26 October 2002
Senior Official Calls Bush-Jiang Meeting "Very Positive"
(Background briefing on Bush-Jiang Zemin meeting Oct. 25) (5470)
President Bush's meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin in
Crawford, Texas October 25 was "very positive," according to a senior
administration official speaking on background.
According to the official, the two leaders discussed a variety of
topics, including Iraq, North Korea, a possible U.S.-China security
dialogue, Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum
meetings in Mexico, and the hostage situation at a theater in Moscow.
Following is a transcript of the briefing, as released by the White
House October 25:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Crawford, Texas)
For Immediate Release
October 25, 2002
PRESS BACKGROUND BRIEFING
ON VISIT OF CHINESE PRESIDENT JIANG ZEMIN
BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
Crawford Elementary School
Crawford, Texas
3:35 P.M. CDT
MR. FLEISCHER: A quick opening statement on ground rules. My comments
will be on the record. We are joined by a Senior Administration
Official who was in the meetings. Anything that is said by a Senior
Administration Official needs to be attributed, please, to Senior
Administration Official.
When you're done on that portion of it, I'll be happy to stay and take
questions about anything else on your minds, as well as to provide the
week ahead for the President.
So, with that, I turn it over to the Senior Administration Official.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. We were thinking that since
you've all already seen the two Presidents' comments at the hangar
that we should probably just start off asking questions and I'll
answer them to the best of my ability.
Q: What can you tell us about any common ground on the U.N.
resolution? Did the President come away feeling like he had President
Jiang's support on that resolution?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is about Iraq, was there
common ground between the two Presidents on Iraq. Did the President
come away thinking that he had President Jiang's support.
The two Presidents did, indeed, discuss Iraq fairly thoroughly. I
think that you know our position very well and I think President Jiang
Zemin has also made it very clear that Iraq should implement all
previous Security Council resolutions. I'm not going to go much beyond
that, but to say that I think we have common ground to work. I'm not
going to characterize where the Chinese are going to end up on this
question finally.
Q: On North Korea, did the question of economic leverage come up? The
United States is giving North Korea 500,000 tons of heavy fuel a year,
as you well know. The administration wants to use this leverage. Did
the issue come up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is did the possible use
of economic leverage against North Korea come up during the
conversations.
I would say that the conversations on North Korea basically centered
around the desire to mobilize an international public opinion,
international coalition, if you will, diplomatic coalition against
what North Korea has done. We did not discuss specific next steps. We
did agree that both sides want to see a nuclear free North Korea
Peninsula.
Q: Jiang said that he was completely in the dark about the recent
developments. Is he saying that he did not know about a nuclear
weapons program at all?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is when President Jiang
said that he was completely in the dark regarding the North Korea
nuclear program, was he saying that he had no knowledge of that
program. I believe that was the case, yes.
Q: So you're saying that the only thing they talked about was that
they agreed that North Korea is a threat and they need to handle it
peacefully, but they did not discuss how they're going to clamp down
on North Korea?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is did the -- I'm sorry,
if everybody back there can hear the questions, I won't repeat them.
I'm assuming that it's kind of tough to -- okay.
The question is, again with a slightly incredulous tone, saying that
-- (laughter) -- completely incredulous -- are all you world-weary
cynical reporters out there that believe me when I say they didn't
discuss specific next steps.
I actually disagree with the formulation. I think the -- our
formulation is that the next step is to mobilize as much international
pressure as possible against the North Korean program. And that is
exactly what you're seeing right now. As President Bush made it clear,
this will be a major topic of conversation down in Los Cabos, too.
We are at the beginning of a campaign to mobilize the world against
this program. And as of right now, I think we're making fairly good
progress.
Q: The President referred to a new dialogue on security issues. Can
you go into a little bit of detail, what that means? And also could
you give us sort of a foretaste of what Vice President Cheney's
mission to China is going to be?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is the reference to a
security dialogue with China, what exactly does that mean. Also, is
there anything specific that Vice President Cheney plans to do during
his trip to China. Thank you for asking that question.
The security dialogue is an agreement that we've reached recently.
