TRANSCRIPT: READOUT ON ALBRIGHT/QIAN MEETING
(Concerns expressed about developments in Hong Kong)

Washington -- In her meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen April 28, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed the very strong interest that the United States has in a successful transition of Hong Kong that preserves Hong Kong's autonomy, its freedom and its way of life, according to State Department Spokesman Nicholas Burns.

"She noted," he said, "that a smooth reversion will promote China internationally."

In a briefing following the Albright/Qian meeting, Burns said Albright expressed concerns about some recent developments in Hong Kong, including the appointment of the Provisional Legislative Council and the annulment of ordinances that are important to preserve the human rights of the people of Hong Kong. "She essentially made the point that we are looking for positive steps from China as reversion takes place that would provide some reassurances to the people of Hong Kong," he said.

Albright, he said, also raised the issue of trade and China's accession to the World Trade Organization. "She said that the United States hoped to achieve this have China achieve it on a commercially meaningful basis. She urged China to open its markets further to American goods, to reduce the growing trade deficit between the United States and China; and specifically to open its market to agricultural goods from the United States, including some other important products," he said.

"On human rights," Burns said, "the Secretary said that we were looking for concrete and meaningful steps that China would take in the future to improve the human rights situation of the people of China. She stressed that this issue remains a central key element of the U.S.-China relationship; that we need to find a way to continue to discuss it on an amicable basis, but one that is straightforward, one where, of course, the United States does not hide our differences with China."

Albright welcomed China's deposit of its instrument of accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention, but noted that progress on proliferation issues is uneven, Burns said. "She noted that we've made little progress in areas that are of great concern to the United States chemical and missile-related transfers to Iran and Pakistan, at least the serious allegations that have been made; and that we want to further our cooperation, especially in implementing the 1985 U.S.-China agreement for nuclear cooperation. Specifically, the Secretary emphasized the dangers that are associated with proliferation to security of both of our countries."

Finally, Burns said, Albright raised the allegations of improper Chinese campaign contributions during the 1996 U.S. elections.

Following is the official transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

For Immediate Release April 28, 1997

BRIEFING BY
NICHOLAS BURNS, SPOKESMAN
FOLLOWING
BILATERAL MEETING BETWEEN
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT AND
VICE PREMIER QIAN QICHEN OF CHINA

Washington, DC
April 28, 1997
(5:35 pm)

MR. BURNS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Let me just give you a few words on the Secretary's meeting with Vice Premier Qian Qichen. They met for two hours this afternoon. Secretary Albright believes it was a very good meeting good and constructive exchange of views on a wide variety of issues. The meeting will continue this evening at a working dinner, between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.

Secretary Albright at the beginning of the meeting told Minister Qian that we see U.S.- China relations as of central strategic importance to the United States, to our national security, to our foreign policy. They agreed that they wanted to cooperate very closely on Korea for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. They agreed that they wanted to intensify our cooperation on United Nations issues, including specifically United Nations reform and financing. They agreed to work together on the Chemical Weapons Convention, now that both the United States and China have ratified the treaty and deposited the instruments of ratification.

On Hong Kong, we are very pleased and they noted that they are very pleased, together that we've made recent progress in expert-level talks. We've reached agreement on procedures governing request and approval for continuation of U.S. Navy port calls to Hong Kong after reversion, after July 1. We will have further discussions between our experts, but this is a step forward beyond the agreement in principle that we previously had to continue these port calls.

On narcotics trafficking, Secretary Albright expressed our appreciation that China recently extradited to the United States Li Chia Cheng, who was a Burmese drug trafficker. He is the subject of an indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was the target of a joint U.S.-Thai operation called Tiger Trap, which was carried out in Thailand to round up narcotics traffickers. American law enforcement authorities obtained information that Li, who was being sought by Thai authorities, had actually crossed into China. We contacted the Chinese Government recently and the Chinese were good enough to extradite him to the United States. We're very grateful for this cooperation. We think it means that China and the United States can work together on our common agenda on law enforcement issues.

