TRANSCRIPT: 6/26 XIAN PRESS BRIEFING BY MCCURRY, BERGER
(Human rights high priority for Clinton-Jiang meetings)Xian, China -- Human rights was, is, and will be a very high priority for President Clinton in his conversations with Chinese President Jiang, according to National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger.
In a press briefing June 26, Berger said the recent detentions of dissidents by Chinese authorities would simply reinforce that priority.
"China is changing," Berger said. "There are still forces that are pulling the other direction, that are resisting. That change -- we've seen that in the episodes over the last day of dissidents who have been detained, obviously, the Chinese apparatus, Chinese security apparatus doing what comes naturally for them," he said.
"People are not debris to be swept up for a visitor, and we have expressed our concern about this to the Chinese government," Berger said.
"It's unacceptable, in my judgment, for people to be detained in connection with an event like this -- this is not surprising, but it's not unacceptable," he continued. "If China is going to make that next step into really being a nation whose practices are fully acceptable to the international community, then ... this is not a step in that direction."
Berger said the Chinese government's response to U.S. protests about the incidents has not been satisfactory. "They dispute the facts or otherwise explain these incidents away," he said. "But we will continue to make clear, and the President will make clear in his meetings tomorrow, that this is simply -- as he said today -- China looking backward, quite at odds with the China that we see all around us here in the last 24 hours; a China that is moving in leaps and bounds into the 21st century."
Berger discussed some areas that the President would cover in his conversations with Jiang.
"On human rights," he said, "we have made a number of suggestions relating to dissidents, relating to Tibet. I would not anticipate that we would see the fruits of those discussions while we're here. As you'll recall, when President Jiang came to Washington and we had very extensive discussions with him on a number of human rights topics, it was not until he returned to China, until some weeks or even months later that they announced the release of Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan and Bishop Jin and intention to sign the U.N. Covenant of Political Civil Rights. I would anticipate the same pattern in this case."
"On rule of law, an area that we are placing increasing importance on," Berger added, "we will be able to conclude an agreement to intensify a process that's begun over the last year of training Chinese judges and lawyers, of working with Chinese jurists and judicial, legal officials on legal assistance to the poor, working with the Chinese on making sure that the process of rule of law includes personal rights as well as property rights -- human rights as well as intellectual property rights."
"On energy and the environment," he continued, "a process begun well over a year ago by the Vice President, it is moving along very nicely. We will be undertaking a number of projects with the Chinese as we help them move away from a heavy coal-based economy to a clean energy economy."
"Finally," Berger said, "in the science and technology area, an area where we have been working with the Chinese for 20 years and which has produced some extraordinary developments, including breakthroughs in the treatment of spina bifida, including cooperative projects in detecting natural disasters before they occur, we will be undertaking some collective projects in the health area, particularly concentrating on the area of birth defects, polio, and the effects of tobacco use."
Following is the official White House transcript of the press briefing:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Xian, People's Republic of China)June 26, 1998
PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGERShangri-la Hotel
Xian, People's Republic of ChinaMCCURRY: Good afternoon. One program note before I bring Sandy up. During the course of the tour, the very interesting tour the President had of the Terra Cotta Warriors, your print pooler was with him and had an opportunity to talk to the President afterwards, so you're going to get a pool report that has him commenting with some color on his tour. I won't attempt to do that now.
Q: All color, no substance?
MCCURRY: All color, no substantive comments. Mostly just about the tour itself. Sandy, very graciously, will do a little preview of tomorrow and discussion today.
BERGER: There are a few comments in the pool report about the construction of the Terra Cotta Warriors, the President's perspective on that. So it is substantive. I was kidding. Mistake. Let me talk briefly about today, a little bit about tomorrow, and then if there are any questions I will be happy to try to answer them. I think in day one here in China we have seen that China has many faces, and we have seen several of them over the past 24 hours. In the village this morning that we visited, both in the roundtable with the villagers and then just generally, listening to the Mayor, this is one of a half a million villages in China that have had multicandidate, genuine elections. About 500,000 of China's one million villages have gone through this process. And these have generally been real elections, Incumbents have often been defeated, and the Carter Center, for example, has a project here in China that both assists in this process and observes it and has generally found the process to be quite a good one.
