UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT: DAS SHIRK 11/7 ON JIANG ZEMIN VISIT
(Summit lays foundation for future U.S.-China cooperation) (3760)

Washington -- The summit meeting between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and
President Clinton was an important milestone in the development of
U.S.-China relations -- one that laid "a good foundation, a framework for
cooperation to advance the broad range of U.S. interests in working with
China," according to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Susan Shirk.

"We made concrete progress... in quite a broad range of areas," Shirk said
in a November 7 briefing for the media on summit results at the Washington
Foreign Press Center. "I know that our Chinese colleagues have used the
term 're-normalizing' relations, and I think that is a good use of the term,
because we really are attempting to return to a relationship where meetings
are just business as usual; they're not concessions or bargaining chips...
and we can work together through those meetings to address common problems,
as well as address differences."

When questioned about legislation in the House that would affect U.S.-China
relations, Shirk said that the administration shares the concerns of many
members of Congress.

"The administration, of course, shares a lot of concerns that members of
Congress have about proliferation, about human rights, about trade. But
we believe that the approach proposed in these bills would be very much
counterproductive to our achieving the goals of improving human-rights
performance in China, narrowing the trade deficit, and working together with
China to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," she
said.

"The entire administration's approach is to press very hard in the short
term for progress on human rights," she added. "To say that we should have
a long-term understanding of the evolutionary process of social and economic
change in China doesn't mean that the U.S. government sits on its hands and
just waits for history to take its course."

Following is an unofficial transcript of the briefing from the Federal News
Service:

(begin unofficial transcript)

FOREIGN PRESS CENTER BRIEFING WITH
SUSAN SHIRK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
TOPIC: THE WRAP-UP OF THE JIANG ZEMIN VISIT
WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER
WASHINGTON, DC
11:40 A.M. EST
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1997

MS. SHIRK: Thank you very much. It's pleasure to have the opportunity to
meet with you today to talk about the summit meeting between President Jiang
Zemin and President Bill Clinton, which occurred last week.

This meeting was, of course, the first one in 12 years between the presidents
of our two countries. And from the U.S. government perspective, we do view
this as an important milestone in the development of the U.S.-China
relationship.

We are pleased that through the summit we were able to lay down a good
foundation, a framework for cooperation to advance the broadrange of U.S.
interests in working with China. And we made concrete progress on really
quite a -- in quite a broad range of areas, but we also established the
general definition and framework for the relationship that does provide a
good foundation for future cooperation.

I know that our Chinese colleagues have used the term "re- normalizing"
relations, and I think that is a good use of the term, because we really
are attempting to return to a relationship where meetings are just business
as usual; they're not concessions or bargaining chips, and instead we -
- our dialogue at all levels, from our top leaders down through lower-level
officials, is kind of routine. And we can work together through those
meetings to address common problems, as well as address differences.

So from our perspective, we feel that the visit was really quite successful
in both of those aspects; the concrete progress on a broad range of issues
and laying down a good foundation for future cooperation.

MODERATOR: Okay? Let's start here. Please wait for the microphone and
identify yourself.

Q: Tomahiyu (sp) (Tosomai ?) of Nikkei Japanese newspaper.

Actually, I have a question on the (word inaudible) China bill now the House
is debating. As you may have known, seven out of nine has already passed.
Which kind of message -- I mean, understanding that Congress wants the send
to the administration, especially one week after the summit? Which kind
of message now the administration wants to send to the Congress? Especially,
there is one problem of the certification of the peaceful use of the nuclear
cooperation.

SHIRK: Well, I don't think we should read too much into these bills in terms
of evaluating the views of the American public or of the members of Congress
on U.S.-China relations or the summit.

The administration, of course, shares a lot of concerns that members of
Congress have about proliferation, about human rights, about trade. But
we believe that the approach proposed in these bills would be very much
counterproductive to our achieving the goals of improving human-rights
performance in China, narrowing the trade deficit, and working together with
China to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

So we think -- we agree with some of the objectives, but we think this is
not the way to do it.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q: Yes. Tina Chung with Chinese Television, from Taiwan. I'd like to
know, how did President Jiang Zemin respond at the urging of President
Clinton to resume cross-strait dialogue?

And also, how does Taiwan fit in, in your plan to try to develop a strategic
partnership with China? Because you know that President Li's goal is to
break our isolation and -- instead of doing anything at the mercy of China.
So I wonder how -- are you going to treat Taiwan parallelly, as Taiwan has
requested?

