U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-04-13

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

Phillip T. Reeker, Spokesman

Washington, DC

April 13, 2001

INDEX:

CHINA
1-2,5-6,7-9April 18 US-PRC Meeting /Representatives / Agenda for Meeting
2,4       Military Maritime Commission / Defense Consultative Talks
2-3       US Reconnaissance Flights
4         Previous US Demarche to PRC
6         Ambassador Prueher and US Embassy Team's Efforts
9         US-PRC Relationship
9-11      Status of Detained American Citizens and US Legal Permanent Residents
CHINA/TAIWAN
7         US Unofficial Relationship with Taiwan
GEORGIA
11        Reported Letter by President Bush / Prospects for Secretary Powell to Visit Georgia
MIDDLE EAST
11-13     Arab-American Leader Jim Zogby's Letter to Secretary Powell on Use of US Weaponry by Israel

MR. REEKER: Good afternoon. My apologies for the delay. I know there is a Pentagon briefing going on right now, too, which some of you --

QUESTION: Perhaps you know something.

MR. REEKER: I'm afraid we don't, so --

QUESTION: Deputy Secretary Armitage and the Chinese Ambassador, you know?

MR. REEKER: I do understand that the Pentagon has some video, which is obviously important in this. They are talking about some of the details in terms of operational aspects, and I will be happy to look into videos for our future briefings here at the State Department, too.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER: No. I just would point out that obviously my colleagues at the Pentagon -- in fact, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is briefing now. They will have obviously some of the details on issues you all may be interested in.

The Secretary of State is en route home. He has left, wheels up, from Sarajevo, will be stopping to refuel in Shannon, and then will arrive in Washington "o-dark thirty" or something this evening, early tomorrow morning here. Of course, Ambassador Boucher is accompanying him, and should be back at this podium on Monday.

I don't have any other announcements, other than to say happy Friday and to welcome you to the State Department. I would be happy to start with questions from the Associated Press, Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: Phil, could you clarify -- it's almost clear -- the two meetings, the location, the dates thereof? Clearly, there is one in Beijing on the 18th, and it is not the Commission.

MR. REEKER: Right. Let's talk about the meetings.

QUESTION: And can we do it without acronyms.

MR. REEKER: Exactly. We don't accept acronyms here, as Ambassador Boucher will remind you.

_As you know, the letter that Ambassador Prueher delivered to Foreign Minister Tang in Beijing discussed the meeting that will take place next week. We expect that on the 18th of April. Right now, it looks like that meeting will be held in Beijing. I don't have all the details on it. There are still some logistics that need to be worked out. We expect that to be in Beijing, but we will let you know when we have a firm announcement.

_It will be a delegation led by the Department of Defense, with perhaps seven, eight people in the delegation, and obviously the State Department will be represented in that delegation.

That is the meeting on April 18th, as envisioned in the letter.

Let's talk about some of the confusion about other meetings. We have with China something known as the Military Maritime Commission. That was a creation of the Military Maritime Commission Agreement, and that is something that we have had since 1998. It is a military-to-military structure. DOD leads that. The State Department is involved in terms of ongoing talks with the People's Republic of China on matters of mutual interest. Obviously they have had plenaries of that, obviously since 1998. They have had working-level meetings of that. It has been going on since 1998.

At our annual Defense Consultative Talks, held at the end of last year -- again, something led by DOD that we do annually -- that was in Beijing at the end of November, we scheduled a meeting of the Military Maritime Commission -- that is what MMC is, for those of you worried about acronyms - - scheduled a meeting of that Commission, the Working Group. So the Military Maritime Commission Agreement Working Group scheduled that meeting for April 23rd in San Francisco. So that is the April 23rd meeting that has been discussed in the press.

Obviously, if we are having a meeting April 18th, we will discuss at that time arrangements for a meeting, if it takes place on the 23rd. I think we need to do one meeting at a time. They are separate -- discrete and separate meetings. The Maritime Commission is an existing recognizable structure, which has been used to discuss matters. The meeting that we agreed to have to discuss matters pertaining to the EP-3 incident will be held on the 18th.

