr. Shirk, I understand you have a statement
for our viewers.
DR. SHIRK: Yes, I would like to say first of all it's a pleasure to be
with you this evening, and it's terrific to have an opportunity to
talk to people in four cities in China. I look forward to it.
As you know, the Clinton Administration is strongly committed to
developing a positive, constructive relationship with the People's
Republic of China. The past year or so has been a difficult period in
U.S.-China relations. There's been a lot of mutual suspicion and
mistrust as a result of this difficult period. But I am feeling very
hopeful now, because we are moving forward in a positive direction in
two important fronts.
First of all, we are moving forward to gain congressional approval of
permanent normal trade relations with China. We achieved, thanks to a
major effort on the part of the president and the entire
administration, a very strong vote in the House of Representatives --
much stronger than we anticipated -- 40-vote margin of 237 to 197. Now
we are working hard to gain Senate approval this month before our 4th
of July recess. We are confident that we will be successful, that
China will accede to the WTO, and the United States and China will
have a stronger economic and political relationship because of this
effort.
Secondly, we see some positive signs in the cross-strait relationship,
which is such a major factor in U.S.-China bilateral relations. We see
that both sides of the straits, Beijing and Taipei, are proceeding in
a very pragmatic and moderate matter, and in fact seem to be inching
their way toward the resumption of dialogue. The threat of
confrontation remains with us; but we see that rather than moving
further apart they seem to be gradually inching closer together. And
this is an effort that is strongly encouraged on both sides by the
United States.
So if we are able to make progress on both these important fronts,
PNTR, WTO and a lessening of tension across the strait and a
resumption of cross-strait dialogue, we believe that the Clinton
administration will have laid down a good foundation for the next
administration to further develop its cooperative relationship with
China.
MS. LYLE: Thank you. Well, I'll ask our participants in Beijing,
Shanghai, Shenyang, Guangzhou to ask questions. First I would like to
remind all participants that your question should be asked briefly and
allow more discussion. So I will ask Beijing to ask their first
question. Please go ahead.
Q. (Off mike) -- I am the reporter from the Financial Times. Would you
please analyze that China is getting its PNTR or China's accession --
what kind of impact will it have on the economic development of China?
DR. SHIRK: I believe that China's accession to the WTO will reinforce
China's own domestic reforms that its leaders -- that Deng Xiaoping
embarked on several decades ago. It will lead to greater competition.
It will certainly put pressure on Chinese enterprises. But that
competition will make those enterprises world-class efficient
enterprises. It will also open up China to greater contact with the
rest of the world in other dimensions as well, which we think will be
good for us and good for the people of China.
MS. LYLE: Okay, thank you. We'll have a question from Shanghai. Please
go ahead. Would you please ask your question in Chinese? Please repeat
your question.
Q. My question is: Dr. Shirk mentioned the Taiwan issue. Now I would
like to further understand that the Clinton administration will insist
on its one-China policy? What kind of measures will they do on the
cross-strait relations? Because some friends and I have some concerns
that the Clinton administration's one-China policy is not concrete. We
hope that Dr. Shirk can give us some more details on that.
DR. SHIRK: Well, thank you. I want to assure all of you that the
United States continues to adhere to its one-China policy. This has
really been the bedrock of our approach to cross-strait relations, and
it hasn't changed one bit.
However, the question of how the two sides of the straits determine
what is the basis for dialogue -- that is something that we believe
has to be agreed upon by the parties themselves. And our job is not to
try to pressure either side or to act as the mediator, or to take a
position on the substance of these issues. What we care about is that
the two sides in a mutually-agreeable manner do find a way to resume
the dialogue, because we think that when people are talking to one
another face to face that that is really the best way for them to
resolve their differences directly with one another in a peaceful
manner.
MS. LYLE: Okay, thank you. We'll ask our Shenyang participants to ask
their first question. Please go ahead.
Q. Hello, I have one question. PNTR, after it is passed in the Senate,
in the near future what kind of favorable treatment will we have from
the U.S.?