I thought it was particularly noteworthy, the President's comments at the end of the remarks to the village -- and I think, obviously, deliberately so, that "I have run in elections, I have won, and I have lost, I prefer winning, but when there is a democratic process, then everybody is a winner." And I think you'll see in all of the President's statements an effort to draw from the specific to make the general point of encouraging and reinforcing the processes of change that are taking place.
I thought it was also particularly interesting in terms of this morning, the question, the one question from I believe the teacher, the gentleman, to the President's -- sitting to the President's left, when the First Lady asked if there were any questions -- he said, why are you here, why did you come to our village? This is obviously not a general practice of Chinese officials, just as we found when we went to South America, that the President doing this has been quite a dramatic difference from the way in which they're used to relating to their national officials.
The President's answer, as you know, was because he thinks it's important for people who run countries to understand how what they do affects the average people in those countries and because he wants the American people to see various aspects of Chinese life.
This afternoon the President saw what is clearly one of the most extraordinary archaeological sites in the world, and an enormous statement about China's past. The President's comment to me was that he was impressed by the awesome nature of the site, but equally impressed by the care and meticulousness with which the Chinese people are reconstructing what they have found and what they have been working on now for about 25 years.
Before Emperor Qin, whose tombs those were of course, the soldiers were buried alive. Qin instituted the policy apparently of having them simply replicate themselves, I think thus being the first "third way" emperor in history.
China is changing. There are still forces that are pulling the other direction, that are resisting. That change -- we've seen that in the episodes over the last day of dissidents who have been detained, obviously, the Chinese apparatus, Chinese security apparatus doing what comes naturally for them. People are not debris to be swept up for a visitor, and we have expressed our concern about this to the Chinese government.
Their response so far has not been terribly satisfactory. They dispute the facts or otherwise explain these incidents away. But we will continue to make clear, and the President will make clear in his meetings tomorrow, that this is simply -- as he said today -- China looking backward, quite at odds with the China that we see all around us here in the last 24 hours; a China that is moving in leaps and bounds into the 21st century.
Let me talk a little bit about tomorrow. After the arrival ceremony, the President will meet with President Jiang. There will be, the first day, a larger meeting and then a smaller meeting. There then will be a press availability , joint press availability, between President Jiang and President Clinton with a -- a brief press availability -- they will each make a statement and take a few questions. And then there will be a lunch with Premier Zhu Rongji.
In terms of the substance, we've obviously been working on this over some time. There are some matters that are still under discussion, the outcome of which, I think at this point, unclear and obviously will not materialize unless it is satisfactory to us.
On the issue of detargeting, for example, the Chinese traditionally have linked that issue to our unwillingness to accept a doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons. That is not something that we're prepared to do. And we continue to discuss this with them.
With respect to other security areas, we will be talking to them, we have been talking to them since the Secretary's trip, my trip, Sandy Kristoff's trip, discussions over the last few days in Beijing with Jim Steinberg and Sandy Kristoff -- a number of issues, missile issues in particular, where we would hope that we would make some progress.
On human rights, this is something we've talked about very extensively with the Chinese. We have made a number of suggestions relating to dissidents, relating to Tibet. I would not anticipate that we would see the fruits of those discussions while we're here. As you'll recall, when President Jiang came to Washington and we had very extensive discussions with him on a number of human rights topics, it was not until he returned to China, until some weeks or even months later that they announced the release of Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan and Bishop Jin and intention to sign the U.N. Covenant of Political Civil Rights. I would anticipate the same pattern in this case.
On rule of law, an area that we are placing increasing importance on, I believe we will be able to conclude an agreement to intensify a process that's begun over the last year of training Chinese judges and lawyers, of working with Chinese jurists and judicial, legal officials on legal assistance to the poor, working with the Chinese on making sure that the process of rule of law includes personal rights as well as property rights -- human rights as well as intellectual property rights.
On energy and the environment, a process begun well over a year ago by the Vice President, it is moving along very nicely. We will be undertaking a number of projects with the Chinese as we help them move away from a heavy coal-based economy to a clean energy economy. When you get to Beijing tomorrow, if you haven't been there recently, look up in the sky, and you will, simply looking up in the sky, believe that you were in Los Angeles 10 years ago. It is a rather dramatically polluted city, and obviously extraordinarily important to them and to us, since they will become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the next 10 years.