SHIRK: Your first question, about President Jiang Zemin's response to
President Clinton's urgings to resume cross-strait dialogue -- I can't
answer that, because I was not present in the White House meetings. Only
a very small number of officials were. And I haven't yet received a
transcript or a report of those meetings. So I cannot -- I wouldn't want
to characterize them for you.

On the second question, as to how the U.S. informal relations with Taiwan
meshes with our effort to establish a constructive strategic partnership
with China, I'd like to say that we do not see a contradiction between the
two at all. And I think through our discussions with China, our official
discussions with China and our informal discussions with Taiwan, we have
reassured both that really these two things are quite consistent.

In our discussions with Chinese officials in the lead-up to the summit, and
in the context of the summit itself, we had the opportunity to reiterate
our well-established positions about Taiwan. And let me just repeat them
to you here.

Of course, we have a one China policy, and we made clear that we do not support
two Chinas or one China, one Taiwan. We also adhere to the fundamentals
in the Three Communiqus of 1972, 1979, 1982. We do not support Taiwan
independence, and we do not support Taiwan's membership in the United
Nations.

In addition, we insist that the resolution of the relationship between the
mainland and Taiwan be resolved by the Chinese people themselves on both
sides of the straits, that it be peaceful. And of course, we continue to
adhere to the Taiwan Relations Act in our relationship with Taiwan as well.
And then we are urging both sides to resume cross-strait dialogue.

So that kind of complete statement of our policy is something that we feel
very confident about. We think that it is has provided a very good
foundation for a stable situation in the Taiwan Straits. And we hope that
that stability can be maintained and enhanced in the future.

Q: Parasuram, Press Trust of India. There was a rather intriguing
reference to the (SALT ?) issue in the joint statement. It was something
to the effect that China will play a role in stabilizing the -- (inaudible)
-- in South Asia and all that.

Was South Asia discussed in the summit or at the foreign secretary's level?
And if so, what was the context? And what kind of a role do you see for
China in South Asia?

And secondly, is it also viewed widely that you are more concerned about
Iran, with China stopping proliferation in Iran. And as far Pakistan is
concerned, you have forgiven -- it's a question of forget and forgive kind
of attitude, and you just don't care what the Chinese have done as far as
proliferation in Pakistan is concerned.

SHIRK: I think there are two questions there.

The first one is, "How did South Asia come up as a topic in the context of
the summit?"

As part of our effort to build a good foundation for U.S.-China relations,
we have paid more attention to what we call strategic dialogue between our
officials at every level, from the presidents on down. And what we mean
by strategic dialogue is a frank discussion of foreign-policy situations
in the Asia Pacific region, as well as in other regions; on situations where
the United States is very concerned about either restoring or preserving
peace and stability in that situation. And we look to cooperation with
other major countries in order to move in that direction in different
regional situations.

So oftentimes these strategic dialogues are quite informal. The senior
officials kind of bring up their own interests depending -- it might relate,
for example, to a trip they recently took and some new ideas they have or
new impressions they have. So that's really how South Asia has come up,
as part of that strategic dialogue.

And our senior officials have discussed, and discovered really, a common
concern about the -- you might say the tension in South Asia, obviously,
particularly between Pakistan and India. There is also a concern about the
continuing uneasy situation in Afghanistan.

So as our foreign-policy makers, the Chinese and the U.S. ones, talk together,
these kinds of issues come up. It doesn't mean that there is any plan of
action that they have discussed. It simply means that they are sharing
impressions of the situation in these different regional areas.

The second question, about China's relationship with Pakistan; in fact, we
have been very concerned about China's assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear
facilities, in Pakistan, in the past. And as you know, in May of 1996 we
received an assurance from China that it would no longer undertake that kind
of cooperation. And part of our whole effort to work together with China
to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has been to make
sure that that pledge was really sustained in China's actual behavior with
Pakistan. So this is something that in fact we have paid close attention
to.

MODERATOR: One more from this side, and then we'll -- (off mike).

Q: I have the microphone. I'm Sarah Jackson-Han with Agence France-Presse.
Before the summit, President Clinton gave a very important speech, setting
the stage for the summit, using the bully pulpit, in which he encouraged
Americans to really take the long view on relations with China. I'm
wondering if that specifically encompasses your approach on human rights.

