May 16, 1998


3:15 P.M. (L)

                               THE WHITE HOUSE

                        Office of the Press Secretary
                            (Birmingham, England)
For Immediate Release                                     May 16, 1998     
                              PRESS BRIEFING BY 
                                JONATHAN WINER	
                               Metropole Hotel
                             Birmingham, England   		 	       

3:15 P.M. (L)
		MR. MCCURRY:  Tony Blair is hoping that they carry goals to 
Newcastle today.  They don't get that.  They don't even know what I'm talking 
about.  It's not summit, it's FA Cup Soccer.  
		Good afternoon, everybody.  Our goal right now, since many 
people have got early deadlines for Sunday, is to brief on today and then give 
you, aside from the social color aspects of the summit this evening, pretty 
much we'll give you what you need to complete your reporting for the day, 
because we don't believe there's going to be much going on beyond what we tell 
you now that we'll be able to share in any event.
		National Security Advisor Sandy Berger will talk a little bit, 
just kind of place the conversations today at the summit and look ahead a bit 
to some of the things we'll be doing in the coming days.  And I've asked the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Crime, Narcotics, and 
Law Enforcement, Jonathan Winer, who is probably our government's foremost 
expert on international cooperation in the fight against drugs and the new 
types of international crime that the President has talked about a lot -- he 
is here with us to talk about one segment of the G-8 communique which is being 
released today, which is the portion that is entitled, "Combatting Drugs and 
International Crime."  And we have that summit language, will be available 
shortly, we believe -- correct?  Shortly.  So Sandy will start first, and then 
Jon Winer.
		MR. BERGER:  Let me try to put the last few days in a little 
bit of context and review it, including today, and then ask Jonathan to talk 
about I think perhaps the central, or in many ways, the most important part of 
the work today.

	     These summits, this now being our sixth, are always 
a combination of both focusing on the immediate issues that are 
at hand, as well as looking long-term at the challenges that are 

down the road where the leaders can launch initiatives that later 
come to fruition.
	     In terms of the immediate issues, obviously you got 
some of this last night from Jim, but we were very pleased by the 
political statement that was issued last night by the leaders.  
If you saw a certain similarity between the language, for 
example, on Indonesia and what the President had said earlier to 
you all, it's not coincidental.  I think it was an important step 
in getting the leaders to say -- to call for President Soeharto 
not only to stay on the path of economic reform, but also to 
reach out in the political dialogue for political reform in order 
to restore stability.
	     On Kosovo, we were pleased, obviously, by the 
developments this week in which, for the first time, President 
Milosevic and Mr. Rugova have met and have launched a process 
which hopefully can lead to a end of the violence and a peaceful 
resolution.  It's obviously just a first step.
	     On Bosnia, I perhaps most vividly remember previous 
summits happening almost invariably in the midst of an assault on 
Sbrenica or Sarajevo, or some other location, and the summits 
being dominated by Bosnia.  I'm quite pleased that the summit 
declaration was able today to welcome the extraordinary progress 
that's taken place in Bosnia over the last year.
	     The Middle East peace process section of the 
statement yesterday lends support to the efforts that are 
underway under U.S. leadership.  Secretary Albright and 
Ambassador Ross continue to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu in 
Washington -- at least they were late into the night.
	     And on India, we are pleased that the strong 
statement condemning the Indian tests and calling for restraint, 
calling upon them to join the CTBT, and indicating that this 
would have an effect on the dealings of each country with India.
	     So that's the short-term set of issues.  The 
longer-term set of issues previously -- more in the planning 
stage than the immediate issues, where obviously one can't know 
what's going to be swirling at the moment of a summit -- really 
fall into three categories.  
	     Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, I believe briefed you 
yesterday on the steps taken on international financial 
institution reform.  Today, there is a discussion of integrating 
all people and all nations and all areas of the world into the 
global economy, with a particular emphasis on Africa.  This is 
something we pushed very hard, particularly since the President's 
trip, with the support of President Chirac, to put Africa more 
centrally on the radar screen of the G-8.  And there's a 
commitment, you'll see, in the communique of the G-8 to assist 
Africa in 100 percent -- having all African children receive 