So I hope that explains that.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask you something a little less logistical. If I understand correctly, the US is saying that the Chinese fighter jets track very closely a US reconnaissance, sometimes coming within three feet of those planes, and it is dangerous. And of course, we just had a -- there was just a collision. The US says it intends to continue the reconnaissance, and I don't know that the Chinese will agree to stop doing what the US finds objectionable.

So my question is, doesn't this run the risk of another collision, another incident?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think some of those are the questions that Secretary Rumsfeld is dealing with right now at the Pentagon. But let me just reiterate what the President said yesterday, and he referred to the April 18th meeting and the fact that he has charged our delegation to that meeting to ask some of the tough questions in regard to China's challenging of US aircraft operating legally in international air space.

Reconnaissance flights are part of our comprehensive national security strategy. They are a part of the national security fabric. We carry out reconnaissance flights as part of our strategy that helps maintain peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region and in our world, more broadly. Other countries -- other Asia Pacific countries -- including China fly reconnaissance flights in international air space. There are a number of countries in the region that fly those flights, and as I said, that includes China. So we will discuss that issue in terms of their challenging our aircraft. That is clearly on the agenda for the April 18th meeting and obviously a subject that will be looked at.

QUESTION: But the point of my question -- I understood all that -- but the point of my question was if both countries continue what they have been doing, isn’t there a risk of another collision?

MR. REEKER: In terms of technicalities of flights, I really have to refer you to the Pentagon, Barry. That’s the kind of thing that they deal with there. In terms of the Chinese practice --

QUESTION: Yes, right.

MR. REEKER: -- of challenging our aircraft that are flying legally in international airspace, that is a subject that we will be discussing next week in our meeting with the Chinese. So I can’t prejudge the outcome of that meeting, obviously. We need to have the discussion first and then we can report to you on it.

QUESTION: Okay, it’s clearly a premature question. But I was looking to see whether the United States, this Administration, was willing to say, it’s a risk we’re willing to take to continue our reconnaissance?

MR. REEKER: I think the President has been very clear that reconnaissance operations are important to our national security efforts -- to ours and to others. Other countries do this, too. It is in international airspace. It is an important part of our national security fabric. DOD can address technicalities of that for you. And obviously in terms of the discussions we’ll have which will raise that issue with the Chinese, we’ll have to get back to you after the meeting actually takes place.

QUESTION: So the December 28th demarche about the --

MR. REEKER: The December 28th demarche --

QUESTION: Yeah, to the Chinese about -- complaining about their --

QUESTION: Shadowing.

QUESTION: Yes, their aggressive behavior, that was delivered by the State Department, correct?

MR. REEKER: I would have to check on it. Demarches are generally delivered by the State Department.

QUESTION: But they are diplomatic. Was there any thought to -- the Military Maritime Commission Agreement has a provision for ad hoc meetings to be held and not just -- you know either side can suggest having a meeting, was there any thought given back in December or January to dealing with this problem through a special meeting -- not the April 23rd meeting -- for a special meeting of the Military Maritime Commission?

MR. REEKER: I guess it’s a question I would have to ask if anybody had that thought. There was a meeting at the end of November scheduled for April of that Commission. I can't tell you what that agenda for the long- standing now-scheduled meeting was or has been.

QUESTION: What I’m curious to know is if in the demarche the US said, look, one way we might deal with this problem is by having a special meeting of the MMC working group, or discussing it at the April 23rd meeting?

MR. REEKER: I don’t have the contents of the demarche to share with you.

Is it that bad already, Eli?

QUESTION: No, I’m coming back.

MR. REEKER: The Military Maritime Commission has been a very useful vehicle for engaging on these things. To suggest what thoughts people may have had, I don’t know. There was a meeting scheduled in April.

QUESTION: Specifically I just wanted to know if you knew if in the demarche itself --

MR. REEKER: I don’t know.

QUESTION: -- the US said to the Chinese, hey, maybe we should have a meeting?

MR. REEKER: I don’t know. I don’t. We had a meeting scheduled already.

QUESTION: Yes, I wonder what kinds of questions we can expect the US to be asking China in regards to the different versions of what took place? And also the unanswered -- apparent unanswered response to the Mayday call by the US crew?

