◆Interview With Anthony Yuen of Phoenix TV

Secretary Colin L. Powell
China World Hotel
Beijing, China
October 25, 2004

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, before you leave for China, you accept media interviews saying you are very proud of the US-China relationship because it is based on the mutual respect of each other’s needs. After you met with President Hu early this morning, do you still feel this proud sense.

SECRETARY POWELL: Oh, absolutely. I think we have seen such an improvement in the relationship over the last four years. We have resolved some of the areas of disagreement on trade and economic activities. We are working so closely together on regional problems. For example, we are working so closely to try to solve the problem of North Korean nuclear weapons. All of our ministers in the United States meet on such a frequent basis with Chinese ministers. Our two presidents, President Hu and President Bush, have a very close relationship, and so I think that this is a real successful, how we have gone from a confrontation in the early April 2001 when our planes collided, to the point now where we are cooperating in so many areas.

This doesn’t mean that they are no disagreements. There are disagreements. We have a disagreement with respect to human rights behavior. But what we decided to do today, for example, is not to ignore that disagreement, but to once again begin the process of resuming a dialogue so we can understand each other’s positions better. This is what two mature countries do when they want to be friends and they want to be partners, and that is what we are doing with China.

QUESTION: So this morning when you talked to Mr. Hu, did you talk about the U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan and what was his response?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, they would prefer that we not sell weapons to Taiwan, and they made that clear to me, as they have in the past. And our response is that they should not view this any lack of interest on our part on our One China Policy. In fact, our One China Policy is sound. It has benefited all the parties for so many years. It rests solidly on the Three Communiques that undergird the One China Policy. But at the same time, we have an obligation under our law to make sure that Taiwan has the means to defend itself, self defense, not attacking anybody, but self-defense. And in order to meet that obligation we have under our law, from time to time arms sales are appropriate to Taiwan.

We encourage the Chinese side to be very careful about the deployments that they make across the Straits, which might raise the concern in Taiwan, thereby generating a requirement for more weapons sales. So both sides should show restraint, not take any unilateral actions, look for ways of improving dialogue across the Straits and move forward toward that day when we will see a peaceful unification.

QUESTION: Recently, one statement from Taiwan make Chinese nervous. [Inaudible] say, if China attack us, attack Shanghai, the Shanghai and Taiwan you need a medium range missile. And the Chinese think this is a hint that the US is going to provide the technology to develop medium range missiles. Is that the case?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. The only technology we are providing to Taiwan, if they choose to buy it, is technology that will allow for their self-defense. We don’t want them to have an offensive capability. We also think that this kind of rhetoric is unfortunate; it just raises tensions. And it all relates to the feelings in some parts, or of some in Tawain, that they should move toward independence. But we have made it very clear to all parties, to the authorities in Taiwan and to the authorities in Beijing, that the United States does not support independence for Taiwan.(米国政府は台湾の独立を支持しない) It would be inconsistent with our One China Policy.

QUESTION: Recently the Chinese a touch bit nervous. Taiwan keep on saying that “we don’t need to declare independence because we are already independent country with sovereignty because there are already some twenty six countries that recognize us, so many countries.” What does this mean to you?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, they can make these sorts of statements but our policy is clear. There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent.(台湾は独立していない) It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation,(台湾は国家としての主権を有していない) and that remains our policy, our firm policy. And it is a policy that has allowed Taiwan to develop a very vibrant democratic system, a market economic system and provided great benefits to the people of Taiwan. And that is why we think it is policy that should be respected and should remain in force and will remain in force, on the American side, it is our policy that clearly rests on Three Communiques. To repeat it one more time: we do not support an independence movement in Taiwan.(米国政府は台湾の独立志向を支持しない)

QUESTION: So you consider this insistence on a kind of ambiguity on the One China Policy or what you want to make more clear?

