June 11, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY
Message Creation Date was at 11-JUN-1998 16:00:00 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _________________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release June 11, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY The Briefing Room 1:50 P.M. EDT ................ Q What do you think of Pakistan's moratorium on further testing? MR. MCCURRY: I think they are interested in doing what they can do to try to limit tensions in the subcontinent. They clearly are very conscience of what the government of India may do or may not do. I imagine that they are seeking and looking for ways to protect their own national security. Now, we would like to take that interest and see if we can build that into a reasonable dialogue between Pakistan and India, but expressions that move in the direction of limiting tensions are certainly preferable and more helpful than steps or actions that exacerbate tensions. Q On a new subject -- on this "doomsday clock," does the White House have any opinion of doing that? Does that just create a lot of nervousness around the world? MR. MCCURRY: No, I think that -- I'm blanking on the name -- the Federation of Atomic Scientists, I think, has over many years has drawn attention to the dangers and the risks associated with proliferation, with exactly those tendencies in the world that we have tried to curb through things like the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the work that we've done to arrive at non-nuclear agreements in the Pacific and Africa and elsewhere. So I have to credit them for drawing in a very vivid way public attention to many matters that our government is quite concerned with and work on day in and day out. Q I think they also had said diplomacy had failed, though. MR. MCCURRY: Well, diplomacy in the sense that there was diplomacy behind encouraging both governments of India and Pakistan to refrain from testing, that's accurate -- it did fail. The question is how do we go from here to limit tensions and to move these countries back in a more positive direction. And by no mean are those efforts at a place that you would declare them a failure. Q There was a wire report out that a senior Indian official named Jazwan Singh (phonetic) is going to be in town tomorrow. Will he be meeting with anybody at the White House? What will be the purpose? MR. MCCURRY: His stop here in Washington is scheduled to be with Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. We have indicated a desire to engage at that level and also, presumably, at high levels with the government of Pakistan at appropriate times soon. There will be occasions in which high-ranking officials of both governments will be in the United States or in New York, specifically, in coming weeks, and we will, at appropriate levels, exchange views. There is no -- we will follow that dialogue closely here. I'm not aware that that's a role indicated here at the White House. Our attention not only will be on that meeting tomorrow, but also on the work that Secretary Albright also does in London tomorrow as part of this G-8 ministerial meeting on India and Pakistan that's occurring tomorrow, where we think we've got a real opportunity to build on the statement that the Permanent Five of the Security Council issued last week. Q Mike, I know you hate this question, but I feel I need to ask it anyway. Why aren't all the very passionate arguments that the President made today for engagement of a country with which the United States has disagreements applicable to Cuba? MR. MCCURRY: The principal reason is there is no movement towards market economics, economic liberalization, and change, fundamental change, in Cuba that we see in the People's Republic of China. There is a world of difference between the totalitarian regime embedded in the doctrine of communism captured and captivated by command and control economics that breaks free and recognizes the reality of the world that we live in, the power of the global economy, the moving force of market capitalism in the times that we live, and makes a conscious choice to decide to move towards the right side of history. There's a huge difference between a regime of that nature, as politically repressive as it might be, and a regime that's just stuck in a time warp and is stuck in a backward view of history. And another difference -- there is all the world of difference between Fidel Castro and a ruling leadership in the People's Republic that has recognized that they need to move toward market economics and we hope eventually towards political liberalization as well. Q So it's economics that's the yardstick, and not -- MR. MCCURRY: Well, I just gave a pretty good answer, I think, to the question. Q Mike, Castro hasn't ordered the slaughter of hundreds of people the way they did nine years -- the Chinese did nine years ago. MR. MCCURRY: You're right, there have been incidents as grievous as Tiananmen Square in the history of Cuba. If you look back over time, you don't have to look far to find instances of repression, suppression of political liberties, violence of a very gross and repressive nature. Q But if commerce is one of the standards, why not lift the sanctions and flood them with American goods? MR. MCCURRY: There is an argument that can be made for that point of view. Q But not one that has success here. MR. MCCURRY: That's not the premise of longstanding, bipartisan policy that has reflected a majority support of the American people, of our Congress, and of executive administrations, Republican and Democratic. Q So you would dispute that there's any inconsistency in foreign policy between our policy of engagement towards a country like China and the isolation of Cuba? MR. MCCURRY: I would suggest that apples are apples and oranges are oranges. Q Mike, with the speech today, was the President hoping to turn around public opinion, which seems to be the majority of -- the polls show the majority of the people are against him going to China at this time? Isn't that -- MR. MCCURRY: That's not accurate. Q It's not accurate? MR. MCCURRY: Most polls show the majority of Americans believe he should go to China. And I think most -- Q Now? MR. MCCURRY: Yes, now. At least the polls I read in your newspapers. And