Joint Press Conference at the Concl

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright,
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs
Alexander Downer, and Australian Minister for Defense Ian McLachlan 
Joint Press Conference at the Conclusion of the Australia-U.S. Ministerial
Talks, HMAS Watson, Sydney 
Sydney, Australia, July 31, 1998
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State  

 

FOREIGN MINISTER DOWNER: Can I just begin by saying a few words of
introduction then I'll ask Secretary Albright to speak, then Minister
McLachlan will, and Secretary Cohen. We've just completed a very full and
productive day of discussions, and I have to say, we on the Australian side
have very much appreciated the generosity of our American friends with their
time and the quality of the discussion which was, we thought, extremely
worthwhile. 

AUSMIN (Australia - U.S. Ministerial) is, of course, a very valuable
opportunity for Australia and the United States to compare notes, and it is,
if you like, the ministerial meeting which forms part of the broader
alliance relationship. As I said in introducing Secretary Albright's lecture
yesterday, the alliance relationship is as relevant today as it's ever been,
and the cooperation between Australia and the United States, not just in the
technical defense area, but also, on Asia-Pacific issues, is extremely
close, and I must say, very productive from both of our perspectives. 

During the course of our discussions here today, we've looked at a range of
issues, first of all the regional economic crisis, with a particular focus,
obviously, on Indonesia -- the humanitarian and political dimensions of
that, the importance of Japan's economy to the regional economy into
recovery, and the stabilizing role of China. We've discussed the Cambodian
elections. We've spent quite a bit of time talking about the very serious
situation in Burma, and Secretary Albright will have a little more to say
about that. We've also talked at some length about the South Asian nuclear
tests -- the nuclear tests conducted recently by India and Pakistan, and
more broadly had discussions about the international disarmament agenda.
There have been a range of other bilateral and regional and global issues
that we've discussed. 

As I said earlier today, Secretary Albright also repeated to me, and to my
colleague Tim Fischer, the assurance she gave to the Prime Minister last
night that the United States would make every effort to ensure that food aid
assistance to Indonesia was effectively targeted, and not used to distort
commercial trade. We did agree that our respective officials would meet up
in Washington very soon. We haven't been able to fix a precise date yet, but
we will do that, of course. But our respective officials will be able to
meet and work out in greater detail how the aid relationship with Indonesia
is going to develop without cutting across the commercial arrangements. I'll
leave it to Ian McLachlan and Secretary Cohen to say something about the
military elements of the talks, but let me sum up by saying that this AUSMIN
has shown, once again, that the Australia-U.S. partnership can deliver
practical strategies and solutions to regional and global problems.
Solutions which are more widely acceptable and successful than either of us
could achieve alone. 

We've been delighted to host our American colleagues at this 1998 AUSMIN
meeting, and we look forward to going to Washington next year. I know the
Americans look forward to coming back here in the year 2000. They're hoping
that AUSMIN can be on the day before the opening ceremony of the 2000
Olympics. Madam Secretary over to you. 

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much Mr. Minister. We are really
delighted to be here in Sydney and to participate. Secretary Cohen and I are
here for our first AUSMIN meeting. We had a very timely set of talks today
-- perhaps the most important consultations the United States and Australia
have had in some time, and that's because we face challenges this year that
are larger and more dramatic than in any year in recent memory. 

Since the last time we met, this part of the world has seen tremendous
political and economic upheaval from South Asia to Indonesia, to Korea and
Japan. But if this is a time of uncertainty, it's by the same token a time
of possibility. For it's possible that this region will emerge from the
financial crisis more integrated, more democratic, more committed to
policies that can assure stable and sustainable growth. We don't have to
fear change, we need to steer it in the right direction and that's the
purpose of our alliance, and it was the purpose of our discussions today. 

Secretary Cohen will describe our talks about the state of our military
alliance which is strong and vital to all that we are trying to do together
in this region and beyond. I just want to say a few words about our
diplomatic cooperation. 