SECRETARY POWELL: It’s often conveyed as ambiguous, but I think it’s pretty clear. Everyone has understood what it meant for the last thirty years. And it has allowed Taiwan to be successful. And it certainly created conditions of stability and security throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It has allowed China, instead of concerning itself about whether there’s going to be a conflict with Taiwan, but for China to develop itself and to join the international community, economically and politically. And it has also provided stability for other nations in the Asia-Pacific region so that they could pursue their development. So our One China Policy is not going to change.(米国が”一つの中国”政策が変更することはない) The president has reaffirmed this on many occasions.Independence movements or those who speak out for independence movements in Taiwan will find no support from the United States.(台湾が独立志向を改めなかったり、独立を示唆する発言をするならば、米国からの支援は無くなると覚悟した方がよい)

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier that you told the Chinese leaders be very careful to deploy their missiles or whatever in the other side of Taiwan. I think the former President Mr. Jiang when he visited George Bush last year, he also mentioned that if we reduce our missiles aiming at Taiwan, is the United States going to cancel or at least consider twice selling weapons to Taiwan?

SECRETARY POWELL: All of our weapons sales are in the context of what’s needed for self-defense. And that’s the position of the United States government. Now hypothetical offers or ideas that come out are interesting, but we have to look at the reality on the ground. And what we try to do is to ensure that Taiwan is able to defend itself, and that’s the basis of our arms sales policy to them.

But what we have seen on the Chinese side is that there has been a steady build-up across the Taiwan Straits on the Mainland. The Chinese leaders who I spoke to today said that that’s an internal matter for us to determine, us to decide, and I appreciate their position, but nevertheless, that build-up creates a degree of tension and instability across the Straits and puts pressure on the Taiwanese side to seek additional weaponry. And under our law, we have an obligation to see to their self-defense needs. And that’s why we continue to point out to the Chinese side, that their deployments and military steps they might be taking on the Mainland that are causing an imbalance requires that the imbalance be adjusted in some way and that leads then to additional arms sales.

QUESTION: Mr. Hu just took over the Chairman of the Military Commission and you are the first U.S. high official to meet with him. Do you feel comfortable? What kind of person do you feel he is?

SECRETARY POWELL: Very comfortable. We have known him for a while. I met with him on a number of occasions. I have been very impressed at the smoothness with which the transfer of authority of leadership has taken place in China over the last several years. It shows a degree of political maturity. And I think it speaks well for the Chinese leadership and the Chinese people. We look forward to working with President Hu in his new expanded role and capacity.

QUESTION: Before you arrived in Tokyo, you rejected the three point suggestions from North Korea. Now when you talk to President Hu, what kind of role do you want China to play in the Six-Party peace talks?

SECRETARY POWELL: China has played a very important role in helping to create the Six-Party framework. They have been the host of the meetings, they have been the convener of the meetings and increasingly they have become an active participant in the meetings. That’s what we want China to continue to do. We want active participants; all of us should be active participants. China has an important role to play. It is a neighbor of North Korea. It has considerable influence with North Korea. It provides a great deal of assistance to North Korea. And frankly when you look at North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, who is most immediately threatened by such weapons? Who can those weapons reach? South Korea, Japan, China, Russia- more easily than they can reach the United States. And so we believe that all of North Korea’s neighbors have a role to play in persuading the North Koreans to return to the Six-Party framework and to find a solution to the goal that all six parties have, and that is the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And benefits will flow to North Korea from the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: One last question I want to ask you is in this year in the presidential election, is the first year that both parties’ candidates did not use the Chinese issue as a major issue. They did not attack each other on the Chinese point of view. Why?

SECRETARY POWELL: Because both sides – President Bush or Mr. Kerry ? should prevail, but candidate Kerry, Senator Kerry, they both understand that we have a good relationship with the Chinese. It is not a matter of contention. Everybody agrees that we have a good relationship with China. That we are working so well in so many areas. Not to say there are not disagreements, but when you hear disagreements from the political parties in my country now, it has to do with trade imbalances. It no longer has to do with matters of war and peace. It has to do with matters of trade. This is good. This is an improvement. However difficult these trade issues become, these are far better issues to be debating than matters of war and peace of the kind that we might have been debating twenty years ago. And I think this is all to the good for the United States and for China.

