13 June 2002

Powell, Canadian Foreign Minister Graham Brief at G8 Meeting

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Canada's Foreign Minister Bill Graham held a joint press conference June 13 at the end of a Group of Eight foreign ministers meeting in Whistler, Canada. Subjects discussed were the Middle East, anti-terrorism, the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute, and Iraq.

The Whistler meeting was held to prepare for the G8 Summit that begins June 26 in Kananskis, Canada.

Following is the transcript:

U.S. Department Of State
Office of the Spokesman
(Whistler, Canada)
June 13, 2002
Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
Whistler, Canada
June 13, 2002

Question: Mr. Graham, are there any impediments left to the calling of an international conference on the Middle East, and if so, what?

Foreign Minister Graham: There are certainly questions concerning the conference -- calling the conference on the Middle East. We welcome a great deal the initiative of the United States and the personal engagement of Mr. Powell and President Bush. Clearly, they, as the principal conveners, but working also with the Quartet, with our Russian colleagues, with others, will be ensuring that people attend the conference that are capable of making decisions that will bring this matter to a fruitful decision.

So I think the impediment at the moment is making sure that the necessary parties recognize both the need for the conference, except what the conference will contain, and then are willing to come. All of that remains to be -- that work remains to be done, but I'm confident that with good will, and particularly with the support of the major parties that you see here at this table, that can be achieved.

Question: I wonder if Secretary Powell would comment on the same question.

Secretary Powell: There are a number of modalities that have to be worked out. I wouldn't call them impediments as much as I would call them modalities that have to be worked out with respect to venue, agenda and a number of other issues that have to be dealt with. But before all of that comes into play, the President, as you know, President Bush is assembling all of the advice and examining all of the various views that he has heard from various leaders and will be, in due course, communicating his view of a way forward and then that will drive the timing and the other modalities with respect to how to move forward and how a conference would help in the process of moving forward.

Question: Secretary Powell, following on my colleague's question, there seems to be some debate between countries and within Washington about whether and when this Middle East conference should be held and whether a temporary Palestinian state might help the process. Now you've had a chance to consult with your colleagues, what are your views on the timing of the conference and the wisdom of a temporary Palestinian state? I'd also like to hear the views briefly, if I may, of Britain and the European Union and Russia. Thank you.

Secretary Powell: Well, I was pleased that my colleagues, as you saw from the Chairman's statement, are supportive of such a conference, and that shouldn't be surprising, the idea of a meeting of a conference was announced some weeks ago back in Washington and we have remained committed to the concept of moving forward with the concept.

With respect to an interim state, as we have been saying, both myself and the White House spokesman and other members of the administration, it is an idea that has always been out there. It is an idea that has been surfaced on many occasions from both sides over the years, and it is one of the ideas that the President has under consideration. But I have nothing to add to it at this point. The President has all these ideas under consideration, will make his decision and his views made known in due course.

Question: I wanted to ask Secretary of State Powell and British Foreign Secretary Straw, in your Middle East discussions yesterday, was there any consensus on the need to deal with Yasser Arafat?

Secretary Powell: Well, as you know, Chairman Arafat is seen by the Palestinian people as their leader, and he is the head of the Palestinian authority. He has been taking actions in recent days as the head of that authority to include changing the composition and size of his cabinet, suggesting the schedule for upcoming elections, and other actions as well. So, in that capacity, I believe we do have an obligation to deal with him, and not only with him but with other Palestinian leaders as well. As President Bush has often said -- and the United States Government, in many ways, has said over the months -- we have been disappointed in Chairman Arafat's performance, and so we hope that that performance will improve. We will work with other Palestinian leaders, as well as recognizing the role that he currently plays within the Palestinian community.

Question: Joel Connelly, Seattle Post Intelligencer. Question for Secretary Powell. As I recall, when President Clinton -- or President Bush, sorry, sent you to the Middle East, there was a particularly awful suicide bombing in Jerusalem, over which you flew while you were there. My question is: is it possible, do you think, as long as this sort of thing continues whenever either the Prime Minister of Israel is in Washington or somebody like yourself is in the Middle East, to make any progress in terms of getting an international conference together, or recognizing or defining what the limited Palestinian state would be?