We will be undertaking with them specific projects on coal gasification, involving American technology and we'll be working with them on a nationwide air quality monitoring network with the help of EPA.
Finally, in the science and technology area, an area where we have been working with the Chinese for 20 years and which has produced some extraordinary developments, including breakthroughs in the treatment of spina bifida, including cooperative projects in detecting natural disasters before they occur, we will be undertaking some collective projects in the health area, particularly concentrating on the area of birth defects, polio, and the effects of tobacco use.
There are other areas, but that reflects the broad range of issues that this relationship now embraces, and we will be, hopefully, making progress on a number of them while we're here.
Q: Sandy, you said that in their response the Chinese government was disputing the facts on the dissident arrests. Can you tell us what the facts are as you know them? It's very hard to get a handle on what's going on.
BERGER: I can't give you a definitive version of the facts. We have heard the reports from you folks and in some cases the Chinese have had a different version of facts; in some cases -- their response has not been satisfactory, let me just leave it at that.
Q: Sandy, what have the Chinese been saying? What is their version of the facts?
BERGER: As I say, I don't want to get into enormous specifics here. They have basically not adequately explained the situation, as far as we're --
Q: Well, how hard have you been protesting? And I mean by that, with Ambassador Sasser -- he's the one?
BERGER: Among others.
Q: Well, he has presented these protests. What has he said to the Chinese?
BERGER: He has said to the Chinese, this is thoroughly unacceptable, as the President will say to the Chinese tomorrow, as I have said to the Chinese today, as I expect my deputy, Mr. Steinberg, will say to the Chinese today. So this is not in China's interest. The fact that we're obviously focused on this as opposed to the other things that are happening in China. We've made this point to the Chinese. It's not in their interests. But --
Q: What does "unacceptable" mean? That's a strong word. What's behind it?
BERGER: It's unacceptable, in my judgment, for people to be detained in connection with an event like this -- this is not surprising, but it's not unacceptable. Those of you who have been here before, that have traveled with President Bush or traveled with Secretary Christopher or others, know that the security apparatus often undertakes these kinds of steps. They see a trip like this with a combination of, I think, anticipation and some fear. But if China is going to make that next step into really being a nation whose practices are fully acceptable to the international community, then this is a step -- this is not a step in that direction.
Q: Sandy, on that point, are you trying to separate the security apparatus from the folks you will see in Beijing tomorrow? They're all the same thing, aren't they?
BERGER: I'm not trying to make any -- I can't tell you where these decisions are made. I know in the planning of this trip there have been very large decisions that have been made at a local level and sometimes very small decisions that have been pushed to Beijing. So it's hard to know exactly what the line of responsibility is here. It really doesn't matter. As I say, people are not debris to be swept up for visitors.
Q: Do the Ambassador's comments to the Chinese represent a formal objection?
BERGER: Certainly.
Q: Are we suggesting that there is something that the United States will withhold in terms of cooperation as a result of this?
BERGER: I think it is just as effective for the President to speak about it forthrightly and directly today, for us to speak to them about it directly. I think -- we will certainly not accept this, but as I say, this is a not unusual pattern, although not an acceptable pattern. And as China increasingly moves into the international community, it has to be less fearful of its own people.
Q: Yeah, but, Sandy, what's the "or else"? What are we going to do except stomp our feet?
BERGER: I think there has already been -- you speak almost as loudly as Sam does, Bill. Not quite, but almost. I think there has been change in China over the last five to 10 years, even in the area of the options that people have in their lives and the general freedom of expression that they have overall. And many of your correspondents have written about it. So the movement is in the right direction. And I think part of the reason for that has been the presence and pressure of the international community. I think that's effective.
Q: Sandy, the Chinese in Beijing are indicating that the President will not have an opportunity to speak at large by television to the Chinese people. Is that your understanding?
BERGER: I have not heard one way or the other on that.
Q: So you think it's still an open question?
BERGER: It was open as far as I know.
Q: And what does the United States want? Is it tomorrow's event, Monday's speech? What are you seeking?
