27 June 2002

G-8 Summit Produced Concrete Results, Administration Says

Bush administration officials brief at summit conclusion

The focus of discussion among the Group of Eight (G-8 ) world leaders at the June 26-27 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, was on terrorism, the global economy and an action plan to support African development, a U.S. administration official said at a briefing at the conclusion of the two day meeting.

The choice of the remote site of this year's meeting at a resort in the mountains of western Canada was an effort to make the annual G-8 meeting "a more informal, more flexible affair," the official said, "where leaders can really exchange views candidly and focus on a few key issues."

"One of the things we've been trying to do for the last year and a half, but certainly and especially since September 11th, is find ways to use the G-8 process to achieve real results" on "really two or three key issues," the U.S. official said.

He noted that a U.S.-driven plan to increase transportation security was approved June 26 by the G-8 leaders -- an example of a real result. The plan to improve the security of people and cargo on ships, planes, trucks, in airports and at seaports, he said, is "a concrete action plan with deadlines for action."

The nations represented in the G-8 , he pointed out, represent roughly half of the world economy. They are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The commitment by the G-8 nations to help Russia and other countries rid themselves of their stockpiles of chemical weapons and fissile material is another such concrete step taken at the summit, he said.

"And that's what we've been looking to focus the summit on -- not a 30-page communique, but a few key issues, and action on those issues," the official said.

The official noted that this year's summit did not produce a final communique, but instead the Chairman, Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada, was presenting a short summary of his view of the meeting.

The official noted that next year's summit will be held in France.

Responding to a question about the discussion of the global economy at the Canadian summit, the official said "there wasn't a target" of growth "that we agreed upon."

"What traditionally is done," the official said, is that "the leaders go around the table and provide their view of their own economy, what they've been doing over the course of the last year, some sense of what they see down the road. ... And I think across the board, leaders saw higher growth later this year, as well as next year. But there was no prediction of global growth that came out of this."

The discussion on trade, the official said, "was largely one that noted the need to continue to open markets globally."

The G-8 , he noted, "succeeded last year in launching the Doha trade negotiations. If you recall at Genoa, that launch was in doubt. At the last summit, we issued a ringing endorsement and statement saying we would work hard to ensure the success of that launch. We did that. And now countries recognize, and the United States has been urging, that we need to keep to the deadlines that have been established so that we can conclude those negotiations within the agreed time frames.

"That's an important process. It's about a three-year process. But an enormous amount of work has to occur this year in order to ensure that we can meet the deadlines that were agreed upon. And the leaders reaffirmed both the Doha -- the commitments of the Doha development agenda -- as well as the Monterrey consensus at the Monterrey conference on financing for development."

Following is a transcript of the briefing:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
(Calgary, Canada)

June 27, 2002

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials
on G-7/G-8 Meetings Kananaskis, Canada

Question: Hi. Martha Brant with Newsweek. You said on the plane over that this was going to be a different G-8 , no communique, it's been limited to 25 people per entourage. What other changes make this a different G-8 and how did that affect the negotiations that were going on here? And also, is there going to be another one? All these persistent rumors about people wanting to drop it.

Senior Administration Official: What I said was, we've had an agenda from the beginning of trying to make the G-8 a more informal, more flexible affair where leaders can really exchange views candidly and focus on a few key issues. And that's clearly going to be an evolutionary process.

We ended up last year at Genoa with a much shorter communique than in the past. This year, there's no communique per se; there is a Chairman's Summary -- Prime Minister Chretien will issue a short summary, his view of the proceedings, at the end of the meetings today. And what I think you've also seen is a focus of the agenda on really two or three key issues. That certainly is something that we've been seeking. And in this case, it was, of course, terrorism, global growth and economy, and the African action plan.

So we think it's been more focused and more flexible. We think that a lot more can be done and should be done, but it's an evolutionary process. But clearly, one of the things we've been trying to do for the last year-and-a-half, but certainly and especially since September 11th, is find ways to use the G-8 process to achieve real results.