SHIRK: Well, I can't quote you the exact phrases from that speech or from
the president's other remarks during the summit at -- on various occasions.
But I think it's quite clear that his approach and the entire
administration's approach is to press very hard in the short term for
progress on human rights.

To say that we should have a long-term understanding of the evolutionary
process of social and economic change in China doesn't mean that the U.S.
government sits on its hands and just waits for history to take its course.
Instead, what we do is express our concerns about people who are in prison
for the free expression of their ideas, about suppression of religious and
cultural activities in Tibet, and other kinds of human-rights problems that
we have identified.

So we recognize the tremendous transformation, and we appreciate the
tremendous transformation, of social and economic life in China and the fact
that individuals are much freer to live their lives the way they choose now
than they were, say, in the era of the Cultural Revolution. At the same
time, we are not satisfied with the extent of political freedom, and we
continue to press on those issues.

Q: Thank you. Good morning, Secretary Shirk. My name is Takahata (Akio ?)
from the Japanese newspaper. It's called Mainichi. I'd like to ask you two
questions, quickly.

Even though the Chinese side used "renormalization," I noticed that -- and
many other colleagues may have noticed that, in all the public remarks of
Mr. Clinton, he never used "friend" or "friendly" or "friendship." And also,
I recall that Madame Albright said that: Unless and until the human rights
will, you know, changed, there will be no full normalization of the
Chinese-U.S. relationship. So how do you characterize these renormalized
relations between two countries, in comparison with, say, the (friendship ?)
relations or even (allies ?) between Japan-U.S. relations?

And the second question is the definition of partnership. I heard that the
Chinese side first proposed to call a constructive partnership, and the U.S.
side proposed a strategic partnership. And the outcome is to mix together.
(Laughs.) And how do you characterize the (contents ?) of the partnership?

SHIRK: It's interesting, isn't it, how important these words are.
(Laughter.)

Secretary Albright said we will never have a completely normal relationship
with China until it improves its human rights performance. And certainly
that's a correct analysis.

When I spoke about renormalization, I meant more that we would have a normal
schedule of contacts and meetings with the Chinese that would not be
interrupted by things going on in the environment, the way they had been
over the past five, seven, eight years, that we wanted to have more frequent
contact, we wanted to have -- we wanted to use those contacts both to develop
areas of cooperation and to address differences.

But clearly this is very different from the U.S.-Japan relationship. .ETX
That is an alliance. Both these countries are democracies. They have had
a long and close relationship. And so there's really no comparison in these
two relationships.

The second question was about how we got to the phrase "constructive
strategic partnership."

First of all, it's important to note that the term "constructive strategic
partnership," which we use in the joint statement, is an aspiration and
not a description of the current relationship. It's where we would like
to move toward. And I believe Qian Qichen, in his news conferences, made
the same point.

Second, as to who suggested what term, you know, I don't think it's really
useful to talk about that. There were lots of discussions in the
preparations for the summit about the meanings of different terms. And we
had used the term "strategic partnership" before. And I think we were
pleased to use the term "constructive strategic partnership."

First of all, "strategic partnership" is not an alliance, too. Let's be
absolutely clear about that. This really identifies the working together
on foreign policy issues as -- of that sort I just described in strategic
dialogue, when we were talking about strategic dialogue -- working together
on foreign policy issues. We do not envision any military alliance here.
So "strategic" is really strategic in the foreign policy sense, not in the
military sense.

And secondly, the reason we like to add "constructive" to that is we think
that it's important to say that this relationship is good for everyone, and
it's not aimed at anyone else. So it's purely constructive.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q: (Name and affiliation inaudible.) My question is that, you know, in
view of the debates and passage of views in the Congress against China --
and our readers in China -- they are wondering kind of impact such (inaudible
word) will produce on the, you know, relations between the United States
and China. What can we tell our readers in China?

SHIRK: I know.

Well, as I said earlier, I would not read too much into these votes. And
the administration has worked very hard to argue our approach to addressing
these concerns, rather than the approach proposed in the bills.

I myself was there for three separate sessions and markup, when the committee
was marking up those bills, just looking for an opportunity to -- and I had
the opportunity to articulate our -- the administration perspective here.
And I regret that I was not more persuasive.

However, we hope and believe that the Senate will not act on these bills.
And so -- and that they will therefore not become law. And meanwhile we will
continue to work on these very same important issues of proliferation and
trade and human rights, in what we believe to be a more productive way.

