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