We are, first of all, global partners, in a vast array of joint enterprises
from the effort to stop climate change to the fight against proliferation.
We discussed, today, our cooperation in the Persian Gulf, as well as our
common effort to dissuade India and Pakistan from engaging in a nuclear arms
race. I congratulated Australia for ratifying the CTBT, for its efforts to
jump start the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty negotiations in Geneva, and
for its contributions to the Korean Energy Development Organization.

But our discussions today focused more intensely on events in this region.
We welcomed the formation of a new government in Japan, and we agreed to
encourage to take strong action to stimulate its economy and to deal
forthrightly with structural issues including bank reform that are an
obstacle to growth. We reviewed our common response to the Asian financial
crisis, reaffirmed our commitment to support IMF and World Bank programs in
the region, as well as efforts to strengthen the social safety net in the
countries hit hard. No nation has been hit harder than Indonesia, and we
strongly support that country's efforts to pursue economic reform while
building a more just and democratic society. 

I know there is concern here about America's decision to donate wheat to
Indonesia, but the bottom-line is clear: Indonesia has extraordinary
humanitarian needs today that must be met if it is to have any chance of
emerging from this crisis as a stable, prosperous democracy. It is in the
overriding interest of both our countries, Australia in particular, to meet
those needs. The purpose of our aid is to put food on the table of
Indonesian families who can't afford to buy it. This can be done in a way
that does not distort commercial sales. In fact, it can hasten the day when
Indonesia can stand on its own feet and start buying more food again. We've
agreed to consult further about how to deliver food effectively into the
hands of those who need it while avoiding disruption of commercial markets. 

We also discussed events in Cambodia where Australia has played an important
diplomatic role. We hope, although we don't yet know, that the results of
the election will genuinely reflect the wishes of the Cambodian people, who
yet again, have voted in huge numbers to state their views. What is clear is
that democracy must continue to be built in that country, and that we must
stay engaged until Cambodia observes democratic standards, not only on
election day, but every day. 

The escalating tensions in Burma were also high on our agenda. The more we
learn about the recent stand-off the more clear it becomes that the Burmese
Government's account of the incident was false. Far from being concerned
about Aung San Suu Kyi's health, the government denied her food and clean
water and spurned efforts by Australia, Japan, and others to resolve the
situation through negotiation. As a result, Burma has moved further away
from reconciliation and increased its isolation. Minister Downer and I were
in touch with Secretary General Kofi Annan asking him to become personally
involved in trying to resolve the situation. As I said in Manila, we believe
that what's going on there is an extremely dangerous situation, and our two
nations agree that the members of the international community should work to
encourage a dialogue inside Burma. We do believe that the UN needs to play a
more vigorous role. 

In all these areas that I've discussed, our discussions here were
productive, our cooperation is strong, our partnership is enduring, and I
look forward to an intensive period of practical cooperation ahead. 

MINISTER McLACHLAN: Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen, it's certainly a
great pleasure to welcome you to Sydney. Could I simply say that in regard
to Secretary Cohen, it's been an excellent working relationship that we have
built over the last year or so, and our relationship has been exacerbated,
or made more easy, by the fact that the Americans' openness has been never
ending. 

This AUSMIN reaffirms the vitality of the alliance, and it's been extremely
easy to operate, as I said, with them. We have agreed on a number of
important issues today but I'll only raise two in the interest of time. The
first is what used to be called interoperability, which is nearly
unpronounceable to some (Laughter). As I found out, in fact, of course, we
are trying to broaden that concept from the old concept of simply being able
to work together on various operations to planning how we do it in the
future. In other words setting down now and looking at how all this is going
to happen between our two countries. That will take some time; it will be
certainly in the high-tech areas. We will certainly be increasing personnel
exchanges to SENTCOM and Atlantic Command. Because with our experience of
recent times, although we operate extremely with Pacific Command because we
practice with them, we have found that we need to broaden that for other
potential coalition arrangements in the future. 

So we'll be promoting training and educational exchanges in that field,
increasing intelligence cooperation, and we will be introducing a new forum
called the AUSMIN Defense Acquisitions Committee, which will greatly assist
cooperation in the development of high-technology equipment. And all of
this, is to try to plan what used to be called interoperability but now has
a wider concept. 

