Software Vault: The Gold Collection/Software Vault - The Gold Collection (American Databankers) (1993).ISO/cdr11/wh930527.zip/05-28I.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-06-01 | 27KB

From @lex-luthor.ai.mit.edu:[e-mail]  Fri May 28 18:49:37 1993
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 13:52-0400
From: The White House <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail],
Subject: On the Record Briefing on China by Mr. Lord.  5.28.93

                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                               May 28, 1993

                            PRESS BRIEFING
                                  BY
                 ASSISTANT SECRETARY WINSTON LORD

10:30 A.M. EDT


         MR. CLARKE:  We will now have an ON-THE-RECORD briefing
on conditions for MFN for China.  It is NOT FOR SOUND AND CAMERA.
Our briefer is Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs Winston Lord.

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Thank you.  Let me make some
introductory comments and I'll be glad to take your questions.

         The President's decision today represents a firm and a
balanced and an effective policy.  I think it reflects both American
values and interests, both China's importance and the repressive
nature of the Chinese government.  It also represents the fulfillment
of a presidential commitment during the campaign.  As the President
said in his statement today -- and I urge you to read the full text
of his remarks -- this is an American policy with the Executive and
Congressional branches unified for the first time in four years, for
the first time since the Tiananmen Square massacre.

         It represents very close consultations in cooperation
with a broad spectrum of views in the Congress, in both the Senate
and the House, ranging from some who would have preferred no
conditions to some who wanted even tougher sanctions and conditions.
         Let me say that in recent months in both Beijing and
Washington we have sought to make maximum progress with the Chinese
in quiet negotiations in such areas as human rights, trade and
nonproliferation.  This has involved Secretary Christopher here in
Washington with both the former and present Chinese Ambassador.  It's
involved Under Secretary Tarnoff, myself.  It's involved our
Ambassador in Beijing.  And, of course, I visited Beijing a couple of
weeks ago.

         Now, the results of these negotiations with the Chinese
have not been dramatic, but they have not been inconsequential.  And
in recent months we've seen the release of approximately 10 prominent
political dissidents as well as several religious figures.  China has
signed the Chemical Warfare Convention.  It has sent various
purchasing missions here to buy American products probably totalling
over $2 billion.  It has taken some steps to open its market.  It is
admitting Peace Corps volunteers for the first time.  It has helped
with identifying U.S. airmen lost during the Vietnam War.  It has
also been helpful in some global and regional conflicts, especially
Korea as well as Cambodia.

         However, Beijing has not moved sufficiently on our core
concerns.  Hundreds, probably thousands of prisoners of conscience
remain in detention.  Religious freedom is continuing to be
circumscribed as some questionable arms transfers, especially
possibly M-11s to Pakistan.  The Chinese have been dragging their
feet on some of our trade agreements.  There is continued pressure
and repression in Tibet, et cetera.

         Now, today's decision by the President is an
unprecedented action.  It's the first time that any administration
has conditioned MFN trade on China.  We believe it's a very strong
signal.  And, thanks to the credibility of the President on human
rights and other areas, I think it's fair to say that leading members
of Congress who have favored legislation in the past are willing to
see the President implement this policy through an Executive Order.
We believe the conditions set out in the Executive Order are credible
and meaningful, but that they're also achievable during the course of
the next year.

         They represent fulfillment of U.S. actual laws as well
as some universal norms of human rights.  The objective is to use MFN
in an effort to make progress with the Chinese on these key issues
and particularly in human rights where we have little other leverage
except diplomatic pressures.  We don't lose, or revoke MFN, if at all
possible.  It would hurt some of the wrong people and processes in
China.  If you lose that, it would hurt Hong Kong as Governor Patten
made amply clear in his recent visit, in Taiwan and other investors
in China, and it would hurt many American business interests.

         With respect to nonproliferation and trade issues, we
have, and we will continue to use very vigorously, other instruments
at our disposal:  legislation, executive action, as well as
diplomacy.  Whether it's legislation on missile sanctions or COCOM or
-- negotiations on trade or GATT accession, as well as our continuing
diplomatic efforts.

         We have proposed to the Chinese a series of ways to get
engaged, whether it's working groups or trips back and forth, to work
on all these issues during the coming years.  I also should point out
in the trade and nonproliferation areas, we're not raising new
demands with the Chinese, we're basically asking them to live up to
agreements they've already signed or adhered to.

         This is an attempt to begin to move the Most Favored
Nation debate from the center of our policy and construct a broader
China policy.  But this will require substantial movement by the
Chinese in our areas of concern.  The President is very serious about
these issues and is willing to use MFN to make real progress.

         If China doesn't act the Congress and the President
will.  We're prepared to restore momentum in U.S.-Chinese relations.
We're prepared to listen to Chinese concerns and try to make
progress, but this will take much more serious efforts by China in
order to, in the President's words, "meet basic international
standards in its treatment of its people, its sales of dangerous arms
and its foreign trade."