Undersecretary Bolten went to Beijing with a proposal of -- an
Undersecretary-level dialogue on security issues -- or a Vice
Ministerial-level, is the way the Chinese will see it -- on security
issues with a specific focus on nonproliferation. We hope to hold
these short -- the first session shortly. We anticipate that these
will be on a regular basis, perhaps twice a year.
With respect to the second question, Vice President Cheney going to
China will be one more important step on keeping -- not only keeping
this relationship healthy and strong, but actually deepening things.
We've seen that this back and forth between high level officials adds
tremendously to the mutual understanding and the ability to work
issues together.
I'm going to go to some of our Chinese colleagues for a second.
Q: First question, when the meeting is going to -- the first meeting
is going to start on the security issue. And the second one, when they
talk about Taiwan, can you exactly tell the wording between the two
Presidents?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay. The first question is when will
the first session of the security dialogue be held. The second
question is can I give her the exact wording that was used during
their conversations on Taiwan.
First question, I would say that we would hope by the beginning of
next year to hold the first round. Definite dates haven't been set
yet, but I would expect by the middle of this winter to have the talks
going.
Second question, no, I can't give you the exact -- (laughter) -- I
can't give you the exact wording. Gentlemen do not reveal what happens
in diplomatic meetings. (Laughter.)
Q: So, generally, a description.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the President said it very
well. What we did is we reassured them that we have a one China policy
that continues to be based on three communiques in the Taiwan
Relations Act. As he stressed -- and he stressed during the
conversation -- we wish to see a peaceful resolution of this issue. In
that context, we do not support Taiwan independence.
I won't characterize President Jiang's remarks, other than to say that
he, too, noted that China seeks a peaceful resolution of this issue.
Q: Earlier today the Chinese Ambassador to the United Nations, Wang
Yingfan, said that France had made constructive proposals with respect
to the Iraq question, many of them I could agree with. Did President
Jiang say anything similar in the meeting? And should we take note of
the fact that President Jiang didn't mention Iraq at all in his
remarks?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I would not lay any particular --
oh, excuse me. The question was once again on Iraq, evidently the
Chinese Perm rep in New York, Wang Yingfan, said something along the
lines that the French have floated several helpful suggestions. The
question was did President Jiang say something comparable.
I'm not going to get into too much detail, but I will just leave you
with the impression that we think we have a lot of common ground with
the Chinese. We think we're working well with them on this. I'm not
going to characterize how they're going to end up on this issue
finally.
Q: Assuming that Russia and China are the two international people
that make some representations to North Korea, how does that proceed,
when will the President next see Putin, how will the Chinese --
assuming that Russia and China are the two people who can bring the
most pressure to bear on the North Koreans, how will that proceed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is, assuming that the
Russians and the Chinese have the most influence to bring to bear over
North Korea, how do we see that proceeding.
Well, I think you're seeing this unfolding even as I sit here
speaking, which is we have been very actively involved with the
Chinese. We had the opportunity of the summit here in Crawford to
underline them to them the importance that we attach to this issue and
to begin to work with them on it.
The Russians, I'm not going to get into any great lengths, basically
out of ignorance. We have raised the issue with them. We had hoped to
see President Putin down in Los Cabos to continue discussions on North
Korea but, of course, because of the tragedy in Moscow, the
hostage-taking, we're not going to have that opportunity. I'm not sure
when the next meeting with President Putin is going to be. You can bet
we will be discussing North Korea with other levels of Russian
officialdom before that, though.
Q: Yes, how would you characterize the bilateral meeting? And, also,
did any of the issues that both leaders discussed fall short of your
expectations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is, how would I
characterize the bilateral meeting and did any of the issues discussed
fall short of my expectations. This is (laughter.) Thank you for the
constructive answer on the right there. (Laughter.) No, whenever
somebody gets asked a question like that, the cynical reporters
immediately think that this wise-ass diplomat is going to try and spin
them.
It was a very positive meeting. (Laughter.)
And actually, let me amplify. Let me amplify. I've been in I think
I've been in all the meetings between the two Presidents, and I think
you've seen a point where they're reaching a comfort level. There was
a lot more yes, in the sense of personal give and take. I think they
are beginning to understand a little bit better how the other one
works.
And also if you look at where the relationship has come in the course
of the past, I guess it must be 19 months or so, I think you'd
probably conclude that the relationship is a lot better. That makes
both sides more comfortable. So, yes, it was the most positive meeting
I've been in of the two leaders.