The other main subject we discussed, of course, was Southeast Asia -- well,
the Asian problems in general -- but in particular South-East Asia and the
willingness of South Asian nations since the financial crash, to accept more
involvement by the American defense interests. Now, I am saying that
cautiously, but nevertheless, we have discerned that to be true, the U.S.
has discerned that to be true, and particularly, I'll just report on
Indonesia because whereas in the past there had been some reluctance on
Indonesia's part to accept involvement by Americans with too heavy a foot or
hand, nowadays those things have changed. And that obviously works in our
interest as well, because we have spent a very great part of the eight or
ten years working very hard with Indonesia, and we concluded that in their
latest strife they had handled that in a way that surprised not only
Australia and the U.S., but the rest of the world. So that time that we have
spent with Indonesia in the past has worked reasonably well, and we intend
to do so with Indonesia and other nations in a more intensive way in the
future. 

SECRETARY COHEN: Minister Downer, Minister McLachlan, there is an expression
I think you're all familiar with: "Everything that needs to be said has been
said, but not everyone has said it."(Laughter) So let me just offer a couple
of brief points. I know that I speak for Secretary Albright when I say that
this has been one of the most productive and enjoyable sessions that we have
attended together. We have made it a practice to testify before various
committees in Congress together, to make various public appearances
together, but I must say this is one of the most enjoyable and again
productive sessions that we've ever had with any group. I agree with Ian
McLachlan that is because we have a degree of openness and candor that we
can share with our counterparts that is truly extraordinary. 

A couple of quick points in terms of our military-to-military relations:
they couldn't be stronger. We have a commonality of interests and values and
commitments. When the United States determined that we had to confront
Saddam Hussein in the Gulf, Australia was the first country to join us in
the effort to prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening the UNSCOM inspectors.
That says a great deal about Australia's commitment to a goal that the world
should share, and for the most part, does. 

Secondly, we have a revolution in military affairs that the United States is
currently undergoing. We intend to share that revolution in military affairs
with Australia. It does little good for the United States to spend vast sums
of money to develop these new technologies, and yet not be in a position to
have our coalition allies share in the technology, the training, and the
doctrine. And so, that is something that we discussed this afternoon. 

And a third item that we took up in addition to the Defense Acquisitions
Committee, is that of information assurance. As we are in the information
age and we intend to see that it is even more accelerated in the future, we
also understand there are great vulnerabilities. The more dependent we
become upon information, the more vulnerable we become to outside or
external attacks upon those systems. We are spending a great deal of our
resources developing mechanisms to protect that information, and we intend
to again share with our Australian friends and allies that effort. 

Diplomacy backed by a strong military capability, I think, is the key to
success. It's rather unusual to see both ministers of defense and
secretaries of state together in a particular conference, but it says
something very important about our efforts. We have to have strong
diplomacy, we have to have that diplomacy backed up by strong capable,
creditable militaries. We have that with the United States and Australia and
it's something that we intend to build upon in the future. 

MINISTER DOWNER: Now if there are any questions we have time for eight, and
we need to share them up between the Australians and the Americans. Over here.

QUESTION: I'd like to ask about Burma. Madam Secretary, what specifically
have you asked Kofi Annan to do? What was his response, and do you envision
further steps to pressure the government? And to Secretary Downer, has it
reached the point that Australia might join the United States in opposing
sanctions on Burma?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say that, we basically had an initial discussion
with the Secretary General, telling him that we were very concerned about
the fact that it was difficult for diplomats on the ground to be able to be
involved in some of the negotiating processes, and that it would be useful
for him to become personally involved in it. He was very interested in what
we were telling him about, what we knew that had been going on on the
ground, and he said that he was going to take a very careful look, and we
will talk again with him. He's on his way back to New York. So as soon as he
gets there we will have further conversations. I think he joined our concern
about the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi -- the handling of her -- was so
inappropriate in terms of the way that one handles any citizen of a country,
much less the leader of an opposition. He wanted to hear more from us about
what we knew. So that's where we were at that point. 