QUESTION: Thank you very much Mr. Secretary.


Released on October 25, 2004

◆ Interview With Mike Chinoy of CNN International TV

Secretary Colin L. Powell
China World Hotel
Beijing, China
October 25, 2004

MR. CHINOY: Well thanks very much for joining us Mr. Secretary.


MR. CHINOY: Let me begin by asking you, how is rejecting direct talks with North Korea helping to prevent that country from developing and expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons?

SECRETARY POWELL: We’ve seen what happens when we have direct talks with North Korea. By entering an agreement as they did in 1994. Capping a nuclear weapons program at Pyongyang, but not getting rid of it, a plutonium program. And while everybody was watching this capped program, they were off developing another way of producing a nuclear weapon. So we have seen this scheme before. And we decided that a better approach was to involve North Korea’s neighbors. Why shouldn’t they be involved? Why shouldn’t it be multilateralize this? Are they not at a greater risk than the United States from a nuclear North Korea? The answer is yes. They agreed. They all came into the six party framework. And So everything that North Korea is asking for ? security guarantees, assistance – all of this is achievable through the six party framework and frankly, I would argue to the North Koreans that they’re better off getting a security agreement from all of its neighbors and the United States, as opposed to just from the United States, And, they’re better off working to get assistance from all of its neighbors and the United States, and not just the United States. The North Koreans desperately want to make this a U.S.-North Korean problem to see what else they can ask us for, to pay them, to reward them for their misbehavior. And we have chosen not to do that, not to get caught in their trap again. We need a situation where they are going to get rid of their weapons- the whole program and every aspect of the program -in a complete and verifiable manner, and we will provide the security assurances that they are looking for and they will also benefit economically. And I hope they will eventually come to the conclusion that it is in their interest to do this.

MR. CHINOY: But why not accept, at least initially, a freezed capture, to stop what they are doing now, because the longer that you go on without some kind of agreement, don’t you risk the danger that the more the North Koreans will be able to produce nuclear material?

SECRETARY POWELL: And the longer the North Koreans are in distress economically while they continue this process of stringing it out. A freeze is a way to begin, but we can’t just stop with a freeze because that which is frozen can be unfrozen. There has to be a commitment to go from the beginning all the way to the end. And they have not yet made such a commitment.

MR. CHINOY: Haven’t the Chinese and the Russians and the Japanese and the South Koreans all indicated that they would like to see the U.S. engaged in some kind of direct, bilateral dialogue with the North Koreans- either in the six party context or outside of it ? but to have that bilateral dialogue?

SECRETARY POWELL: Within the six party discussions, we have had an opportunity to talk to the North Koreans. But we don’t want undercut the six party discussions by having negotiations. But the North Koreans know what is expected of them from the United States and from the others. And I have met with the North Korean Foreign Minister, we have good conversations. But they want more than good conversations; they want some benefits and rewards for their incorrect behavior. They want free aid. And they are trying to make it just something between North Korea and the United States. That’s why they want to have direct talks. We don’t think that’s the way to go. It’s been tried before and, it wasn’t successful. We want to see this solved in a multilateral context and involving all of its neighbors. You must allow me to smile a moment because all of your questioning has been: why aren’t you unilateral? Why are you multilateral? Why are you bringing others to the party? But we are often criticized for being unilateral and for not involving others and just making it the United States against someone. In this case, it is a multilateral problem, and it requires a multilateral solution.

MR. CHINOY: You’re talking about trying to get another round of the six party talks going sooner rather than later and to get the North Koreans to agree to come back. But the United States is either going to have a new president-elect shortly or a second Bush Administration is going to have some changes in its own foreign policy advisory structure and so on. Under those circumstances, what do you think you could realistically achieve in another round soon and what incentive is there for the North Koreans to come back before they are clear about the future direction of American North Korean policy?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don’t think they are going to see that much change. First of all, I am reasonably confident that there will be facing four more years of the Bush administration. And President Bush certainly isn’t waiting for the election to change his policy; his policy is a very clear and firm: We are going to solve this through the six party framework. Even though some on the other side have said they would immediately enter into dialogue, I’m not sure that they would find that to be the right thing to do. North Koreans would be rubbing their hands at the opportunity to be rewarded for bad behavior. I think that any American president would not leap at that opportunity.