MR. REEKER: I think those will all be issues that will be raised. In the letter we outlined an agenda that we would expect to follow in that meeting -- some of the issues. President Bush said yesterday he has asked our representatives to go to that meeting to ask the tough questions, to look for responses from the Chinese, to look for some explanations. China’s decision to prevent the return of our crew for 11 days, as the President said, was inconsistent with the type of relationship that we have both said that we wish to have. And so we would want to discuss that.

Causes of the incident are clearly at the top of the agenda for that meeting. That’s what we said clearly at the top of that letter was that the details and the causes of the accident and the incident are not clear, and we want to go over that. And we want to discuss possible recommendations whereby such collisions could be avoided in the future and obviously -- as the letter calls for development of a plan -- for the prompt return of EP-3 aircraft. So we want to see some explanations. We want to talk about this. We want to look to avoiding such things in the future. Those are some of the things we will be focusing on next week.

QUESTION: How will you determine whether this meeting will be a success or not?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think meetings and diplomacy evolve. We will look to the reaction, the approach that the Chinese take to this meeting on the 18th, as one of the indicators to judge how they are prepared to move forward in the relationship. I think President Bush described very well yesterday in his remarks the fact that we have different values and yet common interests with the Chinese. Both sides have described the fact that we would like to have a good relationship. When Vice Premier Qian Qichen was here, you heard the comments that we both said.

We think that aspects of this recent incident are inconsistent with the kind of relationship that we have expressed a desire to have. So as we move forward, as the President said, there is no doubt we will face issues and fundamental disagreements in the future. We have disagreements with the Chinese on human rights, on religious freedom. We have different views on, perhaps, the path to a more stable and secure and prosperous Asia Pacific region.

But yet, as the President indicated, we have common interests, too. Our interest in trade -- we want to increase prosperity for both our nations.

QUESTION: None of those issues, though, are going to be on this agenda, right? This is just about the incident on April 1st and how to avoid a repetition, right?

MR. REEKER: As the letter outlined and I just repeated here, the issues that will top the agenda there and we will look to the meeting and the Chinese approach to that meeting as one way to judge how they’re prepared now to move forward.

QUESTION: And you didn’t mention at all getting back the plane, though?

MR. REEKER: I did mention getting back the plane. In fact, I said that was a priority. At the top of the agenda was developing a prompt schedule for return of our aircraft, our $80 million aircraft. I mentioned that quite clearly.

QUESTION: What can you say about the value of Ambassador Prueher and his experience and how he helped to solve a situation, a crisis like this?

MR. REEKER: I think as a number of senior officials have said, as the President has indicated, as Secretary Powell has indicated, as the Deputy Secretary has indicated, Ambassador Prueher has been outstanding. He has performed brilliantly, representing US interests, representing the President’s team there in China as this incident moved forward, as the diplomacy and the process of diplomacy proceeded. So we all in the State Department are extremely proud of that.

The President has expressed his gratitude and pride in our Ambassador and his team in Beijing. And the President, as head of the National Security apparatus, obviously, was leading this entire diplomatic operation to bring our crew members home. And we’re very pleased that they are home and we’re going to continue to pursue this as the President described.

QUESTION: The Ambassador was appointed by President Clinton. What does it say for President Bush and about the kinds of people that he would like to see appointed? And possibly the fear that some people have that sometimes these ambassadorships are given to huge campaign --

MR. REEKER: Well, as you know, Ambassador Prueher was appointed, obviously, by President Clinton. He was asked by this Administration to remain on until the next appointed ambassador can go through the process of confirmation with the Senate and can go to Beijing. Obviously, Ambassador Prueher was the right man at the right time in the right place -- Beijing -- to handle this issue for the President, as I described. I think all the decisions that are made to send ambassadors abroad are taken very seriously by the President, by the Administration, in consultation, obviously, with the Secretary of State, and then with the advice and consent of the United States Senate so that they can act on behalf of the American people abroad to pursue our agenda and the important foreign policy aspects in whatever country they’re asked to serve in.

QUESTION: Is this a new subject?