On the issue of Taiwan, Secretary Albright told Minister Qian that we believe the recent visit to China by the Deputy Secretary General of Taiwan's Cross-Strait Office is a positive development. We think the cross-strait dialogue is an essential to maintain peace and stability in the region. For this reason, the United States has strongly encouraged Taiwan and China to resume the interrupted dialogue between the unofficial organizations which represent the two sides.

In this regard, as you know, during the past two weeks commercial ships of both China and Taiwan have crossed the Strait and made port calls for the first time since 1949. This shipping is limited at this point to trans-shipped cargoes, and U.S. shipping companies are not allowed to participate. We're watching this issue very closely. However, we believe that the opening of these shipping links is a step towards restoring cross-strait communication, and we appreciate very much the flexibility that both China and Taiwan have shown to have this progress come about. So Secretary Albright specifically noted that.

Let me go back to Hong Kong for just a minute. I want to go through the issues as she raised them in this meeting. Then I'll be glad to take your questions. On Hong Kong, Secretary Albright expressed the very strong interest that the United States has in a successful transition of Hong Kong that is consistent with the joint declaration of 1984 that preserves Hong Kong's autonomy, its freedom and its way of life. She noted that a smooth reversion will promote China internationally.

Specifically, she expressed concerns, however, about some recent developments, including the appointment of the Provisional Legislative Council and the annulment of ordinances that are important to preserve the human rights of the people of Hong Kong. She essentially made the point that we are looking for positive steps from China as reversion takes place that would provide some reassurances to the people of Hong Kong.

She also raised the issue of trade, and specifically of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. She said that the United States hoped to achieve this have China achieve it on a commercially meaningful basis. She urged China to open its markets further to American goods, to reduce the growing trade deficit between the United States and China; and specifically to open its market to agricultural goods from the United States, including some other important products.

On MFN, as she said to you all in the press conference, she said in the meeting that we will go forward with MFN; that it's important as a foundation of the U.S.-China relationship and to our economic relationship.

On Taiwan, I think I've noted the positive development that the Secretary raised. She also said that we hoped very much that a serious, constructive cross-strait dialogue could develop.

On human rights, the Secretary said that we were looking for concrete and meaningful steps that China would take in the future to improve the human rights situation of the people of China. She stressed that this issue remains a central key element of the U.S.-China relationship; that we need to find a way to continue to discuss it on an amicable basis, but one that is straightforward, one where, of course, the United States does not hide our differences with China.

On the issue of non-proliferation, a great deal of time was spent in the meeting on this issue probably the most time of any one issue. The Secretary said again that we welcome China's deposit of its instrument of accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and noted that just as in the case of the extension of the Non-proliferation Treaty and of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we appreciate our ability to work together with China in this very important area.

She also noted, however, that progress on proliferation issues is uneven. She noted that we've made little progress in areas that are of great concern to the United States chemical and missile-related transfers to Iran and Pakistan, at least the serious allegations that have been made; and that we want to further our cooperation, especially in implementing the 1985 U.S.-China agreement for nuclear cooperation. Specifically, the Secretary emphasized the dangers that are associated with proliferation to security of both of our countries. Iran came up more often than any other example that was given.

On the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Secretary noted the requirement not to transfer chemical equipment and technology, and the responsibility of both of our countries to make sure this did not happen to dangerous states now that both of us are part of the CWC. The Secretary made clear that as our trade relationship expands and develops with China, that we hope that China will have in place an export control system that will prevent diversions of equipment, technology, knowledge to unfriendly countries and countries that cannot, we believe, use that technology and knowledge constructively.

Finally, the Secretary did raise, in a one-on-one session with Minister Qian, the allegations of improper Chinese campaign contributions during our 1996 elections. She raised that. She noted our serious concern, as she had raised that with him in their meeting in February.