MR. CHINOY: Does the Bush administration have a kind of red line, a point beyond which if North Korea goes, there is really going to be trouble? And if so, what is it?

SECRETARY POWELL: No we don’t have any red lines. The president has made this clear, that we want to solve this diplomatically. A red line suggestion after which there would be some sort of a conflict, there no need to think in those terms right now. We have all options. We have never taken any option off the table. But North Korea is a country that is in distress. It needs assistance, it needs economic assistance. I don’t know how many times the president and I have talked about this, where he said he really wants to help the North Korean people And instead of trying to find a solution so that we can the North Korean people, the North Korean government continues to cling to these weapons programs. Even though they say they want to denuclearize. They say they want to eliminate them from their inventory. But they are trying to see what benefits they will get. The benefits they will get is a security agreement where we can enshrine, all six parties enshrine, a security arrangement for North Korea that deals with their concerns about so-called hostile attitude. We have no hostile attitude. We have no intention of invading North Korea, attacking North Korea, Why would we?

It is in North Korea’s interest to find a way forward because the nuclear weapons program that they have been working on have not given them any added security. They are developing weapons that would be very difficult for them to use, very difficult for them to try or sell to anyone. In the meantime, they are not getting the kind of benefits, the kind of investment, the kind of assistance they could receive from the international community if they made a firm commitment in the six party framework to get rid of these programs.

MR. CHINOY: You’ve been pushing for some time to bring the case of Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council and yet, Iran, unlike North Korea, doesn’t yet have a bomb and unlike North Korea hasn’t withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty. So, why push to bring Iran to account before the UN and not do the same with North Korea?

SECRETARY POWELL: Those are two different issues. We still have our ways to approach North Korea; we’re using the six party framework. The Security Council is there. In the case of Iran, The IAEA continues to find misbehavior on their part. They have not met the commitments they made to the EU-3. The EU-3 – the three foreign ministers of the European Union are in the lead on this, Britain, France and Germany- They are still working with the Iranians. And if the Iranians are not forthcoming, then I think it is time for a referral. They are going on for a long period of time, and I think the situations are different. And I don’t see a need to consider a Security Council referral, at this time, of the North Korean problem.

MR. CHINOY: Last year President Bush said in the presence of China’s Premier and I quote, “the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan, that’s President Chen Shui-bian’s, indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo which we oppose.” It’s clear China, even today, still feels that way about President Chen. Do you still feel that his comments, his actions, his attitude indicate that kind of direction and does it worry you?

SECRETARY POWELL: We have made it very clear to the authorities in Taiwan, to President Chen Shui-bian, that we do not support independence for Taiwan.(米国政府は台湾の独立を支持しない) Our One-China Policy, resting on the Three Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act, has served all of the parties quite well for a long period of time, and we would not support anything that would change that approach.

We want to see both sides not take unilateral action that would prejudice an eventual outcome, a reunification that all parties are seeking.(米国政府は、両岸政府のどちらにも、一方的な現状変更する行為を強く反対する。また、あらゆる手段を尽くして統一に向けて努力すべきだ) And we think that this is the time for both sides to reach out to each other and find ways to discuss these issues. We were hoping that we would see an improvement in cross-straits dialogue, but our position is rather clear, we do not support independence for Taiwan. That would be inconsistent with our One-China Policy. And There is no doubt by either Chen Shui-bian’s mind or any other Taiwanese leader’s mind that that is a firm US policy that is not going to change.