MINISTER DOWNER: Well, I would only say that I thought our discussion with
the Secretary General was very productive. I mean, he is very abreast of the
problems, is very sensitive to the concerns. Our worry about Burma, over and
above the human rights concerns we have, is the implications for broader
security interests, not just internal security in Burma. But, that if the
situation there is going to deteriorate, as we fear it might over the next
few weeks, this has implications for so-called illegal people movements,
refugee movements. I know already, that this is a concern of the Thai
government and there is wide-spread concern in ASEAN, and of course, was
part of the argument that we made to the Secretary General. 

As far as sanctions are concerned, well, we haven't imposed sanctions on
Burma, although we've always said that we would reserve the option to do so.
What we have said is that we want to maximize the pressure we can place on
Burma, and of course, whether you've imposed sanctions, or whether you
haven't, whether you've taken constructive engagement as the path, or taken
the United States' path, or the EU's path, it is a fair debating point to
say that none of those paths have achieved the results that we all want to
see in Burma. 

We have been and are still are, very focused, not only on working in
cooperation with the United States, which we have done particularly in the
last few days in Manila and here on Burma, but also on trying to activate
the ASEAN countries to place greater pressure on their colleague -- Burma.
And, I must say from my discussions with the ASEANs, and I think Madeleine
you'd agree with this, that a lot of them, perhaps it's not a universal
view, but a lot of them are very seized with the problems of Burma, are very
concerned about those problems. 

We are focusing a lot of our diplomacy on ASEAN, and we hope that through
those channels, as well as through the initiative that we've been pursuing
today with the Secretary General, and through the bilateral things that
countries like the United States and Australia do, that it will persuade the
government in Burma to take the measures that it should take to develop a
dialogue with the NLD, including with Aung San Suu Kyi, show greater respect
for human rights, and move towards reforming their constitution. 

One thing I said to the Burmese, and to the ASEANs in Manila, was that they
should consider in Burma establishing their own national human rights
commission of the kind that exists in Indonesia, so that human rights are
more properly protected in Burma. And I have to say that the response to
that was reasonably promising, so I hope that initiative can be taken
forward. Next question. Need one from an Australian this time.

QUESTION: Geoffrey Barker, Australian Financial Review. My question is to
Secretary Albright. What sort of quarantine, on the wheat issue, does the
U.S. have in mind regarding wheat? How do you see it being put in place, so
that it doesn't compromise the commercial wheat market? And to Minister
Downer, what would be the minimum commitment that would satisfy you on this
matter?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me, if I might, in the spirit of friendship and
candor that characterizes this bilateral relationship, respond to that
question in some detail. First of all I think that there is no question that
the U.S. and Australia share a strong humanitarian concern about the problem
of hunger in Indonesia. And this problem has now reached serious proportions
and we believe that if it is not addressed, million of Indonesians will
suffer and their country's reforms and transition to democracy will be
imperiled. And I think that it does in fact begin to create potential
problems of disruption in the area with refugees and a whole host of issues
in terms of social disquiet. 

At a donors meeting earlier this week, the U.S. pledged to donate on a grant
basis 500,000 tons of wheat to Indonesia, and this pledge was made after a
careful assessment of the current needs, and takes into account our desire
to avoid the disruption of the commercial markets. Our programs are intended
to feed hungry people and we determined this amount after close consultation
with our embassy and other parties in Jakarta, and after assessing the
conclusions of teams sent to Indonesia to examine the food aid needs. 

At the donors meeting we also indicated that we might be willing to donate
more, perhaps up to another million tons, and this additional aid would be
provided only if there is a clear humanitarian need and only if it can be
effectively distributed and only if it is consistent with our food aid
policy and obligations including our obligation to seek to ensure that the
aid does not disrupt commercial markets. The program, like all the U.S. food
aid programs, will be designed and implemented under the rules on surplus
disposal of the Food and Agricultural Organization, and the U.S. is always
prepared to consult with interested parties on its food aid programs. 