primary education as a goal, and also dramatically decreasing 
child and maternal mortality rates.
	     Third, there are what you might call -- I guess what 
I call -- you can call it anything you want -- common challenges.  
That is, things that are issues that these leaders face day to 
day in their own context, but they're the same issue.  This is 
something the President has pushed for the last three or four 	  
 years -- to get the summit not only to talk about classic 
foreign policy and international economic issues, but also things 
where all of them from various vantage points are trying to come 
to grips with the same set of issues.  And what they'll be 
talking about today is jobs, employability, how do you create 
jobs in a mature industrial economy in the last part of the 20th 
	     There's obviously an enormous degree of interest in 
how we have done it.  And we'll be talking about the EITC and 
welfare to work, which now is something, a program that is also 
in place here in England.
	     Fourth, our global challenges, that is, those issues 
which really can only be dealt with by common action.  And Mr. 
Winer is going to speak in a minute about the centerpiece of what 
they are going to talk about today, which is international crime.
	     And, finally, under the area of global challenges is 
climate change, and there will be a discussion later about how 
you go from Kyoto to both implement the developed country 
commitments and also draw the developing countries into a process 
of global emissions control -- the last overlay here on this 
verbal chart, verbal graph.
	     I think one way to look at these summits is not as 
snapshots as much as moving pictures, and that you begin in one 
summit, you plant -- now I'm going to mix a metaphor, I guess 
--you plant a tree in one summit and you then harvest it perhaps 
in the next or later.  And just to give you a sense of that, the 
financial institutions' discussion that really is going to -- 
resulted in a number of steps that were taken here yesterday -- 
or discussed here yesterday -- really began in Naples and was the 
centerpiece of a process that was begun in Halifax two years ago.
	     The international criminal cooperation, that 
Jonathan is going to talk about really began in Lyon.  If you 
remember, the Lyon Summit came about two weeks after Oklahoma 
City, and we made a decision at that point to try to sort of 
hijack the summit and convert it into a terrorism crime summit, 
or at least, if not exclusively, put that on the agenda.  And out 
of that came a set of 40 recommendations that we made and that 
the summit adopted and which are now actually beginning to result 
in things on the ground that make a difference in international 
crime enforcement, as Jonathan will tell you.

	     And again, this idea of dealing with common 
challenges -- domestic issues that are similar in all countries 
-- is something the President began last year in Denver, also 
around these issues, the economic issues that they're all 
grappling with.  So this is a process, as well as an event, and 
forces decisions and I think causes the leaders to step up a 
little bit beyond the day to day and look down the horizon.
	     I'll answer your questions about this or anything 
else that I can, but let me ask Jonathan to talk more 
specifically about the international criminal aspects of this.
much, Sandy.  Historically, governments have not crossed borders, 
at least not in times of peace.  Criminals, of course, as a 
result of globalization, are crossing borders all the time.  What 
began to happen in the Lyon Summit and what is being essentially 
fulfilled in this summit is the eight setting up a series of 
actions to create the ability for governments to transcend 
borders to fight crime, through coming up with common approaches, 
common rules, common standards to create law enforcement systems 
that will be more nearly interoperable with one another than they 
ever have been in the past.
	     Now, this morning the heads identified as the 
principal threats posed by the globalization of crime the 
following:  First, the threat posed by crime to worldwide 
computer systems and telecommunication systems; secondly, the 
threat posted by money laundering and financial crime to 
financial and political systems; third, the threat posed by 
corruption to rule of law and governance; fourth, the impact of 
firearms trafficking and trafficking in human beings on 
societies.  There was consensus that all of these problems needed 
to be addressed by continued joint efforts by the eight.  I would 
emphasize continued, because there has been a series of actions 
that have been undertaken over the last several years already.
	     Among the points made by the heads were the 
following:  First, governments need to have the technical 
capabilities to respond to transnational high-tech crime.  And 
such capabilities need to be as universal as the criminal's 
ability to use high-tech to commit crimes.  Being able to collect 
evidence of high-tech crimes and to share that evidence with one 
another, regardless of where the evidence happens to be located, 
and regardless of where the crime has taken place, and regardless 
of where the victims are, is going to be essential.  And this has 
to be done in balance with respecting personal privacy.
	     Second, on the issue of money laundering, money 
laundering and financial crime the heads said requires constant 
updating of domestic legislation.  It also requires combatting it 
-- international standards and approaches, because of the trans 
border and global nature of money laundering and financial crime.  
This is especially true in the area and the growing potential 

threat posed by off-shore financial centers.  International 
cooperation against transborder financial crime, asset forfeiture 
of the proceeds of criminal activity, and a focus on eliminating 
safe havens are all critical elements of a response.
	     On the issue of corruption, the heads noted that 
criminals have the resources to corrupt law enforcement officials 
in many countries.  Too often, the bribes they offer dwarf the 
official salaries of officials.  Further international efforts to 
develop regimes and implementation of strategies to combat 
corruption are urgently needed.
	     Fourth, the smuggling of firearms and human beings 
by criminal organizations has become an increased problem, 
requiring increased cooperation and definitive international 
	     Finally, on the issue of crime, the U.N. convention 
under negotiation within the U.N. system with a goal of 
completion by the year 2000 can provide an effective means of 
combatting many of these problems.  This convention will 
criminalize many of these offenses and provide universal norms 
for cooperating against them through agreed-upon tools.  It 
potentially has a value and impact of the 1988 convention against 
psychotropic drugs that was negotiated in Vienna, which since has 
become a universal standard for combatting narcotics.
	     On the issue of drugs, the heads took up the issue 
of decriminalization and expressed their strong views against 
moves towards decriminalization, their opposition to 
decriminalization, and their desire to oppose that, if it is 
raised in the context of the U.N. General Assembly Special 
Session on drugs next month.  They endorsed the notion of shared 
responsibility for combatting narcotics, of the need for a global 
strategy, and cooperative efforts focused on both eradication and 
demand reduction.
	     That essentially summarizes the discussion that they 
had this morning.
	     Now, within the communique itself, there are half a 
dozen -- eight or nine different points which track more or less 
the discussion they had this morning.  And let me summarize them 
for you, if I might.
	     The first agreement that they reached is to fully 
support efforts to negotiate within the next two years an 
effective U.N. convention against transnational organized crime 
that will provide law enforcement authorities with the additional 
tools they need.  Again, I would compare this to the effort that 
took place a decade ago, vis a vis drugs, which essentially 
established for the first time a comprehensive international 
regime involving all nations to begin to take a series of steps 
to combat drugs.