MR. CHINOY: We’ve just had another bad day in Iraq. This horrible attack on the police recruits. You’ve lost one of your own diplomatic colleagues. With the possibility that significant chunks of the country may be too violent, too unstable, to hold an election, and with the UN having committed so few people, are you concerned, should there be concern, that these elections early next year might lack legitimacy and could that damage the efforts by the U.S. to promote the idea of democracy throughout the Middle East?

SECRETARY POWELL: We don’t know yet whether we will have a complete and full, free and fair election throughout the country or not; we are certainly planning on one. It is not the UN that is a pacing item here. Iraqis are running their own election. But, we do want to see a greater UN presence to assist them with that.

We did have a difficult day. I mourn for the loss of the fifty Iraqi soldiers who had just been trained. Trained for what? Trained to defend their own country. Trained to protect their people. And these murderers ambushed them and murdered them all in cold blood. That is what we are fighting. We are fighting these kinds of individuals. We are not going to turn away from this fight and let this sort of terrible, terrible action take place again. Let these kinds of terrorists and murderers take over this country. We got rid of a terrible regime, and we’re not going to allow another to come back. And so we will stay the cause and stay the course.

And of course I regret very much the loss of one of my people. A Diplomatic Security Agent, Mr. Ed Seitz, who served so proudly and for his nation. And, diplomats loose their lives just as soldiers do.

MR. CHINOY: In the early 1990’s you spelled out a series of guidelines for the future of US military intervention abroad, which was dubbed the Powell Doctrine, and it emphasized the need for well-defined objectives, strong support from the American people and a clear-cut exit strategy. Based on what we know now about things in Iraq and based on where things stand now, do you believe that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is consistent with what people came to call the Powell Doctrine?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well the Powell doctrine is nothing but common sense- have a clear political objective- and we did. Get rid of this terrible regime, which we accomplished. And then consolidate in the aftermath of that. And give the Iraqi people an opportunity to have a free, fair, open election to elect their own leaders. That is what we are doing now. We have some time to go before we accomplish that. We have an insurgency that we have to put down. But that is our goal. That is our objective, to get rid of this regime and allow Iraq to become a democracy through free elections. And so we are still pursuing that objective. And it is an objective I still think we can achieve.

MR. CHINOY: OK Secretary Powell, thanks very much.


Released on October 25, 2004

◆Press Briefing in Beijing, China

Secretary Colin L. Powell
China World Hotel
Beijing, China
October 25, 2004

SECRETARY POWELL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen I’m very pleased to be back in Beijing and in the course of my visit I’ve had some very excellent conversations with President Hu and Premier Wen, and especially with my friend and colleague Foreign Minister Li. This is the fifth time that Minister Li and I have met this year, and I look forward to seeing him again later in the year at the APEC meeting in Santiago, Chile toward the end of November.

The range and scope of the issues we discussed today reflect the increasingly global nature of interaction between China and the United States, on a whole host of issues of importance to our nations and to the world, from security threats to bilateral matters. We are showing that we can move forward together. When we disagree, we do so candidly, openly, and in the spirit of trying to find a solution to the disagreements. But, we agreed in so many more areas than that in which we disagree.

We had a good, open, and candid discussion today with respect to human rights, for example, and I am pleased to report that as a result of our conversations today that we have agreed that we will start talks about resuming our human rights dialogue. I expressed our appreciation with China’s leadership in the six-party talks. Together, we are dedicated to a Korean peninsula that is free from the threat of nuclear weapons. I also noted that the president is looking forward to his meeting with President Hu in Chile, at the APEC meeting in November and that we are ready to work together to implement the measures agreed to at last November’s APEC meetings in Bangkok.

The people of the United States mourn the loss of Chinese citizens who are victims of terror. We express our condolences to the family of the Chinese engineer who was killed in the recent hostage-taking event in Pakistan. And to the families of those who were killed in last June’s incident in Afghanistan. Terrorism is global, and we welcome China’s continued actions in the global war against terrorism. I appreciate the hospitality of my Chinese host on this visit and want to extend on behalf of the people of the United States our best wishes to the people of China. With that brief statement I’m prepared for your questions.

