23 October 2002
Transcript: NSC's Rice Briefs on Oct. 25 Bush Talks with China's President
(Also discusses Bush trip to Mexico for APEC meeting) (4340)
White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice says President
Bush "looks forward to a candid and constructive discussion on a
variety of topics, including North Korea, Iraq, cooperation in the war
on terror, trade, human rights, and religious freedom," in his October
25 meeting at his Texas ranch with President Jiang Zemin of China.
Rice briefed reporters October 23 at the White House on Bush's meeting
with China's leader as well as his upcoming participation in the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico.
Bush will fly on October 26 to Los Cabos, where 21 leaders, including
China's President, will be participating in the APEC talks,
discussing, Rice said, "a broad range of issues including
counterterrorism and trade."
The Bali bombings and other recent terrorist attacks in the
Philippines and elsewhere, she said, "underscore the need for close
cooperation in the fight against terror."
Rice pointed out that the United States "just today" is joining
Southeast Asian nations, including Indonesia and other APEC partners,
to ask the United Nations to designate Jemaah Islamiya as a foreign
terrorist organization.
While at the APEC meeting, Bush will hold a series of bilateral
meetings, Rice said, including with Mexico's President Vicente Fox,
Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Indonesia's President
Sukarnoputri Megawati.
Bush also will hold a trilateral meeting with Japan's Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi and South Korea's President Dae-jung Kim.
"That trilateral will focus with our two closest Asian allies on how
our nations might move forward on a number of issues, but particularly
on North Korea's admission that it is violating its commitments by
pursuing a nuclear weapons program," Rice said.
Bush also will meet with leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN), Rice said. "This will be the first time that an
American President has met with a group of ASEAN leaders since 1984.
The meeting will have a broad agenda, including regional security --
regional security issues, counterterrorism and trade."
Following her opening statement, reporters asked Rice to discuss the
progress at the United Nations on a U.S. sponsored resolution on Iraq,
as well as to discuss North Korea's admission that it is violating its
commitments by pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Following is the Rice transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
October 23, 2002
PRESS BRIEFING BY DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ON
APEC MEETINGS
DR. RICE: Good afternoon. I'm going to open with a brief overview of
the President's upcoming meeting with the President of China in
Crawford, and the President's trip to the Asia Pacific Economic
Conference. And then I'll be happy to take your questions.
President Jiang Zemin and his wife, Wang Yeping, will come to the
ranch in Crawford on Friday, October 25th. And the President and Mrs.
Bush look forward to welcoming them there. The two Presidents have met
twice before -- at last year's APEC Summit in Shanghai, and when
President Bush traveled to Beijing in February.
The two Presidents are scheduled to meet at 10:30 a.m., for about 90
minutes. The President looks forward to a candid and constructive
discussion on a variety of topics, including North Korea, Iraq,
cooperation in the war on terror, trade, human rights, and religious
freedom.
President Bush will then give President Jiang a tour of the ranch,
probably in the truck that he often takes them in, and then a social
lunch which will include Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Wang.
At APEC, Saturday morning the President departs Crawford for Los
Cabos, Mexico. And at the summit, there will be 21 APEC leaders to
discuss a broad range of issues including counterterrorism and trade.
At last year's APEC meeting in Shanghai, just six weeks after the 9/11
events, the APEC leaders issued a strong political counterterrorism
declaration. The Bali bombings and other recent terrorist attacks in
the Philippines and elsewhere underscore the need for close
cooperation in the fight against terror. Just today, for instance, the
United States is joining Southeast Asian nations, including Indonesia
and other APEC partners, to ask the United Nations to designate JI as
a foreign terrorist organization.
President Bush looks forward to working with APEC leaders on specific
commitments to improve security for key economic infrastructures,
trade, finance and communications against terrorist attacks. President
Bush also looks forward to advancing the economic initiatives that
APEC leaders committed to in Shanghai.
While in Mexico, the President will meet with several world leaders.
