Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
White House Press Briefing
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
April 5, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:09 P.M. EDT
QUESTION: Ari, what is the evidence that leads U.S. officials to now
be encouraged about talks going on with China to resolve this? Or have
talks turned cold?
MR. FLEISCHER: There's intensive diplomacy underway. The United States
and China are heavily engaged in their discussions. There was a
meeting at the State Department this morning between Deputy Secretary
Armitage and Ambassador Yang, and in the course of that meeting the
United States pressed again for access to the crew, for the release of
the crew. And we remain in a sensitive stage of those negotiations, of
those discussions. And that is where matters stand as we speak.
Q: Can you report progress?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm reluctant to give a word one way or another to it,
due to the sensitivity of where the negotiations and discussions
currently stand. And so I would be reticent to use any types of
adjectives like that. The meetings are - as I indicated, the meeting
took place this morning, and we do anticipate ongoing, intensive
diplomacy.
Q: What was the reaction when we pressed again this morning for the
release of the crew?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's part of the ongoing diplomacy.
Q: Was it any different than it's been the previous four days?
MR. FLEISCHER: Due to the sensitive nature of it I'm not going to
characterize the answers. Again, we are in the middle of something
that is ongoing with the Chinese government. The President has made
the position of the government clear, and that position the President
took when he addressed the nation and said that the time has come for
our men and women to come home is the focus of the remarks that are
being conveyed privately as well, in addition to the return of the
airplane, and that continues to be the status, and it is ongoing.
Q: Ari, what is the reaction of this government to the suggestion that
things might not have escalated to this point as rapidly as they did
if the President had not become involved as soon as he did and with as
rhetoric as forceful as it was?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President said what the United States
needed to say - that is, that it is time for our servicemen and women
to come home. The incident took place on a Saturday night - the
accident took place Saturday night. The President did not say anything
on Sunday. He spoke out, as he intended to do, on Monday and on
Tuesday. And we are now in the middle of some very intensive
discussions and diplomacy, and that's where we are.
Q: A follow-up, if I may. As you know, there are some observers who
have suggested that if Secretary of State Powell had, for example,
made a call to some Chinese counterpart earlier on and sort of laid
out the situation as the United States saw it, that perhaps things
would not have escalated to the point that they did.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think many other observers have said that the
President spoke out directly, plainly, forthrightly and wisely. And,
of course, contacts were made with Chinese officials immediately after
the accident, as well as on Sunday, and the President has acted in a
way that I think most observers have viewed as productive.
Q: As part of these more intensive discussions, are there
military-to-military discussions going on in addition to the foreign
ministries and the diplomatic efforts?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is being handled through diplomatic channels.
Q: Is there any contact, military-to-military?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a question you really need to ask to DOD. But
this is being handled through diplomatic channels.
Q: Is the President employing any private citizens as go-betweens,
including his father?
MR. FLEISCHER: We discussed yesterday at great length the question of
the President and his father. I'm not going to go beyond what I
indicated yesterday.
Q: Not a private conversation with his father, is he employing for the
government a private citizen as a go-between?
MR. FLEISCHER: Terry, the contacts have been between the United States
government through diplomatic channels and the Chinese government. And
that has been the contacts that I'm aware of. There are people, of
course, here, in the National Security Council staff, other staff, who
will talk to people outside the United States government. But that
does not mean the people they're talking to are in contact with
Chinese officials, necessarily.
Q: So there are no private citizens being used as go-betweens?
MR. FLEISCHER: None that I'm aware of.
Q: Is it still the United States government's unambiguous position
that it will not offer an explicit apology for the incident?
MR. FLEISCHER: The position of the United States is unchanged on that
measure.
Q: Just a follow-up. Is the idea of a special envoy to China, is that
something under active consideration?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is not under active consideration.
Q: Is it under any consideration at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Nothing that I'm aware.
Q: Let me ask you one more question. Are the two sides, the U.S. and
China, at the point of exchanging explanations about the circumstances
that led to the collision? Is that - are we at the point where
they're exchanging their sense of what happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: During the course of the many meetings that have been
held, they have been discussing the accident, and the United States
has made it clear that one of the best ways to ascertain the cause of
the accident is to allow us to meet with our crew, to talk to the crew
and, of course, to bring the crew home. Who better to explain the
circumstances of the accident than the people who were involved in it.
The best way to have that discussion is to have access to the crew,
which is something the United States has pressed for.
Q: Would the U.S. support any kind of commission, a Chinese-American
commission, to look at investigating the cause of the collision and
what happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to speculate about any future steps that
may or may not be taken. But the United States is interested in
determining the exact cause of the accident.
Mr. Angle, who is sitting in a different seat today.
Q: I moved up here in the question zone. I understand that your
language yesterday, if I remember correctly, was that we don't
understand the need for an apology. What you seemed to just be saying
was that we can't really ascertain what the facts of the matter are
until we have talked with the crew.