QUESTION: Do you see Chen Shui-bian’s national day speech as a genuine possible opening and, if so, did you try to persuade the Chinese to call Chen’s bluff on resuming talks on the 1992 Hong Kong basis? And, with respect to North Korea, did you ask the Chinese to be more of a participant and less of a mediator in resolving the North Korean impasse?

SECRETARY POWELL: On the second question I think they are a participant. They’ve been actively participating in the last three rounds, not only convening the rounds, but taking a position, making it clear to the North Koreans that China believed, as we all do, that the denuclearization of the peninsula is what we want to achieve, and that benefits would accrue to the people of North Korea as a result of denuclearization of going forward. So, I see China as a full participant and not just a convener in the talks.

With respect to President Chen Shui-bian’s speech, we thought–the United States thought–that there might be some elements that the Chinese could work with in improving cross-straits dialogue. The response I received from the Chinese leadership today was that they are still concerned about President Chen Shui-bian’s actions and they did not find his statement to be that forthcoming. Nevertheless, we had a good discussion of the situation with respect to Taiwan. I reinforced to our total commitment to our One China Policy, based on the three communiques, and our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. We once again said that we felt strongly that both sides should avoid any unilateral actions that might prejudice progress. And, I particularly encouraged the Chinese leaders that I met with today to do everything they could to get into cross-strait dialogues in a more systemic and deliberate way.

QUESTION: I’m from China News Daily. Four years ago, President Bush called China a strategic competitor. Today what do you think about the biggest change in Sino-US relationship? Second question is what kind of role do you think you play during the process? Thank you.

SECRETARY POWELL: During what? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: During the process. What kind of role do you think you play during the process. Thank you.

SECRETARY POWELL: With respect to the first question, our relationship with China is very comprehensive and very complex–too complex to be described by a single term or a single statement. I believe we have progressed a great deal over the last four years in President’s Bush’s administration. We remember that in early April of 2001 we had a confrontation over the incident that took place between our aircraft, and people thought that would put the relationship in the deep-freeze. We got through that in a matter of two weeks and ever since then we have been improving our relationship.

We have had good and constructive talks with respect to trade, and with respect to economic issues affecting our two countries. We’ve seen China accede the WTO. We have worked with China to increase American exports to China while receiving large number of exports from China to the United States. There’s still a trade imbalance but we’re working on it. We have dealt with difficult issues with respect to market-based flexible currency rates, and we know that the Chinese are working toward that end.

So, I think if you looked at this four-year period, you would see that this complex relationship that we have with China, has allowed us to move forward by being candid with each other on areas of disagreement and we have areas of agreement building on those areas of agreement. I think that all members of President Bush’s administration have played a role in this. We have a large number of delegations that go back and forth, and we receive them at a very high level when Chinese visitors come to the United States. And, our ministers are received at a very high level here. And, I would expect that this practice will continue and the relationship will grow during President Bush’s second term.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, could you tell us a little bit more about the significance of the agreement you just announced to discuss human rights? And, perhaps in that context, can you tell us whether you discussed the issue of the arrest of the New York Times research assistant; with whom might you have discussed it; what sort of response you got; and, whether you are at all encouraged by anything you heard today?

SECRETARY POWELL: On the second question, I did raise it, raised it with Foreign Minister Li, and told him that we were concerned about the arrest of the New York Times researcher. And I asked if he would look into the matter. We hope that it could be resolved quickly and the individual could be released. He took note of my statement, and noted that the individual was a Chinese citizen, and that the matter is being looked into in accordance with Chinese law. So, we did have a pretty candid exchange on the subject.

