Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
White House Press Briefing
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
April 10, 2001
PRESS BRIEFING BY ARI FLEISCHER
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
1:45 P.M. EDT
Q: Ari, what's the significance and does it suggest any change in
demeanor, that the President today called what's going on in China a
stalemate?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has expressed his thoughts before about
the fact that diplomacy takes time. And the more time this takes, the
more damage it can do to U.S.-Sino relations.
He is concerned about the fact that our servicemen and women remain in
China and have not been brought home. The diplomatic exchanges
continue, and that's what the President is referring to.
Q: That's the first time he's used that word. Is there any - anything
that can be read into that?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the talks are continuing at a variety of
levels, and that's what the President is referring to.
Q: In the President's formulation in the Oval Office today, he seemed
to suggest that it was up to the Chinese to settle this.
MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, given the fact that it is the Chinese
government that has our men and women on their land means that it is
in their power to release them. The United States cannot bring them
home; they must be released. And so it is in the hands of the Chinese
to resolve this matter in accordance with the diplomatic procedures we
have put in place.
Q: Does that imply that the United States is not willing to negotiate
in any sense here?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, of course the negotiations have been going on since
the incident began. And they continue, as I mentioned earlier. But
it's a statement of the obvious, frankly, to say that the United
States does not have the power unilaterally to just bring them home;
they have to be released. The Chinese are the ones who can do that.
Q: Ari, at the end of last week, we were told that there was progress,
we were told that the text of a letter had been agreed on at the
foreign ministry level, and then things stopped. Has there been any
movement, real movement since then, and how would you describe it?
MR. FLEISCHER: There has been movement since then, Terry. And if you
recall on that same day that I talked about progress and others in the
administration discussed progress, I also said that it is the nature
of these types of accidents where, unfortunately, diplomacy moves
forward, not forward; it starts, it pauses, if I recall - I think
that's the exact phrase I used to describe what is a delicate
diplomatic moment. And that moment has continued.
It remains just as sensitive, just as delicate as it did then, but
indeed, progress has been made. As you get to the end of these issues,
there always remain the most difficult issues to resolve, and the
President and his negotiators are continuing to work to resolve those.
Q: Why can't we know more about what the hangup is? I mean, why can't
the American people be more apprised of what's going on?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Helen, I think that this is a classic issue that
democracies face, frankly. The President would like to be able to
discuss everything in full length with the American people. But the
sensitivities, the necessities of diplomacy sometimes mean that to be
the most productive, the less has to be said. And I think most people
understand that, and that is the situation we find ourselves in.
Q: Ari, the State Department is saying that there have been no
diplomatic meetings today in Beijing between U.S. and Chinese
officials, as well as here in Washington. What should we read into
that? A, is there a concern that for the first time in a number of
days, there have been no direct meetings, and, two, are the Chinese --
is the U.S. waiting for the Chinese to sort of take the Americans'
final or best offer that --
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, I believe what the State Department says is that
there were no meetings with Ambassador Prueher last night. The last
time the Ambassador met, of course, was yesterday morning. So that's a
statement about Ambassador Prueher having direct meetings.
There have been other contacts, other levels of discussion. There have
been a whole series of interlocutors involved in the
government-to-government contacts, and as you know, also General
Sealock met this morning with our 24 servicemen and women.
The President spoke with the General early this morning. The General
reported to the President that our servicemen and women are in superb
condition. As the General said, he talked about the fact that there
were servicemen and women who were receiving their e-mails from their
families. They're able to get messages back to their families through
General Sealock.
The General also reported some light moments of conversation in which
they were talking, for example, about Troy Aikman's retirement, the
fact that Michael Jordan might be coming back. That was the subject of
the conversation that General Sealock had with the troops that he
related to the President in the Oval Office this morning.
Q: I just want to follow up, because I believe the senior official was
talking to reporters on background, and so indicating, I guess, the
fact that there was no meeting between the Ambassador and Chinese
officials. But there was a sense from this official that right now,
the Americans are waiting for sort of the Chinese to respond to kind
of the latest presentation from the administration in terms of
resolving this. Is that fair?
