• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

State Department Noon Briefing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
BRIEFER: PHILIP T. REEKER, DEPUTY SPOKESMAN
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001 1:25 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

Q: Phil, thank you. The Chinese Vice Minister, Foreign Minister, had
the Ambassador in, and obviously complained about the arms package for
Taiwan, said it would harm relations.

I don't know that I know or not that the answer should be a surprise,
but I don't think I saw an answer or a reply. Is there a response to
that?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think we covered yesterday the Taiwan arms sales
issues in terms of meeting our obligations under the Taiwan Relations
Act. We have heard formal protests from the Chinese, both in
Washington and in Beijing. As you indicated, Barry, Ambassador Prueher
went to the Foreign Ministry today in Beijing; and as we discussed
yesterday, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Grossman
received Chinese Ambassador Yang here at the State Department
yesterday.

As I also said yesterday, in keeping with consistent US policy and
practice, we did not discuss the specifics of our arms sales to Taiwan
with those representatives of the People's Republic of China
Government. We told the Chinese that our decision reflects the
defensive needs of Taiwan that is in keeping with our obligations
under the Taiwan Relations Act and the three communiqués between the
United States and China, and that we continue to stand firmly for
peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. And we
did make the point, I believe in both capitals, that China's own
actions have an impact on the situation in the Strait, and we urge
that China take sensible steps to reduce tensions.

As the President has indicated again today, and the Secretary on many
occasions, we seek a constructive relationship with China. And as the
President has said, both the United States and China must make a
determined choice to have a productive relationship that will
contribute to a more secure, more prosperous and more peaceful world.

Q: The Foreign Ministry made a special point of arms control, that
this would have a negative effect on arms control. Arms control covers
a lot of things. Is this some sort of a warning that you find
unsettling?

MR. REEKER: I think you would have to ask the Chinese, who made those
remarks, for details or what they may mean by that. We have been very
clear, as we have been every year in terms of the arms sales that we
make, the arms that we make available to Taiwan, should they choose to
purchase those things, under our legal obligations under the Taiwan
Relations Act. That has been the case obviously for a long time. And I
think we have made very clear here and in what I just said a moment
ago that we seek peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues, but we
are meeting our obligations under that Act.

Q: I really wanted to ask about explosive odors, but instead I will
follow up Barry's question. What is the status of the dialogue between
the US and the Germans and the Dutch about the submarines?

MR. REEKER: I am not aware of any particular dialogue. I don't have
any information on that.

Q: So you just sprung this on them, then? Would that - the whole
thing - this whole --

MR. REEKER: I think most of what has been sprung on them has been
media issues about German and Dutch. I haven't seen anything that we
have said that refers at all to the Germans or the Dutch in any
relation to the arms we have agreed to make available to Taiwan under
our obligations.

Q: And to follow on that, according to press reports, both the
Netherlands and Germany do not want their technology used for these
eight submarines that Taiwan may choose to purchase. If not, where do
we get it? On the open market, and from whom?

MR. REEKER: That's just not a subject that I am qualified or prepared
to discuss at this point. I think Mr. Fleischer at the White House
made clear yesterday that obviously when we go through this and make
an analysis of the needs, the defensive needs that Taiwan has, and
then discuss with them what we will make available, we are prepared to
help make those things available. I am just not in a position to talk
about specifics.

Q: Well, follow up I may. I was at the White House when Ari said that,
and he did --

MR. REEKER: I think you asked the question.

Q: I asked one of the questions. And he specifically named eight
diesel electric submarines. And the question is: Is this going to
cause international problems since the two prime manufacturers of
these submarines apparently don't want to sell them to Taiwan? If they
don't, where do we get them? From Great Britain or from Russia?

MR. REEKER: I think that is purely speculative at this point. First,
the Taiwanese have to make decisions about what it is they are
interested in buying, and then we would look at where we can help them
to get those products. But at this point, that is just - that's
speculative and I'm just not going to go into any details on that. You
would have to leave that to defense experts that could talk to you
about that.