BERGER: Well, we'd like the most exposure for the President as we can. Tomorrow, I think you know the logistics. The President arrives in front of the Great Hall of the People adjacent to Tiananmen Square, and there will be a brief arrival ceremony, which I understand will last about 15 minutes. He will then go in for the meetings. There then will be a brief press availability after that meeting. He will speak on Monday at Beijing University. He will speak in Shanghai. There are a number of opportunities for the President to speak.
Q: To follow on that point, Sandy, it seems that in the summit preparations, all the flexibility has been on the U.S. side regarding the arrival ceremony in Tiananmen Square, where the U.S. delegation stays, the guest house versus the China -- all the flexibility on the U.S. side, none on the Chinese side. Are you getting anything?
BERGER: I think that's just wrong, John. I think if you --
Q: What are you getting, can you give me an example?
BERGER: Can I answer?
Q: Yes. I was wondering if you can give me an example of the Chinese flexibility --
BERGER: Anything else? Okay. First of all, I think it's hard to make a judgment about what is the net result of the summit on day one. So for starters, I think the premise here is a little difficult. Second of all, I think all of the things that I have indicated are areas that we have wanted to see progress on from China. I think that with respect to a hundred issues involving logistics, involving Secret Service, involving other issues, the Chinese have done things that they have not done before -- even, in fact, ironically, in terms of visas. Except for the foolishness of the Radio Free Asia, they have allowed people into China that have never been permitted into China before.
Again, even with respect to the actions they've taken on dissidents, which I think, as I say, are thoroughly unacceptable, I think that they probably are not of the scale that has happened before.
So I think that there is an effort on the part of the Chinese to make this successful, and I think that in the end, if our objective is to advance America's national interest across a range of issues and to make sure the President has an opportunity with the Chinese officials to raise very directly his concerns, I think that will happen. And the last thing I would say is, if you just look over the last year or two, the things that have been accomplished, I think you have to say that by and large China has moved in our direction, whether it has been giving up nuclear testing, signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, giving up their nuclear cooperation with Iran, giving up their nuclear cooperation with Pakistan -- those are big deals. And I think signing the Chemical Weapons Convention and all of those things -- they have not done it for us, but they've done what we have asked them to do.
With respect to South Asia, an area of enormous risk and danger at this point, China has played a very constructive role since the tests. So I think you have to look at the overall picture and I think if you simply look at where the President stays or take one fact out of it, I think that's a snapshot.
Q: What are the prospects of a detargeting agreement?
BERGER: I don't know the answer, Wolf. We certainly -- we would like such an agreement. I think such an agreement would be useful in two respects. Number one, it would be a commitment by the Chinese to us that they would not target
our cities and, therefore, would preclude the danger of an accidental launch, which is not insubstantial. There was a time when entire movies were based on swans going across radar screens.
And second of all, I think it would be an important statement about -- a confidence-building measure and a statement about the evolution of our relationship since adversaries point their missiles against each other and not countries that are working to build a better relationship.
Q: Where does it stand right now --
BERGER: I cannot tell you that we will have -- we are unwilling to, and have been, to change our doctrine on no first use, and that's a bottom red line for us.
Q: Is that what you meant when you were talking about you were looking for progress on missile issues, the detargeting thing? Or what are you talking about?
BERGER: No, I think beyond detargeting -- divide the nonproliferation world into two areas, nuclear and delivery systems. On the nuclear side we've made a lot of progress. As I said, on Iran, in connection with Jiang's meeting, they agreed they had no plans to assist the Iranian nuclear program. They've said that they would not assist unsafeguarded nuclear facilities -- read that Pakistan. And they have recently adopted in their law most of the nuclear export controls of the so-called Zanger Committee, which are kind of the internationally recognized nuclear technology no-nos. That's a technical term. So that's the nuclear side.
On the missile side their commitments have been more ambiguous and more subject to differing interpretations. They have said that they would adhere to the MTCR guidelines. They have not talked about looking ahead towards a day when they might join the MTCR itself, where they would actually undertake not just the principles of restraint, but also the obligations of restraint. If we could make some progress in moving them in that direction I think that would be a plus.
Q: Sandy, you've said that the Chinese are generally moving in the right direction on the issue of human rights and that these dissident roundups, such as they are, are probably not on the scale that we've seen before. Are you concerned that your comments might be interpreted by the Chinese as sort of a tacit approval of what they're doing, despite what the U.S. saying --
BERGER: No.