MR. FLEISCHER: I thought it was a fair statement.
Q: Ari, the President does not look very enthusiastic about Jesse
Jackson's offer to help bring the detainees, or whatever they call
them, back.
MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary Powell, as you know, spoke with Reverend
Jesse Jackson this morning, who informed the Secretary that he would
be available, if so desired, and we have had, frankly, many people in
the private sector, many people of sound, good reputation as well.
Jesse Jackson has had a fair share of experience in foreign policy
matters. Many people who have had a fair share of experience in
foreign policy matters contact the United States government to offer
their services. And our response to all of them has been the same,
that this administration is very appreciative of their offers, and we
are going to continue to handle this matter through diplomatic
communications.
Q: Yes, but Jesse has a record of bringing a lot of hostages back in
previous years, we have had - a lot of people have - experience in
foreign matters, but not too many people --
MR. FLEISCHER: Is there a question here?
Q: Yes. Not to many people - I'm saying he's a little different than
your normal person with expertise in foreign affairs.
MR. FLEISCHER: Right. Well, again, I related to you the conversation
he had, and that is the position of the United States.
Q: Ari, has this begun to affect the President's schedule? How much of
his time each day is he devoting to it, and has he considered, for
example, not going to the ranch this weekend in order to stick with
this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's affected his schedule to the degree that, of
course, the intelligence briefings, the national security briefings in
the morning, of course, talk about this matter in an effort to make
sure that it can be resolved.
In terms of the President's travel schedule, the President has made it
clear from the beginning that the government has other serious
business, and the business of the government, the business of the
President will go on. He has made that clear from the beginning.
That's part of keeping this incident at a level where it does not
evolve into a crisis. And I think, frankly, that's helpful to the
American people and to the families of those involved.
Q: Ari, a week ago you said, and others in the administration said,
there will be continued intelligence flights along the Chinese coast.
The Pentagon reports to us that, in fact, there haven't been any of
these EP-3 flights since this incident occurred. How are we supposed
to read that? Are you suspending the flights right now to allow your
diplomacy to go on? Do you intend to start these up again?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I indicated was this flight took place in
international airspace, and other flights, of course, take place in
international airspace. The United States will always reserve the
right to fly in international airspace as we decide to do. And that
was my answer then; that's the answer now.
Q: Ari, I'm not sure that's entirely responsive because, obviously,
you said these are routine flights at the time that this occurred. And
the routine seems to have been broken since this event, by the
government's own description. So can you tell us, are you planning to
return to the routine?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, these flights are routine, and part of the routine
of these flights, of course, is that we do not discuss the operational
details of our flights to confirm them or to deny them.
Q: But the Pentagon has already confirmed that these have not taken
place since this incident.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Can I help?
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, Mary Ellen.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: I believe the Pentagon spokesman's office also said
that there were not any EP-3 surveillance flights scheduled during the
last week and a half. That's why there haven't been any.
MR. FLEISCHER: The answer to that question was, the Pentagon also
indicated that there were no EP-3 flights scheduled during the last
week and a half, and that may explain the answer you've gotten.
Q: Do you plan to resume as soon as the schedule calls for it?
MR. FLEISCHER: David, as I indicated, we always reserve the right to
fly in international airspace.
Q: Ari, since President Bush is thankful and appreciative for the
support from private sector persons, why did it take so long for the
White House - White House officials to get back, or someone in the
Cabinet to get back to Reverend Jackson, after he made that Friday
call? And today is Tuesday. Why did it take so long, and is there
concern that if Reverend Jesse Jackson gets involved with this, the
diplomacy that the White House is working on could be affected in a
negative light?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, as far as the timeline, I spoke to Secretary
Powell this morning, and I don't think that Jesse Jackson had any
problems with the timeline of getting a return phone call.
Q: Wait a minute, you didn't answer the other question.
MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead. What is the other?
Q: The other question was, do you think that Reverend Jackson, going
to China, if he does, could that affect the diplomacy that you're
working on in a negative way? And also, did President Bush has to talk
with Colin Powell before he talked with Jesse Jackson?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President did not discuss that with Secretary
Powell prior to calling Jesse Jackson.