DR. SHIRK: Well, the fact of the matter is that right now the U.S.
market is extremely open to Chinese goods and services, so it will not
really result in an expansion of access to the U.S. market. But what
it will mean is that normal trading treatment will not be extended on
a year-to-year basis -- you won't have that uncertainty about maybe
this year the U.S. Congress will not approve it. Instead, this
treatment will be just what it says, permanent. So it should eliminate
that element of uncertainty in U.S.-China economic ties. And it should
mean more trade both ways and a strengthening of economic relations as
well as I said I believe also a cultural and political relationship
between our two countries.
MS. LYLE: Thank you. I'd like to ask the participants in Guangzhou to
ask questions. Please mention your name first. Please go ahead.
Q. I am at Guangzhou University, Professor Wan Tishen (ph). Recently
China and Eastern European countries have military cooperation. Some
people think that that is to do with a Chinese threat. What do you
think about that?
DR. SHIRK: Military cooperation between China and East European
countries -- this is not something that I am very much aware of, so I
can't really answer in any detail. I can say that China, as an
important global country, of course it is going to have diplomatic
relations with many countries all over the world. Military relations
-- I really don't know what you mean. If you mean the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, I wasn't aware of a military relationship between these
two countries, so I don't want to talk about any hypothetical. I
really don't. I am not knowledgeable about the specifics in your
question.
MS. LYLE: Okay, we'll ask the Beijing participants to ask another
question. Beijing, please go ahead.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk -- (inaudible) -- Chinese social academia. We know
that the U.S. government has made a lot of effort to support the
passage of PNTR. So what I was asking is that Clinton administration
does not have much time left -- there's only half a year left. So
after the passage of PNTR, can the Clinton administration do more
promote efforts into the U.S.-China relations? Because a lot of people
think that in the election year that the government cannot have any
breakthroughs for relations. So can the U.S. government have any
breakthroughs?
DR. SHIRK: I am very glad you asked that question, because it enables
me to say that in fact the Clinton administration has a lot of life
left in it, even though there is only half a year left. And I do think
that our effort to build public and congressional support for PNTR has
also created better public and congressional support for our overall
approach of engaging China, of working with China to find common
ground, and to work cooperatively together. It will be a shame to
waste that by kind of sitting back and just waiting for the next
administration.
And, secondly, I would like to point out that both parties and both
presidential candidates in the United States have essentially the same
approach to China. So there is really no reason we can't now that we
are in the process of passing PNTR, now that the cross-strait tensions
seem to be easing a bit, on that foundation move forward in the next
six months to develop our cooperation in a number of other areas --
environment, law enforcement, non-proliferation, foreign policy,
cooperation on Korean issues, South Asian issues. So there's really --
six months is still a long time, and there is a lot we can do, and we
are very eager to move forward.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am very happy that we have a chance to ask you
a question. My name is -- (inaudible) -- I am the professor from the
-- the history professor. You have mentioned that after China entered
WTO the U.S. and China relations will move forward. However, just last
week the defense ministry of the U.S. released a report -- it is
(joint meeting ?) 2020, the document. In this document it is stated
that China is the U.S.'s potential enemy in the future. Not long ago
-- (inaudible) -- was making a speech in Japan, he says that he has to
strengthen the military cooperation between Japan and the U.S. So what
is your opinion on this document, and isn't this an obstacle to move
forward the U.S.-China relations?
DR. SHIRK: I am not familiar with the specific document to which you
are referring. But, you know, I think we should be frank with one
another that the future relationship between China and the United
States is really open. We are not sure how it is going to develop. We
are sincerely hopeful and committed to working toward a constructive
strategic partnership. And we do believe that despite the differences
in our political systems and our values and our cultures that if we
are smart about it we ought to be able to work it out so that we
cooperate with one another rather than being hostile to one another.
But there is uncertainty about that. There is certainly uncertainty
when we read in the Chinese official press the statements about the
United States, that describe the United States as being hostile to
China's interests. Our leadership -- President Clinton, Secretary
Albright, Sandy Berger and all the rest of us -- have been making
speeches trying to explain to the American people why a positive
constructive relationship with China is in the interests of the U.S.
and its people. And I would hope that China's leaders would start
doing that. Frankly, I get quite worried when I read a lot of the
articles published by Xinhua and People's Daily, just as you are
worried when you read some Defense Department report that I am not
familiar with. So I think the challenge is to -- and this is really
the challenge to our leadership to overcome mistrust and move forward
towards a cooperative relationship.