Q: -- and, Sandy, if not, if you don't believe that, then why do you think that the Chinese would do this if they're not afraid of our response?
BERGER: Well, first of all, I think China's human rights record is terrible. I think China is an authoritarian nation, as I've said before. I think there's been some progress in human rights, but it has been not nearly enough. So I, by no means -- I think that what I said, or at least intended to say was that the choices the Chinese people have in their lives today were unimaginable 10 years ago, 20 years ago. You saw those people out there today -- where to work, where to live, where to travel. Two and a half million Chinese went abroad last year. The choices that come from the cable television -- I love the fact that the income that they derive from the community companies was plowed back into that village into cable television. I think that's a step in the right direction.
So, in that sense, when I say -- I think that the degree of options that the Chinese people have today are greater than they were. I think in the area of public dissent, they are still totally unacceptable. And I don't think this is directed -- the implication is that this directed at President Clinton. This is -- the fact that this happens generally in connection with these kinds of visits does not make it acceptable. It is not appropriate. It's not necessary. It is also not the first time it's happened.
Q: How does this roundup affect the chemistry of the summit? How does it push up the issue of human rights above other issues that you intended to put forward?
BERGER: I think human rights -- I think human rights was, is, and will be a very high priority for the President in his conversations with President Jiang. I think -- that these episodes I think simply reinforce that priority.
Q: So will the President specifically raise the detaining of those dissidents when he is talking with Jiang Zemin?
BERGER: I expect that they will be raised in connection with that meeting. I'll give you a readout after the meeting rather than --
Q: Sandy, by staging this roundup now, on the occasion of the President's visit, doesn't it show that the Chinese authorities, or at least some of them, just don't care what the American President thinks about these matters?
BERGER: No, I think -- I don't think that's the case. I think they have anticipated this visit with great excitement. I think they -- look at the number of people who have been here in Xian. I'm not a great crowd counter, but there have been certainly hundreds of thousands of people, if not more.
There is enormous excitement here, as I saw when I came twice in the last two months, about the President's visit. As I said before, I think the Chinese face these things with the combination of excitement, anticipation, and fear. And their instinct -- the instinct of some at least -- is to let their desire for order overwhelm their ability to permit expression. And that is something that has to change.
Q: A question on the Zhu Rongji meeting. What are you expecting to get out of the Zhu Rongji meeting, and will there be any announcements coming out of that?
BERGER: The Zhu Rongji meeting I think will be largely about the economy, both the Chinese economy, the Asian economy. I expect we'll have some discussion of trade, although I don't expect anything concrete to come out of that. There are a number of larger issues the President wants to raise, the trade deficit being one; a number of specific sectoral issues the President wants to raise. But I think the President wants to hear about Jiang's sweeping economic reform program, what he sees the consequences of it being. And also how he sees the Asian financial situation and the impact that that will have on China.
Q: Sandy, is the idea of lifting sanctions, even relatively minor ones like trade and development assistance, now off the tables for the summit?
BERGER: Well, we have always said that that would happen only in the context of the fundamental requirements and the national interests being served by doing that.
Q: Mr. Berger, can you clarify a couple of points about an issue in Taiwan? This morning the President was asked about whether or not he's going to reinterpret, reinstate the three nos of the one China policy. Based on his answer I get the impression he's not going to do so. Can you tell us --
BERGER: What he said was our policy will not be changed here. I'd refer you to Secretary Albright's comments when she was here. Our policy has been that we support the one China policy and that we don't support the independence of Taiwan or one China, one Taiwan, or Taiwan's admission into international organizations that depend on statehood. But we believe there ought to be a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue and we will encourage the Chinese towards that end.
Q: But, Mr. Berger, my question to you is really whether the President will restate the policy in his meetings with Jiang Zemin?
BERGER: Well, I just stated the policy. Secretary Albright has stated the policy. The President may state the policy.
Q: Arms sales -- they don't want arm sales to Taiwan.
MCCURRY: This is the last chance on any other subjects. Hearing none, thank you.