Q: Ari, Ari, on that?
MR. FLEISCHER: But let me answer her question. I've made clear what
the President's position is on this, vis-a-vis the many private sector
Americans who have offered to help. That is the President's position.
Q: A follow to David's question, we've reported that the government is
actually considering holding off - continuing to hold off on these
flights until this is resolved. Can you address at all - I realize
there haven't been any scheduled in the last week and a half. And
secondly, what message does it send, the fact that we're not flying
there, but that the Chinese have continued their reconnaissance
flights in that area?
MR. FLEISCHER: I would ask you to consider the sensitivity of the very
question you raise. You're asking me to announce what our future plans
are for military operations, for military flights, and to do so from
this podium. And that's something that no spokesman can do.
Q: We're asking you if your policy has changed.
MR. FLEISCHER: No.
Q: When the President was asked about Jesse Jackson, he said, we are
now handling this in an efficient way. Is he suggesting that multiple
voices would be an inefficient way?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think what the President is saying in that answer
-- and he means that about the whole handling of this matter since it
began - in a way that the President views is efficient, is
productive, and is the best way to get our men and women home. That's
what the President meant when he said that.
Q: Ari - the suggestion seems to be that it would be inefficient if
you had half a dozen different people with half a dozen different
positions suggesting to the Chinese that if they hold out, they might
be able to somehow curry favor with one group or another.
MR. FLEISCHER: Jim, the President does believe it's important for our
diplomatic communications to continue. Those communications are the
one voice of this country, and those communications are the way the
President believes is the best way to resolve this.
Q: I guess you kind of got - but I mean, you really have not answered
the specific question. You say you answered it, but you have not
answered the specific question about whether or not - it's a very
simple, direct question - about whether or not Jesse Jackson should
go to China, or not.
MR. FLEISCHER: I've given you the answer that the Secretary gave to
the Reverend Jackson, and that expresses the President's views. That's
the President's answer.
Q: Ari, I heard a network report this morning that I thought was
extremely articulate and gracious. It said that you said that Jesse
doesn't need to wait by his phone. And I'm wondering, in that
connection, if that isn't true. Isn't it true that the President, if
he were inclined to ask any member of that family to go to China, it
would be Mrs. Jesse Jackson, who has been made to suffer for so long,
and who would surely not take with her an entourage of 40, including
Louis Farrakhan, like Jesse did? And I have one follow-up. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I thought you would. I really do want to - no, I
didn't say that. I really do want to - I want to broaden this,
because there is an important issue here, and that is the role of
private sector citizens at a delicate moment of diplomacy. And, Keith,
this is why I reiterate what I said to you earlier. The President is
appreciative of these efforts - the phone calls that have been coming
in to the United States government from a variety of well-meaning,
good-intentioned citizens, some of whom have had a fair share of
success in foreign policy.
But the point remains the same: That it is the conclusion of the
President and his national security advisors, that the best way to
bring this to a close with the Chinese officials is for it to be
handled through diplomatic channels.
Les has a follow-up.
Q: The Washington Post reported that Scott Evertz, quote, said he had
a life partner of seven years. Is the President glad that Mr. Evertz
is a monogamous, rather than a promiscuous cruiser? And does the
President want him to speak out against man-to-man promiscuity that
the CDC reported this morning is, by far, the leading cause of HIV,
and AIDS in the United States? Does he support his --
MR. FLEISCHER: Les, the President hires people for jobs based on the
skills that they bring to the job. And that is the case in this
hiring.
Q: He's happy he's monogamous, isn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President does not ask people questions about their
private lives of that nature. The President hires people because
they're well-qualified to do the job, and that's what he's done.
Q: He's opposed to promiscuity, isn't he?
MR. FLEISCHER: Campbell?
Q: The President was also asked this morning if he had considered
contacting the President in terms of indirectly, and he didn't answer
the question. Given it's gone on now for more than a week, what does
he think he's risking by picking up the phone now and calling him
directly?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think as you know well from the conduct of
international affairs over the many years, often, the most fruitful
negotiations are carried out by the negotiators. And if it becomes
necessary at the very end for a phone call to be made, sometimes it
is, sometimes it's not necessary; negotiators can carry out the work.