Secretary Powell: It makes it much more difficult to move forward toward a political settlement when you see these horrible acts of terror committed against innocent people. It slowed down my mission at that time, delayed the work that I was undertaking for about 24 hours. So that is why we call on Chairman Arafat and all Palestinian leaders and Arab leaders and the Palestinian people to turn away from terrorism and violence, because all those actions do is delay the day when we might arrive at a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people living side-by-side in peace with Israel. That's why we must deplore that kind of activity.

At the same time, we have to find a way to move forward, even in the presence of this kind of violence and terror, while we are going after it, while we are attacking it; otherwise, we allow the terrorists to make a judgment for the rest of us as to what is acceptable and whether we can or cannot move forward.

So, while condemning terrorism in every form -- and we have certainly done that in the course of our deliberations over the last 24 hours -- we must find a way not to allow the terrorists to win by setting off a bomb which thereby is their way to keep us from moving forward toward a political settlement. As my colleagues said to me -- and, of course, we reaffirmed our views on this -- there has to be a political way forward, and we will not be deterred in finding that political way forward by horrible acts of terror committed against innocent people.

Question: Thank you. Dan Girard with the Toronto Star. Secretary Powell, aside from hosting this meeting and the meeting in a couple of weeks in Kananaskis, is there any specific role that you see for Canada to play in the -- in coming up with a Middle East solution?

Secretary Powell: Canada has been very helpful as a member of this organization, the G-8 group, the G-8 series of meetings at the ministerial level, in giving us their advice and their counsel. The visits that Canadian leaders, and most recently the Foreign Minister, have made to the region helps to convey a message of anti-terrorism and a message of reconciliation, and a message that once again describes the need for a political solution, and all that is to the good. I think, as we move forward down this road and find things that we can do, as my Japanese colleague said, in the security basket, the humanitarian and reconstruction basket, I'm sure that Canada will be able to play an effective role in that regard as well, especially perhaps in the humanitarian and reconstruction basket. But I will leave it to the Canadian authorities in due course to determine how best to contribute.

We value very much the support that we have received from Canada, and the role that the Canadian ministers have played in the past in engaging with leaders in the region.

Question: Harvey Oberfeldt, British Columbia Television. Question to Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell, so much of this statement seems to require fairness and trust, and yet we're sitting in British Columbia where the entire forest industry is crippled, got tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy because Canada trusted the United States to be fair and just negotiators. Many in the industry tell me that behind the scenes the Americans acted more like bullies than fair negotiators. So, if you treat your friends like that, why would people in the other parts of the world where the issues are much more critical place their trust and fairness in the United States under the Bush administration?

Secretary Powell: I think we treat our friends, and especially our Canadian friends, fairly on the basis of open trust. We have the strongest trading relationship imaginable with Canada, which results in a surplus of sales from Canada to the United States. Canada benefits from this trade. Canada runs as a surplus with the United States on this trade. I think this demonstrates the quality of our relationship. Does that mean that there will not be disagreements that come along from time to time? Yes, those disagreements will come along.

In the case that I think you're referring to specifically, of course, softwood lumber, I understand how that is of particular concern to the Western provinces. I know that President Bush and the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Chretien, are doing everything they can, and the various ministers are doing everything they can, to try to find a solution to this problem. It is a difficult and a complicated problem. There are equities on both sides of this issue. But we will find a solution on the basis of the strong relationship that exists between our two countries, which is founded first and foremost on trust.

Minister Graham: I'd just like to briefly add that I certainly never lose an opportunity, as the Secretary will tell you, to raise this issue. It is an extremely important one I've impressed upon them. There are some 25,000 jobs in our country that are riding on a decision which we do not -- while we can discuss whether it's fair or unfair, we do not believe is within the spirit of the Free Trade Agreement that governs us. But I just want to say that, in that context, there is a positive matter.

We are resolving this as neighbors by going to litigation. We are taking it through the dispute-resolution mechanisms that we have established as civilized countries, and we will resolve this in court. We believe strongly that we will win that decision, but we are treating this as a matter that we will argue as neighbours through the court system, rather than resorting to other measures which would have been different, or perhaps be different in other circumstances.

Secretary Powell: I will not prejudge the court outcome.

Question: If friends are in court, I mean, what does that do with these other places in the world where they're not friends? I mean, what kind of an example are you setting for the others?

Secretary Powell: The example we are setting is that the rule of law prevails. The example we are setting is that two friendly nations, both democratic nations who have been friends for so many, many, many decades, have a disagreement. We have not been able to resolve that disagreement, but we know how to resolve such disagreements; it's through the rule of law, letting it go to litigation, let it be argued, and an answer will be forthcoming. It is not unusual. This happens, as the Minister just said, with almost every country at this table and within the European Union context. It is part of having vibrant trading relations between two sides.