Q. Dr. Shirk, I am -- (inaudible) -- newspaper. We have a lot of ups
and downs on the U.S.-China -- (inaudible) -- that it is more
important to be friendly with China. I would like to ask Dr. Shirk --
in a future administration or U.S. government, how can they make a
very friendly U.S.-China relations?
DR. SHIRK: Well, we think the best foundation for building a
constructive relationship between our two countries is frequent
contact at every level, to have frank discussions, to talk about
foreign policy issues of common concern such as how to bring about a
peaceful, non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, how to stop a nuclear arms
race from developing in South Asia, how to keep stability in the
Persian Gulf. We think it's important to have strategic dialogue, to
talk about those foreign policy issues as well as discussing more
contentious bilateral issues, like human rights for example. But, on
the other hand, we shouldn't shy away from areas where we don't have
agreement yet either. And we should frankly confront our differences
and work to narrow them.
So that is our approach. We also believe that our leaders do have to
do a lot of public education in order to build understanding among our
publics about why a good relationship between our two countries is in
the interests of all of us, as well as in the interests of all the
other citizens of the world.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am -- (inaudible). In recent years the U.S. has
increased its weapons sales to Taiwan -- (inaudible) -- to Taiwan and
the possibility has increased. So some people say we should create a
balance, military balance cross-straits. So my one question is, Dr.
Shirk, do you believe that by selling weapons to Taiwan can you reach
that kind of balance? And don't you think that by selling weapons it
will increase the military race between the cross-straits?
DR. SHIRK: I'm glad you brought this up, because this is a source of
future instability. There is a possibility -- and we see it today --
of a developing arms race across the Taiwan Straits. China is building
and deploying a lot more equipment, especially missiles, right
opposite Taiwan. Taiwan feels the need to defend itself. Taiwan is a
democracy, and its citizens are very concerned about an increasing
threat, military threat across the straits.
The United States feels an obligation -- and we have a legal
obligation to help Taiwan defend itself. We are very careful in our
arms sales to Taiwan. They are always purely defensive. We are careful
that they are modest. I know to you it probably sounds like a lot, and
certainly it is a lot, but we remain committed to the three
communiques -- especially the 1982 communique -- and we are exercising
restraint under the guidance of that communique. But the problem is
really a difficult one that is going to take effort by the two sides
to build a more positive basis for the relationship across the strait
-- through their economic ties, through your political dialogue.
And we also would like to see military confidence-building measures
across the straits, and eventually a reduction of arms on both sides.
So that is something that would be highly desirable from the
standpoint of everyone.
MS. LYLE: I would now ask the participants in Shanghai to ask a
question you have. Please go ahead.
Q. I am the international relations association -- (inaudible). I
think in the -- (inaudible) -- insists that the great China is in the
interests of the U.S. I would like to ask you why U.S. is not
interested in a unified China but is only interested in Taiwan issues.
DR. SHIRK: If you mean that the United States does not support
reunification, actually that is not quite accurate. The United States
would welcome any arrangement between the two sides, between the PRC
and Taiwan that the people of the two sides can agree upon. If that is
reunification, we would enthusiastically welcome it. The key is that
it can't be imposed by one side on the other. It can't be done through
force or intimidation. It has to be freely and voluntarily agreed to
by the two sides. So you may wonder why don't we say that the United
States supports reunification. We don't oppose reunification, but we
would endorse any resolution of the issues that the two sides can
agree upon.
And on the Taiwan side, it's a lot easier to tell what the people
want, because they express themselves through elections. They -- it
was clear that most people in Taiwan want some kind of modus vivendi
with the mainland that can reduce the threat to their security and
make them better off. Support for independence is really quite small
on the mainland, but support for simply becoming part of the PRC and
being ruled by the government that currently exists in Beijing is also
small. There is lots of room for things in between that -- so long as
the two sides both agree to the arrangement. So basically whatever the
people of the two sides can agree upon is fine with the United States.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, on international issues, the Clinton
administration has made a lot of effort to work with Russia on the ABM
Treaty issues so that it can deploy the missiles to protect the
national security. However, once the U.S. deploys the missiles for
national security, it is going to be a challenge to the stability of
the world, and is going to be a threat to China, which has very little
of the nuclear heads. So I would ask the Clinton administration what
kind of measures would it take to ease the concerns of China on the
U.S. deploying the missiles. Is that possible for the U.S. not to
deploy those missiles?