And what you saw evidence -- you saw evidence of that today in the transport security initiative, which is a concrete action plan with deadlines for action. You're not going to get global security in the transportation system just through G-8 action. G-8 represents roughly half of the global economy. But it's an opportunity for the G-8 to lead the process. The deadlines we've committed to in the G-8 action plan are actually accelerated in some instances beyond the agreed or -- deadlines in international fora, or the deadlines that are at least being talked about in international fora.

That's a great way to use the G-8 to lead the global economy, and lead the rest of the countries in a particular direction. The global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- that is a commitment to action against chemical weapons and nuclear safety issues, fissile material. And that's what we've been looking to focus the summit on -- not a 30-page communique, but a few key issues, and action on those issues.

Question: And was there a commitment to the next one?

Senior Administration Official: Yes, there -- in fact, I thought yesterday the Canadians put out a statement noting that it had been agreed that Russia would assume the presidency of the G-8 in 2006, but that in 2003, France will host the summit. And it's traditional at the end of the summit that the Chairman will note the time or place or date or whatever of that. And then 2004, the United States is scheduled. I'm missing who is in 2005, but 2006 will be Russia, and then 2007 I think is Germany. There's a normal rotation.

Question: Heidi Pryzbyla with Bloomberg News. Can we get more detail on the Russian nuke agreement, where the money is going to? Mostly to disposal or storage? Just a little bit more detail on the money?

Senior Administration Official: Yes you can, and this is the gentleman to give it.

Senior Administration Official: The United States already has a very substantial program, dating back to what's called the Nunn-Lugar program in the early 1990s, that involves the disposition of strategic weapons that are being downloaded; the protection, accountability and control measures to prevent warheads and fissile material from falling into terrorist hands. We are all committed to the elimination of our chemical weapons stockpiles. And we have programs for retraining nuclear scientists. There's a whole long list of things we're doing in a variety of areas.

We have had considerable success over the last 10 years in our programs. Other countries in Europe and Japan have had problems implementing this sort of thing in Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union. And the significance of this initiative is that we are helping get the Europeans, the Japanese and others involved in a much more major way, a very substantial enhancement of funding to go toward non-proliferation, disarmament and counterterrorism and nuclear safety measures.

So each country, under this initiative, will pick its own projects, will negotiate them with the Russians, and will proceed on that basis. We've set up a mechanism through the G-8 to monitor what we're doing each year and to report to leaders on that. But the main thing is, we all see this as in our respective interest for the -- to clean up this Cold War legacy. It's a true G-8 project, in the sense that the Russians are full partners in it. And the elimination of these weapons, chemical, biological or nuclear, benefits all of us. It helps prevent environmental degradation in Russia and it destroys some of the most dangerous weapons in the world.

Question: I had heard that there was more money, though, going towards security and storage versus destruction -- is there anything to that?

Senior Administration Official: Well, I mean, for example, in chemical weapons, the Russians have 40,000 tons of chemical weapons that they are required to destroy -- of weapons material that they are required to destroy under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United States, similarly, will be destroying its own stocks of chemical weapons. All of that has to be destroyed.

In the nuclear area, some of the material will be stored, some of it will be blended into fuel for peaceful nuclear reactors. Some of it will be used for other purposes. But what we're trying to do in the first place is make sure that this material is under control, that it's not capable of being leaked out of Russian command and getting to terrorists or to rogue states, and then towards storage or immobilization, for example of plutonium, an important nuclear warhead material. And then, as they say, eventually we just signed a new highly enriched uranium agreement with Russia that will bring former warhead material to the United States to be blended with other uranium to be used in nuclear power plants to light light bulbs.

Senior Administration Official: Important to notice, while not just Russia.