As I've mentioned, we have agreed to an early meeting with Australia to talk
about how to ensure that food aid to Indonesia gets to the people who truly
need it and not in any way cause disruption of the commercial markets, and
the results of these consultations will be carefully considered in
determining the levels of food aid in Indonesia. I think we understand, if I
didn't before I certainly do now, the level of angst about it here and we
have been talking about it. I think we need to keep in mind our ultimate
goal which is similar for both countries: that we do not want social
disruption in Indonesia, and we will be working closely with the Australians
to make sure that the commercial aspects of this are not disrupted.

MINISTER DOWNER: I don't have an enormous amount to add to that except to
say that we obviously feel very strongly about the humanitarian problem in
Indonesia. You're talking about somewhere between 80 and 100 million people
falling below the absolute poverty line and around 20 million people in
Indonesia suffering from severe food shortages which has implications for
malnutrition. 

We ourselves are in the process of distributing 40,000 tons of wheat to the
World Food Program for Indonesia which in turn is to be converted by the
World Food Program into rice for the Indonesian market. And we have said to
the United States, we have said to the European Union, the Japanese and
others, that it is crucially important to the stability of Indonesia that
the humanitarian crisis of that country be addressed. But of course it is
obvious also that we don't want the commercial markets, which are important
to us as well as other countries, in Indonesia to be interfered with by
development assistance, and in fact of course if development assistance is
to cut across commercial markets, then it becomes dubious in terms of the
title "development assistance." 

And so through these talks, I mean I, you know we obviously have reached an
agreement here, but through these talks at the official level, we'll be able
to work out ways of quarantining the commercial markets. We obviously,
between us, haven't worked out the mechanics of that, but that is something
that the talks will be designed to do. And I'm confident that we can find a
satisfactory way of allaying the concerns of the Australian farmers. At the
same time we can contribute -- both of us -- to make the effort we are
making to address the humanitarian crisis of Indonesia.

QUESTION: One question for Secretary Cohen, what (inaudible) for Australia
and the United States with (inaudible) Asia Pacific related to New Zealand
in terms of the security alliance. I'm just wondering, today former defense
minister of New Zealand came out with a statement on how the nuclear
propulsion argument in New Zealand is now outdated. Does this seem a
favorable development for you. And then perhaps to Secretary Albright, the
offering of carrying out, holding out sort of high tech linkages in terms of
technology developments, the United States. Is that something that you could
take into talks with Prime Minister Shipley tomorrow should there be any
developments in terms of ANZUS?

SECRETARY COHEN: With respect to the question about the former defense
minister of New Zealand, I think that is a very encouraging statement to the
extent that he believes that the position taken by New Zealand in the past
is now outdated. I would hope that the present Minister of Defense would
share the same viewpoint, in that if that were the case then obviously that
would be a very positive development.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Again I think I'm looking forward to some full talks
with my counterparts in New Zealand about general ways to cooperate within a
whole host of areas that are not specifically covered by the military aspects.

QUESTION: I have a question on the Cambodian elections to both Secretary
Albright and Minister Downer. You said you discussed it. So far you've sort
of taken a wait and see attitude but everyday more results come in. The
foreign observers seem to say that it looked like it was fair. Today, Hun
Sen got the blessing of King Sihanouk. If it turns out that he won a
democratic election, are you prepared to consider recommending restoration
of the UN seat and aid, and if not what's the time frame involved here?
Madam Secretary, you talked about not only election day but beyond, so what
exactly was that a reference to?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all I think that as I've now said a number of
times, I think we should applaud the Cambodian people for having turned out
again in record numbers for an election. We need to make sure that the count
is complete and need to assess the fairness of it; and as I have said I
think it is important to take it a step at a time. It will be a question as
to how a government is formed, whether it has set itself up in way that is
internationally acceptable. And I am not prepared yet to discuss whether, at
what moment we will decide about the restoration of aid or the seat.

MINISTER DOWNER: Look, I'd only say that likewise we feel it is a step by
step approach. First of all we need to see once the vote is absolutely
complete what the joint international observers group says and for our part
our observers we have on the ground. There will subsequent to that, assuming
that the report is a positive report -it remains to be seen - it would be a
question about the formation of a government. For a government to be formed
it has to have a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and at this
stage it does not look as though, well it seems fairly certain that no party
will have that. So there will be an interesting negotiation towards the
formation of a government, which could raise a number of complex issues
which I'm not going to canvas at this time either. So I think we are all in
a holding pattern at the moment and waiting to see.