	     The second thing they agreed to was to implement 
rapidly the 10 principles and 10-point action plan agreed by our 
Ministers in December -- justice and interior ministers in 
Washington on high-tech crime.  One very important aspect of this 
is they call for close cooperation with industry to reach 
agreement on a legal framework for obtaining, presenting, and 
preserving electronic data as evidence, while maintaining 
appropriate privacy protection; and agreements on sharing 
evidence of those crimes with international partners.  
Essentially what is contemplated is global agreement on standards 
for capturing information, retaining information, and sharing 
information to deal with transnational high-tech crime.
	     These principles, the heads will state in the 
communique, will help us combat a wide range of crime, including 
abuse of the Internet and other new techniques.
	     In the money laundering area, the communique will 
welcome the decision by the financial action task force based in 
Paris to continue and enlarge its work to combat money laundering 
in partnership with regional groupings.  We will consider 
high-level meetings to discuss further efforts to combat 
transnational crime with special emphasis on money laundering and 
financial crime.
	     The communique also agrees on further principles and 
actions to facilitate asset confiscation as a means of 
transferring funds from the criminals to governments, disrupting 
their criminal enterprises and increasing the resources of those 
who are seeking to combat their illicit activities.
	     On the issue of trafficking in human beings, the 
communique specifies the particular importance of combatting 
trafficking in women and children, including the requirement that 
the eight get together to develope a program to prevent 
trafficking in women and children, to protect victims, and to 
prosecute traffickers.  
	     The eight, will, as a result, be developing a 
multidisciplinary and comprehensive strategy to deal with 
increasing global problems.  This will include principles and an 
action plan for future cooperation, not only among the eight, but 
involving third countries, including countries of origin, 
transit, and destination.  The U.N. Convention on Transnational 
Organized Crime will be one of the mechanisms by which this is 
	     The communique endorses -- further endorses some 
joint law enforcement activities that are already taking place 
among the eight, which are focused on particular kinds of groups 
and criminal targets and which we expect will show results in the 
days, months, and years to come.

	     They also are endorsing the elaboration of a binding 
international legal instrument in the context of the U.N. 
International Organized Crime Convention to combat illegal 
manufacturing and trafficking of firearms -- a binding 
international instrument to deal with illicit smuggling of 
	     They welcomed the work of the environmental 
ministers to combat environmental crime, and on drugs, 
essentially emphasized the link between drugs, international 
crime and domestic crime; welcomed the U.N. General Assembly 
special session on drugs, and sought reinforced cooperation to 
curb trafficking in drugs, chemical precursors, action to reduce 
demand, and support for a global approach to eradicating illicit 
	     That is essentially what is in the communique 
	     Q	  With regard to the crime part of the 
communique, there was supposed to be a 24-hour hotline linking 
the law enforcement agencies of the eight.  Is that in part of 
this mix?
by the ministers as being implemented already.  There are points 
of contact that have been established among the eight and 
exchanged among the eight.  Essentially, the commitment is to 
have somebody available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to be 
able to respond to a case of high-tech crime.  
	     So if you're in the United States or Russia or the 
United Kingdom or Japan, you've got one number, you know who to 
call; that person is available no matter what the time of day is, 
with a beeper or something and can respond.  That way each of the 
countries will have in place  the ability to immediately push for 
the freezing of information, so the information does not get 
destroyed.  Or if there's money involved, the holding of assets 
before they can be transferred from one country to another.
	     An important case on this was the Citibank case 
several years ago, when a fellow named Vladimir Levin in St. 
Petersburg, Russia, essentially got involved in moving millions 
of dollars of Citibank's money around.  Now, as a result of 
cooperation between the United States, Russia and the United 
Kingdom, among other countries, he was arrested, indicted, 
prosecuted, convicted, and all but $400,000 of the money was 
grabbed.  But what's interesting is, is to this day, all those 
governments involved, $400,000 of that money remains missing.  It 
moved so quickly that it was not, in fact, traceable.  And that 
reflects the fact that there have been gaps which still need to 
be filled, and we are in the process of doing that through this 