DR. SHIRK: Well, first of all let me say that the reason President
Clinton is working so hard with President Putin in Russia to negotiate
an arrangement whereby the ABM Treaty can remain the kind of governing
framework for strategic stability in the world. It's simply that we
don't want to go off and just unilaterally take actions without
appreciating and understanding the security concerns of other
countries. And that goes for China as well. We do see a new and real
threat, emerging missile threat, from countries like North Korea,
Iran, Iraq. We are not contemplating building a national missile
defense because of a China threat. It is these other new emerging
threats. And we are trying to respond to China's concerns, many of
which are very legitimate, by having extensive discussions explaining
how we see the threat and why we are considering deploying national
missile defense. We have had these discussions in Washington, we have
had these discussions in Beijing, and we will continue to have them.
We want to be completely open and transparent about this, and we want
to move forward to provide the protection that our own citizens are
demanding for ourselves now that these new threats do exist, but while
maintaining the framework of global multilateral arms control in the
ABM Treaty and in a way that eases the concerns of other countries
like China.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am -- (inaudible) -- Shanghai University. My
question is that in recent years U.S. China has been moving positively
with the efforts from both sides, especially U.S. The PNTR has already
passed the House and it is very possible it is going to pass in the
Senate. So following now that the U.S. Congress shall have the Taiwan
Enhancement Act now is on the table. But it is going to be a debate,
the center of a debate. So if this legislation is put on the table,
what would the Clinton administration do, what kind of measure would
it do? So it is going to -- the measure of the PNTR is going to
support this?
DR. SHIRK: Well, the Clinton administration has made very clear that
we are opposed to the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which is not
actually going to enhance Taiwan's security at all -- it is misnamed.
We don't think it is needed, and we don't think it would be
constructive, and we oppose it. And in fact the president's senior
advisors have agreed that if it comes to him in the form where it
presently exists that we would recommend that he veto it.
Now, the House has already passed it. It is before the Senate. And
there is a possibility that some members of the Senate would try to
debate it and pass it at the same time that the Senate is discussing
PNTR. We are strongly opposed to that. We have told all the members --
we have worked very hard to explain why we think it's a bad idea, and
we will continue to work to prevent this from becoming law.
MS. LYLE: Okay, I'll ask the participants in Shenyang to ask
questions. Shenyang, please go ahead.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am from the University of -- (inaudible). I
have two questions. The first one is that Dr. Huntington (ph) said
that the confrontation of a civilized nation is -- says that in the
future the confrontation will be against civilizations. Do you think
civil countries are going to put the confrontation of culture above
the confrontation of economics?
The second question is globalization is too, and with -- do you think
that globalization is going to go downward for those institutes that
study globalization?
DR. SHIRK: Well, on the clash of civilizations, it's undoubtedly true
that despite the fact that our global -- our planet is increasingly
integrated through economic ties, through telecommunications, through
people's travel, through global organizations like the United Nations,
that cultural allegiances do remain very strong. Nationalism is still
very much alive. We see that in China today as well as in other
countries. There still are important ethnic and religious conflicts
unfortunately that people kill each other over. And so although I
don't believe this is the main division in the world today -- I don't
agree with Huntington's position that it is the main split in the
world today. Certainly we do see those kinds of conflicts persisting,
unfortunately.
As to globalization, I think the, as I say, the forces of integration
of our economies certainly is really remarkable, and
telecommunications are speeding this integration. But globalization
does not mean the end of the nation-state, does not mean that
governments are irrelevant, that government regulation is irrelevant.
So I think you can exaggerate and kind of hype globalism. We call it
in English -- sometimes we talk about "globaloney," because there is a
lot of what in Chinese we call kunghua (ph), empty talk, about
globalization. But still it is a trend which is undeniable.
MS. LYLE: Let's ask our participants in Guangzhou to ask questions.