MR. FLEISCHER: A separate question, Jim. I was asked about the
apology, and the answer is, the United States' position on an apology
has not changed. In terms of the accident, the best way to determine
the exact facts and circumstances of the accident, which took place
over international waters and international airspace, is to talk to
the crew.
Q: You're saying you don't understand - the U.S. does not understand
the need for an apology, which obviously you could not until you know
the facts of the situation. Do we have some independent knowledge of
the facts, or does that require us to talk to the crew?
MR. FLEISCHER: They're two separate questions. There's no link between
the apology and then the facts of the accident, which took place in
international airspace.
Q: Ari, twice today in this briefing, you've used - started to use
the word "negotiations," and then changed it to the words --
MR. FLEISCHER: You can use both.
Q: - to the discussions. Is there any difference?
MR. FLEISCHER: You can use both.
Q: Ari, Senator Lugar is implying that the pilot of the Chinese jet
plane that crashed and apparently hit our plane was sort of a hot dog,
so to speak, and he had been harassing this plane before on one of its
missions. Now, can you talk about that? Also, the word,
"interrogation" has been used of our crew members. Are they, in fact,
being interrogated, as far as you know?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ivan, I'm not going to characterize the actions of the
Chinese pilot. I think that underscores the reason why we need to talk
to our crew, who was in the presence of the Chinese pilot. They can
best address those questions.
The Chinese have said from the beginning of this accident that they
want to investigate the causes of it themselves, that they wanted to
interview the crew or to question the crew. We do know from the
meeting that was held with the crew that they have been treated well,
and that's where that matter stands.
Q: Just to follow the question of semantics, an interview if fine, but
it's not nearly as strong as interrogate, and the word coming out of
Beijing, as I understand it, is interrogation. Does that concern the
President and the administration at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our understanding is that they would like to interview
or question the crew.
Q: Following up on something you said this morning, if there is
questioning of the crew, would you demand a U.S. presence during that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to deal with any hypotheticals about
potential questioning of the crew.
Q: Have U.S. representatives in the room if they are questioned?
MR. FLEISCHER: Our position is that the Americans should be removed
from the situation and be brought home. And we continue to press that
case.
Q: Ari, when Americans are detained overseas it is common practice for
the embassy or the consulate to go to considerable lengths to provide
whatever local representation is appropriate before the investigating
board. Why aren't we doing that?
MR. FLEISCHER: We would like to be with the Americans at all times, of
course.
Q: This heavier diplomatic engagement, when did this start and what
prompted it? Was it a more openness by China diplomats to talk to our
diplomats? Was it something they did, something we did? How would you
characterize this?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's part of the ongoing events as the world
watches them unfold, and part of the United States commitment to get
our men and women home. The President, in his conversations with
Secretary Powell and with National Security Advisor Rice, has directed
them to take the steps that bring our men and women home, and that's
reflected in the conversations that are being held on the diplomatic
level. There is a heavy engagement on the diplomatic level and that's
well and good.
Q: But that is a change from what had been happening for the last four
days.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not prepared to characterize reasons why any of
those events are happening. Again, there still remains a sensitive
stage of these talks, and I'll leave it at that.
Q: But it does appear that Chinese diplomats are more open to
discussions with the U.S. about how this occurred and what the next
step will be than they have been in the previous four days.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm going to refrain from characterizing the Chinese
statements. I'll characterize the American ones.
Q: Ari, the public may not be --
Q: Ari, from the outset, the Chinese have said that the incident or
the collision was caused by the U.S. plane swerving into their plane.
Now, four or five days after the incident, we see a published report
saying, indeed, the U.S. plane did make an abrupt turn. Why wasn't the
U.S. government more forthcoming with that information at the outset?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that the facts are not clear. And that is
again why it's very important for the United States to have access and
talk to the crew. If you want to know what took place in the air
between - actually among three different airplanes, the best way is
to talk to the crew who was involved. So I think you need to withhold
on judgment about those facts until the crew is talked to at greater
length.
Q: And if I could follow up on that, Ari, how can we be sure that an
apology from the U.S. is unwarranted if we don't have an understanding
of the basic facts of the situation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the basic facts are that the P-3 was operating
in international airspace.
Q: But that doesn't - I mean, you can still do something wrong in
international airspace, can't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's the right to fly in international airspace, which
is why the United States, as we have said repeatedly, did nothing
wrong. It is the government's right to fly in international airspace
around the world.
Q: That doesn't rule out error by the crew of the aircraft or a number
of other things which could be offensive that an aircraft could do in
international airspace.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I think that's why it's important to talk to the
crew. But we have made our position very clear on it for a variety of
good reasons, not all of which I'm at liberty to get into.
