News

USIS Washington 
File

26 June 1998

TRANSCRIPT: 6/26 XIAN PRESS BRIEFING BY MCCURRY, BERGER



THE WHITE HOUSE



Office of the Press Secretary

(Xian, People's Republic of China)



June 26, 1998



PRESS BRIEFING BY MIKE MCCURRY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY
BERGER


Shangri-la Hotel

Xian, People's Republic of China

.....................



Q: Yes. I was wondering if you can give me an example of the Chinese
flexibility --


BERGER: 

...........


 I think that there is an effort on the part of the Chinese to make
this successful, and I think that in the end, if our objective is to
advance America's national interest across a range of issues and to
make sure the President has an opportunity with the Chinese officials
to raise very directly his concerns, I think that will happen. And the
last thing I would say is, if you just look over the last year or two,
the things that have been accomplished, I think you have to say that
by and large China has moved in our direction, whether it has been
giving up nuclear testing, signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
giving up their nuclear cooperation with Iran, giving up their nuclear
cooperation with Pakistan -- those are big deals. And I think signing
the Chemical Weapons Convention and all of those things -- they have
not done it for us, but they've done what we have asked them to do.


With respect to South Asia, an area of enormous risk and danger at
this point, China has played a very constructive role since the tests.
So I think you have to look at the overall picture and I think if you
simply look at where the President stays or take one fact out of it, I
think that's a snapshot.


Q:  What are the prospects of a detargeting agreement?



BERGER: I don't know the answer, Wolf. We certainly -- we would like
such an agreement. I think such an agreement would be useful in two
respects. Number one, it would be a commitment by the Chinese to us
that they would not target


our cities and, therefore, would preclude the danger of an accidental
launch, which is not insubstantial. There was a time when entire
movies were based on swans going across radar screens.


And second of all, I think it would be an important statement about --
a confidence-building measure and a statement about the evolution of
our relationship since adversaries point their missiles against each
other and not countries that are working to build a better
relationship.


Q:  Where does it stand right now --



BERGER: I cannot tell you that we will have -- we are unwilling to,
and have been, to change our doctrine on no first use, and that's a
bottom red line for us.


Q: Is that what you meant when you were talking about you were looking
for progress on missile issues, the detargeting thing? Or what are you
talking about?


BERGER: No, I think beyond detargeting -- divide the nonproliferation
world into two areas, nuclear and delivery systems. On the nuclear
side we've made a lot of progress. As I said, on Iran, in connection
with Jiang's meeting, they agreed they had no plans to assist the
Iranian nuclear program. They've said that they would not assist
unsafeguarded nuclear facilities -- read that Pakistan. And they have
recently adopted in their law most of the nuclear export controls of
the so-called Zanger Committee, which are kind of the internationally
recognized nuclear technology no-nos. That's a technical term. So
that's the nuclear side.


On the missile side their commitments have been more ambiguous and
more subject to differing interpretations. They have said that they
would adhere to the MTCR guidelines. They have not talked about
looking ahead towards a day when they might join the MTCR itself,
where they would actually undertake not just the principles of
restraint, but also the obligations of restraint. If we could make
some progress in moving them in that direction I think that would be a
plus.
................


(end transcript)