U.S. and Hong Kong (2004)

State Department Daily Briefing, January 9, 2004

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher conducted the department's daily press briefing January 9.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2004

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

1:40 p.m. EST

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I'd like to mention two statements that we will be putting out in more detail in writing. The first has to do with recent developments in Hong Kong, and the United States is expressing its strong support for democracy through electoral reform and universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

We believe these will advance economic and social development and are essential to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability within the "one country, two systems" framework.

There's a statement on that, and second of all, there's a statement on January 7th attacks on a political demonstration in Haiti. We're condemning the actions of the Haitian Government in response to the political demonstrations that occurred January 7th in Port au Prince.

Police officers at these -- some police officers at these demonstrations collaborated with heavily armed, hired gangs to attack the demonstrators. We believe these actions contradict the government's own declaration that it seeks compromise and we call on the government to end immediately its efforts to suppress peaceful dissent, so there's a more extensive statement on that available after the briefing, as well.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Could I ask a quick one on Hong Kong, about the statement you read?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: I don't know whether it will be in the statement. But do you -- are you specific about the way -- you talk about electoral reform -- do you -- are you specific about the way that they elect the chief executive? Are you talking about if he should be or she should be elected directly by the people rather than appointed?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, our belief is in democracy. If you look at the basic law for Hong Kong it provides that in the coming years when the term of the present chief executive expires, they need to decide how to choose how to elect the chief executive. We express and have expressed before our support for democracy. And I believe that the Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong Government need to start addressing this issue even though it comes up in a couple of years, but that it's time for fairly wide extensive consultations in Hong Kong so that the Hong Kong people get the chance to design the system that's appropriate for them.

QUESTION: Didn't the Chinese Government just come out a couple days ago and warn the United States and other countries not to interfere in Hong Kong's electoral --

MR. BOUCHER: I suppose they've done that before.

QUESTION: I take it you're --

MR. BOUCHER: I do remember them having done that before. But no, I think, first, there's a couple points to make on that. First of all, this belief in democracy is worldwide; it's not specific to China or Hong Kong or anywhere else. We do believe it's a factor for prosperity and stability, and we care a lot about the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. So there's no -- there shouldn't be any wondering about why we express it with regard to Hong Kong.

Second of all, the provisions of China's own, of the basic law that governs the status of Hong Kong, provide that this issue needs to be decided and discussed in coming years.

QUESTION: So you --

MR. BOUCHER: And so we're saying it needs to be addressed.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So you wouldn't regard your comments as interference at all?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I regard them as entirely appropriate; otherwise, I wouldn't be making them.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: Regarding North Korea, it seems that there's some momentum building towards a resumption of talks. I'm interested to know, what's going to make the new talks happen?

Yesterday, the Secretary said we need the North Koreans to come out and make a clear statement that they'll end their nuclear programs, and then the United States will detail the ideas it's got about security assurances.

Do both of those things have to happen before there are new talks, or is it that the United States wants the Koreans to make the statement and they will, in the talks, give the details of the assurances?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't remember how many options you gave me, but I don't --

QUESTION: Two.

MR. BOUCHER: -- accept any. It's neither the one nor the other. The discussions are kind of ongoing. We've been in very close touch with the Chinese. One of the Chinese officials, the Director General for Asian Affairs Fu Ying is coming next week. She'll be -- we'll be talking to her further. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and other officials meet with her next Tuesday.

So this is an ongoing process of discussion and dialogue with the Chinese who are trying to bring together these talks, but we've also been in very close touch with the Japanese, South Koreans and Russians, and the other -- all the other participants in the talks. The goal is to try to work towards a meeting, but a meeting that produces an outcome that's valuable for all the parties and that defines some of the -- some of the elements that need to be understood, that need to be understood in order to proceed, move forward, continue to move forward.

