U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

Remarks at G8 Ministerial Press Conference
Powell et al.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Rome, Italy
July 19, 2001

ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER RUGGIERO: Good afternoon. In the framework of the meetings of the Genoa summit, the eight Foreign Ministers of the countries that are taking part in this summit met yesterday and today together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, Louis Michel, who represents the Presidency of the Council of the European Union together with the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Christopher Patten, and with the High Representative for Foreign Policy and Common Security, Javier Solana.

On behalf of my distinguished colleagues, I would like to give you a short briefing on what we discussed in a climate of cooperation, accord and friendship. On some of the issues, for example, the Middle East, FYROM, Africa and the Korean Peninsula, we have sent forth to our heads of state and government our observations and conclusions for the discussions that they shall have and the ensuing decisions. On the Middle East, nonetheless, we agreed on our own statement, which is in the direction of what we are also proposing to the heads of state and government.

Our discussions began with an overview of the situation in the Middle East. We considered it to be the most difficult topic, the one that is the greatest cause of concern, and our conclusion, our message is basically based on three points.

The first point is that the Mitchell report remains the only way to go through in order to ensure progress in the peace process.

The second point is that the cooling-off period contemplated in the proposals of the Mitchell report must begin as soon as possible, and therefore, there exists a sense of urgency, as to beginning the process leading to the peace process.

The third point is that we all believe that an impartial monitoring, accepted by both parties, would benefit the implementation of the Mitchell report.

We then took a look at the situation in the Balkans and particularly in Macedonia, where we are pursuing a policy to ensure sovereignty, territorial integrity, multi-ethnicity. There is a fragile truce, but important, and the political negotiation is also on its way despite all the difficulties. We are in ongoing contact to see exactly how we could facilitate the political negotiation and progress towards a solution to the language problem.

Therefore, we touched upon the problem of Africa that, as you know very well, is at the very center of the work to be done by the heads of state and government within the framework of the fight against poverty, debt relief, the opening of markets and a creation of a fund to combat AIDS. Now, this is a problem that does not concern just Africa, the latter, but concerns especially Africa. In particular, we focused our attention on the need to stop conflicts in Africa, which constitute one of the most serious problems of poverty in that continent.

We also discussed how to better promote a policy of conflict prevention, without necessarily waiting for the need to begin military operations, but step in before, in order to remove and eliminate the causes, which then lead to conflicts. We also had a very important discussion and a reassuring discussion on disarmament, on non- proliferation and on armament control. Reassuring because we all demonstrated a clear willingness to face these problems in a climate of cooperation and dialogue.

We also had an exchange of views last night on how to give a political answer to anti-globalization movements. We represent legitimate and democratic governments based on parliamentary systems, which is the one that best represents the sovereignty of the people.

We say no to violence, but we are ready to dialogue with whoever is willing to dialogue. We underlined the fact that it is only a first exchange of ideas. We are all convinced that it is necessary to improve communication and information. There is no doubt that globalization carries with itself risks but also carries enormous opportunities, also and perhaps particularly for developing countries. It is therefore necessary to send a message of trust and hope that it is possible to change the course of events.

We will resume this discussion in September. I asked the Canadian presidency if they could reflect on how to add a forum for a more ample discussion with the developing countries.

We are now ready to answer your questions.

QUESTION: Minister Ruggiero, I would like to ask you if you have considered the issue of the foreign debt of the poor countries; second, the Foreign Ministry of Colombia was invited initially and then he did not participate and I would like to know the reason.

ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER RUGGIERO: We did not have a discussion on the foreign debt of poor countries or debt relief, that is an issue which is reserved to the heads of state and government. We did, in the course of our proceedings, discussions and exchanges, we highlighted how important it is in order to improve peace and security in Africa to adopt those measures which will then be discussed by the heads of state and government and these measures also include debt relief. So there was no specific ad hoc discussion on that issue during our meeting. Regarding the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as far as I know, I don't think he was invited because he does not belong to the group of the G-8, so I don't know what you are referring to, quite frankly, but there was no discussion as to whether or not a minister from Latin America should be or could be invited. Thank you.