Guangzhou, please go ahead.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk. I am -- (inaudible) -- my question is the concern
of the economy. I can see -- (inaudible) -- in the five years I'm in
Guangzhou that the U.S. is probably the third or the fourth of the
biggest, largest investors. However, in 1998 the U.S. investors did
not go to the top ten list. So could you explain the reason for that?
And another thing is that could you express your personal opinion on
this phenomenon?
DR. SHIRK: I'm not sure I got the question clearly. You said in 1998
U.S. investment in China -- in China declined? Is that what you are
saying?
Q.  U.S. investment in Guangzhou.
DR. SHIRK:  Oh, in Guangzhou.
Q.  -- the investment amount, it did not make the top ten list.
DR. SHIRK: Well, that's interesting. I don't really know the answer to
that question. I am not sure if those investors went to other parts of
China. Because of course Guangzhou was as my colleague Ezra Vogel (ph)
said in an important book, one step ahead of the rest of China in
opening up to foreign investors, especially Guangzhou in the special
economic zone. And it's possible that over time -- and it's likely
that that investment will spread throughout China. So I am not sure if
those investors went to other parts of China or went to other
countries or whatever. So it's really difficult for me to answer the
question.
One thing I can say, however, is that I do believe that China's
accession to the WTO and its laying down legal and regulatory
foundations for its involvement in the WTO will improve the business
climate in China, and is likely to lead to an increase in foreign
investment in Guangzhou and elsewhere.
Q. Hello, I'm -- (inaudible) -- Technology University. My question is
that U.S.-China -- could the countries build a strategic partnership?
I don't think the key issue is now in China, but the key is with the
U.S., because the U.S. in a lot of respects -- for example, the
military -- and TMD and also its weapons sales, arms sales to Taiwan,
and also other many, many other issues -- it has a very unfriendly
attitude toward China. The U.S. wants to become the world's hegemony.
As for China, I think in the past two decades it has made a lot of
improvements in many respects -- for example, like disarmament and
also we have taken pragmatic measures in the economy and to improve
the people's living standards, and also politically we have made a lot
of improvements. We are not like before. Like 20 years ago we can't
say anything. But now, we can say -- we can express our own opinions.
So in order to build this partnership the key is with the U.S. The
U.S. has to change its hegemonious attitude so that we can improve our
bilateral relations. Do you agree with me?
DR. SHIRK: No, I don't agree with you. I think that really efforts
have to be made by both sides. And the mistrust of one another's
intentions really does come from both sides, not just from the United
States.
I do, however, agree with you that China has undergone really dramatic
and very significant changes in the past 20 years, and that these
changes have greatly enhanced the welfare and freedom of the people of
China, and this is very much supported and welcomed by the people of
the United States.
You know, the people of our two countries really I think have a very
friendly feeling toward one another. There's a long history of that.
And I think we have some tough issues between us. We have, according
to our values, we are distressed by some of China's human rights
problems. Of course individuals are a lot freer today. But people who
join organizations, even non-political organizations, sometimes run
the risk of getting detained, thrown in jail, and that's something
that is really repugnant to the people of the United States. So these
are -- it's important to discuss those differences.
We also have the Taiwan issue, which has become such a sticking point
between us. That's why I think it is so important that the
cross-strait dialogue be resumed, because I believe that if tension is
reduced across the strait, if the two sides are talking to each other,
and this is on a positive path, this will open up tremendous new
opportunities for deepening and improving U.S.-China bilateral
relations. That's why the U.S. has been so active in encouraging the
two sides to resume the dialogue.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am -- (inaudible) -- weekly in China. I am the
commentator, and my name is Johnny Wei (ph). In the middle of this
month the Korean Peninsula, the two leaders they are going to meet in
Pyongyang. I will try to ask one question, that the U.S. government in
Korean Peninsula, in terms of security, the reunification, what will
the administration do? What kind of new measures will the
administration take? And some people say that only when the U.S. Army,
the military, withdraws from the Korean Peninsula can peace will be
united. And what's your opinion on that?
And another thing is that in China -- China and Taiwan, the meeting of
the two leaders -- do you think that is a more important way that is
going to contribute to the unification of the two places? Will the
U.S. become a mediator to play any part in it?