We have outlined, I think, already to a fairly great extent the principles by which we would give North Korea some security assurances, and our understanding that if they eliminated their nuclear program, we would be prepared to tell them that in that context they should have nothing to fear because the parties, the multilateral parties to these talks would guarantee their security or give them security assurances.

So we're looking from North Korea, as the Secretary said, for the same kind of statement, that they are willing to eliminate, that they will eliminate this nuclear program, the counterpart to our statements on security. Those two elements need to come together to produce a basis for talks, an outcome for talks, but it's not -- it's not a single process of, you know, agree on this and then we can go. It's -- we're working towards talks by trying to work out these elements, is as best as I can put it, and we will keep in touch with the other parties and we'll keep working towards a new round. As the Secretary said, the indications are from many of the players that they believe that we will soon have a new round of six-party talks and we're working to prepare a good round.

QUESTION: His remarks over two days and your remarks, all are given -- can be interpreted as meaning the next round doesn't necessarily have to produce a decision by North Korea announcement that it will dismantle its program. You're talking about a positive outcome. He talks about positive steps. You know, the Clinton Administration thought they had taken some positive steps with the freeze, and this Administration came in thinking that was insufficient.

MR. BOUCHER: I would not interpret -- I certainly do not interpret anything the Secretary said or anything I just said as meaning that we're going to go back to talks and not expect North Korea to come forward and say they'll eliminate their nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner. That is -- as I think I just told your colleague, that's one of the fundamental elements --

QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: -- that needs to be put in place for there to be productive talks, for there to be talks that will lead to a diplomatic resolution of this issue.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. BOUCHER: We have put the element in place already that we're prepared to provide security assurances and we have outlined those kinds of security assurances. We're also looking for North Korea to put the element in, the other element that needs to be there for these talks to be productive.

QUESTION: That statement that you're looking for is essential for productive talks. But you're not saying the talks can be productive if the next round winds up with something less than a commitment to end its nuclear program, and that there have to be further talks, are you?

Because that's one way of inferring what you and the Secretary are saying.

MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at what the Secretary said --

QUESTION: I have.

MR. BOUCHER: -- over the past few days, he said quite frankly that we're not interested in just going to a talk --

QUESTION: That I know.

MR. BOUCHER: -- a round of talks where everybody repeats their existing positions --

QUESTION: Of course. But what if you've got a good, solid, positive --

MR. BOUCHER: -- and you don't make any progress.

QUESTION: I understand that. But what if you get good, solid results in this round, if you get it going, that is, that are short of the -- your ultimate goal? Would that be good going? You see what I'm saying?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure -- no, I don't, really.

QUESTION: All right. I'll let you go on.

MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to explain it this way.

QUESTION: I know what you want them to say.

MR. BOUCHER: If -- once you agree that they're going to dismantle their program, we need to discuss how to do that in a verifiable and irreversible manner.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: That will require more discussions than just another round of six-party talks in Beijing. So it's not, you know, then, you don't, you don't -- hey, let's wait and go next time to Beijing and wrap everything up in a bow and it's all done.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: There is going to be a process that's going to have to be pursued, that's going to have to continue to work on, continue to produce results. To get that process started, we need to have a basis.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: We need to have something that goes -- that where these talks can produce that kind of -- some kind of outcome that forms a basis for continuing work. And we believe that outcome needs to be based on North Korea's commitment to eliminate in a verifiable manner its nuclear program, as well as the U.S. offer of security assurances.

QUESTION: The reason -- one last thing and I'll give it up. The reason I'm pushing it is they want some kind of simultaneity, and you have used -- the U.S. Government has used other language to suggest there're things you can do for them. I thought I was hearing, they give a little in the next round, we give a little in the next round, and then maybe there's another round and another round.

And I wondered, and I guess I'm wrong, if the Administration wasn't saying, we see a stretched out process where we can test each other, do a little -- I know you want the statement from them. But you're not going to get into the business, I think you're saying, of dismantling their program for some time, not in the next round and maybe not in the round after that. Have I missed something?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. A lot.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right.