QUESTION: A question for Secretary Powell on the Korean Peninsula. The US, Japan and Korea, I believe, are engaged in a teamwork to deal with the situation on the Korean Peninsula. As you know, bilateral relations between Japan and Korea, because of the history textbook problem and so on have been deteriorating. As the US Administration, how do you see these worsening relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and also how do you assess the impact this may have on the Korean Peninsula situation?

SECRETARY POWELL: I hope that Japan and South Korea will be able to find a way to move forward on the textbook issue. I think there are other major issues that have to be dealt with that are of such importance -- proliferation, the economic situation in North Korea, the humanitarian crisis in North Korea, that I think that these issues are of such importance that it will give us more than enough opportunity to keep working on those as Japan and South Korea try to deal with the textbook issue, that is really a problem between the two countries.

As you know, the United States completed its review of its policy with respect to North Korea and as a result of that review we continue to support strongly the work of President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea in promoting a new relationship with the North. We have, at a very mid- level, started to talk again to the North Koreans and I will be in conference where my North Korean colleague will be present as well as my Japanese colleague. So even though there is this problem in relations between the two countries, I think we still have enough mutual interest between the three of us to keep moving forward. I look forward to the opportunity to move the dialogue forward between the three countries.

QUESTION: The (inaudible) government doesn't like the idea to have international observers in the Palestinian territories and around. How do you think you could change their mind?

FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER VERDINE: Well, in what we say, and what we say collectively, and this time around it is on the level of the G-8, there are things the Palestinians automatically don't agree with, and things that the Israelis don't automatically agree with. So problem is to have our own concept of what we can do, what we consider useful in order to get these two peoples in the Middle East out of a tragic situation in which you've got these frightful mixture blend of hate, apprehension and fear which can easily lead to catastrophes. So, vis-à- vis that, we make proposals, in some cases, the ideas which we have are not supported or sustained but we feel they shall end up by being so because everyone knows that the only possibility is peace. That's our only concern.

When we started talking here and there about an impartial mechanism of verification or observers, or whatever term you want to use, it is because we feel that in this strategic phase, it would be in the best interest of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Everyone might not agree immediately, but because we are sincere, we are convinced, we are committed we are not going to be discouraged by people's non-agreement. But we are also realistic. We know that this cannot be immediately implemented, except if there is political acceptance behind it. So we try to pack it with good faith, and by using persuasion. And we shall continue so. The question was asked to me, but this is one way to answer it and Renato has already said what we think about this anyway.

GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER FISCHER: Yes, I would like to answer your question as well. First, I'd like to thank Renato Ruggiero and the Presidency, because this statement is very important and it makes clear how united the foreign ministers gathered here today are in our assessment of the situation; namely, that we feel the situation is very critical and the implementation of the Mitchell report is the only way forward out of this crisis, and that we attach great importance to the end, a cessation of terrorism and violence and that at the same time, the rhetoric should be changed in a similar way, so that there should be no further exacerbation of the situation through incitement to hatred and any provocation should cease as well; and, indeed actions which might undermine the other side.

Finally, we feel that implementation of security and the Mitchell report involves accepting a monitoring system on the part of people who enjoy the trust of both parties. These are central proposals for a way out of the crisis, and I think everyone around this table would agree on that -- the United States, Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan. The Secretary General of the United Nations even sees this the same way, which shows how significant the implementation of the Mitchell report and, of course, enforcement of that implementation, how important that is to break out of this spiral of violence. What we want to try to do, and I particularly want to thank the Italian presidency of the G-8 for succeeding in this, was to make the way forward clear through this statement. I think it is very important.

QUESTION: I would like someone to explain exactly what you mean by paragraph two on disarmament. Your reference to fundamental treaties: Does that refer to the ABM treaty? Because if it does, it seems to be at odds with the United States position. What exactly are you trying to get across on this issue?

SECRETARY POWELL: It isn't a specific reference to the ABM treaty. There is an entire family and regime of treaties that govern arms control compliance, deal with weapons of mass destruction and there is a specific reference to the 2000 NPT conference on the next page. So I would not read this in any way as being inconsistent with our obligations under any particular treaty. Obviously within every treaty, within the arms control family, there is provision within those treaties for modification and change as circumstances change.