QUESTION: Same subject.

QUESTION: Oh, I wanted to move on to the detainees.

QUESTION: Oh, let me just ask this for a second. In a briefing this morning that I wasn’t privileged to attend a senior official referred to Taiwan as having a government -- as democratic with a government. Does that indicate any change in how the US approaches Taipei? Is it a government-to- government relationship now?

MR. REEKER: No, Barry. We have no change. You know quite well our position on relations with Taiwan as they’re governed by the Taiwan Relations Act.

QUESTION: So calling it a government doesn’t imply that we’re going to deal with -- excuse me -- let me just clarify. So calling it a government doesn’t imply that we’re dealing with Taiwan as government to government?

MR. REEKER: I’m not aware of any specific references that would change anything in terms of our unofficial relationship with Taiwan.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to the Wednesday meeting for one second --

MR. REEKER: The Wednesday meeting?

QUESTION: The one in Beijing.

MR. REEKER: In Beijing, yes.

QUESTION: Can you say how many of the seven or eight people who are going are going to be from the State Department?

MR. REEKER: Next Wednesday’s meeting.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. REEKER: I’m sorry. I was thinking two days ago.

QUESTION: No, this coming week. How many are going to be from the State Department --

MR. REEKER: The make-up of the team, I can’t -- as I said, it’s likely to be a DOD-led team. I think that’s appropriate at this point. I don’t have a breakdown of numbers, but obviously the State Department will play an important role in that.

QUESTION: And is this going to be a one-day thing? Is it open-ended?

MR. REEKER: No, I think as the letter described, this is a meeting that will begin April 18th. I think it is quite likely it could take more than one day, two days, three days -- it doesn’t have a specific dynamic to it. As the logistics of the meeting evolve we will be able to report to you perhaps expectations -- but I don’t think we are locked in at any particular dynamic. And that’s why at that meeting, beginning April 18th, they will review or discuss the April 23rd meeting, which had been long scheduled.

QUESTION: So it’s possible then that that 23rd meeting could be delayed?

MR. REEKER: I think that’s possible. I think we just have to let events occur and then we’ll see.

QUESTION: Can I please follow it up very quickly? The Chinese Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations the other day referred to this as a meeting of experts. There are various interpretations of what that implies. To me it suggests that it isn’t a decisive group, that these are technical experts?

MR. REEKER: I do think this team will include technical experts, the appropriate people to be there to deal with the questions that we described, in terms of the agenda as outlined in the letter and in terms of what the President has said. He said yesterday and I repeated earlier, he has charged that team, the representatives that will represent us in that meeting, with some of the tough questions about China’s recent practices, looking for some explanations and looking at how we can prevent this kind of thing in the future, as well as the return of our aircraft.

QUESTION: I have a question on the detainees, but if I could just follow up on Barry’s question?

MR. REEKER: Sure. Why don’t we keep going on all of these aspects and then we can go to detainees.

QUESTION: Okay. So when you go and ask these tough questions, are you expecting to get answers during this series of meetings? Or is this to get everything out on the table, and then you’ll have to go back and provide some kind of written answers?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think we will expect to have a frank discussion. But obviously we will need to see how that evolves. One can’t predict the evolution of a meeting that may go from one to any number of days at this point. So let’s get the details of that meeting. We will let you know as soon as some of the logistics are fixed and then we can move on to how that meeting goes. But I have outlined for you, I hope, fairly clearly the general agenda of that meeting and the types of issues we will be discussing. And the Chinese have indicated some of the issues they want to discuss.

Other questions on this subject?

QUESTION: Has there been any response so far by the Chinese given our version, the US version of events since the crew has been here?

MR. REEKER: I haven’t been able to watch the Chinese media or monitor their responses.

QUESTION: I mean to us -- to the US Government?

MR. REEKER: Not that I am aware of.

QUESTION: That you know of. And just secondly, would you characterize future US-Chinese relations as -- this meeting on how our relations are as "wait and see"? Would you characterize the meeting as a "wait and see"?