Q: (Name and affiliation off mike.) I'd like to ask about, one, the
U.S.-Japan relations, because President Jiang mentioned -- (highlighted ?)
the redefinition of the U.S.-Japan defense cooperation.

So have you noticed, after the summit, the Chinese side a little bit
(allayed ?) this concern?

And another question is a more broader sense. Is there any indication,
after the meeting, that the Chinese side have more, say, tacit, you know,
agreement for the future of the presence of the U.S. troops both in Korean
Peninsula and in Japan, as you mentioned, in a strategic partnership in the
21st century?

SHIRK: Mmm-hmm. Well, as to any change in the Chinese views about the
U.S.-Japan alliance or the guidelines or anything, I think I wouldn't expect
any dramatic change, and I don't have any indication yet. We might look
to the meetings in Tokyo this week, when Li Peng travels there. And then
you'll be able to tell me whether or not there is any change.

I wouldn't expect anything dramatic, but I do believe that one reason these
discussions are so important is that both sides can raise matters of concern
to them, and certainly we were able to discuss U.S.-Japan relations with
President Jiang and other senior officials in ways that we hope allayed
many of their concerns.

The second question, about Chinese attitudes towards the U.S. military
presence in the region -- there the joint statement has an expression of
the -- (pauses) -- and I'm trying to find it, but there is a sentence here
in which both countries agree to work together in the Asia Pacific to
preserve the peace and stability of the region, which I think is a -- reflects
the fact that China recognizes the positive value of the U.S. presence in
the region.

MODERATOR: Let's go back to this side.

Do you have a microphone?

Q: Yes.

MODERATOR: Please.

Q: Yes. My name is Niskura (sp). I'm a Kyodo News correspondent in D.C.
Well, now that Jiang Zemin's visit to the U.S. is over, what do we expect
his return call by President Clinton to China -- what is the timeframe,
you know, for his visit to China. Is there any negotiation going on this
matter.

SHIRK: This is not yet been determined. As you know he said he would like
to visit during 1998 and we do agree that it is good to have regular
presidential meetings. But which month has not yet been determined.

MODERATOR: I think we have time for one or -- the gentleman in the front
row.

Q: Good morning Secretary Shirk. Gary Tsao (sp) with C-TV of Taiwan.
After the summit both President Jiang Zemin and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen
both did express their satisfaction and U.S. reassurances on the areas you
just mentioned, like a one-China policy, the Taiwan independence and also
the Taiwan's U.N. membership. But they did not touch upon the areas like
U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and the future visit by Taiwan high level leaders.
Can you be more specific on how those two issues are being discussed during
the home visit, not only on the one-on-one summit, but the whole trip.
What's those two issues being discussed?

SHIRK: Whenever Taiwan -- first of all I don't even want to confirm that
those specific issues were discussed. But let me just speak more generally
about how we talked about Taiwan with President Jiang and his colleagues
from Beijing. We simply reiterated what positions we have expressed many
times in the past and we did not alter our policy on iota. We made clear
to China that we had no intention of altering our policy one iota. But we
thought our policy was working quite well and we had no intention of altering
it.

Was there a second part of your question?

Q: (Off mike.)

SHIRK: So I think there's -- that's really all I have to say about that.

Q: If that's the case, why -- I mean, the U.S. has been saying the same
thing for many, many years. And -- (off mike) -- from the visit, and they
say, "That's" -- (inaudible). But two years later, when they come over to
visit and they say, "Oh, that's fine," a one- China policy. Not support
Taiwan independence, that's enough. So it (doesn't ?) make sense to me why
the Chinese today say: "Oh, that's fine. That's enough."

SHIRK: Well, we did a terrific job -- (laughter) -- of reassuring China
that we really -- that is, you might say, formula that we have established
in our policy. It's really quite effective, that they should assume that
our behavior will be in line with our policy. They won't be surprised by
any changes in our behavior or our policy.

So I think what China's -- and what everyone is looking for, in this delicate
situation, is stability and predictability so that there will be no new --
"no surprises" we sometimes say; or no new actions or policies that would
somehow destabilize what is otherwise a pretty stable situation.

MODERATOR: I am afraid -- (inaudible) -- I am going to have to -- (inaudible)
-- as effective in reassuring you how much we appreciate you coming --

SHIRK: (Great ?).

MODERATOR: -- and I'd like to thank all of you.

SHIRK: I enjoyed it. Thank you.

(end unofficial transcript)

110706.txt--2 of 11