With respect to human rights, we have said previously, and I said it again today, that we have seen some improvement in human rights behavior in 2002, but we have seen some moving backwards in 2003, with respect to the detention of journalists, with respect to other individuals who have not been able to move about as freely and participate in civil society as freely as we would like to see. And, we think it would be in the interest of the Chinese people for this to happen. So, things had slowed down with respect to human rights and the dialogue had stopped. We were not talking to each other as openly and candidly as we should. And so, in our luncheon conversation, the Minister and I talked directly to each other about these issues, to include the New York Times researcher, to include some of their concerns about our comments on their human rights behavior. And, we allowed as how it was time to start the dialogue again. So, we will begin the process of putting in place the teams and get ready for formal announcement of the resumption of dialogue in the not too distant future.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Secretary Powell. I’m with United Press International. I have a couple questions for you.

SECRETARY POWELL: One question, please.

QUESTION: China’s oil imports in the first nine months of the year were officially stated to be about 4.3 million tons, most of that probably went to North Korea. With winter fast approaching, did the DPRK’s energy needs come up during your discussions with the Chinese officials as a means of leverage to get them back to six-party and what other specific areas does the US believe China can explore to get North Korea to give up its WMD?

SECRETARY POWELL: It did not come up. We did not talk about oil imports either into China, or what North Korea’s needs are. Obviously, China is a major provider of assistance to North Korea, both energy and other forms of assistance, and as a result of that I think China has considerable influence with North Korea. What we agreed on today was the need for the six-party framework to continue, and for it to continue, it has to meet. And, I hope that as a result of our conversations today, both of us will energize the other members of the six-party framework to resolve the outstanding issues that keep us from setting a date for a meeting.

I’m confident that the Chinese are totally committed to the six-party framework, view that as the way to find a solution, and will be working toward finding that solution. What they might do in the days ahead with respect to conversations with the North Koreans, I will leave up to them to discuss. As you know, senior officials from Pyongyang have visited here recently, and senior officials from Beijing have gone to Pyongyang. So, the Chinese are actively involved, and we reaffirmed our commitment today to the six-party talks and hope that the next round will be held in the not too distant future. All the parties are ready. It is the DPRK that has been showing a reluctance to have the next round. But, it is the only way forward.


QUESTION: It is reported that in 2004 the Chinese students going to the States to study decreased sharply. It is said that only half the students in 2003 have taken the GRE test that is requested by the American graduate schools so my question is, what is your comment on that? Is there any actions planned to deal with it?


SECRETARY POWELL: We encourage students from around the world to come and obtain an education in our universities. I think there are something like 64,000, if memory serves me correctly, Chinese students at our universities now. We would like to see that number go up. After 9/11, we had to put in place new visa procedures and other procedures to have a better understanding of who was coming to our country, for what purpose, and when they were leaving. That slowed down the issuance of visas, it made it more difficult. But over the last year, we have improved the process significantly, making it easier to get visas, reducing the time that you have to spend waiting for a visa.

And we are going to do everything we can, and the Ambassador is committed to doing everything he can, both here in Beijing and at all of our Consulates, to speed up visa processing. It is in our interest to have foreigners come to our institutions, come to our medical facilities, come to our entertainment facilities, visit the United States as tourists to get a better understanding of who we are, what we are as a nation and people, how we can reach out to other nations. And so, we are doing everything we can to make it easier to get a visa for those who should be coming to our country and mean us no harm. We want to be seen as an open country, with open doors welcoming people as we have in the past. So, I hope we will see these numbers reversed and get back up to the higher levels.

QUESTION: Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday that next year will be the best year for Taiwan and China to resume dialogue. After you met with the Chinese leader Hu Jintao this morning, did you see any possibility? And also when you met with him, do you feel any pressure from him on the issue of US arms sales to Taiwan? Thanks.

SECRETARY POWELL: We didn’t have a conversation specifically about what President Chen Shui-bian might have said yesterday. I just encouraged all of my interlocutors today to keep an open mind with respect to dialogue and to take every opportunity that comes along to increase cross-strait dialogue.

With respect to arms sales to Taiwan: yes, it did come up. The Chinese side expressed their opposition to such sales and I reiterated that our policy was based on one China, the three communiques, but also the responsibility that we have under our law ? the Taiwan Relations Act ? to make sure that Taiwan was able to defend itself–not to have an offensive capability, but to defend itself. All of our arms sales are for that purpose and are carefully examined and the arms sales items that are up for consideration now are the same items that have been known to the parties for the last three years. The Taiwanese have not yet made a firm commitment to what it is they wish to buy off that list.