Q: Let me follow up one more time on that question. In fact, a
Pentagon spokesman has also referred specifically to German and Dutch
designs of these submarines. So can I just check - has there been any
diplomatic exchange at all with those countries in the run-up to --

MR. REEKER: Not that I am aware of, but I would leave it to - I mean,
no I am not aware of anything. I am happy to check into what we --

Q: Why not?

MR. REEKER: That's the kind of question - I mean, I don't know what
you expect in an answer. We make our decisions about our diplomacy --

Q: Yeah, but I mean, you've had months to think about this. It seems
strange that you should string --

MR. REEKER: I'll leave that to the experts that analyze Taiwan's
defense needs, consult - study - and then consult with Taiwan as to
those needs and what we are willing to provide. And I am just not
going to go into the details of that.

Q: Phil, the President seemed to - in interviews, multiple interviews
-- seemed to remove the ambiguity about the US readiness to defend
Taiwan in a military situation against China. Is that a change in
policy? There are experts today who have been testifying on the Hill
to the effect that the ambiguity has always been a very key element,
and that seems to be gone as a result of today's statements.

MR. REEKER: I have watched a number of the interviews that the
President has done, as all of you have. I know - and those
transcripts are readily available, so it's easiest to let the
President speak for himself. I think he was very clear on that, and he
said very specifically nothing has changed in our policy. Our policy
hasn't changed today; it didn't change yesterday; it didn't change
last year; it hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since
1979 with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act. And the President
was very clear on our position, and I think he reiterated what we have
always said.

Q: Has there been a past time - can you name a past time when a
President or Secretary of State has said unambiguously, since 1979,
that the United States would militarily defend Taiwan - no ifs, ands
or buts about it?

MR. REEKER: What I can refer to you is what the President said, that
nothing has changed, and that speaks for itself.

Q: Well, he said nothing has changed, but I am asking you as a matter
of diplomatic continuity whether in the past, as a result of there
being no change, where has there been a previous US Government
statement to this effect?

MR. REEKER: I am sure you and all of your colleagues will study the
history and every statement and parse every reference to these things.
What I can tell you is that there is no change in our policy. We
expect any dispute to be resolved peacefully. The President said that.
We expect, hope, believe that peaceful resolutions are possible. He
said that the Chinese have to hear that we will uphold the spirit of
the Taiwan Relations Act.

And the President also talked about the very important relationship we
have with China. We have got some tough decisions coming up, as the
President indicated. We have trade issues with China. We want to work
with China on trade. The President talked about trade and open markets
enhancing freedom. He also talked about some of the concerns he has
had and some of the concerns we have had - we have discussed it from
here - about decisions the Chinese have made, recent ones.

But he was very adamant that we adhere to a One China policy, and that
while we have a difficult, complex relationship with China, there are
areas where we agree and there are areas where we disagree, and that
is what we are going to have continue to pursue.

Q: Is it a correct interpretation of what the President said to say
that he said the United States would defend Taiwan against China in a
military situation? Is that a correct reading of what the President
said?

MR. REEKER: What I heard the President say - and again, you can all
go to the transcripts and the video replays - but I know he did say,
"I'll do what it takes to help Taiwan defend herself." And that is
very much as our obligations are stated under the Taiwan Relations
Act.

Q: Phil, the tough decisions that you have coming up and talks with
the Chinese, it's now, what, Thursday in Beijing. And earlier this
week, or last week, Richard talked about these terms of reference for
the meeting, for the Military Maritime meeting. Have those been
delivered yet? Or is there any movement on the plane?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think the President also indicated we expect to
get our plane back.

Q: Right.

MR. REEKER: Our Embassy in Beijing continues to discuss the plan for
the return of the aircraft through the regular diplomatic channels
that we have referred to. And echoing what the President said, the
Chinese should understand our position that the aircraft is our
property and they should return it.