The President will hold a bilateral meeting with President Fox of
Mexico. He will hold a trilateral meeting with Prime Ministers Koizumi
of Japan, and Kim of South Korea. That trilateral will focus with our
two closest Asian allies on how our nations might move forward on a
number of issues, but particularly on North Korea's admission that it
is violating its commitments by pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The President will have a working lunch with President Putin, of
Russia. They will cover the full range of issues in U.S.-Russian
relations -- including, of course, Iraq and North Korea; but also the
war on terrorism; issues concerning Georgian-Russian relations;
economic and energy ties.
The President will hold a bilateral meeting with President Megawati of
Indonesia. He will again convey the sympathies of all Americans for
the victims of the recent terrorist attacks in Bali and offer
humanitarian assistance. The Presidents will discuss counterterrorism
cooperation, both the progress made thus far, and the need for
continued action. And they will discuss economic reform and
Indonesia's peace process with the Aceh Province.
Finally, the President will hold a group -- a meeting with a group of
the seven leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations --
ASEAN. This will be the first time that an American President has met
with a group of ASEAN leaders since 1984. The meeting will have a
broad agenda, including regional security -- regional security issues,
counterterrorism and trade.
And now I'm happy to take your questions.
Steve.
Q: -- Jiang is a farewell visit. Are you convinced that he's going to
give up power? And how do you assess the U.S.-Chinese relations at
this point under Jiang's leadership?
DR. RICE: I think U.S.-Chinese relations are on a good footing. They
are productive in a number of areas. They've been particularly
productive in the area of counterterrorism since 9/11. I think that we
have a good trade relationship and, indeed, there has been some
progress on a number of difficult trade issues that the United States
and China have. They have the task now of, together, advancing the WTO
agenda, since China's accession. And, obviously, this is a huge
economy with a huge population, and the President feels very strongly
that America's engagement with China as it goes through this
transition in which it is involved will be important to the outcome of
that transition. So I think it's a quite favorable relationship.
Obviously, there are difficult issues, issues concerning
proliferation. The Chinese have made some progress on the November
2000 memorandum that asked China to do a number of things -- finally
passing, for instance, an export law that we think will help with
proliferation issues. There is more to talk about on human rights and
religious freedom, although there are some small signs of progress
there, as well. So I think, by and large, the relationship is in good
shape. The stewardship of the relationship has been good and the two
Presidents have a good relationship.
I can't second-guess, or I don't really have a sense of what will
happen in the Chinese succession, but we obviously stand ready to work
with Chinese leaders as they emerge. But President Jiang is still the
President of China, and he's been a good partner in a number of areas.
Q: How close are you up at the U.N. to getting an agreement on a
resolution from -- including from France and Russia? And is your
timetable that you want at least the U.N. to act by this week, is
there a time clock ticking now?
DR. RICE: We don't have a specific timetable in mind, Kelly. We are
working with the Perm 5, and in fact now will start to work with the
entire Security Council on a resolution. It takes time, but we don't
have endless time. And the President made very clear that at some
point the U.N. is going to have to step up and act in order to make
Saddam Hussein comply with his commitments that he undertook to the
international community.
But those talks are going on. I think we've made some progress over
the last couple of weeks, and we'll see where we come out. The United
States is very committed to having a resolution that will, this time,
really deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein. That means it has to
be a resolution that has a tough weapons inspection regime, that
actually has a chance of disarming him, given his history of being
able to deceive and cheat and hide from weapons inspectors. It must
have some statement that consequences have to follow. And it has to
hold him in what is clearly material breach. I don't think anybody can
argue that he's not in material breach. There have been no inspectors
in that country since 1998. That has got to be considered material
breach.
So we're working it. The President had a phone call today with Prime
Minister Blair. They had a good conversation because the United States
and the UK, as you know, have been working very closely on a
resolution that they could present together, and they had a good
conversation about how to move forward. So I think --
Q: -- close to getting, though, an agreement --
DR. RICE: Well, we will see. You know how diplomacy is; it waxes and
it wanes. I would caution that we needn't look at every up and down in
this. Let's see where we are over the next period of time, and we're
making progress. But the President has been very clear about what we
need in a resolution.
