U.S. Relations with the People's Republic of China (2005)

State Department Briefing, December 7

State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli briefed the press December 7.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
1:29 p.m. EST

Briefer: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: That's true. And people can read. So they'll read the reports.

Mr. Zoellick met with the Chinese. Can you give us some sort of a substantive readout? And I guess they continue tomorrow. What's going on? What's being said to each other?

MR. ERELI: Deputy Secretary Zoellick and Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo have begun their meetings today and they'll continue tomorrow and on into -- activities on into Friday as part of the Senior Dialogue between the United States and China. As you know, this is the second meeting of the Senior Dialogue. The first one took place in Beijing this July. And frankly, this is a mechanism to have broad discussions between the United States and China at a senior level about -- with respect to (inaudible) the international system and the roles that each of us can play in support of that system and in order to strengthen that system.

They'll be looking at a number of issues: bilateral, security related, economic related in a strategic context with the aim of exploring the responsibility that both countries share to make the international system more secure and more prosperous over the long term. They will also look to the long term, over the horizon, to the future of U.S. and Chinese relations and what we hope the relationship will look like.

I think the -- and from our part, one of the points that we will be making is that when talking about the international system, that we all have, as stakeholders, we all have a responsibility to work together, to uphold and improve the norms that defines the system, whether that be, again, in the economics sphere, in the security sphere, in the political sphere. And we will be making the point that the Chinese -- it's important to think about those responsibilities for the peaceful international system that enables the success for all of us. This, you know, in the context of Sudan, in the context of North Korea and in the context of Iraq, counterterrorism, Iran, a broad range of issues.

So I think that gives you a sort of overview of the dialogue. I would also sort of, you know, in terms of other ways to think about it, they'll be going to Hyde Park, President Roosevelt's home, on Friday, to have a sort of direct experience regarding the kind of principles that I was discussing earlier to see in a concrete, tangible way the important role that allied -- that played by allied leaders during and after World War II in creating the global, political and economic security systems that formed the basis of the international system that we're working in and that we are seeking to work with China to strengthen and to cooperate on in ways that are mutually beneficial.

QUESTION: You may need a little more to do a three-part series on this thing. (Laughter.)

Where do you find, if you do find, that (inaudible) some sense that China is lacking in some areas. Could you tell us where you'd like to see them be more cooperative or adhere more to an international system? Did Mr. Zoellick ask China to join the United States in imposing sanctions on Iran if it turns out to be necessary? Could you flesh it out with some examples of -- I know it's only the first three days but could you put a little meat on them there bones?

MR. ERELI: I would discourage you from looking at this dialogue as proscriptive. The purpose here is not to proscribe the courses of action or specific moves by one side or the other. It is rather to explore how approaches to international issues, whether it be specific like Iran or Iraq; or general, such as energy security. But how approaches to the issues, within the context of the international system, can be coordinated and dealt with in ways that both reinforce the integrity of the system, strengthen the integrity of the system, and meet the needs and ambitions of both countries in mutually-enforcing ways. So with respect to the question that you -- the specific example that you raised -- remind me what the example was.

QUESTION: Oh, I used Iran as a nuclear example.

MR. ERELI: Iran nuclear. So with respect to the Iran nuclear issue, we would be speaking of that as an example of the dangers of proliferation, how actions by -- what our actions are designed to accomplish in ways -- in confronting that challenge, in confronting that threat through existing organizations and through our diplomacy. And how China can -- how we see China playing a positive role in that area. And how China might want to consider or might be aware of how the rest of the world sees it. But it is an example of, it would be used an example of, as opposed to being proscriptive -- we want you to do this, we don't want you to do that -- it would be an example of why we had a shared interest in discussing and coordinating and working together on common issues.

Now, there may be differences. Obviously, there's going to be differences because China, on a whole host of issues, whether it be Iran or, you know, you can think of them for yourself, is going to have a different perspective. So there's not going to be a unanimity of views here, but the purpose of the dialogue is to flesh out how we see each other acting within an international system that encompasses not only our interests, but the interests of others and how those interests impact on one other.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is this dialogue an interagency effort or mostly a State Department deal?

MR. ERELI: There are participants from other agencies. I know there were in July. I'll have to check on this one from the National Security Council and elsewhere. But, actually, let me check and see who else is participating, if there are people from other agencies.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

QUESTION: We're working on the assumption there's something to these meetings.

MR. ERELI: There's a lot to these meetings. There is a lot to these meetings. They are very substantive, very broad and very far-reaching. And as you can tell by my earlier comments, they are designed to really take an over-the-horizon look at issues and the purpose is not to delve into detail on or pursue proscriptive policies on any one specific issue, whether it be Iran's nuclear program or the six-party talks.