Senior Administration Official: Yes, the agreement provides, as our cooperative threat reduction program has for 10 years that's available to all the states of the former Soviet Union, focusing initially on Russia, but involving them, as well, because many of them inherited from the breakup of the Soviet Union these problems that their own -- that their own citizens face.

Question: This is Corbett Daley with AFX News. I've got a couple questions. President Bush made mention of the WorldCom incident twice and Prime Minister Chretien said it was a preoccupation of the leaders, and Blair and Putin all made comments about it. I'm wondering -- but Dr. Rice didn't say anything about it. Is there going to be any sort of action plan in the Chairman's Summary about a need for increased corporate responsibility, or is that going to be left out?

And, secondly, has the U.S. had a chance to talk with any of its trading partners about any progress they've made on the $4 billion dispute, tax dispute with the Europeans?

And, thirdly, you mentioned that global growth is a topic on the agenda, but I'm wondering what your specific projections are for the global economy.

Senior Administration Official: First, in terms of corporate governance, the issue was discussed, but there was never any intention or plan to issue an action plan and none will be that I'm aware of.

Secondly, in terms of -- what was the last question? It was --

Question: It was global growth and your targets.

Senior Administration Official: There wasn't a target that we agreed upon. What traditionally is done, the leaders go around the table and provide their view of their own economy, what they've been doing over the course of the last year, some sense of what they see down the road -- a general sense, obviously, of some optimism as we see growth picking up in almost all of the G-8 . And I think across the board, leaders saw higher growth later this year, as well as next year. But there was no prediction of global growth that came out of this.

The discussion on trade was largely one that noted that the need to continue to open markets globally. We, of course, succeeded last year in launching the Doha trade negotiations. If you recall at Genoa, that launch was in doubt. At the last summit, we issued a ringing endorsement and statement saying we would work hard to ensure the success of that launch. We did that. And now countries recognize, and the United States has been urging, that we need to keep to the deadlines that have been established so that we can conclude those negotiations within the agreed time frames.

That's an important process. It's about a three-year process. But an enormous amount of work has to occur this year in order to ensure that we can meet the deadlines that were agreed upon. And the leaders reaffirmed both the Doha -- the commitments of the Doha development agenda, as well as the Monterrey consensus at the Monterrey conference on financing for development.

Question: Okay, so there was nothing specifically on taxes?

Senior Administration Official: I'm sorry, you're referring to the FISC issue. That did not come up.

Question: And finally, from my colleague, you talked about the leaders talking about their sense of the economy in their discussions. How about informally, was there any discussion of the dollar or -- in a foreign language, or off in the sidelines in secret, or any discussion at all?

Senior Administration Official: None that I'm aware of.

Question: Hi, this is Jean Cummings with the Wall Street Journal. I'm trying to get a little more specifics on the Russia deal. You've mentioned up to $20 billion, but in your description -- we don't have paper here yet -- it doesn't sound like there's a real commitment of $20 billion. Is this a goal, or how exactly are we to describe it? There's $10 billion from the United States, but what exactly have the other nations actually agreed to? And can you describe or give us some incite into what were some of the issues that you all had to negotiate as you came to this agreement?

Senior Administration Official: Well, the United States commitment is a very real one, and reflects roughly what we're doing at the present time, of $1 billion a year across the entire range of weapons of mass destruction. The other countries have indicated -- some have said publicly -- what their commitments are. The Germans have said 1.5 billion Euros; the Canadians have said $1 billion Canadian; the European Commission has indicated a billion Euros. And others have indicated that they will meet their fair share.

In addition, it's contemplated that people outside the G-8 will contribute. The Nordics are quite interested in this, and we expect other European countries to contribute, as well.

I think one priority for almost everybody in the G-8 is the destruction of chemical weapons. As I say, the Russians have some 40,000 tons of weaponized agent. That's a lot of material. And to destroy it safely and efficiently is a costly and dangerous enterprise.