At dinner this evening, which is a working dinner, I expect that the Secretary will raise global and regional issues, specifically Korea and Russia. I also expect that she will want to raise environmental issues and specifically here, the importance that the United States attaches to global climate change negotiations. We'd like to see China take a leadership role in these negotiations, as the United States has done. We look at that as a possible area of very close cooperation between us.

For those of you who just came in, I just want to let you know we did announce some specific steps forward on Korea, on U.N. reform and financing, on chemical weapons cooperation, on Hong Kong, on narcotics trafficking and on Taiwan. We can get caught up for those of you who came in later. I think, Michael, you came in about the time I was finishing that. Bob and others came in just at the tail end.

Q: Did the (inaudible) get nailed down today?

MR. BURNS: It was essentially, yeah, we had some expert-level talks, but it was essentially nailed down today.

Q: We go for substance here. Can you give us spell the name of the trafficker, the alleged trafficker?

MR. BURNS: Yes, transliterated, it's Li Chia Cheng L-i-C-h-i-a-C-h-e-n-g.

Q: C-h-i-n-g all right you're very --

MR. BURNS: E-n-g. Li Chiacheng. My Chinese is not perfect.

Q: E-n-g.

MR. BURNS: E-n-g, yes.

Q: You've covered a lot of ground.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

Q: You know, we could go on for a long time on each of these issues. You don't want to, I know, and we don't particularly.

MR. BURNS: I'm here to serve.

Q: Well, but you've given us no impression, I'm afraid, on some of these tough issues, what kind of response she got. For instance, did they you saw how he tried to brush aside the political influence reports as, you know, that's politics, but China had nothing to do with it.

Did she establish any creditability for the reports? Did he privately tell her something to substantiate? I'm not just talk about Friday's report. These reports have been going on for months. It's just that Friday it was raised --

MR. BURNS: (Inaudible) top level.

Q: Yes. You know, anything on that? Did she make any headway on that? And so what about you have an enormous trade deficit. So he said what? We'll open our doors to American agricultural products? What did you get out of that?

MR. BURNS: Yes, usually, as you know, my practice is not to speak for the other side.

Q: Yeah, I know, but --

MR. BURNS: And there is a press conference in about 10 or 15 minutes that Shen Guofung is giving. So what I can't do is --

Q: We think he'll be more open than you will, so --

MR. BURNS: -- I can't tell you everything that Qian said. I can tell you on the first issue, this is the second time the Secretary had raised this. The Vice President raised this issue, as well. The President spoke to it in his press conference on Friday. I think the United States made its point clear on this issue.

For us, though, however, Barry, I've got to be careful. This is a matter that is presently before the Justice Department. It's being investigated. Therefore, I want to be careful in choosing my words. But I want you to know that on a one-on-one basis the Secretary did raise it directly with him, and she noted our serious concerns about it.

Q: Did she also think I would assume she thinks the report has substance?

MR. BURNS: I can just say that we have serious concerns, and we wanted the Chinese leadership to know that. But this is a matter for the Justice Department, now, to look at. There is an investigation.

Q: On trade, do you sense any give on the --

MR. BURNS: Well, this is --

Q: -- their effort to get in the World Trade Organization --

MR. BURNS: This is a very important issue because China certainly wants accession to the WTO. The United States wants that, too, as the Secretary told you upstairs. It has to be on commercially meaningful grounds, meaning that we need to see that American firms are going to be treated fairly.

We need to see that there is increased market access for American firms in the Chinese market. We think that that specifically means that in agricultural goods, China ought to be more open to American exports. But not only agriculture, other products as well. That is an important issue, and she obviously took care in raising that issue with Minister Qian.

Q: Nick, in terms of the timing on that issue, I tried to ask them that early, but they didn't really answer it. There are those who would like to see this completed by the Fall so it can sort of crown the summit. Was the timing at all discussed? And what is the level of optimism about getting it done by the Fall?

MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, Bob, we have worked on this issue for quite a long time. So I'm not sure when it can get done. We would like it to be done as soon as possible. Because we think it will it's part, we think, of our policy to bring China into the major global institutions, especially the economic ones.

It will also be good for the United States because it would mean that we had assured ourselves of a sufficient level of market access for American goods. I can't point to any particular time. I don't believe there is a specific target.

Q: Did it come up at all in the discussions?

MR. BURNS: Well, you see, there were two meetings. There was a small meeting, and a larger meeting. So I really can't speak for what ground may have been covered. But I know that in talking to the Secretary, she did raise it, and she feels it's an important issue.

Q: Nick, on export controls, did the Chinese say why they have not moved as quickly as they promised they would move in May? And did they give any expectation of when they would put such a regime in place?

And on Hong Kong when you say that the or when you say that the Secretary says we're looking for positive steps from China as reversion takes place, what positive steps is she looking for specifically?

MR. BURNS: Well, as you know, the Secretary noted specific concerns that we have, the fact that certain ordinances on human rights are in danger of being repealed. The fact that a provisional legislative council has been appointed. Those are specific concerns. Because of those steps, I think what we have heard from the democratic leaders in Hong Kong is that there is, unfortunately, a feeling that perhaps the people of Hong Kong cannot be sure of what their rights and will be as reversion takes place.

If China can send specific signals, or take specific actions on the issue of human rights, of the way of life of the people of Hong Kong, of their ability to be free politically, to say, write and think what they would like to think, then it's those kinds of measures which we think would be important to reassure people.

Q: Did the Secretary get any satisfaction in that regard?

MR. BURNS: Well, Minister Qian, of course, noted that he has he plays a central role in the reversion process. In fact, he has played a leading role in the Chinese Government. I think the assurance that he gave on this particular issue was that the reversion will go well. We certainly hope so.

Now, the Secretary will have a chance to speak further to him about this, obviously, when reversion takes place. She will be there. She will also not miss the opportunity to note these concerns publicly, as well as privately.

Q: He didn't define it any further than "the reversion will go well"?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe there was a no, there wasn't a really specific exchange.

Q: And the export control issue?

MR. BURNS: On the export control issue, that is a very important issue to us. As you know, we have looked at that very carefully on some of the issues that we have had to deal with -- ring magnets and others -- over the past couple of years.

It seems to us that China is a big country. There are many companies that trade. In order to maintain the credibility of China's international commitments, there has to be a nationwide export control system that will assure China's partners that commitments are being made. It's the construction of that system and the tightening of that system which is going to be very important to the credibility of China.

Q: Did you she say that it should be nationwide? Because you've gotten they've gotten off the hook on --

MR. BURNS: No, I haven't explained it that way. I'm answering Carol's question.

Q: Well, they have gotten off the hook on the incredible notion that their industries operate independently of the central government. Now, your reference to a nationwide system would address that. Did she call for a nationwide system?

MR. BURNS: Well, export control, of course, means Barry no, these are my words.

Q: Yes, I know.

MR. BURNS: These are my words. I don't believe --

Q: She never put she didn't put that proposal to them?

MR. BURNS: I don't believe she put it like that, no. That's just my way in layman's terms of explaining something that is obvious, and that is that if you are going to be able to make sure that you are meeting your commitments, then, of course, you need to have an export control system, to which all companies in your country subscribe. There has to be some mechanism to assure yourself that it's working.

Q: It sounds like, other than port calls, which you say was essentially agreed today it doesn't sound like anything specific came out of this meeting?

MR. BURNS: Well, no, I disagree with that. I can go over the ground again. But what we have here is the first two hours of meetings over three days. There is a meeting tonight. There are meetings at the Defense Department tomorrow, meetings with the President on Wednesday morning. They covered a lot of ground. The Hong Kong port calls is very important. The fact that Li Chia Cheng was just extradited three days ago is also very important, and they talked about that. The fact that we think there has been progress on cross-strait dialogues, now, that's an issue between China and Taiwan. But it's also an issue where the United States has taken a very large role in our conversations with both Taiwan and China.