MR. REEKER: I think I said that we are going to look at their approach to this meeting as one indicator -- as one way of judging how the Chinese are prepared to move ahead. I think National Security Advisor Rice said, the Secretary has said, and the President indicated that right now we want to step back, we want to send our team to that meeting, we want to see what kinds of responses we get, and we want to then look at moving forward -- understanding that we will face differences with China -- but also looking to the ways we have described in the recent past the type of relationship we want to have.

China questions? Okay.

QUESTION: Detainee questions.

MR. REEKER: Detainee questions.

QUESTION: Can we go over the status of these three detainees, including Gao Zahn and where are we in terms of consular visits or raising this and where they stand?

MR. REEKER: Okay, let’s try to do the run-through. There is a US citizen, Mr. Li Shaomin, who we have discussed before, who has been detained in China. That was raised most recently today -- the 13th of April -- in Beijing by our political Minister Counselor at our Embassy there. On the case of US legal permanent resident Gao Zahn, whom we’ve been discussing for some time now, we last raised that on Tuesday, April the 10th, when our Chinese desk officer met with the embassy representative here in Washington. We raised also on April the 10th, the case of legal permanent resident Qin Guangguang.

QUESTION: The same day?

MR. REEKER: Yes, the 10th of April.

QUESTION: In terms of consular access for Li Shaomin, have we been given - -

MR. REEKER: A consular officer first visited Mr. Li shortly after his arrest in late February. Another visit took place on April the 2nd. So we are in very close consultation with the family of the American citizen regarding this case.

I think, as I have indicated to some of you, we do not have a Privacy Act waiver for purposes of disclosing information to the media. So I am not in a position to say more. We are doing that in line with the wishes of the family. But we are working very closely with them. We have had a consular visit. It was in conformance with our bilateral consular agreement. The Chinese Government notified us of Mr. Li’s detention within four days and our consular officer in Beijing made the consular visit shortly thereafter.

QUESTION: These three right now -- I think there are about 20 other or maybe 20 included of American detainees --

MR. REEKER: We have talked about Americans that may be detained -- American citizens detained in China. Some of them are there on criminal charges, on sentenced jail charges. I don’t have a rundown for you. We also have talked about -- as we have just now -- US legal permanent residents in whom we take an interest because of a human rights interest in this. So we have just been discussing two such cases. There are others. I refer you to our human rights report that was recently issued for last year.

QUESTION: But in terms of the scholars, right now three Americans -- whether it be legal resident or American citizen -- are being detained right now. Are you concerned at all that this pattern of detaining scholars is increasing over the last few months?

MR. REEKER: We have no indication that any of the current cases are linked. While we take each case seriously -- and obviously cases of American citizens are our highest priority -- and our consular officers assist more than 2,500 American citizens abroad every year who are arrested -- we also take these cases of legal permanent residents and non-legal permanent residents -- we take human rights cases very seriously. The President identified that yesterday. So I don’t see a particular link.

I would refer you to the human rights report in terms of the numbers of such arrests that we are aware of, or detentions. I can’t describe a particular pattern that has emerged recently other than media coverage, certainly in this country, that decides to look at these things at any particular time.

QUESTION: You said these were recently raised in the last week. What is the Chinese response in pertaining to these cases?

MR. REEKER: I don’t have particular read-outs on any of them. I’m not aware that we have gotten any more update on Mr. Qin Guangguan. On Gao Zhan we have said that we are quite concerned and disturbed by the news of her formal arrest on April the 3rd. And we’ve urged her release on humanitarian grounds. We are going to continue to raise that concern. We have a strong interest in her welfare.

While our consular agreements -- since she’s not an American citizen -- obviously don’t guarantee us access to her, we will continue to have an interest in her welfare. In terms of the American citizen, I’m not aware of charges having been filed at that point yet. But as I said I don’t have the ability to speak in any great detail about that case.

QUESTION: In yesterday’s Washington Post, there was an article about President Shevardnadze of Georgia --

MR. REEKER: Are we ready to change? Off of China now? Okay, Georgia.

QUESTION: President Bush’s letter contained a sort of guarantee for Georgia. It contained a reiteration of American commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity. President Bush says explicitly, we are going to work together to resolve these problems. Please comment on this.