The Russians have as a priority the continued dismantlement of nuclear-powered submarines. They have some 200 that were former Hunter Killer submarines in their various fleets. They want them dismantled. We have enormous issues of nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union involving Chernobyl style reactors.

So there's a very, very wide range of possibilities. And the precise question of what the other contributors will do in part depends on the implementation of this agreement. There is a history here, as I say. Many of the other countries had difficulty implementing projects. The Japanese have tried, for example, in the submarine dismantlement area. We're hoping that by creating a new set of guidelines that help these countries take advantage of the same kinds of agreements we have, it will encourage substantial new commitments of money.

And that's one of the major consequences of the agreement today, that the -- a lot of the existing implementation agreements have been addressed, thus allowing governments like Japan and France and others to go to their parliaments and say, now we can spend the money that was tied up, and this justifies substantial new commitments.

Question: And can you talk about towards the end what were the issues that you had to get over to finally reach this agreement? For example, has Russia given strong assurances that you all will get access to labs, or anything like that, you need to monitor what's happening?

Senior Administration Official: Absolutely. The United States has been operating under an agreement since 1992 that provides us with complete access when we need it, full audit rights, exemption from taxation, contractor exemption from liability, which is important when you're dealing with extraordinarily dangerous and toxic materials.

The other countries, in many cases, have not had those protections. And we felt it was important to get a clear and unambiguous statement from the government of Russia that those protections would be afforded to the other potential contributors, giving them, therefore, a basis to go to their parliaments and ask for substantial new resources. We feel the Russians have made that commitment and we feel sure the other G-8 members will follow with financial commitments.

Question: It's Karen DeYoung from the Washington Post. Prior to the summit, a lot of your G-8 colleagues and certainly African governments and nongovernmental groups had been very critical of U.S. trade policy or indirect trade policy, in particular the farm bill, for taking away with one hand what we thought we were giving the Africans in terms of trade preferences. There was also some indication that the United States would be asked to rethink -- the administration would be asked to rethink its support for farm subsidies. Could you tell us the nature of the discussion in the meetings about that particular issue and whether those discussions had any influence on administration policy?

Senior Administration Official: Well, first of all, the President has made it clear the U.S. commitment to free trade. And with respect to -- and in point of fact, in Africa itself, we have the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which we're expanding. When that's completed, 94 percent of goods entering the United States from the AGOA countries will be duty-free.

Secondly, we're pursuing free trade agreements with the South Africa Customs Union and Morocco. And, third, we're building trade competitiveness hubs throughout sub-Saharan Africa to help with building capacity in these countries, to take advantage of the opportunities of global trade. So we have a very robust agenda -- market opening agenda -- with Africa and other developing countries.

With respect to the farm bill, the farm bill imposes no new restrictions on African exports to the United States; none. And the Africans realize that. I think they also understand that in terms of farm trade liberalization, the United States market remains extraordinarily open compared to others around the world. EU export subsidies are almost 100 times greater than United States export subsidies. The European Union's limit for domestic supports under the WTO are three times the United States, some $60 billion. And in terms of tariffs, the EU tariffs on agricultural goods average roughly 30 percent, versus 12 percent in the United States.

So the point is that in order to grow these economies, we know that trade flows are the key. And in order to increase those trade flows, that requires not only increased access to developed country markets, but it also requires these countries themselves to open their markets to one another and to the rest of the world. Africa's share of global trade has declined in the last 30 years. In fact, it's been cut almost in half. One of the reasons is because African tariffs are almost half again as high as the average developing country tariff.

The Doha negotiations, the Doha development agenda represents an opportunity to move substantially forward on a trade liberalization agenda. And the President reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring the success of those negotiations, and reaffirmed our commitment to the three pillars of the agricultural negotiations in that agenda in terms of substantial reductions in domestic supports and market access barriers, as well as reducing, with a view toward phasing out, export subsidies.

Mr. Deckard: Thank you all.

end text