Finally, you know, we sent she sent she thinks the right messages on the other issues that we covered. So, in terms of diplomatic progress, this was a good meeting. It was a constructive meeting. There are major problems that remain in the U.S.-China relationship, of course. I have not tried to cover those up.

Q: This summit coming up in the Fall is one for which the ground has been laid month after month now. When do you think a specific date will be set for the summit? And why does it continue to be the Fall, the Fall, the Fall? Why has nobody set any date for it?

MR. BURNS: Well, normally, I mean, I don't have a scientific way of measuring past behavior. But normally we set dates for summits several months in advance, but very rarely, a year or even nine months in advance. We are going to go ahead with this visit. There is no question about it. It is up to the White House to announce the dates of the visit, not the State Department. Steve.

Q: Two questions. It just popped into my mind that sometime back the dispute that caused a potential meeting between Clinton and Jiang to fall apart was their insistence that it would be a state visit. The first question is, will this be, in fact, a state visit? And secondly, I was wondering if on WTO, did the United States lay out specific targets for market opening that would assure the United States that it could then vote for accession?

MR. BURNS: On the first issue, we have said, I think for a good while now, several months, that we expect these to an exchange of state visits.

On the second issue, China knows -- because of the very specific discussions that we have had that there is China knows what has to be done in economic terms, particularly on market access, to achieve the commercially meaningful basis that is necessary for its WTO accession. We have, in our trade discussions, put forward specific numbers on agricultural products, on other kinds of products, on intellectual property rights, and I think that is quite obvious.

Now, they didn't get into that today. They didn't get into all the numbers today because they are not trade negotiators. But the right points and the direct points were made by the Secretary.

Q: When you say the two sides agreed to work together on the North Korea issue, can you say what that means? How do they view the Korean situation?

MR. BURNS: In their conversation they agreed that the issue of peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula is of central importance to both the United States and China; that because of the fact that we are two great powers that have a lot of influence in the Peninsula, we ought to have an intensified dialogue, an intensified communication between our two governments on Korean issues.

Now, hopefully we are all going to get to the point where we have four-party peace talks, and China and the United States are two of the parties. But we agreed that we had to have further detailed and regular discussions between us and Korea.

As you know, Korea is one of the hot spots in the world, one of the most challenging issues for American foreign policy. I think that is true of China, as well.

Q: Did you say a dialogue between the three of you?

MR. BURNS: No, the two of us, the United States and China.

Q: Okay. Is there any contemplation of China sitting in on these talks now with the North Koreans and the South Koreans?

MR. BURNS: Well, at this point, the ball is in the North Koreans' court. They have got to come back and say whether they want to participate Once they start, once they agree, then we go to four-party talks. I don't believe there's any thought to adding China to these preliminary discussions that we've had, no. Charlie.

Q: Nick, you said the Secretary raised human rights, which she always does, as we know, and which Secretary Christopher always did. Is it sufficient for U.S. policy to just raise the issue of human rights, or do the Chinese ever have to do anything about human rights?

MR. BURNS: Charlie, come on. Of course, you know that --

Q: Did they say, did they give --

MR. BURNS: The answer's obvious to that question. The answer is that we're looking for actions I believe I said concrete and meaningful steps on human rights that we are looking for. We're not looking for just words. Words are cheap; actions are much more impressive.

Q: When was the last time we heard any actions?

MR. BURNS: On human rights?

Q: On human rights.

MR. BURNS: Well, Charlie, I can't say that in recent months we've seen many positive steps at all. There was the announcement, I think, a couple of weeks ago, during the debate, before the vote in Geneva on the human rights resolution, that they would consider signing one of the U.N. covenants. But that's talk. So what we're looking for is action.