Now, those issues are certainly likely to come up and certainly likely to be discussed, but within the broader context and even the strategic framework that I described earlier, i.e., when talking about how we can work together within the international system to meet common challenges, to manage differences and to help China develop its newfound power in constructive and positive and mutually reinforcing ways, then obviously, we'll be using different examples, which you've mentioned and which there are others.

We've talked about human rights -- the issue of human rights was raised yesterday. That, too, I expect will be part of -- will figure in the discussions as they do in almost every discussion we have with China. But again, as part of a broader, more comprehensive look at how countries, like the United States and China, play an important and productive role in a system that is based on institutions and equities that concern us all and how the actions of one have consequences for all.

Yes.

QUESTION: Will you support -- sort of new topic on this, okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Go ahead, Libby.

QUESTION: Have both sides decided that there should be a set number of meetings each year, for example, one every quarter?

MR. ERELI: I don't think -- the approach here really is to, you know, go from one to the other. It was agreed at the last one that they knew they would be doing this one. I presume that at this meeting, we will look ahead and see what works, based on what's happened to date.

QUESTION: A new topic on North Korea to sort of untangle the question from before. Have there been any or are there plans for any contacts at all, either New York channel or any other contacts with the North Koreans ahead of the next round, which seems to be looking a bit bumpy now, given recent (inaudible) --

MR. ERELI: Are there plans?

QUESTION: Or have there been?

MR. ERELI: I don't think there are any plans. I think we -- the New York channel, as you know, since we don't have diplomatic relations with North Korea, is a way for them -- for each to pass messages. So if and when there's a utility or a need for the New York channel, I expect it to be used. I'm not aware that there are any preset plans to use it for that purpose, but it's entirely possibly that should there be a need for it, it would be used.

QUESTION: But you would tell us when -- if there's meetings (inaudible). Would you tell us whether talks in South Korea -- preliminary talks?

MR. ERELI: On the New York channel, if, you know, we're not going to sort of give a running commentary every time the New York channel is used because, frankly, that's not, I think, consistent with the nature of the diplomatic communications or the channel. If there are times that you ask specific questions about specific communications and we're in a position to talk about them, we will.

QUESTION: Oh, well, that's all well and good -- okay.

QUESTION: It's a quick question.

QUESTION: One other question I was asking was has there been any contacts since the last round?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Sure, there have been contacts.

QUESTION: Okay, contacts --

MR. ERELI: The last contact that I'm aware of was when we were informed by the North Koreans, through the New York channel, that they would not be responding to our invitation to get a briefing on the actions taken pursuant to the Patriot Act against the bank in Macao.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) last week.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, I think it was last week.

QUESTION: I'm sorry if you went over this last week and I don't remember, but it seems that the North Koreans didn't want -- didn't like the person, at a kind of working level mechanism that you choose to give them the briefing. And they thought that they deserved to be briefed by Hill or DeTrani or someone like that. Did you make that decision because you didn't want it to be that kind of high level, bilateral contact or this is just the type of people that would be more knowledgeable about the counterfeit issue that --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, given -- we thought that the briefing and the offer and the personnel that were going to give the briefing were appropriate to the purpose of the meeting. It wasn't a negotiation. It was, frankly, presentation of technical details and information about existing laws and procedures in the United States. And that was in response to concerns or issues that the North Koreans have raised. So we think that was the appropriate occasion and the appropriate personnel and it was up to them to decide whether they want it or not.

QUESTION: New topic?

MR. ERELI: New topic?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. ERELI: Same topic?

QUESTION: North Korea.

MR. ERELI: North Korea? Stay on North Korea? Sure. Go ahead, Nan?

QUESTION: Thank you. We know that North Korea is not unhappy with the financial sanctions from the U.S. and when you mentioned that the New York channel contact last week, was that the same thing that U.S. offered to give a briefing to the North Korean officials about --

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: The same thing? Okay. Thank you.

MR. ERELI: Sir?

QUESTION: Japanese opposition leader, Mr. Maehara, after meeting with Jim Foster, Director of Korean Affairs, gave us a briefing yesterday that the U.S. is now proposing a meeting of these head of delegation in South Korea. And I was wondering, this is something different from South Korean proposal?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Is it the U.S. -- there is a new U.S. proposal now?

MR. ERELI: Well, my understanding is that the South Korean proposal for an informal six-party gathering in South Korea is still a matter of discussion among the parties and that idea is still out there. Obviously, without prejudice to that, we will continue to have other meetings and conduct diplomacy in support of the six-party process and so I would look at it that way.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

(The briefing was concluded at 2:25 p.m.)

(end transcript)