Q: Can you explain why the President didn't express these outrages publicly in his remarks to the Chinese people? He has said that he wants to speak with them directly. Why didn't he ask them if they'd ever been harassed by police or has anyone ever experienced these types --
MCCURRY: The President, speaking both to U.S. press members and Chinese press members very directly, addressed the situation this morning. Maybe you haven't seen the transcript.
Q: What, if anything, is the President planning on doing on the line item veto now that it's unconstitutional?
MCCURRY: The White House Legal Counsel's Office is reviewing the opinion, but, clearly, the President believes this authority is important to protect taxpayers in the United States. It's an authority that he believes he has used correctly and constitutionally to protect the American people from wasteful spending. We will clearly work with those who believe that the President needs this authority to find some constitutional way in which the President can use the same tool available to governors around the United States to protect taxpayers.
Q: But he won't defy the court, will he? The court --
MCCURRY: Clearly, we're not going to defy the court or the ruling of the court. But there are many who believe there ought to be an effort to continue to find some constitutional way to make this authority available to the President, and that's why the White House Legal Counsel's Office is examining the opinion very carefully at this point.
Q: Mike, is HHS looking into possibly suing the tobacco companies?
MCCURRY: I'd have to check into that. If that's happening, that's happening a long ways away from here. I'll see if I can find out anything about that.
Q: Can you add anything to what Sandy said about the possibility of a live address by the President? What is the hang-up there?
MCCURRY: No, I can't.
Anything else?
Q: What about on the Supreme Court decision on the Vince Foster attorney-client privilege? Does that suggest that the other attorney-client privilege involving Bruce LIndsey might move in the right direction?
MCCURRY: I think you know that White House Legal Counsel Chuck Ruff has been quoted saying that they'll have to see how the court considers the arguments that will be made with respect to the other attorney-client privilege issues that have arisen. Clearly, the court's reaffirmation of the importance of that principle yesterday was something that was welcomed by Mr. Ruff. Whether or not it has a bearing on the case that's pending with respect to Mr. Lindsey remains to be seen. Certainly the White House would hope so, given the argument that we'd make, but we'll have to see. We were not a party to the litigation over the notes involving Mr. Foster, but we are a party to the litigation that's pending and that will be argued, I believe, next week.
Q: Mike, do you know what at point of the visit the President will give the American flag and the American historical documents to Chinese leaders? And will it be to President Jiang himself?
MCCURRY: I believe that will be presented as the official presentation of gifts as made through our protocol channels when we arrive in Beijing, either tonight or tomorrow. But it's not customary in any state visit for the heads of state to directly exchange gifts; it's done through their protocol departments.
Q: Did you have to clear that the Chinese would accept these gifts?
MCCURRY: It's not necessary as far as I know. We can present any gift we so choose, and it will be a part of the gift presented by the President to the people of China.
Q: Mike, can you talk about his schedule tonight when he arrives in Beijing? Can you rule out any impromptu visit to Tiananmen or anything like that?
MCCURRY: I haven't heard of any consideration of that type of visit.
Q: Any reaction to the recently announced merger of -- Trust and the deeply troubled -- Credit Bank?
MCCURRY: No.
Anything else?
Q: Mike, what are the logistics for the ceremony
tomorrow in the square. Will he review troops? Are there national anthems? What are the two or three elements?
MCCURRY: I'm not sure exactly -- let me consult are handy-dandy book. The way I have it listed currently -- but these things have been on a number of issues, a number of matters pending and subject to change right down to the last minute -- it is currently listed as: The President is introduced by President Jiang Zemin to the Chinese delegation. President Clinton introduces President Jiang Zemin to the American delegation. The two anthems are played. The two Presidents proceed to the dais. They review the troops. They march and review the Honor Guard. Then they bid farewell and go into the Great Hall of the People for the meeting.
Q: All of these are comments just between the two leaders. They're not public comments, right?
MCCURRY: That's correct. And a way of thinking of it is, it's more similar to the way state arrivals are done in most of the places in the world. We have a rather unique element in our state arrivals which includes speaking points. But as you know if you've seen the President arrive elsewhere, that's not the custom in most countries.
Q: When the President arrives at Tiananmen Square, is he expected to talk about --
MCCURRY: He will address the events of June 1989 at some appropriate point, but, as I just indicated, it won't be during the course of the arrival ceremony because there are no speeches given during the arrival ceremony.