	     And this is not the only mechanism -- we're 
cooperating with the Council of Europe which is trying to also 
develop some standard rules.  But the notion here is we have to 
push very rapidly now to create an international network for 
governments to be able to respond to high-tech crime that's as 
comprehensive as the Net is and our international financial 
systems are themselves.
	     We're making a lot of progress in that area.  To get 
all the way is going to be absolutely essential to have 
cooperation with industry.  And the communique language 
explicitly calls for that.  We've begun some of that already 
informally; that's going to intensify rapidly over the next year.
	     Q	  Where does it leave Interpol?
	      WINER:  We're working and talking with Interpol.  
Interpol is a means of getting information in real time on 
particular criminals.  When you're trying to track down a 
criminal or get information that is in somebody's law enforcement 
database, that's what Interpol is used for.  Now, we're not 
necessarily talking here about a law enforcement database, we're 
talking about the need to find information that's located 
somewhere in a server in somebody's national territory.
	     Q	  You're talking about back-door to encryption 
We certainly are not.  What we are talking about is the ability 
to trap and trace information, not to be able to read the 
information without permission.  We're talking about developing a 
universal system where when a crime has taken place, a government 
can ask another government for cooperation and industries have 
agreed to retain information for a certain amount of time.
	     In the same way that today, if you were committing a 
crime in the United States, you would be able to freeze that 
information and get a search warrant and be able to go after it.  
We're talking about trying to create an international system that 
allows for legal searches in a reasonable way to preserve 
evidence of a crime.
	     Q	  Sandy, Pakistan says that the G-8 response to 
India's tests was very weak and they say that they're going to do 
what is in their own national interest.  How do you respond to 
their complaints?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, I have not seen that -- I take it 
there's a letter -- I have not seen it.  First of all, I think 
the statement of the eight is a strong statement, condemning 
unequivocally, without any hesitation, India's testing, and 
indicating that it has and will affect the dealings of every one 
of these countries with India.  

	     In addition, a number of countries have taken 
actions beyond that -- Japan, Canada, the Dutch, Swedes, the 
Danes, and I know several other countries, a number of other 
countries are considering actions.  
	     So, number one, I think this is a strong statement.  
It is accompanied by actions that have been taken by a number of 
governments, and hopefully, further actions will be taken.  
Number two, I hope the Pakistani government will decide that 
their national interest is better served by not testing than by 
testing.  If they make that decision, I think, as the President 
indicated, they will capture the high ground in the longstanding 
regional struggle in South Asia.  I think the nature of their 
relationships with many governments will chance.  I suspect the 
attitude in our own Congress, which has been quite restrictive 
with respect to Pakistan, would change, which would then free up 
our capacity to cooperate with them more fully.
	     And on the other hand, India has isolated itself 
clearly in the international community on this issue.  So as 
we've said all along, we very much hope the Paks will decide not 
to take this step.
	     Q	  Sandy, Bhutto said that if there is a military 
capability to eliminate India's nuclear capacity it should be 
used.  Does that exist, and is there any thought being given to 
doing that?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, I'm not -- obviously, it would 
not be appropriate to take military action in this situation.
	     Q	  Why not?
	     MR. BERGER:  Why not?  Because it would simply 
escalate into a regional war which would have devastating 
consequences for both countries.  Neither side will win that.  
Both sides will lose.  The Pakistani people will lose and the 
Indian people will lose.  They've had three wars in the last 20 
years and they've not gained from any one of them, it seems to 
me.  So I think that is not a wise course of action.
	     Q	  Is the reality that when it comes to nuclear 
proliferation to India or Pakistan, or previously to China, that 
there's just a limited amount of pressure that the rest of the 
world can bring to bear, just a limited amount of things we can 
do to --
	     MR. BERGER:  I think that's not absolutely true.  
Obviously, countries proceed on the basis of their own perceived 
self-interest.  I think this has much more to do with misguided 
nationalism on the part of India than national security.  But I 
think that you have to look at this in a slightly wider time 

	     The fact is the world has made enormous progress in 
the past 10 years in controlling nuclear weapons.  Let's start 
with the principal nuclear relationship, that between the Former 
Soviet Union, now Russia, and the United States.  If the Duma 
ratifies START II, as we hope it will, nuclear stockpiles will 
have been reduced two-thirds from the Cold War.  And if we get to 
START III, as I hope we will, we hope to reduce them by 80 
percent from where they were.  We have had an extension of the 
Non-Proliferation Treaty which expired and is now extended 
indefinitely, and 149 nations have signed a treaty that was first 
proposed by Dwight Eisenhower, which we were able to negotiate, 
banning nuclear tests.  And I think the more nations that sign 
that treaty, the better, because it will isolate even further 
those who feel compelled to test.  
	     So, can we control everything that every country 
does?  Of course not.  But I think that India is more isolated 
today than it was before this test.  And the general record of 
nuclear deescalation over the last 10 or 15 years has been quite 
strong.  This is an unfortunate step backwards on that trend.
	     Q	  One assumes that this statement, no matter how 
strong or weak, could have been agreed to by fax.  Where is the 
added value of these guys sitting down and going over this?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, I think there's been an enormous 
added value by virtue of the President's conversations with 
President Chirac, with Prime Minister Hashimoto, with Prime 
Minister Blair, and others.  Not everything is embodied in a 
joint statement.  I mean, I think that the President -- I don't 
mean that there's a secret codicil here that we haven't shared 
with you, but I think the strength and persuasiveness with which 
the President has made the case to these leaders that this is a 
dangerous step, that it is important to speak out against it, 
that it's important to publicly and privately oppose it to stop 
not only Pakistan from testing, but other nations from testing --  
there's no question that the level of -- and I've been told this 
by my counterparts from other delegations -- there is no question 
that the sense of urgency and concern that is felt by the others 
has been significantly enhanced by their conversations with the 
President, who feels this very strongly.
	     Q	  The India tests would appear to have undercut 
your efforts to get the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty.  Is that the way you read it?
	     MR. BERGER:  Quite the contrary.  I believe that the 
India tests make all the more compelling the argument for 
ratifying the treaty as soon as possible for two reasons.  Number 
one, as I said, the more states that sign and ratify this treaty, 
the more isolated will be the countries, the more outside the 
norm of international behavior will be countries that seek to 
test.  And our capacity to make that argument persuasively, 