You're not going to get a question after that.
Q: Could I ask you, the President was not especially specific when
asked whether or not we would negotiate with North Korea while it
still holds its nuclear weapons program at an active state. To listen
to the Chinese, other statements not today's it sounds like they would
be willing to hold those negotiations under those circumstances. Are
we?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the question is, given the
circumstances of a North Korean nuclear program, would we be willing
to negotiate with the North Koreans. The corollary to that was that
the Chinese, maybe not today but in other statements, seem to have
implied that they would be willing to negotiate with the North Koreans
over this.
You are hitting a fundamental question here, which is the fact that
the North Korean acknowledgment that they have violated the most
fundamental tenets of the agreed framework does make it difficult for
us to go back into negotiations with them. There is a lack of trust
there, I will say that.
We haven't ruled anything out completely. We are consulting with our
friends and our allies and, indeed, anybody who has any influence over
North Korea. So it's too early to say completely. But, frankly,
there's no much enthusiasm for going back into another round of
negotiations with people who've just shown us that they won't
negotiate with us in good faith.
Q: Two questions. The first one is, could you explain the President's
choice of words in what seemed like scripted remarks at the beginning
of the press conference, that he had discussed China's thought for a
resolution on Iraq? And, secondly, did the subject of President Jiang
Zemin's impending retirement or nonretirement come up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, the first question was say it
again. I'm not hearing you very well. There's too much noise.
Q: First, could you explain the President's, what seemed to be
scripted remarks at the beginning of the press conference where he
said that he had discussed "China's support" for a resolution on Iraq.
And the second question was, did the subject of President Jiang
Zemin's impending retirement or nonretirement come up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The first question was, the content of
the remarks on Iraq in the President's comments. The second question
was, did we talk about Jiang Zemin's future plans.
With respect to the first question, it's no secret that we are looking
for China to be cooperative in the U.N. Security Council and, yes,
that's exactly what was discussed. You know, where do we go with this.
And I'm not going to get into too much detail, other than to say that
the Chinese, as you've heard, made it crystal clear that they expect
the Iraqi regime to implement all of the Security Council resolutions.
The second question, about whether we discussed Jiang Zemin's
retirement plans or whatever he plans to do over the next year, we
raised that slightly. And I guess I'm going to go my colleague is
going to look at me when I say this. But he said, ah, yes, many people
are talking about that.
Q: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: (Laughter.) I interpret that as many
people are talking about it. He said there are many rumors floating
around on it. Anyhow, that's it. I won't do it again. Sorry.
Let's see, I'm going to go back
Q: Can you tell us about the format of the meeting, how it was
conducted? Did it go beyond the 90-minute schedule? Was it first a
private one-on-one session between the President and President Jiang,
and then a larger plenary session --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The meetings the meeting the
substantive meeting was a little bit over an hour just because of the
to-ing and fro-ing as people arrive. And then they did go off for a
brief one-on-one together and then they went off together to look at
the ranch in his truck.
The numbers were not that big, even in the -- even in the plenary
session, I guess you'd call it. We don't have that much room, and so
it was pretty small.
Q: Did they discuss North Korea's offer, laying out these conditions
to resolve the nuclear issue with the United States? And what did you
all make of these conditions coming from North Korea?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We actually have a little bit of
cynicism about attempts to, first, violate the agreed framework and
then say, okay, if you meet these conditions then maybe we won't
violate it. As I said, there's a lot of distrust caused by the North
Korean actions over recent months.
No, Jiang Zemin did not directly raise it. There was some discussion
on the sidelines about it. I think the Chinese are sort of confused,
but they didn't push us hard on it. And, again, I stress, that's not
in the meeting with Jiang Zemin, that's just in side conversations.
Q: Do we, as a matter of policy, have a problem with North Korea's
call for a nonaggression pact, independent of North Korea's actions? I
mean, is it something that we would not consider?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, again, I'm sorry, I didn't give
the last question; I'll give this one.
The question is does the United States have any inherent problem with
the North Korean suggestion of a nonaggression pact.
I think many of you were actually there at Dorusan in February, where
the President said very specifically, as clearly as possible, that we
have no intention to invade North Korea. We have no intention to go to
war with North Korea. We have no intention to fight on the Korean
Peninsula. He says that repeatedly.