DR. SHIRK: Well, we here in the United States are very excited about
the prospect of the summit meeting between the leaders of North and
South Korea. It's very, very significant, and it is something that we
have hoped to see for a long time. And so I think that all the
countries of the region -- not just the United States, but Japan and
China, Russia as well -- we all welcome this development, and think
that it is likely to lead to an easing of tension, and perhaps you
know some resolution of issues between North and South, as well as
strengthening of economic ties and reuniting families. It's important
for humanitarian reasons as well as for geopolitical and security
reasons.
That spirit of reconciliation is one we would also like to see across
the strait. And will there be a meeting between Chen Shui-bian and
Jiang Zemin? I say why not? You know, I think that both these men seem
to be -- are really strongly motivated to move the cross-strait
relationship forward right now. I know that many people on the
mainland were very worried about Chen Shui-bian because he comes from
the party associated with independence. But I think we are all
impressed by the signals he is sending that the infrastructure of
cross-strait relations -- the constitution, the national unification
guidelines, the name of the country, et cetera -- are not going to be
changed. There is not going to be a referendum, he is not going to
declare independence. So all of those things I know people on the
mainland are concerned about, he wants them to know that they can rest
easy.
Now, we still have gaps between the two sides, but I think the two
sides are strongly motivated to bridge those gaps and get talks
started. And after we gradually have discussions between Koo Chen-fu
and Wang Daohan, I think it would be a very dramatic and appropriate
thing for the leaders of the two sides to talk to one another face to
face.
MS. LYLE: Thank you. I will ask the participants in Beijing to ask a
question. Beijing, please go ahead.
Q. I am -- (inaudible). My question is that when the U.S. government,
when it establishes its foreign policies of national security and
economic policies, what kind of measures -- what kind of guidelines
does it follow? And could you please explain how does the U.S.
government decide strategic -- the status of China, and how about the
future?
DR. SHIRK: That's a very general question, how we decide our policies
toward China. Obviously in the United States we have a presidential
system so that we have a president, the executive branch, including
the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security
Council; and then we have Congress. And our policies are jointly
deliberated on. Our laws require the assent of both Congress and the
president. So there is a lot of give and take, there is a lot of
bargaining that has to go on. In the era of the Cold War with the
Soviet Union, the Congress tended to defer to the executive branch,
because it seemed like such a dangerous environment -- nuclear war
could break out at any time. And so they really left a lot of foreign
policy to the president.
Now with the end of the Cold War everyone feels more relaxed and
safer, and Congress is now asserting itself a lot more in foreign
policy, which of course from the standpoint of people like me in the
executive branch is a bit frustrating, because we feel of course that
we know best, and the Congress seems -- keeps putting its nose into
the foreign policy process in ways that often are kind of disruptive
or not helpful. On the other hand, we have to recognize that these are
the people that the American citizens elected and they do -- they have
to get reelected, in the case of the House of Representatives, every
two years. So this is really the price in some sense that we pay for
living in a democracy, and it's a challenge for us to try to explain
to Congress if we feel strongly about things like the Taiwan Security
Enhancement Act why they shouldn't move forward and vote it into law.
So it's a very complex bargaining process.
Q. (Inaudible) -- Scientific Academy. As the trade deficit is a very
important issue in the U.S.-China relations, after we go into the WTO
that our market is going to open up. Do you think that the trading
problem is going to be solved? What do you think in the future how can
we solve the trade problems?
DR. SHIRK: No, I don't think that China's accession to WTO and PNTR
will solve our trade problems. In fact, we are likely to have trade
disputes for a long time to come. But I should point out that the
United States has trade disputes, really very intense trade disputes,
with some of our closest friends -- like the Europeans, like the
Japanese. So, you know I do believe that after WTO, China accedes to
the WTO, the trade deficit will be narrowed. But I think it will
continue to be quite large. And that is in part due to the fact that
many other Asian economies have shifted their production to China.
Taiwan companies have moved to China, Hong Kong companies have moved
to China, some Southeast Asian and Korean companies have moved to
China. So we have a large bilateral trade deficit with China. But with
the region as a whole it's actually roughly the same as it has been.
So I think there are structural reasons why that trade deficit is not
going to go away.