assigning and ratifying the CTB, is obviously is enhanced if 
we've not only signed, but ratified.
	     Number two, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has a 
number of provisions in its verification provisions which will 
enhance our capacity to detect activity of this sort.  For 
example, in addition to our own national technical means which we 
have in any case, this will provide for international censors, 
will provide for short notice on-site inspections, whether there 
is suspicious activity.  So we will have to verify -- we will 
have to watch out for these things whether this treaty goes into 
effect, or not, but this treaty gives us tools to do that which 
we would not otherwise have.
	     And I think, third -- even though I said two -- 
third, there is a moment here in which we have your attention, we 
have the American people's attention about the dangers of nuclear 
testing.  One thing happened when the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty was signed.  The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty said the 
era of nuclear testing should be over.  And backsliders, like 
India, should understand that they are swimming against the tide.
	     Q	  Sandy, you talk about the political isolation. 
Will you consider it a success if you leave Birmingham and all 
you've got is political isolation and no one else joins to put 
any additional economic pressure or force any other changes on 
India's behavior?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, as I say, a number of -- I read a 
list of a number of countries that have, including Japan --
	     Q	   -- to some extent?
	     MR. BERGER:  To some extent.  I hope others will.  
And I think the strength of this statement is important.  And the 
fact that these countries will make this an issue in their 
dealings with India is important.  And the fact that it has 
gotten this kind of attention is important.  We would have 
preferred India not to test.  We made that clear to India 
repeatedly since this new government took power.  But having done 
so, I think that it's important over the long-term that it reach 
the judgment that further testing would be unwise.
	     Q	  Sandy, could you actually talk us through the 
conversations they had today, particularly around crime?  What 
were they actually talking about?  Were they just talking about 
mechanisms and "we endorse this," "we endorse that," "organize 
this," "organize that"?
	     MR. BERGER:  I'm going to turn it over to my 
criminal expert.  (Laughter.)
talked through the six points that I went through a little bit 

earlier.  That is, they themselves focused on the need for 
governments to be able to have trans-border capabilities to deal 
with high-tech crime, the need to push through with the 
development of common standards to combat high-tech crime common 
mechanisms, and the need to get the private sector to work out 
with governments ways to get information retained, and so on.
	     In the area of money laundering and financial crime, 
they themselves literally talked about the importance of dealing 
with off-shore havens, making sure that there was no place that 
was capable of holding on to the proceeds of illicit activity in 
a nontransparent way that couldn't be reached, and of the need to 
have some common approaches to it.
	     On corruption, they talked at some length about the 
problem of the disparity between the resources available to 
criminals and the salaries paid officials in a number of 
countries, and the need to think further about particular steps 
to take.  
	     Indeed, earlier this week, in the President's 
international crime strategy, he announced, among other things, a 
conference within six months headed up by Vice President Gore on 
precisely this point.  But there were a number of other heads who 
raised this issue and thought that it's a very important issue 
for further work to be done.
	     On smuggling of firearms, they specifically agreed 
there has to be a binding international instrument to deal with 
the smuggling of firearms.  That means obligations of all states 
to one another, of steps to take against firearms trafficking.  
Now, this happened last October in the Americas, when the 
countries who are members of the Organization of American States 
agreed that no one would export weapons, import weapons, or let 
weapons transit through their countries unless it was with the 
permission of all countries involved.  
	     The countries also agreed that they would mark all 
firearms at import and at manufacture in order that weapons could 
better be traced.  They also agreed to cooperation with one 
another on tracing firearms.  So that kind of system, which 
literally did not exist anywhere, it has been our domestic law 
for some time, but didn't exist anywhere -- was endorsed by the 
OAS and signed by President Zedillo and President Clinton    
among others, last October is now effectively 	       in the 
process of being globalized as a result of the action of the 
eight today.
	     The communique language basically articulates 
specific steps that are going to be taken.  One of the most 
important steps that will be taken is the negotiation of a 
convention against transnational organized crime within the U.N. 
system in which a number of things that we're doing in our 
country already, a number of tools that we use to fight organized 