I think if you look at our human rights report, which was quite strong this year, you'll note that the United States believes that there is practically no political opposition left in China; that all the major dissidents have been incarcerated, have been arrested, prosecuted and are now serving time. So we have very serious concerns and a very serious difference on human rights, and we are looking for actions. The Secretary made that clear.

I can't promise the actions, though, that's up to China.

Q: I was asking whether they offered any.

MR. BURNS: No, I can't point to anything specific today.

Q: Did they say again, that's a domestic issue? Do they say that privately? And do they say that about Hong Kong, or do you figure they'll start saying it July 2nd?

MR. BURNS: On Hong Kong, I think they understand the interest that countries around the world have. In the case of the United States, 40,000 Americans, billions of dollars in American investment it's a huge, huge concern for the United States economically, as well as on a human rights basis. So I think they understand it's a legitimate subject for discussion.

On human rights, the United States believes it's a legitimate subject for discussion, and will continue to raise it.

Q: But publicly, you know, the President said way back in Seattle their president, you know, it was a domestic issue, we'll take care of this.

MR. BURNS: But they continue to discuss it with us, including some specific issues.

Q: Did the issue of the two covenants come up? And did the Secretary press Qian to, repeat their willingness to sign the one and (inaudible) on the second?

MR. BURNS: There was a detailed discussion of what some of those concrete measures and actions might be. I prefer not to go into them. I'm going to keep that part of the conversation private.

Q: Nick, I'm sorry, but I just want to clarify something because you spoke quickly on the two main parts of the proliferation concern, okay? One you called alleged or reports; and the other you spoke as if it's a fact. Do you know what I'm talking about?

MR. BURNS: No, sorry.

Q: All right. The way you dealt with Iran, transfers with Iran, you spoke of it as if the U.S. Government accepts the notion that they're helping Iran with chemical weapons.

MR. BURNS: I think I spoke about the --

Q: Yet when you dealt with missiles, you talked about reports.

MR. BURNS: Reports and allegations on both, Barry.

Q: So as far as the U.S. is concerned at this point, the U.S. understands indeed and you said Iran was a major subject that the Chinese, indeed, have been helping Iran develop a chemical weapons program. But you still don't know if the Chinese, the government has sanctioned providing missile parts to Pakistan.

MR. BURNS: I'm looking at the notes that I wrote down. I'm pretty sure I read these. I said that the Secretary noted that we've made little progress specifically in the area of reports of Chinese transfers chemical and missile-related transfers to Iran and Pakistan.

Q: So they're both in the reports category still?

MR. BURNS: That's right, because as you know, there have been lots of allegations which we take seriously, but the United States has not determined that any of these allegations amount to violations of U.S. sanctions law or China's international commitments.

Q: One more on WTO. Publicly before their meeting, they both sounded fairly optimistic about reaching a conclusion relatively soon. Following their discussions in more detail, obviously, how would you characterize each of their attitudes at the end of that?

MR. BURNS: I think we're hopeful that China might be able to meet the requirements of WTO membership. But hopeful is different from being there. It will take concrete actions on China's part to meet that test. It's very difficult to predict when that will happen.

Q: And what about, did the foreign minister express the same sense of optimism that he did publicly to us?

MR. BURNS: I think the Chinese very much want WTO accession. They believe they can get there. But there is a standard that must be met. There are responsibilities that must be met, and certainly market access is a big concern of the United States.

Q: On the port call issue, what did they do today that they haven't done on a couple of different occasions in the last six weeks? Did they sign something? I mean, you say they've -- -

MR. BURNS: No signings, no. They agreed see, what we've had before is we had I think at the time that the Chinese defense minister was here in December, we had an agreement in principle to continue port calls after reversion. What we did not have was a specific understanding of how we would bring that about, which is, in issues like this, often times the crucial element in discussions. We now have that. Based on the expert-level talks and based on their discussions today, we have reached an agreement on procedures governing request and approval for continuation of the United States Navy port calls to Hong Kong after July 1.