QUESTION: You go over these documents with a fine-tooth comb and by not excluding ABM specifically, it seems to me that certain members here could walk out today and say you've endorsed, you've reaffirmed the commitment to ABM.

SECRETARY POWELL: We are signatories to the ABM treaty. And until we modify, change it or in some way remove our obligations under the ABM treaty, it is something we have remained in compliance with. So I find nothing inconsistent with this statement, and U.S. actions. We have made it clear in our testimony in recent days that we will be bound by all the treaties that we have ever signed, including the ABM treaty, until such time as we find that some of the programs we are undertaking are so constrained by a particular treaty, especially the ABM treaty, that we will have to find relief from the constraints of such treaties, and the treaties themselves provide provisions for obtaining such relief.

QUESTION: Secretary Powell, the conference chair of the environmental deliberations in Bonn said that he deliberately held off discussions for two months, at your request, to give the United States time to come forward with some new proposals on climate change, but Paula Dobriansky, the leader of the U.S. delegation, said that the U.S. would not be presenting any new proposals. Why has the United States been unable to come up with any new proposals, and if there are any other ministers of the group that would like to respond as to whether the international community should go ahead with the Kyoto Protocol without the United States. Thank you.

SECRETARY POWELL: Knowing we would have a problem with the Kyoto Protocol after we came into office January 20th of this year, I did request that the COP-6 conference be delayed for, I think, two months time, so that we could undertake our review. We did undertake our review. President Bush and his Administration is committed to tackling the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but we find that the Kyoto Protocol is not the way to get to that objective, as far as we are concerned.

At the COP-6 conference, Under Secretary of State Dobriansky and other members of our delegation put forward some of our thinking and some of our ideas with respect to technical things we should be doing, use of technology and other ways to go about this problem. But we really are now looking toward COP-7 for the tabling of specific proposals that could be seen as an alternative to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. Reason for the delay -- it is a terribly complex issue and we are putting our best minds to work on it. We want to come up with something that will garner support and will be seen as a very clear response to this problem, which exists and which we all know exists, called global warming. So it is part of our deliberate effort to do something that is sensible, with respect to getting to the heart of the problem, sensible with respect to involving the entire world in the solution, and sensible in the sense that our economies can stand the kinds of proposals that we hope we can all sign up to in due course.

ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER RUGGIERO: I would like to give the floor to Minister Igor Ivanov, who would like to make a statement on paragraph two on disarmament, which was mentioned before.

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER IVANOV: Thank you very much. Bearing in mind the fact that the question was asked to all persons present, I would like to just add a few words to what was said by the Secretary of State from the USA. Of course, it is true that we had a very constructive exchange of opinions on questions of disarmament and non-proliferation. While of course we were not able to discuss all the treaties or agreements which exist in this field, we discussed things in a general way, and our approach in principle to this field which is so important to international stability. I think that what is of principal importance is that as a result of the exchange of views which took place, we reached an agreement with regard to the need to retain all the basic texts with regard to missile and nuclear disarmament and their universal character. I think on that basis we can successfully move forward towards extending the range of areas where we can reach agreement to strengthen international security and strategic stability.

QUESTION: I have a question for Minister Ruggiero. Minister, you said before that we need to convince the poor countries that globalization is to their benefit and may bring advantages. Could you go into detail and explain more about this promotional campaign, how it should be developed?

ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER RUGGIERO: Well, I wouldn't use the term "promotional campaign." Governments don't do promotional campaigns. What we would like to do through the usual national and international institutional channels is to give a more comprehensive, a more complete, understanding of this process known as "globalization." Take, as an example, one element of technological progress -- mobile phones. Anyone who has been to Africa or Bangladesh and has traveled throughout those countries may have realized how important mobile telephones can be for the people. It can be a question of life or death for people living in remote, rural villages. It is an example of how globalized technological progress can bring benefits and advantages that would have been unimaginable in other periods of history.