crime will become universalized. 
	     For example, very few countries have racketeering 
influenced corrupt organizations laws or conspiracy laws directed 
against organized crime.  Over the past year the European Union 
has said that EU members must have that.  The U.N. instrument to 
fight organized crime will very likely, certainly, contain the 
same kind of a requirement for criminalization.
	     In the area of high-tech, the commitment to work 
together with the private sector to develop universal rules for 
retaining information and for being sure that information can be 
accessed in cases of crime is very important new work.
	     Q	  Has President Clinton contacted President 
Soeharto, and is there anything the United States can do to help 
bring his government to some kind of better dialogue?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, I think that President Clinton 
has spoken to President Soeharto on a number of occasions over 
the last -- since the financial crisis -- not since this latest 
political turmoil.  I think that -- we started two days ago 
talking about not only the necessity for President Soeharto to 
remain on the path of economic reform, but for him to open a 
dialogue with all his people and engage in political reform so 
that his people have a sense of buy-in to the kind of economic 
decisions and circumstances they're going to face.
	     I think this language now has been embraced by the 
G-8 so this now becomes more than simply the President's view, it 
becomes the view of the G-8.  And we will continue -- there will 
be -- I believe, Prime Minister Hashimoto told us that he has an 
emissary going to Indonesia.  We had a long talk with him.  So we 
will continue to stay in contact.  We have an extraordinary 
Ambassador there, Stape Roy, and continue to encourage the 
Indonesian government at this stage, when the problem is no 
longer simply economic, but also political, to open up lines of 
dialogue and engage various elements of their society in a 
conversation about its future.
	     Q	  Are you evacuating dependents?
	     MR. BERGER:  We have a ordered departure of 
Americans which means nonessential Americans are leaving.  I 
think there will be over the weekend about eight chartered 
flights with roughly 3,200 Americans leaving.  But we will 
continue, obviously, to operate.  There have been no, as far as 
I'm aware of, no particular incidents involving Americans, but 
the situation is sufficiently turbulent that Ambassador Roy 
sought that authority, and Secretary Albright approved it.
	     Q	  Sandy, how dangerous a situation will it be if 
Pakistan follows India's lead and conducts a nuclear test?  
What's the -- when they let the genie out of the bottle, what 

	     MR. BERGER:  Well, it will further escalate the 
situation that is already tense and has been for some time, 
really since the beginning of the -- for 50 years in some ways, 
but certainly in the last 25.  There are two arms races that we 
have been concerned about in the South Asian peninsula -- one is 
the nuclear arms race; the other is the missile proliferation 
race.  And these things heighten capabilities and with heightened 
capabilities and heightened tensions you have greater danger.
	     I would hope that the two countries would realize, 
whatever their capabilities might be, that any further conflict 
between them would be a disaster.
	     Q	  Quickly on Indonesia.  As you know, Soeharto is 
back-pedaling on many of the key aspects of the course of action 
for economic policies that have been recommended by the IMF, 
particularly dual cost.  Is the U.S. of the view that that's 
prudent at this point, or does the U.S. think that he should be 
sticking to the IMF plan, despite upheaval and evidence of 
	     MR. BERGER:  Let me answer it in two ways.  Number 
one, with respect to any particular action that he might take, 
it's really a matter for the IMF to evaluate.  I would say in the 
connection with fuel prices, for example, that the IMF -- let's 
go back and blend my two answers here.  
	     The IMF didn't create the Indonesian economic and 
political crisis.  Indonesia created the economic and political 
crisis, starting with an economic crisis.  The Indonesian economy 
was collapsing.  The International Monetary Fund came in to try 
to help restore stability and put it on a path back towards 
growth, but that had to be accompanied with reform.  You can't 
get one without the other.  You can't have the candy without some 
of the medicine.
	     Now, there have been three revisions of that IMF 
agreement; each case trying to deal with some of the consequences 
on the Indonesian people, and it's been accompanied by a good 
deal of World Bank social safety net loan lending and bilateral 
aid -- for example, from the United States -- to try to mitigate 
the impact of this on the Indonesian people.  But obviously, 
there has to be -- the criteria here needs to be what is in the 
best interest of the Indonesian people, and the best interest of 
the Indonesian people in our judgment at this stage lies in a 
combination of a more open political process, political reform, 
so that they can have a voice in and have some ownership over the 
decisions that shape these very hard economic choices and 
decisions that have been brought about by the prior loss of 
confidence in the Indonesian economy by the international 

	     Q	  You say these hard decisions are unavoidable, 
but they have to plow ahead with them -- 
	     MR. BERGER:  I don't want to comment on any 
particular -- in the fuel area, for example, I know that the 
there was a much lower increase in kerosene prices which are used 
by ordinary Indonesians than in fuel oil prices that are used by 
more wealthy Indonesians.  So there's been sensitivity on the 
part of the IMF to these consequences.  
	     I can't comment knowledgeably on one particular 
piece of this.  I think that there will not be economic reform -- 
successful economic reform -- without political dialogue, and 
there will not be long-term political stability unless there is 
an economic recovery that's going to require some reform 
	     Q	  Back to India and the statement from last 
night, you made the argument yourself today repeatedly that as a 
result of the leaders getting together there is a greater sense 
of consciousness about it, a greater willingness to at least 
think that this is a terrible problem.  But can you point to 
anything that any country has done since arriving here, any 
signals that they have given you in a concrete way that they are 
prepared to take any further steps that they had not already done 
before they came to Birmingham?
	     MR. BERGER:  Japan has taken some further steps 
since it has arrived here and there have been statements made by 
others indicating that they will go home and look at this very 
seriously.  And Prime Minister Blair called Prime Minister 
Vajpayee after this and spoke of the dismay of the international 
community.  Your question goes to specific actions and there have 
been leaders who have indicated that they will go back and look 
at this more seriously.  I mean, obviously, this happened as they 
are arriving; these are things that one usually does in 
consultation with your legislature, your parliament, and so it 
would not have surprised me if there were further actions.
	     Q	  Sandy, where has Yeltsin been in all of this?
This was finally the G-8, he got the title he wanted.  Has he 
been involved in many of these discussions?  Can you go over his 
	     MR. BERGER:  My understanding has been that he was 
supportive of the strong language -- explicitly supportive of the 
strong language that was used last night condemning the action.
	     Q	  Sandy, could you talk about President --
	     Q	  Could I just ask another question on Yeltsin?  
To what extent will the dynamics between Clinton and Yeltsin 
tomorrow change as a result of this nuclear showdown in South 
Asia?  Do they have more pressure to deliver something on the 