I believe also that most Americans understand the fundamental premise of the argument the President made today, that it is in our interest as the American people to engage with China, a nation of 1.2 billion people who are increasingly in a position to buy goods and services from companies that manufacture and produce goods and services here, and a country that has shown a willingness to engage with us on many of the thorny issues that the President described today that we deal with. Q Will he make another major speech about China before this trip, or is this it? MR. MCCURRY: I'm not aware that he will make another major speech, but he'll have other opportunities in public settings to talk about the trip before he goes. Q Do the forced abortions and sterilizations have any effect whatsoever on U.S. policy towards China? MR. MCCURRY: I did a long recitation of that yesterday. Q Mike, one thing you didn't make clear yesterday -- you said the President would bring this up when he went over there, but do you mean publicly or privately? MR. MCCURRY: Well, I made clear that we would, in one fashion or another, raise that in the course of our meetings there. Q Right, but do you know if he's going to actually say something about forced abortions in public? MR. MCCURRY: He will have a lot to say publicly there. I don't know whether specifically that issue will be addressed, but I do know they do intend to raise that in the course of our dialogue with the government. Q Back to Kosovo. You want to send a message to Milosevic. Has any thought been given to the President calling him, saying you've got to stop this, blunt talk? MR. MCCURRY: Well, we have spoken very directly with him in the presence of Ambassador Gelbard and, previous to that, Ambassador Holbrooke. I have not heard of any discussion of the President picking up the phone to call him. Q There is no business delegation going to China, is that right -- with the President? MR. MCCURRY: We have not announced the delegation going with him. I'm not aware of one. I don't have a delegation list in front of me. Q Is it unusual for this trip not to include U.S. business interests along on the trip? MR. MCCURRY: No. I mean, at some times when the President travels he does include delegations that are composed of people with business interests. That was the case recently when we went to Africa. But there are other times when he travels that we don't include an element like that within the official delegation. It really depends on the nature, scope, purpose of the trip. Q Since you just were stressing market economics and transition there in China, and trade, why would the President not include a business delegation? MR. MCCURRY: Well, there's a big difference. In the case of Africa, which we are really -- we're launching new opportunities and starting a new Africa trade initiative -- we were introducing people and getting them -- hoping to make connections between U.S. private sector interests and their counterparts in Africa. In the case of China, there is already an extensive presence of U.S. private sector interests in China; there's a very active American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing that I assume we will see. In effect, we don't need to take them there because they're already there. So that's the big difference. Q In his speech today, he dealt head on with a lot of the controversy -- the Tiananmen Square visit, the technology -- alleged technology transfers. But I don't think he made any reference to the alleged funneling of Chinese campaign money into the Democratic Party -- did he? MR. MCCURRY: He didn't because -- you used a very important word there -- allegation, alleged. I don't think there would be a reason to address that at this point is nothing more than an allegation, and in any event, is being properly investigated by the Justice Department. Q And on a previous issue. Even though there isn't a business delegation going, do you see any benefits accruing to U.S. businesses interested in China as a result of the President's trip? MR. MCCURRY: Well, of course. I mean, the work that we're doing to engage with them constructively can have the byproduct of smoother relations when it comes to trade and commerce. It can create more opportunities of certainty, better understanding by Chinese authorities of those things that our economic interests look to when we make investment decisions and pluralism and respect for human rights and freedom of expression and freedom of information so that markets work more effectively in very fundamental principle when it comes to why we believe market economics works best and why those are the features of economies that produce the best investment opportunities for those who are investing. So that's all by way of saying that's an important part of the powerful argument that the President can make for political liberty as well as for economic engagement. Q Mike, this is the Chinese political contributions are only alleged. Does that mean the President will not raise it with the Chinese? MR. MCCURRY: He has raised it before and if there's something new to raise, he'll raise it again. I'm not aware there's been anything new to raise. .................. Q Is the President doing anything to moderate the impact of the sanctions against Pakistan on northwest wheat farmers? And is he supportive of moving Congress to change the sanctions law to exempt agricultural export credits? MR. MCCURRY: I know our Justice Department has been looking closely at that question because there may be, by a virtue of the Glenn Amendment, sanctions against Pakistan, things that affect the Department of Agriculture's GSM export program with respect to wheat. I know that that question had been looked at, and the Justice Department was I think coming to the conclusion that our law might be fairly inflexible with respect to the imposition of those types of sanctions. But I think we'll need to do more work and sort out where that issue is. Q But that would be the National Congress in other words. He hasn't found any flexibility that he didn't know about before in the law. MR. MCCURRY: I imagine that they're seeing what kind of flexibility exists. But the answer may be not much. ........... #510-06/11
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