Q: Does that mean our position on an apology could change once we've
talked to the crew and discover what happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the position on the apology is clear and
consistent.
Q: Ari, even if those discussions with the crew eventually reveal that
that crew perhaps made a mistake which caused the accident, you still
would not apologize?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason we have said what - the United States
government has said what it's said about the apology is based on
information that we have, and I'm not going to go beyond that.
Q: Ari, two days ago, the President made a very clear statement
saying, give us the crew, give us the plane; in essence, saying time
is running out. Two days later, we've got nothing - no crew, no
plane, and no greater access to the crew. Shouldn't the public be
concerned that China is not meeting any of these requests or demands?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, David. In the President's approach on this, he is
not going to act or react based on news cycles. He's going to continue
to lead in the manner that he thinks is the most productive way to
bring our men and women home. And that's why, again, you've seen this
pace of diplomacy that we are engaged in with China, and that is
continuing. That is the President's position.
Q: Right. But the public is being told that there is intense
diplomacy, and it's not getting anywhere so far.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think all Americans have reason to be concerned and
want our crew home. So there is cause for concern, of course, because
our crew remains in China. And the President is concerned; that's why
he spoke out as he did. And I think the American people have cause for
concern about Americans not coming home.
Q: Is China showing any good faith here in this negotiation?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there remain discussions at a very sensitive
stage. I'm going to refrain from characterizing them one way or other,
in order to allow the most productive events to develop.
Q: Ari, could we fix the budget for a minute?
Q: A couple more on China.
MR. FLEISCHER: Mike, we'll come back to you then.
Q: Ari, you've talked about a couple of times this week, and Scott
talked on Monday, about roles played in the administration by Dr.
Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell. One thing that hasn't come
up, at least that I'm aware of, is the Vice President. What's his role
been in this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President's been participating in the
intelligence meetings with the President, receiving information about
it. And as in all issues, the Vice President lends his advice to the
President, about what course of action to take.
Q: Ari, is there concern that because of these events, that Congress
may revoke China's normal trade relations status?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're aware of various statements that are being
made up on Capitol Hill, and as far as the President's concerned, it
underscores what he said two days ago, that this matter needs to be
resolved and our men and women brought home in order to avoid any
damage to United States-China relations.
Q: At this point, the White House is still going to push for normal
trade relations for China if the vote does come up in the spring, as
well?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is taking it one step at a time.
Q: So he may not support that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not indicating - I'm not indicating that one way
or another. The President is taking events one step at a time.
Q: Ari, to follow on that, a number of congressional trips were
planned, or are planned, for during the recess to China. I think one
office is telling a colleague of mine at CNN the White House is
encouraging lawmakers to go forward with these trips, that continued
contact is good. Can you say, A, is the White House encouraging
lawmakers to continue with their plans?
MR. FLEISCHER: The White House is not objecting to any trips that
lawmakers have to China.
Q: Can you say if the members have come to the White House and said,
is this okay, should we go?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think members are sensitive to what is happening
diplomatically, sensitive to what's happening, given the fact that
there are 24 servicemen in China, and so they're asking proper
questions, and the White House has made it clear.
Q: Why would the White House not object, because some members are
deciding that they think it's not in the right interests to go if 24
crew members are detained there?
MR. FLEISCHER: The judgment of the President, the judgment of the
White House.
Q: Ari, can I come back to interrogation? Do the Chinese have the
right to interrogate these people, or are they just entitled to name,
rank and serial number?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we have the right to have our men and women
returned home, is the President's view. And that's what his focus is
on. And absent their immediate return to the United States we want to
have American officials with the American crew at all times. And that
is the position of the government.
Q: But do they have the right to interrogate these people? If you say
that you understand, it's understandable they would want to
investigate what happened --
MR. FLEISCHER: If you're asking me a legal question, that's a question
that you really need to address to consular officials who have a legal
understanding of these issues. That's a very specific legal question
about rights, and it's not at all clear.
Q: Is the President - there's also some pressure in Congress to
oppose China's bid for the Olympics. Does the President have any
position at this time on whether or not China should be given the
Olympics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Similar to what - in responding to Keith's question,
the President is going to take this one step at a time. The President,
as he said two days ago, hopes that this will not damage long-term
United States-China relations.
Q: Is it your sense and have you communicated to the Chinese that one
of the problems here is they're risking not only a congressional
backlash, but also a public backlash?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, this is what the President indicated two days
ago, that unless this matter is resolved, it does risk harming United
States-China relations. And during the meeting that the President had
with Deputy Premier Qian Qichen, what they focused on in the Oval
Office was entirely positive. They talked about the fruitful, growing
relations between the United States and China, the many opportunities
our two nations have, particularly in the area of trade, which are
mutually beneficial. That was the tenor of the meeting. And the
President continues to believe that there are many fruitful
opportunities between the United States and China, particularly in the
areas of trade.