         So, with those introductory explanatory remarks, let me
go to your questions.

         Q      The Executive Order seems to leave an awful lot of
discretion up to the President about whether these conditions have
been met next year.  And this sounds a lot like President Bush's
argument for not wanting to sign bills opposing conditions on China.
What's the real difference here, you know, 12 months before the
deadline?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  No, no, it's a very clear
departure from President Bush's policy.  For the first time, as I
said, there are clear conditions, very firm ones, but we believe
realizable, reasonable ones, in the areas of human rights as well as
a strong determination to pursue trade and nonproliferation through
other instruments, and that's fully covered in the President's
report, which I urge you to read which transmits the Executive Order.

         This is a very clear departure, a much firmer policy
than during the Bush administration as evidenced by the solid
congressional support including Senator Mitchell and Congresswoman
Pelosi who stood with the President and praised his efforts today.
So, there's a very clear distinction from previous policy.

         Q      There actually are no conditions on China in here.
The only conditions are listed in Section I which are on the
Secretary of State, going into his recommendations.  Isn't that
correct?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  No, no.  The conditions are
on China.  It's the Secretary of State who has to report to the
President next year how well China has done to meet these conditions.

         Q      But this Executive Order does not make renewal
thereafter subject to conditions on China.  It makes -- subject to
renewal after -- based on what the Secretary of State determines.

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  No.

         Q      I'm reading it.  Show me where the conditions are.
They're not here.

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  The conditions are spelled
exactly in the Section I of the Executive Order.  It says the
Secretary of State will tell the President to his best judgment
whether China has met these conditions.  The President will then
determine whether to extend MFN again.

         Q      If all this goes into a recommendation by the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of State isn't the one who signs
the Executive Order, the President is.

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  The President will get the
report from the Secretary of State and based on that, listening to
his Secretary of State, will then decide whether in his judgment, the
President's judgment, with the advice of the Secretary of State but
it's the President's decision whether to recommend extension of MFN
in 1994 for another year.

         So, it's very clear.  The conditions are on the Chinese.
It's only that he's looking to the Secretary of State in the first
instance to give him a reading about how much progress has been made.

         Q      There's nothing in this order that binds the
President to follow these conditions.  Isn't that correct?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  He's bound by his judgment,
and that of the Secretary of State of whether they've met these
conditions, certainly --

         Q      He's bound by his judgment, but he's not bound by
the conditions, or by the recommendations of the Secretary --

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Look, if the Chinese don't
make a serious effort and meet these conditions, the President will
certainly, together with the Congress, whom he would consult, be
prepared to revoke MFN; that's very clear.

         Q      The Chinese have said that they will not accept any
conditions.  Was there anything in your meetings with them that gave
you a different impression?  Can you tell us --

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, I think officially, the
Chinese -- we'll have to see their reaction.  I would leave their
reaction, frankly, to Beijing or to their embassy here.  So I don't
want to preempt their reaction.

         Before today, they have indicated they don't wish
conditions.  Again, we'll see what their reaction is.  And I'd rather
have them speak to this.

         Q      You met with them presumably to brief them on what
was going to happen.  Can you just give us a sense of how --

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, when I met with them,
we were still trying to make progress in the home stretch.  We made a
serious effort, the President asked me to go to Beijing, one last
effort to make as much progress as possible before we sat down with
the Congress in the final stages to come up with a decision.

         I told them, frankly, that we were not making enough
progress, and therefore I foreshadowed my judgment, but I wasn't
about to preempt either the President or the Congress; I couldn't
tell them what exactly was going to happen.  But my best judgment was
that there would be conditions attached, because we weren't making
significant progress.

         Their response at the time is that they don't like
conditions; that's the response one would expect.  But in terms of
their future response, why don't we wait to hear from them.

         Q      Just to follow up on that.  Was there, in addition
to these talks about what they would or wouldn't do on specific
issues, were there talks with them about the language of the
Executive Order?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  No.  These are up to the
President in consultation with the Congress.  Now, obviously, the
general areas of concern -- human rights, trade, nonproliferation --
we've been pressing them on for many months now, as I outlined.  But,
no, the language is certainly up to us.

         Q      Why not -- for most of the order, the Chinese would
be required to make progress toward certain goals.  Why not impose
conditions such as releasing, substantially, all of the prisoners put
away for Tiananmen Square, or why not impose conditions that says
that if China breaks the missile control technology regime, then MFN
will be revoked?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, first, the specific
conditions are tied to human rights.  On missiles and other
nonproliferation objectives and trade, we're going to pursue them
very seriously, very vigorously, but through other instruments.  And
there are heavy penalties, for example, in nonproliferation that
would hit the Chinese outside of MFN if we determine that they are
breaking agreements.