nuclear front despite being tied up with the Duma and the 
	     MR. BERGER:  No, I don't think -- I'm sure it will 
be discussed, although -- I mean, they have discussed it, 
obviously, last night.  But there are a number of issues on the 
agenda between President Yeltsin and President Clinton.  There's 
not much more to say about it, I think, than was said last night, 
but issues involving the new Russian government, what its 
direction is, what its priorities are, questions of START II 
ratification, START III.  We have concerns we want to talk to the 
President about in terms of missile proliferation, or missile 
technology proliferation.  So there's a pretty heavy agenda.  
This may come up some more, but they have discussed it.
	     Q	  Sandy, Congress so far has refused to give 
Clinton fast track, it's not voting U.N. dues, it's not voting 
IMF money.  The Republicans are saying they're not going to give 
you ratification of the Test Ban Treaty.  How often can Clinton 
come to these summits or deal with crises like India nuclear 
testing and not have the tools, the leverage, to deal with these 
	     MR. BERGER:  I guess I would say two things.  I 
don't see or sense any diminution either in Santiago or here of 
the President's authority with these leaders.  These leaders 
clearly see the United States as the dominant economy in the 
world and as a key leader.  And the President's personal 
partnership with these particular leaders now is very -- quite 
close and deep.  So I don't see any -- in these contexts, I have 
not seen any evidence of that.  
	     However, having said that, obviously, we need the 
IMF money, not so much because of the President's authority to 
persuade someone to use a different adjective on India, but 
because if this Asian problem spreads, as it well might, we're 
going to need those resources.  And at that point, I think we 
would look pretty darn foolish if we have not stepped up to the 
	     Similarly on the U.N., if we get to the end of the 
year, and we wind up having to sit out on Dag Hammarskjold Avenue 
under a pup tent instead of having our seat in the General 
Assembly, I think that would be unfortunate.  (Laughter.)  
	     Q	  That might be good pictures, though, we could 
use.  (Laughter.)
	     Q	  Sandy, on Northern Ireland -- 
	     MR. BERGER:  There was a statement on that.  I think 
they issued an additional paragraph -- is that right -- an 
additional statement on Northern Ireland, which, if you don't 
have, you should get.

	     Q	  It seemed like Prime Minister Blair was trying 
to go beyond a typical statement of support to some sort of 
statement that the North would be a more viable investment 
opportunity.  Did he get that done, or can you characterize that 
	     MR. BERGER:  I'm not aware of the statement.  I'm 
actually just heard as I was coming in that there was a 
statement.  I have not read it.
	     Q	  Sandy, when do you expect to get a readout from 
Strobe Talbott on his trip to Pakistan, and when will the 
President be getting that briefing?
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, we've had reports from the 
traveling party periodically, last night.  And I have generally 
briefed the President on those reports.  An unidentified senior 
official traveling with Deputy Secretary Talbott had a press 
conference yesterday, I think, before he left in which he said 
that the talks have been very good, that he believed that the 
Pakistani government had not made a decision as of that point, 
but they had made no commitments.  
	     I suspect that I will see Strobe tonight because of 
the dinner.  I would not expect the President to see him until 
	     Q	  On Africa, was there any discussion of 
accelerating or expanding the debt relief initiative?  And on the 
health and education things that you mentioned in the communique, 
is there any specific commitment to money or aid to that --
	     MR. BERGER:  We have, in the connection with our 
visit, made specific monetary commitments of fairly significant 
proportions.  I don't think there are dollar figures -- there are 
not dollar figures associated with the communique, except a 
commitment to these goals and to take actions necessary to meet 
them with the Africans.  
	     In terms of the debt, I honestly don't know the 
answer to that.  I would be enormously surprised if it had not 
come up because I know it was something the President wanted to 
discuss and others.  But I have not gotten -- they're up in the 
Manor country, and I have not gotten a readout on that.
	     Q	  Back to Russia, could you tell us whether 
there's any stress put on the relationship between the United 
States and Russia because all the different times when they've 
taken different views on very important regional issues like Iraq 
and Kosovo and now sanctions on India?  What does this do to the 
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, I think you have to take this 