On the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement working group meeting,
no new date has been set as yet for the postponed meeting. The terms
of reference that you talked about that Richard referred to last week
for that meeting should be provided to the PRC sometime soon. I still
don't believe that has been passed over.

Q: Do you know if they have been completed?

MR. REEKER: I don't know. But they should be provided to the PRC
sometime soon.

Q: And do you know if, when the Ambassador was called into the - or
went to the Chinese Foreign Ministry to hear the Chinese complaint, if
he brought up the plane again?

MR. REEKER: I don't. I don't have a specific readout of that. I think,
as I said, we have made very clear through the regular diplomatic
channels --

Q: But you don't know if it specifically came up?

MR. REEKER: I don't, no.

Q: Phil, has there been any progress on the plane?

MR. REEKER: I am just not in a position right now to characterize
that, other than to say that our Embassy continues the discussions on
the plan for return of that plane and that the Chinese understand our
position, and we'll keep working on that through normal diplomatic
channels.

Q: You said in the meeting in the Foreign Ministry that the US did not
get into the specifics, that basically is not something you tell the
Chinese about.

MR. REEKER: That's right.

Q: But did the Ambassador explain the rationale; to wit, did he bring
up the continuing installation of missiles that the US sees as
threatening to Taiwan?

MR. REEKER: Well, I do think that in the overall approach, as I said,
we told the Chinese that our decision, our analysis of Taiwan's
defensive needs and our decision on what arms sales we would allow to
Taiwan reflects the defensive needs on Taiwan. And that is in keeping
with our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act.

And I think we made the point, as Under Secretary Grossman did
yesterday to the Chinese Ambassador here, that China's own actions
have an impact on the situation in the Strait and urged that China
take the sensible steps that can lead to mutually productive relations
in keeping with the points we have just discussed here.

Q: Well, thank you. Can you go a step further and say whether the
Ambassador went away with some notion that China understands or is
about to do something to --

MR. REEKER: I think, as you know, Barry, in diplomacy we make our
points very clearly. Ambassador Prueher has had many discussions on a
variety of issues with Foreign Ministry officials, Chinese officials
and authorities, and I wouldn't begin to try to suggest what
impression he has. I don't think that is something I can get into at
this point.

Q: Can I change the topic?

MR. REEKER: I doubt it.

Q: Would the United States regard a Chinese renunciation of the use of
force to reunify Taiwan as a positive step towards easing the tension
and a way that China could avoid having to make these protests in the
future about arms sales?

MR. REEKER: Well, I mean, I think our position has always been that
there needs to be a peaceful resolution of the cross-Strait issues,
and that hasn't changed obviously. China has never abandoned that
statement which you just made, so obviously anything that focuses on
peaceful resolution, resumption of dialogue, those are things we would
welcome. Those are things that we look for.

Q: Phil, the President also said in an interview yesterday with The
Washington Post that Taiwan is an issue for the United States and
China to work through. I am just wondering, is it a violation of US
China policy for not being a mediator of cross-strait issues?

MR. REEKER: I didn't hear the term "mediator" in there.

Q: Yeah, mediator.

MR. REEKER: But I would have to look at those more carefully, and you
might want to talk to the White House.

Q: He did not mention mediator but he said, you know --

MR. REEKER: Well, I think you just answered your own question.

Q: Well, I'm just wondering, is it a violation of the US China policy
because the President has said that he will work with China through
the --

MR. REEKER: I think you are very aware of our relationship. We have
just talked about the important relationship, complex relationship, we
have with China. We have an unofficial relationship with Taiwan, and
we pursue that in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the
three communiqués. You are very aware of that, so I don't think I have
anything to add. I don't think there is anything at odds with what the
President said in that. What we want to see is a peaceful resolution
of differences, of issues, through dialogue, and cross-Strait dialogue
is what we have encouraged now for many, many years.