So when the North Koreans say, well, gee whiz, why don't you negotiate
a nonaggression pact with us -- we say, well, what for, we have no
aggressive intentions. I would also stress that if you look closely at
the record over past years that you will note that North Korean desire
for a nonaggression pact is, in almost every instance, linked to a
desire to get U.S. troops off the Korean Peninsula. So look at it
closely.
Q: Say that again?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That repeatedly in the past, the North
Koreans have linked the concept of a nonaggression pact with the
desired removal of all U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula. So it
makes -- look at it closely.
Q: One thing on Iraq. Did the President of China seek any particular
assurances from President Bush on this? And was there a point at which
President Bush offered any seeming assurances to President Ziang on
the U.N. resolution.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On Iraq were there any specific
assurances sought or given. No.
Q: Why was he late coming -- he was more than a half hour behind
schedule.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I didn't say he was more than a --
again, on the timing, I didn't say he was more than a half hour behind
schedule. It just took us more time to get people in and out of the
room. They broke up into various groups.
MR. FLEISCHER: The rest of this will be considered on the record, on
topics unrelated. And I do want to note that that was on background
and it can be attributed senior administration official or, given that
senior administration official's self-description, it can be
attributed to a wise-ass diplomat. (Laughter.)
Q: Ari, how long is the total ranch stay?
MR. FLEISCHER: How long was the tour at the ranch?
Q: Total ranch visit? How long was he here?
MR. FLEISCHER: Senior administration official, how long would you say
the total ranch visit was?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The total ranch visit was from 10:30
a.m. to 2:10 p.m., 2:05 p.m.
Q: No, no, no, if you count the hangar.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, the tour. The tour was a half
hour; 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., three hours, fifteen minutes, and then
that meeting in the hangar.
MR. FLEISCHER: And then the news conference, then they came back to
the ranch and said goodbye to each other at the ranch. A little bit
over four hours.
Q: Was there a ranch tour?
MR. FLEISCHER: There was, indeed, a ranch tour. The ranch tour was the
President and President Jiang, along with Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Wang,
accompanied by interpreters. Took about a half hour truck tour of the
ranch.
Q: On the truck?
Q: What was the lunch?
MR. FLEISCHER: The lunch? Thank you, the --
Q: I'm sorry, the question was what car?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President drove in his white pickup truck.
I had a question about what was lunch. Josh is here. I've got a copy
of the menu. We can distribute this to everybody.
Q: Where did you put the interpreters?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's a Texas pickup truck; it's a big one. (Laughter.)
Q: (Inaudible.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?
Q: Who joined the bilateral meeting?
MR. FLEISCHER: What's your question?
Q: First China and U.S. have six delegations to join the meeting. Who
are they?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the question is who else was in the meetings.
We typically don't release the names of staff who go to meetings. The
Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor, of course, were
there.
Q: (Inaudible.)
MR. FLEISCHER: I can't hear a word you're saying.
Q: Out here in Crawford I find the largest group of protestors is the
Falun Gong group. I'm wondering if any comments were made during the
actual meeting about Falun Gong issues, of on further human rights
issues?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any comments were made during the meetings about the
Falun Gong? The answer is, no.
Brian.
Q: Ari, are we ready for different topics?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Q: In the last few days, the President has stepped up his criticism of
the United Nations, yesterday invoking the "failed League of Nations."
Is he starting to lay the groundwork for an expectation that the
United Nations will not be able to act and that the U.S. will have to
act in coalition with Britain?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President first used the words "League of
Nations" on September 12th in his speech to the United Nations. So
this has been the President being crystal clear and consistent about
what would happen if the U.N. failed to act.
No, I think we still are in the same stage we've been for the last 24,
48 hours, where the talks are serious, the talks are real, the talks
are ongoing, and we'll see ultimately where they conclude.
Q: Was he encouraged to hear Mexico, and now apparently the U.N.
Ambassador from China, that more sympathy lies with the French
argument?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, and you know, I think that depending on how far you
want to look, you're able to find all kinds of public statements from
people. And often one country has different people saying
contradictory public statements. So you can also cite very positive
statements coming from Mexico.