Tele-medicine is another example, among many that we could make. Computers can be used to give access to information that often is essential for people in poor countries, in life-threatening situations. This is only part of the answer I could give you. But the point is that alongside the risks, there are also great opportunities, and if we work to develop the opportunities, then extraordinary results can certainly be achieved.

Two last questions here.

QUESTION: I would like to refer again to globalization. There are some states that have an embargo - Cuba and Iraq - and they are excluded from globalization. I would like to ask (Minister) Colin Powell what he thinks about the block against Cuba, what is envisaged, how to remove the situation.

SECRETARY POWELL: Both Cuba and Iraq deny themselves the opportunity to participate in globalization, deny themselves the opportunity to enjoy a world that is rapidly changing through the power of technology, through the power of access to the information revolution, to the power of free trade, to the power of open markets, to the power of democratic systems that allow you to enjoy the benefits that are out there in the 21st century. So the fact that these two countries in particular are not sharing fully in those opportunities really is a result of the regimes they have chosen to keep in place for these many, many years. Dictatorial regimes that deny their people the right, frankly, and the chance to join a world that is moving forward and is moving forward without them and is leaving them behind. I hope that, in time, both of these countries will understand the error of the choices that have been made for these many years and will become part of a world that is moving forward with the power of free markets and globalization.

The suggestion that globalization is somehow bad for poor people is an unfortunate one. Globalization is a solution to the problems that poor people and impoverished people around the world, the situation they find themselves in. It is only when you encourage free trade, it is only when you allow goods to pass back and forth, it is only when you take advantage of this new world to allow capital to move quickly and invest in places where that investment can be safe, can you start people moving up the ladder towards some level of subsistence, then to some level of security. The suggestion that somehow globalization hurts poor people is not only wrong, it is deceitful. Globalization, free trade, free markets, the power of the information revolution, the power of the democratic revolution benefits poor people, benefits those who are in the greatest need. But only if they live in regimes that practice democratic systems of government and economic democracy as well.

QUESTION: My question is to Mr. Ivanov and Mr. Powell. You have discussed the Middle East process in your meetings, and in the meetings of the foreign ministers. My question is: Do you think you could reach a concrete program to return to the negotiating table in this summit in Genoa? And the question to Mr. Ivanov: Do you think time has come for Russia to play its role in the Middle East process? Thanks.

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER IVANOV: Well, we had a very detailed discussion about the situation in the Middle East. My colleagues have already commented on it to some extent. I would like to add to what was already said, that we have a common approach to this issue. We believe that there is no need now to embark on any new initiatives. There is the proposal in the Mitchell report on the table, which has incorporated the earlier initiatives put forth by Egypt and Jordan and we feel that this is a good basis to achieve a cessation of violence now, to calm a situation down, and to create the circumstances for a renewal of the negotiating process. In this spirit, we have adopted the statement that you see before you of the G-8 Foreign Ministers. I would like to underline again that we have absolutely no disagreement on this. We are all speaking with one voice. We are coordinated, and above all, we intend to act in a coordinated way, the United States, the European Union and Russia.

It is quite clear from past experience, and from current experience, that no one will be able to solve this problem on their own. It is vital to coordinate very closely and to pool our efforts, and we have agreed that this is how we are going to act -- together. Russia will not act on its own, but rather in tandem with our partners because we share their approach, we all have an interest in bringing about a cessation of violence, and in not allowing any further escalation of tension - and unfortunately, this is what's happening - and we can return to a peaceful settlement of the situation. So we are determined to work together on this.

SECRETARY POWELL: I agree with Minister Ivanov, and I thank him for that statement. He and I speak frequently on the telephone and we get together on this situation in the Middle East, and so our views are very closely coordinated. The Mitchell report is a roadmap to negotiations, so we don't need a new way of getting to negotiations. This gives us a clear way to get to negotiations. The whole purpose of the Mitchell report is to lay out a roadmap that takes you to negotiations and to start down that trail, we must have an end to the violence. There is no other way around that. There must be an end to the violence so that confidence can be restored, trust can be restored, confidence-building measures can take place with both sides doing things that restore confidence. And then, in due course, negotiations begin again.

Thank you.

END