Other times phone calls at the top lead to no further action, and a
phone call at the top is a phone call that was unproductive. And it's
the judgment of the President and his national security team, but the
President's judgment is to allow the negotiators to do their work and
that's the best way to solve this incident.
Q: But if he's already saying now that we're on the verge of damaging
relations with China, why not take that step before it gets to that
point?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President's judgment is the manner in which
he is handling this, through diplomatic channels, is the most
productive.
Q: Ari, has the President directed anyone in the United States
government to study the options for using military force in this
situation at all?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes this will be, and should be,
handled through diplomatic channels.
Q: Is anyone studying the use of military force, even on a contingency
basis?
MR. FLEISCHER: You know that's a question I'm not going to answer, but
the answer to this question that you've asked is, the President
believes that the answer to this incident will come through diplomatic
channels.
Q: Some reports are saying that China is testing the waters and the
strength of the United States and of this administration, how long
President Bush can go on this, and this is going like 20 years ago,
U.S. diplomats in Iran. And also, if you can say, where are our U.S.
friends that the United States is giving billions of dollars of aid
around the world? Why are they not speaking out on this issue?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, in terms of our allies around the world, I would
leave it to you to talk to them to get their position on this. I only
speak for the government of the United States. And give me your first
question again?
Q: That China is testing the strength.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think what took place was an accident. And now in the
wake of that accident, both nations are involved in a delicate
diplomacy, so that our men and women can come home. I think that's
what's going on in the ground in China. I think it's a complicated
situation on the ground in China. And that's where the matter stands.
Q: What do you say, following up on this, to people in the public, in
Congress, and some in the military, who say you look weak up here,
talking about sensitive moments in diplomacy.
MR. FLEISCHER: Can you give me the name of somebody who has said you
only look weak?
Q: When China is testing --
MR. FLEISCHER: I just have to dispute the premise of that. The
President believes that the course he has outlined is the best and
most productive course to bring our men and women home, to do so in a
fashion that focuses on diplomacy. Frankly, I think the support the
President has received from the American people, from others with whom
he has been in touch, has been very solid.
Q: So once again there will be no laying out of any consequences for
China for continuing this course of conduct, except to say, at some
uncertain point, relations might be damaged?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has spoken to that point directly,
and said the longer this goes, the more damage will be done. Our focus
remains now on getting our men and women home.
Q: The President was also asked this, and he didn't directly sort of
answer it, which was, how much by you saying that diplomacy takes a
little more time than some people would like, the President said that,
is it preparing the American people for something that could be drawn
out even longer, that may not be resolved in days, it may go into
protracted negotiations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, this could get resolved very quickly. It could
get resolved in a matter of time. And when the President says
diplomacy takes time, he is giving an accurate reflection about the
status of negotiations that are now sensitive and have been sensitive
for a period of days. So it's an accurate reflection of what the
President has given about the status of events on the ground.
Q: Is there concern - you know the CNN/USA Today Gallup Poll was
saying that 55 percent of the American people now think the
crewmembers are actually hostages. Is there a concern that the
American people are starting to grow more concerned about this?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President thinks the American people have every
good reason to be concerned. They should be concerned, and we are a
nation that's concerned about this, which is another reason that China
needs to help resolve this matter as quickly as possible so the
concern doesn't turn itself into permanent damage to the U.S.-China
relationship.
Q: Can I clarify something about the e-mails? Have any of the
crewmembers actually sat down at a computer terminal?
MR. FLEISCHER: No. What happens is, the family members send the
e-mails to General Sealock's unit, to General Sealock. The General
then takes the e-mails with him. They are then distributed to the men
and women via the Chinese officials, and then the men and women pass
messages back to the families directly through the General.
Q: Which are then sent from the military unit?
MR. FLEISCHER: Those are oral messages back to General Sealock, which
he then conveys to - e-mails are on the way --
Q: One of the families talked about receiving an e-mail. One of the
families talked today about receiving an e-mail. That's why I asked
the question.