It underscores what the President said two days ago, though, that
unless this matter is resolved, it does threaten to harm future
U.S.-China relations.
Q: A public backlash or congressional backlash would in some ways take
away the President's control over this issue.
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only speak to the President, the President's
thoughts, the President's actions.
Q: Is he concerned about losing control of this issue as Congress and
the public becomes angry about it and decides to take their own
position on various things like Olympics --
MR. FLEISCHER: I see no evidence that it has reached that point.
Q: And what does he say to the public who - many people feel a
natural upwelling of anger and sentiment over seeing these American
men and women held, detained against their will, now interrogated.
What does he say to people who are getting downright angry about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as the President said publicly after he talked to
Ambassador Prueher who met with the servicemen and women, that all
Americans will be relieved to know that they've been treated well and
that their health is well. But all Americans want them to come home.
And so the President understands the feeling of the country, that it
is time for them to come home, and that's why he's engaged in the
diplomacy that he is.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: It wasn't Prueher, it was Sealock.
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, thank you. Sealock, General Sealock, not
Ambassador Prueher who met with the servicemen and women.
Q: Ari, could I just be clear about the administration's position?
Before this incident, the President did support normal trade relations
for China, is that correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is correct.
Q: Ari, and now your position is, we have to take things one step at a
time. That's what you're saying on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is the President's position on both measures.
Q: Are you talking about how this goes on, there might be a risk of
damaging the U.S.-China relationship. Is there also a risk, on a
political level, of diminishing the effectiveness, perhaps, of the
presidency? In other words, if this becomes a hostage debacle, does
that harm him politically? I realize his first priority right now is
to get our people home, but is there any concern in the White House
politically that this could hurt his presidency?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's such a hypothetical I'm not even going to deal
with that. The White House's focus has been on one thing, and it's not
politics. It's getting our men and women home. And again, I want to
remind you that it remains at a very sensitive stage, and that's where
we stand as we speak today, at 12:30 p.m. or so. That's where we stand
at this very moment.
Q: Is it the United States government's position that the United
States has not yet learned whether our reconnaissance aircraft swerved
or not, we simply don't know, or did we learn from the initial meeting
with the crew what happened?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I've indicated is, the best way to ascertain
information is to talk directly with the crew. The United States, of
course, has other ways of obtaining information which I'm not at
liberty to get into. But the best way to obtain that information is to
meet with the crew.
Q: Are you saying that that means the U.S. government at this point
remains ignorant of the facts of whether the plane swerved or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I have just indicated the United States government
has other information, additional information, as is typical in the
matter of flights, and I'm not at liberty to get into that, as you can
imagine.
Q: Ari, two questions, one to follow up on that. Did General Sealock
raise the issue of how the incident took place in his initial contacts
with the pilot and the rest of the crew? And, secondly, is it still
the President's plan to travel for the baseball game tomorrow
afternoon, or is there a possibility that he's going to have to stay
here?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's travel plans are unchanged, as
previously announced. And as far as your first question, I might need
to go back to look at my notes on the conversation he had with them,
but they did describe the emergency situation they were in, the mayday
distress, the call they put out, their landing on the runway, and
those were the steps they took. As you know, the plane dropped 8,000
feet right after the accident. They were able to regain control of the
airplane and bring it in on an emergency landing.
Q: Has the President talked to any member of the Chinese government in
the last five days?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, the President has taken the actions that he
believes are the most productive to resolve this. The President is
prepared to take additional actions as he deems necessary. The short
answer to your question is, no, he is not. His judgment remains that
he will take those actions that are most productive to bring this
matter to a conclusion, so that our men and women get home. Of course,
he has been in frequent contact with Secretary Powell, Secretary
Powell spoke with Chinese officials last night, as you know.
As I indicated this morning, there was an additional meeting at the
State Department this morning. The President has been monitoring those
events very, very closely.
Q: Can I clarify one thing on normal trade status and support for
China's Olympic bid. Previously, you were saying the President was in
favor of those things, and now, that his view on that is pending.
MR. FLEISCHER: I said that the President is in favor, and the
President is taking it one step at a time. They are both accurate
descriptions of the President's view.
Q: But he has been in favor, but on this particular day, he is not
saying that he is in favor?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said the President is in favor, and the President
is taking it one step at a time.
Q: Do you object to the language to consider it pending now his
support of --
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's made his position clear; he's taking it
one step at a time.
Q: If we said that you wouldn't object?
MR. FLEISCHER: I never object to anything that you say.
Q: Ari, did you reply to both the Olympic bid and normal trade
relations - the U.S. government's position is that China --
MR. FLEISCHER: On the U.S. government position on the Olympics in
China in 2008, I have not directly discussed that with the President.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