Q: We often hear we're making progress. In fact, people have told me
every day for two or three weeks, we're making progress. Could you
actually identify some of the progress that we're making? (Laughter.)
And second, what prompted us to decide and go to the entire Security
Council without having gotten a consensus among the Permanent 5?
DR. RICE: I think there was just a sense that the Security Council
members, even though the Perm 5 have vetoes, the Security Council
members all have a vote on this resolution. They all have
responsibilities. This has been a deliberative process. I think it is
a serious process. Everybody who is involved in it says that it is a
process in which people are really trying to work on the issues. And
so it made sense now to bring others who are going to have to have
responsibility here for a vote into the informal consultations that
take place prior to any formal tabling of a resolution.
It would be undiplomatic to talk about where there is progress and
where there is not because that is really the way that the diplomacy
goes. But let me just say, I think that people are taking this
seriously. They understand the message that the President delivered on
September 12th to the United Nations, and so they have been
discussions that have been serious and deliberative. We will see where
we are in a few days.
Q: The Russian -- this afternoon said that they absolutely cannot
accept what they regard as the -- as they express it, the automaticity
of the authorization of the use of force. Is there anything you can
say to convince them that we do not regard this resolution as an
automatic authorization of force, or to clarify what it is that is at
the root of this argument?
DR. RICE: Well, I don't really know what is at the root of the
argument. But the President has made very clear that there will have
to be a tough test of Saddam Hussein's willingness to cooperate. If he
is willing to cooperate and we can disarm him through the process that
the U.N. puts in place, all the better. If, however, he is not
prepared to cooperate, and if disarmament cannot take place in this --
by this method, then we're going to have to disarm him. And the
President, I think, left no doubt that if we are unable to get the
United Nations or the United Nations Security Council to do that, then
he is prepared with other like-minded states to go ahead and act.
Because we -- the one thing we cannot have is inaction. So while
military force is not inevitable, inaction cannot be the answer.
Now, the U.N. is a body that is capable of meeting at any time to
discuss the situation. And so the idea that we would somehow not have
consultations with members of the Security Council or consultations
with key powers I find a bit odd. Of course, if there were a change in
the circumstances or something happened, you would expect that there
would be consultations. And so I've never quite understood the
automaticity argument. But I think that what the President has been
saying to everybody is, of course, consultations and discussions would
be expected if circumstances began to change.
Q: -- an opportunity for consultations would be with Singapore and
Mexico, which are also part of this whole Security Council that we're
now consulting with?
DR. RICE: Yes, he absolutely sees it as an opportunity to talk with
the other members of the Security Council who will be at APEC, and I'm
certain that he will do that. Security Council membership is Security
Council membership and it ought to be treated as such.
Q: -- we'll see where we are in a couple of days. Is there a trigger
point event for you, or is there something magical about that, or --
DR. RICE: No, we'll just see where we are and we'll see how to move
forward. The fact is that you can expect that over this period of
time, diplomacy is going to be going on. It undoubtedly will, as the
President in his discussion with Prime Minister Blair today said --
Prime Minister Blair is at a European summit, and I am sure he will
have consultations with a number of his European colleagues. The
President is at APEC, and Mexico and Singapore are at APEC, as are
Russia and China. So I think that what you can see is a kind of period
in which there will be a lot of diplomacy around this. But, no, we're
not establishing any specific trigger.
Q: Reading the resolution as it was presented to the Security Council
this afternoon, there's not a lot of language that's different here
from language that France has rejected up until this point. And I'm
wondering what gives you hope to believe that they may come around on
this resolution.