What we should also be talking about are all the trading opportunities and all the exchange of products back and forth that generate no litigation and generate no problem whatsoever. That represents 99.99 percent of the trade that goes back and forth between our two countries and between all the countries represented at this table.

Question: Well, that will make another Mideast question sound like a softball. Hmm.

This is a question addressed to my Secretary of State, Secretary Powell, and also perhaps to Mr. Solana and Mr. Ivanov. Arab leaders have been pressuring the United States to include a timeline on a Palestinian state along with these discussions now. If Secretary Powell could recap the US position on that, and also if the EU and Russia -- I'd be interested in hearing if they believe a timeline is important, as well, or if you're comfortable with the position that the US has taken so far of not wanting -- not feeling a timeline is necessary at this point.

Secretary Powell: There are many points of view, as I have said, Terry, and there are those who believe you have to put forward, as soon as possible, a political horizon that has a timeline. There are other points of view that suggest that is not the best way to move forward, and we were examining all of that. In due course, the President will reach his conclusion and will communicate that conclusion to the world.

Question: Was a timeline discussed in your Mideast talks at dinner last night?

Secretary Powell: Every aspect of this issue was discussed at dinner last night.

Question: Thatcher Collins (phonetic), Free Speech Radio News. And two somewhat distinct questions. Another problem that is stalling the peace agreement in the Middle East is the right to return. And if you remember, about five years ago, Libya evicted most of its Palestinian residents, sending them on boats and to the Egyptian border as a way of trying to destabilize the Oslo Agreement. So have you discussed the right of return and the way it might end by -- have you discussed the right to return and is it on the agenda?

The other question is: have you -- can you go into more detail about disarmament and plutonium, and whether you talked about commercial plutonium and its possibility for use as nuclear weapons?

Secretary Powell: Right of return is one of the most difficult issues that will have to be dealt with in any negotiation going forward. But we did not spend any time at the conference discussing that, recognizing it as one of the most difficult, and therefore it will be dealt with later in any negotiation that gets started. I'll yield to my Chairman for the other answer.

Question: Steve Myrtle from the Canadian Press. I wanted to ask Secretary Powell about the situation vis-à-vis Iraq. Did the issue come up either at any of the sessions, whether it's on the question of nonproliferation or the counter-terrorism session, or at any of the bilaterals? And I also wanted to ask Mr. Patten for the EU whether there are concerns that there might be political pressure in the United States to act against Iraq if the next round of inspections end up being as difficult as the first.

Secretary Powell: We discussed Iraq in the context of proliferation and its continuing desire to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We did not have a discussion on the particular actions that might or might not be taken in the future.

Question: Thomas (inaudible) with the German Radio Networks New York office. I still don't know, Secretary Powell, how to explain to my listeners the difference that here in Whistler so many powerful Foreign Ministers agree, more or less, on two states in the Middle East, and also agree with Arafat as a dealer, as a negotiator, and then back in Washington those -- exactly those two aspects create such a confusion, such a bunch of different statements, that even some Foreign Ministers are confused. What is the deeper reason?

Secretary Powell: There is no confusion. The President has spoken about two states; look at his 4 April speech. President Bush went to the United Nations last fall and for the first time a President of the United States stood before an international body and called for a state for the Palestinian people by the name of Palestine to be created. And so he has been consistent and we have been consistent that there is a need for a state for the Palestinian people to live side by side in peace with the Jewish state, the Republic of Israel. So there is no confusion about that. People often may wish to write about confusion, but there is no confusion. That's been a consistent position of President Bush and he has reaffirmed it on a regular basis.

The difficulty is, how do you move forward on that vision? Moving forward on that vision is made more difficult by the violence and the terror that takes place. That's why it has to be brought under control. So I think the vision is clear: two states living side by side in peace, the end of terror, the end of violence. And President Bush in his 4 April speech also called for the end of occupation and for the end of the settlement activity, which is one of the things that we have to move forward on. What we are doing now is determining the best way to move forward on the vision that President Bush has laid out, that the international community has laid out, and all of my colleagues here in this conference understand and are also committed to.

With respect to Chairman Arafat, the position that I gave earlier is the position of the administration.