Having said that, however, I think that we will be encouraging China
to open its market wider even after the WTO, because I am sure these
commitments will, although we would hope that they will be implemented
in a very thorough-going and rapid manner, you know it's going to be a
real challenge for the Chinese government to do that. So we understand
it's going to take time, and we will certainly do what we can to
expedite that process so that China's market does become wider, and so
that our companies do have a fair opportunity to compete in China.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am -- (inaudible). My question is that do you
think that the U.S. ordinary people and businessmen -- do they realize
that if China and Taiwan engage in war, do they realize that the U.S.
will engage? And also, another issue is that do you think the U.S.
should engage in the confrontation between China and Taiwan?
DR. SHIRK: Do people in the United States understand that if there is
a military confrontation between the PRC and Taiwan that the U.S. is
likely to be involved? Yes, absolutely, and that is one of the reasons
we are so strongly encouraging the two sides to start talking, because
the prospect of an actual military confrontation between the two sides
would be so negative from the standpoint of U.S. security interests.
So, you know, we have a commitment under law, but even beyond the
Taiwan Relations Act, which is our legal commitment, I think we would
feel a kind of moral commitment to be involved. And of course we can't
say exactly how -- it all depends on the precise consequences, the
situation at the time. So we can't say if China does X, Taiwan does Y,
the U.S. will do Z. But there is a broad understanding that the use of
force in the Taiwan Straits would produce an American response. And
the American people very much want to avoid that.
Q. Hello, Dr. Shirk, I am from the University of -- I'm a professor
there. I wanted to ask you that the national missile defense system --
I would ask you a question about it. Some caller just mentioned that
-- there is one thing I don't understand -- if the U.S. deployed these
missiles, I know that a lot of countries -- like Russia, Germany and
France -- those democratic countries that you consider democracies --
they also oppose the U.S. deploying a national missile defense system.
I would ask just that, if the U.S. deployed those missiles, it's going
to put the U.S. and other countries on a very imbalanced status -- for
example like Germany. They also say that if the U.S. deploys these
missiles it's going to be -- going to pose a threat to other
countries. So has the U.S. considered this question -- considered it
represents a threat to other countries if it deploys these missiles?
It is not only to Iran, but also to Russia and to China. It's going to
be a threat to other countries. If the U.S. is a democratic country,
it should not place its own national security above other countries'
national security. You should play with the international rules. You
should not start a new arms race. That's my opinion. What do you
think?
DR. SHIRK: Well, you are right that there have been a lot of questions
raised in other countries -- in Germany, in Russia, as well as in
China -- about U.S. plans to deploy a national missile defense. And
those questions will have to be weighed by the president when he makes
his decision about deploying national missile defense later this
summer. He has heard what they have to say, and he will have to factor
that in.
But one thing I want to point out and clarify is that national missile
defense is not actually a threat to anybody. It is a purely defensive
system that will enable us to protect our population and the
population of our allies from missiles shot at us. So it has -- it
doesn't mean we would be an offensive threat to anybody. It's a
purely, purely defensive system.
In any case, these are some of the complexities that the president
will have to factor in when he makes his decision.
MS. LYLE: We have only a short time, so I would ask Beijing to ask a
very brief question, and I'll ask our guest to give a very brief
answer. Please go ahead.
Q. Dr. Shirk, I'm from the Financial Times. My first question is
probably you can only answer the first question -- would you please
comment on the PNTR and the WTO -- what kind of impact will be on the
Chinese society? Do you think that China can continue with this
gradual improvement of the society?
DR. SHIRK: Yes. Let's remember that China has had 20 years of reform
and opening, thanks to Deng Xiaoping. So I think that although Chinese
firms will come under increasing competitive pressure as you open up
your markets, I think that there is no reason that your firms can't
compete well for customers in China. As to other impact on the
society, I think it will be beneficial, but it will be more
reinforcing trends that have already been started by China's own
reform initiatives. So it's not that WTO will dramatically change
China; it will mean that more of the opening, more of the access to
ideas from outside, more of the freedom of people to develop their
entrepreneurial skills inside China.
MS. LYLE: I'm afraid this is our last question. We have run out of
time. Thanks to Dr. Susan Shirk for joining us today, and also our
participants in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenyang and Guangzhou. I am Wendy
Lyle for "Dialogue." Good night.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)