But, we believe that we will continue to meet our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act and do it in a way that in no way undercuts our basic policy, which is the one China policy based on the three communiques. We very carefully balance the responsibilities that we have to China and the responsibilities that we have to Taiwan under our own domestic law.

Okay, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

Released on October 25, 2004

◆(2004/10/25)U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing

QUESTION: Yes, Secretary Powell, in interviews in Beijing, has said things on Cross-Strait relations that have never been said before by the U.S. Government, such as Taiwan does not enjoy the sovereignty of a nation, and also comments to the fact that we need to find ways to start cross-strait dialogue so that someday we may have the movement towards a peaceful reunification.

Does this indicate any policy change? I know your policy remains the same, but, you know, policy is described in words. When words change, so does the policy, doesn’t it?

MR. ERELI: The policy has not changed. (Laughter.) We can lead with that. I think the Secretary is very clear that the United States is committed, remains firmly committed to its One China policy, based on the three communiques and our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act. He also made it clear that we opposed unilateral actions by either side, that we do not support Taiwanese independence, and that the way to resolve this issue is through peaceful dialogue.

As far as Taiwanese sovereignty goes, again, there was — I don’t think there was any new ground broken on that. The words the Secretary used accurately reflect our longstanding policy on Taiwan status. And so, frankly, I think we are today where we were yesterday.

QUESTION: Can I follow up please? When you say, you know, the United States does not want to prejudge the outcome of any outcome between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, and when the Secretary uses words like reunification, is there a contradiction there? Why does the Secretary use such word as reunification?

MR. ERELI: I don’t think you should read that any prejudging or hinting or departure from our longstanding position. That, as I said, the policy has not changed. One element of our policy has been to favor a peaceful resolution of the Cross-Straits issue through dialogue and through a resolution that is acceptable to both sides.

There are a whole wealth of possibilities there. We are not prejudging those possibilities. We are simply emphasizing that it has to be done through dialogue, and I think the Secretary is very outspoken and very emphatic about encouraging an intensification of that dialogue. And that’s where we think the focus ought to be.


QUESTION: While the policy has not changed, but it seems to me that there is something. Is there anything changed in the attitude in that when — that the Secretary has to say something like this, that Taiwan is not an independent nation and does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, which he or the United States has never said before this, that what’s the urge to make it so explicit, you know, change?

MR. ERELI: I don’t know that the United States has never said it before. It’s a pretty, I think, objective statement of fact. It’s not a question of interpretation. It’s, I think, a statement of fact. And again, I think you need to put it in context, look at that statement in the context of the questioning and the answers, which dealt with the issue of Taiwanese status as an independent country. So it didn’t just come out of the blue.

◆(2004/10/26)U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing

Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
October 26, 2004

QUESTION: On Taiwan, in response to Secretary Powell’s statement, President Chen Shui-bian responded that Taiwan is a sovereign country again and said that nobody, with or without diplomatic relationship to Taiwan, can deny that. I wonder, is there any response from State Department?

MR. ERELI: I think we dealt with the matter fully yesterday and don’t have anything to add to what we said yesterday.(昨日の会見で申し上げたことに、引くことも足すこともありません)

QUESTION: The Taiwanese in Taipei, the Taiwanese said that they would seek clarification of his response. And did they actually seek clarification and did you provide them any that satisfied them?

MR. ERELI: I don’t have anything for you on that today.

QUESTION: What President Bush said last year when Wen Jiabao was visiting here, he said, well, President Chen show he has a willingness to change the status quo. Is that still a continuing concern from U.S. sides?

MR. ERELI: Our concern is that neither side should act unilaterally to change the status quo and that differences between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan are matters to be resolved peacefully by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait absent the threat or use of force, and should be acceptable to people on both sides of the Strait.