         With respect to the other conditions, you have
essentially the first two on freedom of immigration and prison labor,
those are firm U.S. laws that have to be fully fulfilled.  The other
several after that, other areas of human rights we consider extremely
important, and we'll have to judge whether we feel that China has
made overall significant progress with respect to those.

         Q      Why use that standard instead of insisting, as the
United States has in the past that these prisoners should be
released?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, we are insisting they
should be released.  What we're trying to do is strike a balance
between firm, credible goals, but ones we think the Chinese should,
in good conscience, be able to achieve in the course of the next
year.  Our effort here is to make as much progress as possible.  We
will be very firm in our judgments, but we're also not trying to set
up a series of totally impossible conditions across the board,
however desirable, that we think can't be met in one year.  So we try
to strike a balance here.

         Q      What kind of sanctions follow on violation of the
NPT undertakings?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  It depends which particular
items are violated.  Now, for example --

         Q      How about the M-11?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  The M-11, if there was
airtight, conclusive evidence that M-11s had been transferred, then
the Helms Amendment would kick into action.  I don't want to mislead
you with position; I may not have it at my fingertips.  But large
amounts of Chinese trade in the particular areas surrounding -- and
the industries surrounding that kind of shipment would be affected.
It would be a significant penalty.  And we would certainly invoke it
if we determined definitely that an illegal transfer had taken place.

         Q      How consistent is this policy with the President's
declarations during the campaign?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  It's entirely consistent, and
I think it's evidenced by the fact, for example, that Senator
Mitchell and Congresswoman Pelosi enthusiastically endorsed this
approach and stood up with the President at his event this morning.

         Q      The President has had meetings on economic and
other issues with groups of U.S. businesspeople.  To what extent have
they pressed Most Favored Nation on him, and to what extent was that
influential?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, the business community
has been very active, as it has every right to, pressing upon the
President, the Congress and the Executive Branch, generally, their
views.  I'd say most of the business community would prefer no
conditions at all for a variety of reasons, obviously all of them
interested in the very fast-growing Chinese market, although I would
point out we have a huge deficit with China.

         Some in the business community are critical of China and
wish to press some of these issues, but they prefer to use other
instruments in this legislation.  Of course, the business interests
were taken into account, as were those of human rights groups, as
were those of other interested groups, in reaching a decision.  Above
all, however, the President was determined to reflect his policy
approach and his campaign commitments.

         I might add, with respect to the business community,
this is a personal comment, but I think it would be very helpful,
indeed, that the business community lobbied the Chinese government
made progress in these areas as effectively as they're lobbying the
Congress and the President --efforts in these areas as effectively as
their lobbying the Congress and the President.  I think it would help
American policy to show unity here, to have our business leaders who
have every right to express their views to the American government if
they would take actions and express their view to the Chinese on
human rights concerns, on unfair trade practices and on
nonproliferation.  I think we can make more significant progress.

         Q      How seriously do you take the Chinese threat?
Presumably they all say that they will not agree to these conditions
and they will retaliate.  Do you take that seriously that if
everything is indeed cut next year, that they will retaliate in kind?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:    Well, I'll let the Chinese
speak for themselves.  We're talking about a year from now.  Let's
hope and let's see whether we can make major progress in these areas
over the coming year so that that's an entirely hypothetical
question.

         Q      Ambassador, is China in compliance with any of
these conditions now?  In other words, if this were 1994, what would
you recommend?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, I don't want to get
into where I would be in 1994, but obviously we wouldn't have these
down here if we thought they were in full compliance.  So we see a
need for progress in all these areas.

         Q      You mentioned the support of Senator Mitchell and
Congresswoman Pelosi.  Given the actual political climate, what do
you expect the Republicans -- do you think you'll have bipartisan
support for --

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  I would hope so and I would
think so.  There are some in Congress, Democrats as well as
Republicans, who would like to revoke MFN immediately.  There are
some who would like even tougher conditions, and we think these are
pretty firm.  But even tougher concerns being placed here.  There are
some who don't want any conditions at all on MFN, some who are very
tough on China, but don't feel that this is the right instrument.  So
there's a tremendous panoply of views on this, and I think it's a
credit to the President's credibility, generally, and particularly on
this issue that he's assembled a coalition of support.  So I'm
confident that this will achieve wide support that may well be
legislation to revoke the moves to try to make it unconditional.  But
I think there's a center of gravity here, a sense coalescing around
the President that this is a firm policy, it's realistic, it can be
effective, it can make progress on these areas, using MFN as
leverage, but also in a way that's realistic, so that a year from now
we'll make enough progress so we won't actually lose MFN, which would
also have damaging effects.