DR. RICE: Well, we'll just have to see. We're going to talk about
where there might be objections, we're going to see what differences
can be bridges. But there are just a few things that are very critical
to having a resolution that has a chance to lead to the disarmament of
Saddam Hussein. It cannot be that you have a weapons inspection regime
that is not strong, that continues to keep in place practices and
methods that Saddam Hussein has clearly defeated in the past. It is
important to state the facts. And the fact is he's in material breach.
Everyone knows it. And so it's important to state that.
It is important to state that there have to be consequences. I mean,
there are just certain things that we're going to have to be able to
do in a resolution. And we're discussing with the French and now with
others how to bridge our differences.
Q: So you're not willing to change those words, material breach, or
drop the paragraph that France objected to, and that is recognizing in
the past the authorized member states were authorized to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660, which the --
which the French have read as prior justification, or existing
justification to go to war, obviating the need for you to come back to
the U.N.?
DR. RICE: John, I'm not going to negotiate here in the press room. The
fact is we're discussing with the French and with others what the real
concerns are here on both sides to see if we can find a way to bridge
any remaining differences. But a resolution simply has to be tough
enough and has to be clear enough that you might have a chance to get
the job done. The United States has shown a lot of flexibility in
trying to address the concerns of our partners over the last several
days. And we believe that there are just some things that are going to
be important so that Saddam Hussein doesn't get the wrong message.
Q: A question and then a follow-up, if I could. But I assume from what
you're saying that the diplomacy of this weekend would precede a vote
before the Security Council?
DR. RICE: I have to assume so. Although, again, I think the timetable
is one here that we just have to watch unfold. But we're already at
Wednesday. And so things are unfolding. I think the fact that there
are these opportunities for diplomacy is fortuitous.
Q: And the second, if I could -- on North Korea -- just ask you, if
you could update us on the status of the diplomacy aimed at putting an
end to North Korea's nuclear program. What piece of that will rise to
the President's level when he meets, particularly with Jiang Zemin and
Putin? And what -- under what conditions will the administration
resume some level of diplomatic dialogue with North Korea?
DR. RICE: Well, I think first -- first things first, and we really are
in an intensive consultation phase with affected powers, and that
means the regional powers, the members of the KEDO, as well as with
the European Union, which has a number of relationships with the North
Koreans. So, first things first. I think we need to consult. We need
to see what common strategies we can employ to try and get the North
Koreans to live up to their international obligations, to recognize
that they cannot, on the one hand, say that they want to reenter the
international community, or enter the international community -- I
think they've actually never been a part of it -- or that they
actually want to enter the international community, its economic
benefits, its trade benefits, and on the other hand, brandish an
illegal nuclear weapons program that is in clear violation of
international obligations that they undertook.
And that's the basic argument that we are using and I think that is
finding a lot of receptivity around the world. And so I think you
would expect the Presidents to deal with this more conceptually than
in the details of specifically what steps we might take. Obviously,
Jim Kelley is just finished consultations. He'll come back. But I
think you can expect the Presidents to deal with this conceptually;
that is, recognizing that this is an opportunity, as the President has
said, for the international community to stand up and act together on
this particular issue.
Q: One more question. One on Iraq. Is your observation that the
Security Council consultations would be expected in the event of Iraqi
noncompliance, a kind of pledge outside the four corners of the
resolution, that the U.S. will talk again to the Security Council?
DR. RICE: It is very hard for me to imagine the circumstances in which
you would not consult under the circumstances -- under such
circumstances. And consultations would undoubtedly take place. So I
don't think the President has any difficulty in saying to his
colleagues -- whether it's President Putin or President Chirac -- that
he would expect to consult should something happen.
Q: And on North Korea, have you made the decision not to cut off fuel
oil supplies because it might lead the North Koreans to restart that
--
DR. RICE: We've made no decision. The fact is that this is a
consortium that provides the fuel oil of which we are a member, KEDO.