Let me give you another example. We also had very long and very detailed conversations with the Chinese in the late Autumn and early Winter, up through the Secretary's visit in February, about the operations of our American consulate general in Hong Kong. These issues tend to be very detailed, very complex, and it does require foreign ministers basically laying the hands on an agreement to say that it's done. That's what we had.

Q: So the experts brought the agreement and they shook over it, basically.

MR. BURNS: Excuse me?

Q: The experts have produced the implemented this program, how they're going to do it.

MR. BURNS: Yes, the details that are procedures that both leaders, both of them agreed to today so that now we have, in essence, an agreement. We have not only a commitment, but we have a way to do this after July 1, which is important.

Q: Okay, so they essentially shook hands over something that was done in the last couple of weeks.

MR. BURNS: Last couple days.

Q: Last couple days.

MR. BURNS: Yes, but that's often how diplomacy works it's not done until you get to the meeting room.

Q: It doesn't have to be signed by anybody still?

MR. BURNS: No, it's an understanding. Well, I'm sure that some of this will be put into writing. But there's now a very detailed understanding of how this will take place.

Q: How many port calls are left?

MR. BURNS: How they will how many there will be?

Q: How many port calls there are, and how many there will be, yeah.

MR. BURNS: I don't have those figures in my head, Michael, I'm sure we can get them to you.

Q: Do you know the frequency, currently?

MR. BURNS: I don't.

Q: Approximate?

MR. BURNS: No.

Q: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Yes.

Q: Recently China seems to be uncomfortable with the U.S.-Japan security treaties. Did Minister Qian raise this issue in today's meeting?

MR. BURNS: That's one of the issues that I expect to be raised this evening. There's going to be discussion of Asia Pacific issues Korea, Japan, Russia, specifically, as well as the environment.

Q: Nick, before the meeting the foreign minister said the main agenda item was going to be the upcoming summit. Was that the case?

MR. BURNS: Well, I think that's the backdrop of these talks this week. There will be this exchange of state visits and that we need to get ready for them. We hope to produce tangible achievements. But getting there is going to be difficult on some of these issues. So I think that's the goal here to try to make some concrete progress by mid to late '97 and early '98 on all these issues.

Q: Back to North Korea, Nick, did you get a feeling China is enthusiastic to join the four-party talks?

MR. BURNS: I think China we'll have further talks tonight, but I think China has already noted publicly its desire to be present at the table when those talks begin as one of the major parties.

Q: Nick, do you think that --

MR. BURNS: We don't anticipate any problems. Excuse me, Betsy.

Q: Do you think that these talks were, well, sort of helped you a lot along the way of getting to state visits? Were these talks helpful enough that they might necessitate, say, a couple of more visits like this or five or six or do you have any evaluation on how this might have moved this process forward?

MR. BURNS: We have agreement to exchange state visits, so that was never a question. These talks are important because it's the only time when the two ministers get together that we have a high-level review of all the major issues in the relationship.

Q: But what you're looking for are things that you can agree on in a state visit. So you have to move this agenda forward enough so that you have something to make the state visit worthwhile, you just said. So I'm asking whether these issues were moved forward enough so that making a state visit worthwhile is possible.

MR. BURNS: I think it's too early to well, first of all, the state visit's going to be worthwhile because it gets back to the central point of the relationship: whether we agree or disagree, you've got to meet; you've got to have engagement.

Second, after two hours of talks, it's just too early to say -- months and months away from a high-level presidential visit -- that we are there. I think we need further progress, obviously, on WTO, on proliferation, on human rights. We want progress on all these issues, on other trade issues. The MFN debate in the United States lies ahead of us. So there's a lot of issues that we need to work on right now and not get our sights too focused on the Autumn of 1997.

Q: Thanks.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

(end transcript)