         Q      Is Secretary Christopher going to visit Beijing
this summer?  And, more generally, you said you want to build on this
relationship now.  Where do you go from here?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, there are no plans for
him to visit Beijing this summer.  I would envisage working group and
other level trips in both directions to work on all these problems
and try to make progress over the coming year.

         Q      Is China now complying with the memorandum of
understanding on prison labor, and is it complying with the missile
control technology regime?  And if there is no determination, is it
wise to go ahead and extend MFN without making that determination?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, on prison labor,
there's been an improved compliance.  We have heard just recently
from Harry Woo and others new evidence that we're serious looking
into, so we will continue to monitor this very closely.

         To be more specific, what happens under the MOU is that
we bring to the Chinese attention information which leads us to
believe that certain entities are producing for export goods made by
prison labor.

         We presented them information on 16 cases of alleged use
of prison labor.  The Chinese have reported back on all 16 cases
admitting that four of the facilities involved have used prison labor
for export production in the past.  The Chinese maintain that the
factories either have ceased exporting or have removed prisoners from
the production line.  U.S. officials have visited three prisons and
have standing requests to visit five others, including a revisit to
one facility.

         Meanwhile, the U.S. Customs has aggressively expanded
its enforcement and so on.  There are other details -- this is all in
the President's report.

         Q      So, they are in compliance?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  I'm not prepared to say
they're fully in compliance.  I'm giving you the record so far.
There's been some improvement in compliance in recent months under
our pressure but there is new evidence that has been brought to our
attention and so on.  So, this is why this is in here as one of the
conditions for the extension of MFN.

         Q      The President's calling for significant progress in
human rights.  Could you give us an example of what kind of a
concrete marker he might have in mind?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  I don't want to get any more
specific than what we have here.  I mean these are fairly specific
and we'll have to make a judgment about a year from now.  But the
areas are clear in the Executive Order.  I might also add that in the
general report there are other areas that are mentioned that we
consider important as well and will be taken into account.

         Q      Does the administration support the legislation
that Mitchell and Pelosi introduced that would take some of these
conditions and make them a matter of law?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, the administration's
decision, obviously, is to go for the Executive Order along the lines
as described today.  And that has secured the support of Senator
Mitchell and Congresswoman Pelosi.  I think it's fair to say that
they have concluded and others in the Congress have concluded that
this President has credibility in pursuing these issues vigorously.
And, therefore, they are willing to support an Executive Order
whereas they may not have been in previous administration.

         Q      What's the time frame on this?  Does Congress get a
chance to block this or is it one House or two Houses --

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  My understanding of the legal
situation is that the President had to make this determination under
Jackson-Vanik by June 3rd.  On the now issue of whether there's
enough freedom of emigration or whether this would promote greater
freedom of emigration to extend it for another year.  That's true of
all communist regimes getting MFN.

         I believe that Congress has to act within a certain
period of time to change that.  But if there's no action this is the
way we'll go forward.  Now, there may be some legislation introduced
suggesting legislative sanctions and so on but we believe that this
has very broad support, this approach.

         Q      July 3rd is when it begins, right?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  That's right.  He has to
submit this a month before the next year of MFN treatment is
underway.

         Q      Just broadly speaking, in what direction do you see
U.S. policy or the relationship between U.S. and China moving in now,
is the era of recriminations from June 4th essentially over with?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  June 4th is not over with.
Americans have not forgotten Tiananmen Square.  There's been some
progress in certain areas.  We recognize China's an important
country.  The President has said continually we do not wish to
isolate China.  We have made progress and I noted some of these in
recent months but it's clearly not enough.  And that's why in this
unprecedented act the President is using an Executive Order to
condition MFN.

         So, we have a mixed picture with China.  Some areas of
cooperation and progress, other areas of very serious concern
especially in the human rights area as well as nonproliferation and
trade.

         Q      Are we the number one market for Chinese products?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  I don't know whether we're
number one or not but we take 20 or 25 percent, so, we're clearly one
of their leading markets.  Japan's important and it depends how you
treat Hong Kong, of course.

         Q      Has the United States protested the treatment of
the demonstrators in Tibet?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Absolutely.  We continually
have done it.

         Q      In the last day or two?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  We have gone in and asked for
explanations and expressed our concerns just in the last few days in
the last demonstration.

         Q      Will Mitchell-Pelosi be withdrawn?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  You would have to ask them
that but I would assume in their support of the President today and
standing up for them and making statements supporting this approach,
I don't know whether they technically will withdraw it but I'm
confident, obviously, that they're going to support the President's
Executive Order.

         Q      Mr. Secretary, did you inform the Chinese about
what you were going to do?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  We have told them, yes.

         Q      What was their response?

         ASSISTANT SECRETARY LORD:  Well, I think we should hear
from them on that?

         THE PRESS:  Thank you.?

                                 END11:00 A.M. EDT