MR. FLEISCHER: From one of the servicemen and women there?
Q: Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have information on that.
Q: Or at least in their name.
MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have any information on that.
Q: When the Ambassador calls, does he call the President directly? Is
Powell on the line? I mean, when you're giving marching orders?
MR. FLEISCHER: When the General calls, Secretary Powell has been on
the line. There have been occasions where the Secretary has been in
the Oval Office, there have been occasions where it's just the
President and the General.
Q: I wonder if we can clarify --
MR. FLEISCHER: The National Security Advisor was there for all those
calls - Condoleezza Rice.
Q: Just to get this right, do you know whether or not Sealock and his
colleagues are orally telling the family what the crew said, or are
they typing it out?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: No, they're e-mailing.
Q: The diplomats are e-mailing to the families?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Right.
MR. FLEISCHER: But it's not as if our servicemen and women have
computers in their rooms in China that they're able to directly e-mail
out. But they are able to read hard copies of the e-mails sent from
family members to them. Those are delivered in hand, just the way you
or I would receive an e-mail.
Q: In the Oval Office, the President said we look forward to getting
an agreement one way or the other out of our Congress on a free trade
agreement with Jordan. Does that include adding labor and
environmental --
MR. FLEISCHER: It indicates that the President wants to work with the
Congress, because he does believe it is important for the stability of
the Middle East and for our relations with Jordan, that a free trade
agreement be agreed to. He's a strong supporter of a free trade
agreement with Jordan.
Q: So if the Congress went along with that, he would be willing to
sign that?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there are always limits when a President says
one way or another for the President to define what those one ways and
anothers are. But he has indicated the importance of getting this done
and sending a signal to Congress.
Q: So they're just writing out messages, giving them to diplomats, who
are then going back and --
MR. FLEISCHER: To General Sealock.
Q: Yes, and then going back and sending them by e-mail to the
families.
MR. FLEISCHER: You're talking about the messages that are being
returned from General Sealock to the families?
Q: Yes.
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't hear that spelled out by the General on the
phone this morning. So we can get to the exact way that works.
Q: But that's the only way it could work, if they don't have computers
themselves. They're giving the messages --
MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, the servicemen and women are giving the messages
orally to the General, in the course of a meeting. I think that's
fairly plain to understand how that would work. The General meets with
all the servicemen and women. They say, my son has a birthday, we
convey birthday greetings, et cetera.
Q: So they're not actually handing him notes they've written out that
the Chinese have allowed them to write down.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, that's not my understanding.
Q: If private citizens' activism here shows national unity in this
area, does the President encourage that internationally as well? Does
the activism of our allies show international unity? Has he spoken to
the leaders of Canada or Britain about this topic? Has there been any
conversation about them expressing to China a desire to have our
servicemen and women released?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's a course of action that the President may decide
to take. And let me try to get you some further information about any
potential phone calls.
Q: Following April's prior question, you said before that the best way
to resolve this is through diplomatic channels. Should we conclude
that it follows from that if Reverend Jackson were to go to China on
his own and set up his - some sort of independent channel, that this
would be seen as counterproductive?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I'm not going to deal with hypotheticals.
But two, Reverend Jackson did not discuss that possibility with
General Powell - with Secretary Powell. He said he would be available
to go. He did not say he was on his way.
Q: On television recently, he sounded as though he was floating the
idea that he would go on --
MR. FLEISCHER: I haven't been watching much TV recently. I did hear
what he said to Secretary - I did hear what Secretary Powell said he
said, however.
Q: Did Farrakhan say he was going to go, too? Ari, did Farrakhan?
Q: Can I finish? Ari, since President Bush supports this private
sector support, is the State Department open to Jesse Jackson and
anything he needs to get over to China?
MR. FLEISCHER: What I said is, the President is appreciative of the
many people in the private sector who have offered their support in a
variety of ways. And you're asking the same question over and over
again. The answer remains the same.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: Thank you everybody.
END 2:11 P.M. EDT
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