Q: Would you say, Mike, that the speech on Monday at Beijing University will not be carried live by Chinese television?
MCCURRY: Twice now in response to questions, I don't have any further information on that.
Q: Mike, just let me follow up on that. If the President's comments either in Beijing on Monday or in Shanghai aren't televised, isn't he just here in a bubble, in a vacuum, if the Chinese people never hear him --
MCCURRY: No, of course not. We have -- number one of the changes occurring throughout China is the way that information is disseminated and information proliferates -- through the Internet, through a variety of sources. This is becoming a complex culture in part because of all the influences that are beginning to penetrate through what in the past has been a great wall of disinformation.
So I think the President's remarks will certainly be distributed widely through a variety of news sources represented here in this room, and obviously our embassy will make a great effort to translate them and distribute them appropriately. And the best of all worlds would be to have the address carried live so that the people of China can hear it, and I think there is sufficient demand in China here for it if anyone is going to make the judgment based on news value.
Q: What are the expectations that the talks between President and Jiang Zemin extend beyond the rather small window tomorrow?
MCCURRY: Well, they have a private dinner. I mean, they will see each other again on Sunday and have a private dinner. And I suspect, just as when Jiang Zemin visited the United States and a very substantial part of the conversations between the two Presidents occurred privately in the White House residence, I suspect that the private dinner that they have Sunday night will be important and be a continuing part of the effort to deepen and nurture the relations between both countries.
Q: Mike, regardless of the Chinese plans whether they broadcast the President's speech at Beijing University, will VOA carry that live and broadcast it on Radio Free Asia?
MCCURRY: That's a good question. Well, VOA and Radio Free are separate, but there will be a variety of ways in which we could try to get broader interest in coverage of the speech.
Q: But there's not a plan that you're aware at this point?
MCCURRY: Both of those organizations may have plans for coverage. You should ask them -- they make their decisions independently.
Q: What's the briefing time tomorrow? Will you do a feedback --
MCCURRY: I think that everyone -- just in terms of logistics needs to understand, particularly print people, that you're in a real crunch deadline because the two Presidents are going to come out, they will presumably say something. There's some interest in having at least a few questions taken by both sides. That's all going to happen presumably right around midnight Eastern Time. So, for print people, you have to be conscious of the fact you're going to be on deadline trying to cover the results of the initial rounds of meetings.
We will tip as much as we can in advance what we know about the substantive outcome of the discussions and some of the negotiations occurring up in Beijing now, as we get into the morning hours tomorrow, so we can protect those of you who would be right on deadline tomorrow.
Q: Mike, you had mentioned that the President is still intending to receive a 21-gun salute from the PLA. Is that correct?
MCCURRY: I don't see that listed in my book. I'd have to check further and see. I don't know whether that's part of their custom or not.
Q: You say you're going to give us a tip some time during the morning, but when are the formal agreements announced or whatever happens at this summit -- when does that happen?
MCCURRY: Right on deadline tomorrow.
Q: Does that all happen -- everything happens in the --
MCCURRY: Whatever happens, happens. That's what I'm trying to convey to you, that you need to be alert to that, and we're obviously conscious of that. And we're going to try to begin reading out substantively whatever we can as soon as we can even if there's going to be any delay before the two Presidents come out and make their joint statements, particularly for print folks who are right up against their deadline at that point.
Q: So, are you going to be doing that in the filing center or to the pool or --
MCCURRY: We're figuring out how to do that -- probably have to be a phone call into a filing center where you all are is my guess. I don't know. I mean, we're open to suggestions on that because some of you presumably will want to be there and be wherever the two Presidents are going to come out. But others of you are going to need be writing on deadline.
Q: -- give it to us tonight?
MCCURRY: We don't have it, as you just heard.
Q: -- from dissident groups indicated that if there's an opportunity they might -- and under those circumstances, how would the President --
MCCURRY: They may do what? I'm sorry, I missed the question.
Q: They might try to take an opportunity that they can find in order to see the President.
MCCURRY: I'm not aware of any plans for a meeting.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
(end transcript)
Return to The United States and China.
Return to USIA International Home Page.