No, I think the President believes that this is an important test of
the United Nations. Each nation is sovereign on the Security Council.
They will very shortly raise their hand and cast their vote.
Q: President Jiang expressed support for the principle that Iraq
should live up to U.N. resolutions. Did it respond specifically to the
one stage with consequences resolution that the U.S. wants?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think I really have nothing beyond it to add to what
has already been briefed on background about the meeting, so I really
don't have anything further to contribute on that topic.
Q: Was the question of Chinese missiles across from Taiwan raised? Or
the quantity and quality of U.S. armed sales to Taiwan raised?
MR. FLEISCHER: The question is on Taiwan, was there any discussion
about missiles across from Taiwan raised with the quantity and quality
of missiles raised.
Q: Of the U.S. arm sales to Taiwan.
MR. FLEISCHER: Of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan raised.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, both issues were raised. Again, I
think the President stressed his desire to ensure that this issue was
resolved peacefully. That's the bottom line.
MR. FLEISCHER: Ken.
Q: Any discussion of resuming military-to-military contacts?
MR. FLEISCHER: Any discussion of resuming military-to-military
contacts?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have informed the Chinese that we
are willing to resume what is called the defense consultative talks.
Again, Vice Ministerial-level Undersecretary-level talks in the near
future. We expect a positive response from them.
I would also point out, though, that we do not consider
military-to-military contacts to be broken. They admittedly have been
going at a slower level than in previous years, but they are
continuing. And we expect to see them accelerate.
Q: -- expect the situation, the status quo toward the plane --
MR. FLEISCHER: When do you anticipate resumption of the status quo
before the P-3 incident is the question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: In terms of going back to the exact
same status quo, I don't think you'll ever see that exactly. I think
you're going to see a more mature relationship where both sides try
and give and take in equal measure, where we both contribute to
basically understanding and diminishing suspicion between our two
militaries. It's going to be slightly recast, not scrapped. But it's
going to be slightly different.
Q: Did the President talk to anyone regarding the death of Senator
Wellstone, any -- and will he likely attend the funeral of Senator
Wellstone?
MR. FLEISCHER: On Senator Wellstone's death, number one, let me tell
you how the President learned. Andy Card was in contact with the
Department of Transportation. They reached out and contacted Andy and
let Andy know about all the events as they were unfolding.
As the President returned from the trip on the truck, on the tour,
Andy met the President. And even as the President was getting out of
the truck, Andy informed him about the crash and that it was unknown
at that moment whether or not Senator Wellstone had indeed died.
The Chief of Staff continued to update the President throughout the
lunch and filled him in as each event developed. And finally, at the
lunch, unfortunately, the Chief of Staff informed the President that
Senator Wellstone was confirmed on the flight and had died. And then
the President made the statement.
We will keep you filled in about any scheduling events. There's
nothing to report at this moment. I don't know. We have not made a
decision. We don't know. This just happened.
Q: Any phone calls, has the President talked to any members of
Congress or anyone else in Wellstone's family?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President was still in all the meetings with the
Chinese officials, went directly to the news conference. I went back
to the President's house with him, where he said goodbye to the
Chinese President. And if there's anything that's happened subsequent
to my coming here, I'll keep you informed. Not prior to my coming
here, no.
Wendell.
Q: -- we equate the Chinese President's assertion that China has
always been in favor of a nuclear free Korean Peninsula, with our
statement that no one is well served by a nuclear-armed Korea, given
that the Chinese statement I think also means to preclude U.S. nuclear
weapons on the Korean Peninsula, either on the Peninsula or just
offshore in --
MR. FLEISCHER: The question is, do we interpret the Chinese statement
about nuclear-free peninsula to include United States' nuclear
anything the United States would have that is nuclear.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer is, we have no nuclear
weapons on the Korean Peninsula. We have no plans to deploy weapons
nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula. So any statement that we look
for a nuclear free Korean Peninsula is very much welcomed by the U.S.
government.
Q: But also the idea of U.S. Naval power, nuclear-armed Naval power
just off the peninsula, would not President Jiang's statement --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is what about Naval power
off the Korean Peninsula. We don't you know, we don't do tactical
nuclear weapons anymore, is the answer. We don't have we don't have
ships floating around with nuclear weapons on them.
