U.S. and Hong Kong (1999)

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

DPB #146
Wednesday, December 1, 1999
12:40 P.M.

Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: I realize that you don't usually comment on domestic things, but given the fact that the Secretary was unable to give her speech yesterday, I'm wondering if you might want to revise your remark yesterday about the protesters which you said, basically, "Welcome to America." This is kind of a fact of life here.

MR. RUBIN: By the way, I really appreciate you reminding me of that today. That was particularly kind and generous and thoughtful of you. It's certainly a deterrent to any humor in the briefing room, but let me answer the question.

At the time I made that remark, it was well before there was a shutdown of the streets of Seattle and well before the governor had to declare a civil emergency. The fact that I welcomed peaceful protests as part of an American tradition and part of a democratic society - this is a country that fights for the right for other countries to allow peaceful protests in China and other parts of the world, so we believe very strongly in the right to peaceful protest.

But as Secretary Albright said yesterday, when peaceful protest transforms itself into violence, that not only does a disservice to the protesters but does a disservice to the perception of the United States in the world. So Secretary Albright has expressed her regret to some of her colleagues. She certainly wished that she had been able to deliver her speech.

She was able to have a number of meetings in Seattle and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In Seattle she met with a number of governors, representatives of labor, the farm community and the business roundtable. She had bilateral meetings with the Danish and Japanese foreign ministers. So a substantial portion of her work was completed. She wasn't able to deliver the address. The address was distributed to all the delegations and it is available to all of you.

Secretary Albright did express her apologies to the delegations for the inconvenience caused by those demonstrators who went beyond legitimate peaceful protest to violence and, thus, caused obvious difficulties in having the opening session begin.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Going back to WTO, most of the demonstrators, they are demonstrating against China and they are saying that anything you touch in the US is made in China but nothing when you go to China you touch anything also made in China. Now, also, Governor Bush said the other day that it's time for the US to pay more attention to India than China as far as trade and the US - the world's largest two democracies must work together.

Any comments on this briefly?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. On the second, I think you're quite aware of my policy on political discussions and commenting on every twist and turn in an election before there is even major candidates yet that have been selected by either of the parties. Generally speaking, I think we feel we have spent a great deal of time and energy working on the relationship with India and the relationship with China. They're both important relationships.

With respect to your first question, number one, I don't believe you're accurate in saying that the majority of the protesters are focused on the China question. My impression from talking to the Secretary, who was there, is that there are a wide variety of protesters making their views known about a wide variety of issues.

With respect to the China substance, the point you make is exactly why we want China in the World Trade Organization: because by lowering barriers to join the WTO, the United States will have a better opportunity to have goods and services sold in China. So those people who worry that there are too many products in the United States with the "Made in China" stamp should think about the fact that by joining the WTO, all the openings come on China allowing imports from the rest of the world, in particular the United States, and; thus, their concern could be best solved by developing a newfound enthusiasm for the World Trade Organization.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Two quick questions. In Israel this morning there is a report that Li Peng and his party are going to be visiting the AWACS facilities that Israel has developed and that the administration, backed by some members of Congress, are threatening aid to Israel if that visit takes place. Is there any truth to this?

And, secondly, the Secretary of State usually visits Saudi Arabia last, reporting in on whatever happens in Israel and the peace process. This time she's going first. Is she going to see the Crown Prince who has very close relations with Damascus, and does this mean that there is going to be a sort of "takeout double," in bridge terms, where she can get what she wants in Sharm el-Sheik and the Palestinians so she's going to open up the Damascus.

MR. RUBIN: That's a British term, isn't it? "Takeout double."

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: It's a fake double of a bid in order to get your partner to raise to a higher level? Is that the kind of "takeout double" you're talking about?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: You all didn't know I knew how to play Bridge, did you?

QUESTION: Yes, you know your Bridge.

MR. RUBIN: With respect to the takeout double, Middle East Peace Process, turnaround, reverse-180 device for diplomatic developments, let me say that I think you are reading too much into the Secretary's putting Saudi Arabia at the beginning of the agenda. I think, if I am not mistaken, she did not go to Saudi Arabia on the last trip and so it is not always a situation where we go at the end to consult on what has happened.

Since we do have an important bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia and the timing of the trip usually develops as a result of several factors, I wouldn't read that into it. Our discussions there will obviously include the Middle East Peace Process, but will also include regional issues like Iraq and the resolution now before the Council.

With respect to your first question, I'm not aware of the details of any reported visit nor any particular threats by US officials. My experience in these matters suggests to me before even commenting on an allegation like that I would want to check the newspaper, the reporter and then the facts.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. I am from La Prensa of Panama and I have a question about the Panama Canal. It seems that President Clinton said yesterday with regard to the Canal that, "I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backward to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner."

This is troubling to Panamanians because it would seem to indicate the United States is now accepting that China is in a position to run the Canal whether it be efficient or in any other way. Up until now, the US position had been the fact that a Hong Kong Company was running some ports adjacent to the Canal posed no threat of the Chinese actually taking over the Canal.

MR. RUBIN: I think you should encourage those Panamanians not to worry. Nothing has changed. I have been in touch with the White House in the last 24 hours and the point the President was making is the same point that we're making here; that there are two Hong Kong-based companies that have contracts to run the ports - not run the Canal, not the lochs, not the other aspects of the Canal, just the ports-and that the President was presumably using shorthand to describe the claim that's been made.

But there is no reason to think that our view has changed. The President, as far as I know, shares the view that what he was saying was merely shorthand for the Chinese-based companies - that is, the Hong Kong-based companies - that will run the ports.

There is nothing new here. I know that a change of word here often causes people to raise their eyebrows. I have changed words from time to time, myself, that have raised eyebrows, but there is no new policy, no new view, no new concern, no new shift. There is nothing new here.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(The briefing concluded at 1:30 P.M.)