We have to consult others on this matter, and I think we don't want to
get ahead of ourselves in taking measures until we've decided how we
are going to structure the diplomacy about this. But obviously, the
North Koreans have blown a hole in this agreement, and the fact that
they've blown a hole in it, the fact that they have themselves said
that it's nullified means that it is an agreement that is going to
have to be evaluated. It's in very, very deep trouble and we have to
look at what that means in terms of specific steps.
Q: What is the status of the U.S.-Mexico immigration talks? And is
Mexico emerging as some kind of key player on the Security Council
referencing Iraq?
DR. RICE: Well, Mexico is obviously an important player because it's a
Security Council member, and it's a Security Council member with whom
we have good relations, the Presidents have good relations. By no
means would we take anything for granted. We expect to talk to the
Mexicans just as we're talking to other Security Council members, and
to try to convince President Fox of the merits of our case. And I
should say the merits of a case that allows the United Nations to live
up to its obligations.
In terms of immigration talks, the Presidents continue to keep it on
the agenda. The President fought very hard for 245I, and in the last
session of Congress for a number of reasons we were not able to get it
through. But it continues to be for the President an important issue.
We will discuss it with the Mexicans, and there continues to be the
channel that was set up with the Secretary of State and Foreign
Minister, and the Justice Ministers, on the other hand, to try to work
the issues.
One last question.
Q: The President has often said that time is not on our side with
Iraq. Do you feel a similar urgency with North Korea? And, secondly,
you mentioned the intense consultations with the regional powers. To
what degree will U.S. policy be guided by what Japan and South Korea
want? Do they have veto power on our --
DR. RICE: Well, I don't think that one should ever think of
consultations as somebody vetoing somebody else's policies. What it is
is an opportunity to try and craft a common strategy for what is
clearly a common threat. The regional powers in many ways have, if not
as much, more at stake in the thought that you would have a nuclear
armed North Korea on the Korean Peninsula. And so I think we have a
lot to work with here, in terms of moving toward a common approach.
The question of Iraq and North Korea comes up in a number of contexts.
And it is obviously the case that what we knew about North Korea and
has now been confirmed by the North Koreans themselves is a very
serious matter, and it is a matter that has to be dealt with and that
cannot allow -- we cannot allow to languish.
We've always said that we were not going to have a cookie-cutter
approach to our foreign policy problems. And North Korea provides
opportunities, we believe, for a -- potentially a diplomatic solution,
because of the stake of the regional powers in a non-nuclear Korean
Peninsula, because of North Korea's having to reach out not because of
any philanthropic impulses, frankly, but because it is a regime that
has deep economic troubles and is trying to deal with those troubles.
We believe that we have some leverage and methods in this case that we
don't have in the Iraqi case, where for 11 years we have tried
everything: sanctions, limited military power, we put Saddam Hussein's
considerable resources -- Iraq is not a poor country -- under an oil
for food program; he managed to go from illegal revenues of $550
million plus to $3 billion, illegal revenues that can fuel his weapons
of mass destruction program. He is, after all, a regional actor that
has been aggressive in his behavior, attacking his neighbors, using
weapons of mass destruction against his own people. This is not to
diminish the problem on the Korean Peninsula.
I should mention, of course, we have 37,000 forces in Korea as a
deterrent to Kim Jung-il and his regime, a deterrent that has worked
pretty well for 50 years. This is not the case with the Iraqis, which
we were unable to deter in the last war.
Q: -- you would not characterize North Korea as an imminent threat.
DR. RICE: I would characterize any threat of this case -- of this
kind, any problem of this kind as serious. There is no doubt about it.
I do think we have to look at the different conditions here. We are
talking about a dangerous place, there is no doubt about that. The
Korean Peninsula is a dangerous place. It is a place at which the
United States has a substantial military presence that acts as a
deterrent to certain kinds of behavior from the North. That does not
mean that we do not want to deal with the problem and deal with it as
expeditiously as possible. But we do believe we have levers on the
North Korea side that we, frankly, tried with Iraq, but have not been
able to make work in the Iraqi case.
Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