MR. REEKER: Well, I don’t have a particular comment. I haven’t seen that particular letter. I would refer you to the White House for any presidential correspondence.

We have certainly said all along we recognize, as does the rest of the world, Georgia’s territorial integrity and its membership in good standing in the world community. We have strong relations with Georgia. We work closely with President Shevardnazde. I don’t have anything particular to add to that except that we’ll continue to use diplomacy to help where we can.

QUESTION: President Shevardnazde said Colin Powell, the current Secretary of State, is not only welcome but needed in Georgia. Are there any plans being made right now concerning the visit?

MR. REEKER: I don’t have any travel announcements to make. As I said, the Secretary is just returning from his first trip to the Balkans. And as for Georgia or the Caucasus region, I don’t have any travel plans to make. We would love to be able to go everywhere all the time. But obviously we will have to look at scheduling. And we will certainly let you know if something comes up that way.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Eli has a question. I’m sorry. I don’t want to end --

QUESTION: Have you gotten a chance to look at this letter from Jim Zogby regarding the investigation into Israel’s use of American weapons, specifically TOW missiles, in the latest round of violence?

MR. REEKER: Yes, I have had a chance actually to look at the letter. The Secretary received a letter from Arab-American leader Jim Zogby concerning the situation in the Middle East. I’m not going to get into the specifics. The Secretary isn’t even back yet. But obviously, this is a private correspondence. People may choose to release their correspondence -- we leave that up to him -- other than to say this letter follows up the meeting that Mr. Zogby had with the Secretary, with a whole group of Arab Americans on March 13th.

As we said at that time and the Secretary has reiterated, Secretary Powell is very interested in maintaining a dialogue with American citizens interested in our regional policies. And we take concerns like those raised by Mr. Zogby very seriously. We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Israelis about targeted killings, regardless of the weapons used, and have consistently called for the Israelis to cease using excessive force against the Palestinians.

Under the Arms Control Act, defense articles and services are furnished or sold solely for internal security, legitimate self-defense, to permit the recipient country to participate in regional or collective arrangements consistent with the charter of the United Nations. We have not determined that any US defense articles provided to Israel have been used in violation of the Arms Control Act. We have an ongoing responsibility to ensure that US weaponry is used according to terms of their transfer. So we will continue to monitor all of these issues.

QUESTION: Follow up. You have said you have not determined if there had been any violations. Is there, in fact, an investigation still ongoing right now into this?

MR. REEKER: I think it’s something, as I said, we continue to monitor at all times. I wouldn’t describe something as a particular investigation. It’s something we monitor. We have a responsibility to monitor under the law and that’s what we do.

QUESTION: So are you talking about as of today, right now, April 13th, that you have not determined that there --

MR. REEKER: The State Department has not determined that any US defense articles provided to Israel have been used in violation of the Arms Export Control Act.

QUESTION: You said a couple days ago that you had made clear to both parties that intrusion into or firing from Area A is not viewed by the United States as helpful to the peace process.

MR. REEKER: I think I recall saying that, yes.

QUESTION: This language hasn’t been used since Lebanon -- since South Lebanon in several years. I’m just wondering about the implication of your recognition of Area A as sovereign territory of the Palestinians. Is this tantamount to de facto recognition?

MR. REEKER: I wouldn’t say that at all. I believe Area A, Area B and Area C are described under the Oslo Accords. And you are very familiar with that. I was referring to that.

QUESTION: Well, follow up. You really are recognizing this as sovereign Palestinian territory if you say --

MR. REEKER: I don’t know how you draw that from my comments.

QUESTION: Well, because intrusion into or firing from -- intrusion into indicates that this is a separate area --

MR. REEKER: Look, we have the Oslo Accords under which both sides have made certain agreements. I don’t have the specifics here. And frankly, I don’t recall them in terms of defining Area A, B, and C where security arrangements are shared or solely the responsibility of one or solely the responsibility of the other and civilian arrangements are another. I just don’t have the details here. So let me stand by what I said then and suggest that you not read into anything more than simply what it stated.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Thanks everyone, have a nice weekend.

[end][End]

Released on April 13, 2001

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article