QUESTION: Secretary Albright and Minister Downer. Secretary Albright, we've
seen Congress decline to give new capital to the IMF, we've seen fast track
legislation endlessly postponed. Is it fair for outsiders to conclude that
official Washington is not fully seized of the urgency and breadth of the
Asian crisis and, compared to taking on new European commitments such as
NATO enlargement, doesn't see Asia as the same priority as Europe for
example. And Minister Downer, there were very well publicized differences
between Australia and the U.S. over the content of the IMF packages. Is
there now any light between U.S. and Australian positions on these issues?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say that the Administration is fully aware of the
depth and breadth of the Asian financial crisis, and when Secretary Cohen a
little while ago said that we often appear together -- it is actually
interestingly enough -- not just about NATO expansion but recently several
times in order to argue the national security aspects of IMF funding. And I
don't think you see that in too many countries where you have the minister
of defense and the minister of foreign affairs together arguing for funding
of an international financial institution. So the Administration is fully
seized with the importance of this and we will continue to push for it. It
is probably not appropriate for me to discuss our domestic political
situation while we are abroad.

MINISTER DOWNER: Not being abroad, I could say that in this country, not to
speak for the United States, but in this country there are people who don't
understand that it is in our national interest to help Asia as best we
possibly can through this economic crisis. There are such people. And it is
incumbent on us and the Administration obviously feels that as well for
their part, to explain to people that our countries both have a national
interest in this economic crisis passing as quickly as possible and that the
humanitarian fall out being as little as possible. As far as the IMF package
is concerned I think now the current IMF package where there has just been a
disbursement under that package is progressing reasonably successfully;
there has been a rescheduling and a recalibration of the IMF package in
recent times, and I feel much more comfortable about it than, I have to
admit, I did in March of this year.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question on Burma please. Secretary Albright,
obviously you are very disturbed by the actions of the junta in Rangoon. Are
you also worried somewhat by the tactics being exhibited by Aung San Suu
Kyi, to the extent that her health seemed to be in question? But she seemed
also very intent and very stubbornly wishing to hang tough in her vehicle
and only returned to Rangoon against her will. She obviously intends to try
to provoke another standoff. To the extent that her situation sometimes
takes on the appearance of a type of a hunger strike, maybe a sophisticated
type of a hunger strike, do you have any words of caution to her about
whether it is constructive to provoke this type of situation again? And to
Minister Downer, do you perceive any differences in the regime regarding
such recommendations as a human rights commission or other signs that you
find promising on the part of the junta. Are you convinced that just because
one or two officials might have thought it was good idea that this is the
idea of the whole group?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Let me say that I find Aung San Suu Kyi one of the most
remarkable and bravest people that I have met in my public life and she, I
think, has earned the respect of the people of Burma as well as of the
world. When I was there after the Womens Conference in Beijing, I was quite
interested actually in her quite conciliatory approach and her desire to
have a dialogue and her non-confrontational way of dealing with the SLORC,
as it was then known. And I think that the reason that she has taken
stronger measures has been because she has not found any satisfaction in
trying to work through a system where they would deal with her as a
respected leader instead of either referring to her as they did when I was
there, as a little sister who should mind -- should keep on shopping, or
now, as they refer to her, as Mrs. Aris and act as if she were a foreign
agent. I think that one cannot second-guess a freedom fighter and a Nobel
laureate in her approach to the issue.

MINISTER DOWNER: On a national human rights commission I can only say that
the response I got from Ohn Gyaw, the Foreign Minister, was mildly
promising. Whether the military officials back in Rangoon would embrace
though with enthusiasm such an idea is hard to say. It is perfectly possible
they wouldn't of course, and therefore we are looking at other ways of
promoting the idea including that I have mentioned it to the ASEAN, to our
ASEAN dialogue partners. And I hope that ASEAN will take it up with Rangoon
because, as Ohn Gyaw said to me himself, reform is moving ahead in Burma
inch by inch, and you know it might be an overstatement but they were his
words not mine. So it is all moving incredibly slowly. 