MR. BOUCHER: A lot.

QUESTION: What he says really --

MR. BOUCHER: Really, if I can't explain this to you, all I can tell is go back to what the Secretary has said over the past few days.

QUESTION: Well, he says a positive step, and ending the nuclear program is more than a positive step.

MR. BOUCHER: He's -- no, he's -- but they didn't say they would end their nuclear program.

QUESTION: No, I say he's looking for a positive step. It's --

MR. BOUCHER: He's looking for a clear indication that they are willing to eliminate their nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner.

QUESTION: I know.

MR. BOUCHER: Right?

QUESTION: Before you have talks?

MR. BOUCHER: As part of the -- as part of getting to talks, as part of the talks, as part of producing an outcome from these talks that's viable.

QUESTION: So is it possible that they don't make that statement and there is still a resumption of talks?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: The point is to have talks that are productive, and that's what we're going for?

QUESTION: But, may I?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You keep saying that you're not setting any preconditions for the talks, but it sounds like a condition for the talks is for you to see some kind of willingness from North Korea, some kind of statement, that it's willing to dismantle its program. So isn't that a condition?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't call it that. I'd call it an element that needs to make the talks productive. What are you going to talk about unless -- how are you going to talk about resolving this peacefully unless North Korea is willing to eliminate its nuclear program?

QUESTION: Well, maybe they'll say that in the talks. But you sound as if you want to hear that before the talks.

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe they will. We'll see what happens.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: A delegation of Taiwan Government is supposed to come here to communicate with United States on referenda issue was cancelled yesterday, or postponed yesterday. Which side initiated that cancellation? Do you think with this delegation cancelled at this point, the substantial discussion between Taiwan and the U.S. on this issue will be difficult to reach, or it does not matter at all?

MR. BOUCHER: We didn't cancel the delegation. You'd have to check with them about it. Our channels of communication with Taiwan authorities are many and varied and quite substantive, so we have plenty of ways to talk about these things.

QUESTION: A follow-up.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Sir.

QUESTION: Is it possible that U.S. and Taiwan could reach a compromise on that issue? I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't speculate in that manner. I don't know what I would say. The President's made quite clear our view of this in policy terms.

QUESTION: But do you think in which way or with what substantial message from Taiwan will be better or more effective way for the two sides to communicate on this issue of, I mean, referenda issue with this delegation that was cancelled?

MR. BOUCHER: We have, we have talks with Taiwan authorities, with the people in Taiwan all the time. We have people out there who can talk for the United States. They have people here. We have frequent contact at very high -- at high levels, and there is no problem in communicating with Taiwan.

QUESTION: Do you expect more, you know, delegation or more substantial message from Taiwan?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if there -- I don't know if people are going to send delegations or not, but we have plenty of channels to talk.

Okay, let's go over here and come back here.

Michelle.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: In Guangzhou, on China. A couple of days ago, seven reporters were detained for their independent coverage of the SARS cases. And now we see more SARS cases in Guangzhou. And here in this town, four of my colleagues, including myself, had our Chinese passport denied for renewal or replacement by the Chinese Embassy because of our independent coverage of the news from China, especially on the human rights and religious persecution side. Do you have anything on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have anything on those in Guangzhou or those here. I would say, generally, we always stand for freedom of expression, we stand for the right to report, and we believe journalists ought to be allowed to do their work without a government causing them problems.

Sir.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: The Chinese New Year is coming around, coming up on January 22nd and there will be a global Chinese New Year gala in New York to showcase the traditional Chinese culture and express Chinese people's wish, New Year wish, for more freedom and peace in China as well as in the rest of the world. Do you have anything to say on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Not on any particular event. I'm sure there will be all kinds of celebrations of Chinese New Year in various ways and we wish anybody who's celebrating a Happy New Year.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(The briefing was concluded at 2:30 p.m.)

(end transcript)