MR. FLEISCHER: Steve.
Q: -- tomorrow a little bit, what the President's main objective at
the APEC Summit will be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me see if I brought tomorrow's agenda with me. I
know you have the briefing that Dr. Rice gave the other day, so I
won't go through the event-by-event. Let me point out to you, however,
that given the cancellation of the lunch with President Putin
tomorrow, I do want to let you know that we will have an
on-the-record, on-camera briefing by Secretary Powell to keep you
informed about the meetings that morning. We'll work out the exact
time and place and announce that tomorrow.
Q: (Inaudible.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Lunchtime, roughly. Yes.
But the President is looking forward to the visit to Mexico. He's
looking forward to many of the meetings that will take place, where
the focus will be on trade, will be on security issues, will be of
course with Japan and North Korea [sic] on a discussion about our
common approach to the North Korean announcement about their
developing nuclear weapons. And that will be the heart of the agenda
that the President discusses in APEC.
Any other questions? Terry.
Q: President Putin has said that the hostage-taking in Moscow is
sponsored by forced foreign terrorist operations and reports that they
made cell phone calls to Turkey and UAE. Does the United States have
any any information on that? What's the President doing about it?
MR. FLEISCHER: We're aware of those reports and we cannot rule them
out.
I'm sorry, the question was the question was about statements coming
out of Moscow that the hostage-taking in Moscow may include foreign
involvement. And the question cited phone calls made to Turkey and the
UAE. And the answer is we are aware of those reports, we do not rule
that out. We continue to express our solidarity and support for the
people of Russia. This is a most serious matter. And we hope that this
can be resolved in a peaceful manner. We hope that the people who have
taken the hostages will agree to let them go free.
Q: Ari, on a domestic issue. Paul Sarbanes today called for the
resignation of Harvey Pitt because he chose Mr. Webster -- Mr. Webster
was chosen from (inaudible). Coming from the author of the bill,
that's a pretty strong statement. Do you have a reaction?
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, there have been many Democrats who have
looked for many excuses to try to seek the resignation of a good man,
and this is just another one. It would be just as inappropriate for
anybody who has a choice of who they would like to see on the advisory
board be able to dictate somebody's resignation because they oppose a
choice, as it would for anybody to make such a statement. Simply
because somebody does not support someone's choice is no reason for
somebody to resign. Otherwise, that same logic would mean others on
the SEC would have to resign, and that would be a politicization of
the SEC and all need to resist any senator's attempt to politicize the
SEC.
Mark Knoller.
Q: I've got an affiliate in Memphis who wants to know if there was any
discussion of pandas to the Memphis Zoo. Thank you.
MR. FLEISCHER: That was a shake-of-the-head no, for the record.
Q: Why not? (Laughter.)
Q: What about pandas elsewhere? What does that mean? (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: Obviously, that is Mark Knoller pandering to that
station.
THE PRESS: (Groans.)
Q: I'm just getting the "bear" facts.
THE PRESS: (Groans.)
MR. FLEISCHER: In a very unbearable manner.
THE PRESS: (Groans.)
Q: During the press conference, the President said, you know, the
United States does not support Taiwan independence. But he also said
he has some influence in the region to make sure that this issue is
peacefully resolved. Does that mean the President is going to use his
influence with Taiwan to restrain Taiwan from taking --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's a reaffirmation of the longstanding
American policy that any disagreements need to be settled peacefully.
Any other questions? Because I have to get to the week ahead. Week
ahead? Okay.
On Sunday, the President will leave Mexico and travel to Phoenix,
Arizona, to make remarks at an Arizona welcome and will remain
overnight.
Monday, the President will travel to Alamogordo, New Mexico, and
Denver, Colorado, to make remarks at welcome rallies before returning
to Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, the President will travel to Aberdeen, South Dakota,
South Bend, Indiana, and Charleston, West Virginia, to make remarks at
welcome rallies. The President will return to Washington, D.C., that
evening.
And the President will have several stops on Friday, which we will
announce later, and he will remain in Washington, D.C., overnight
Friday.
Q: Tuesday, Wednesday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Tuesday, Wednesday, back in D.C. and we'll have events
in D.C. to be announced later.
Okay, thanks, everybody.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Ari.
(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
|
|
|