QUESTION: I have a question for --

MINISTER DOWNER: And then we have one more question after that and we will
have to move on.

QUESTION: I have a question for Secretary Cohen and perhaps Mr. McLachlan
would like to respond as well. Not very long ago any discussion of Pacific
and Asian security would inevitably involve a consideration of Chinese
ambitions in the region and the possible threat of that. Now you talk of the
Chinese being a force for stability in the region. Is the Chinese threat, if
there ever was one, is that gone forever?

SECRETARY COHEN: I don't believe I would referred to China as a force for
stability; I believe I have indicated that China is going to be a power in
the future. It is a power today and it is likely to be a power in the
future, in the 21st century. Our policy toward China is one of engagement,
and we believe that it's in the overall interest of our country, and that of
our allies in the entire region, for us to be constructively engaged in
dialogue with China. But we also intend to maintain our strong bilateral
relationships. We have a strong bilateral relationship with Australia, with
Japan, that remains a key stabilizing relationship with the entire
Asia-Pacific region. We're building upon our relationships with Singapore,
with the Philippines, with Thailand, and so we do not see this as a zero sum
game; that the U.S. relationship with China is improving, obviously, as a
result of the President's trip, that of Secretary Albright and others in the
Cabinet; it's improving and we expect it to improve even further, but not at
the expense of other relations. 

MINISTER MCLACHLAN: Well, we agree absolutely with that, and the strong
moves that the U.S. has made and China's made to try to improve their
relationship has been the most important, the most fundamental strategic and
international political move that's been made in the last decade, and we've
been encouraging that for as long as we've been in government. Can I say
from the point of view, our own bilateral arrangements with China, they have
improved immeasurably since the Taiwan missile crisis in '96 and thereafter,
during which time, the relationships were extremely cool, to put it mildly.
And again, both sides have been trying hard to do that, and after the
Chinese Defense Minister has been down here, the relationship was fine and I
have been invited to go back there, and we have military to military
relationships - at the beginning, but nevertheless going well.

QUESTION: Question to Secretary Albright, and also Minister Downer. The one
discordant note in this otherwise happy gathering appears to be Australia
expressing its disappointment over the failure of the United States to pay
its bill to the United Nations. When do you think you'll be able to pay your
bill in full and on time, and Mr. Downer, how much is this impeding the
usefulness of that body. Considering that even now, over Burma, you're
appealing for its help?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: I wish I could tell you. We have been - the
Administration again, has been fighting very hard to get our UN arrears paid
up. And again, if I might state, a rather unusual case, where the Secretary
of Defense has joined the Secretary of State calling for the paying up of
our UN bills for the same reason, because we consider it in our national
interest.

MINISTER DOWNER: Well, you're quite right. We very much do want the United
States to pay its bills in the United Nations. The United Nations is an
important component of Australia and the United States security policy. The
United Nations Security Council obviously has a central role to play in the
whole issue of Iraq, and UNSCOM. Just more recently we've been talking about
persuading India and Pakistan to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, which had its birth in the United Nations first in the Conference on
Disarmament and subsequently in the United Nations General Assembly. And it
does make it - and I don't mind saying this in front of the American
Administration, and they probably don't mind me saying it, because their
problem is with Congress - but it does make it more difficult for America's
friends that the United States won't pay its dues in the United Nations. And
I think that Congress should help the Administration, and help American
diplomacy internationally, by ensuring that it is possible for the United
States to pay those bills.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Could I just add something to that? I think there's all
some misunderstanding. It isn't that we don't pay anything (laughter). Even
when we don't pay our full share, we still pay a lot more than anybody else.
And I do think that that part does need to be noted. We believe -- and when
I was ambassador at the United Nations I made this point many times -- the
United Nations does need to be reformed. It does need to take some action to
make sure that budgets when put forward are actually carried out, and to
operate in a more efficient way. So I do believe we need to pay our arrears.
It's very serious and we will argue for that, because we do believe in the
United Nations. But I think that the record ought to show that the United
States is not exactly a non-payer. 

Thank you.

[End of Document]