into perspective -- that is, here we have in 1998 a democratic 
Russia undergoing an economic transformation to a market economy 
with all that entails.  It's a remarkable development and we 
ought not -- just because it happened last week, we ought to not 
minimize probably the most significant fact of our lifetime.  
	     The President has worked assiduously for almost six 
years to try to promote that course, democracy -- and President 
Yeltsin most recently changed his government and put -- which was 
we thought quite a good government -- but put in its place a 
group of very young, reform-oriented, pragmatic individuals who 
clearly are going to move that process even further.  So, big 
	     Second of all, there are a lot of things in which we 
cooperate very well with Russia.  Who would have thought that we 
would be actually serving side-by-side in Bosnia?  Who would have 
thought, including many of you, that we would have been able to 
enlarge NATO and not somehow destroy our relationship with 
Russia?  We have an arms control agenda with Russia.  There are a 
lot of things -- a lot of business that we do which is of 
profound significance to the American people.
	     Now, there are things that we disagree on.  We 
disagree on Saddam Hussein and the extent to which he poses a 
threat.  We disagree on Kosovo to some degree and the extent to 
which sanctions or harsh measures should be placed on Milosevic.  
I don't think, certainly I don't expect the Russians to impose 
sanctions on India.
	     But I think you have to look at a relationship 
between two countries such as this, whether it's the United 
States and Russia, or the United States and Britain, or the 
United States and France, and see it as a balance sheet that 
hopefully has more pluses than minuses.
	     Q	  So there's no stress on the relationship from 
these disagreements?
	     MR. BERGER:  National relationships are not 
psychiatric confrontations, I think, in terms of stress.  
(Laughter.)  I think it is in our national interest to pursue the 
relationship with Russia.  There are a number of places where 
they see their national interest differently than we do, in part 
because of where they are, and in part because of their history, 
in part because of their geostrategic situation.  There are areas 
where we fundamentally disagree with Russia and we will continue 
-- as we do with China, for example -- but we will continue to 
maintain the relationship so long as we can make progress on the 
areas that we agree on and deal candidly with them on the areas 
we disagree on.
	     Q	  Sandy, -- the President's proposed trip to 
India and Pakistan, has any of it -- on the trip to India and 

Pakistan, is there any thought of definitively not going or 
changing that -- 
	     MR. BERGER:  We have not made any decision to change 
our plans at this point, but we'll see how that -- I think it's 
something we just have to consider over a period of time.
	     Q	  Was there any discussion among the leaders, or 
among their senior aides -- someone like yourself -- over whether 
this group of eight is the right group of eight, whether there 
are other countries that should be properly represented here?
	     MR. BERGER:  I read my friend, Dan Tarullo, in the 
Post this morning on the subject.  I think the answer is there's 
an ongoing discussion of the G-7/G-8.  I think its role has 
changed, and I think, actually, President Clinton deserves a good 
deal of credit for changing its role.  It was a meeting that 
dealt with macroeconomic issues and crises, and we have pushed it 
towards global issues.  We've pushed it to the kinds of issues 
that Jonathan was talking about, and we've pushed it to deal with 
what used to be called -- what are domestic issues, but where 
these seven or eight guys who have the same -- who are dealing 
every day with the same problems can share information.  
	     So I think substantively, it's changed.  There has 
been discussion over the years as to why these seven, or why 
these eight.  To some degree, it's historical and it goes back 
now 20 years and a lot of things have changed, but it's one of 
those Pandora's boxes -- once you open it up, it's a little hard 
to figure where you draw the line or how you define.  And there 
are plenty of other forums.  You know, we meet with nations in 
the NATO context, we meet with nations in a bilateral context 
--APEC, the U.S.-EU summit.  The only thing I'm against is adding 
any more summits to the agenda -- any more annual summits.  
	     Q	  Sandy, to follow on that, Yeltsin asked 
Hashimoto yesterday if Moscow could host the G-8 in the year 
2000.  Did he make that request of the President, and what would 
be the U.S. response?
	     MR. BERGER:  I think there was some discussion of 
this last night.  As I understand it, Japan, which was already 
scheduled to be the host       for 2000, will, in fact, be the 
host.  But I think there was some desire to find some way to -- I 
mean, obviously Russia has to get in this rotation, and maybe 
there are other ways to recognize that.  There was, as I will 
remind you, a special summit in Moscow in '96 on nuclear safety 
-- better check '96.
	     Q	  -- would Russia going into the regular 
	     MR. BERGER:  Yes.  But when is hard to -- there's no 

answer to.
	     Q	  A couple of days ago the British environmental 
minister made some very harsh criticism of the U.S. position on 
the Kyoto treaty, saying the United States really doesn't want to 
change its energy behavior and it's going to meet the criteria of 
the treaty by simply buying up pollution permits from other 
countries, and that the EU --- and wants at least a 50-percent 
rule that you've got to change your domestic practices and you 
can't -- buying up these permits.  Did that come up here?
	     MR. BERGER:  There is a discussion this afternoon of 
climate change.  I don't think the British environmental minister 
will be there, but we'll see whether the Prime Minister raises 
	     But let me just say generally that under Kyoto, we 
are, of course, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases; we are 
also undertaking the most Draconian cuts.  The Europeans are in a 
kind of privileged position because there's a bubble over the EU.  
They're dealt with as a unit.  And so there are a lot of -- like 
Eastern Germany, for example, there are a lot of parts of the EU 
where levels are very low and it's easier for them to meet what 
is nominally a larger percentage reduction.
	     So, number one, I think we've bitten the bullet on 
this.  Number two, the idea of engaging the developing world has 
two purposes from the President's point of view.  Number one, 
this is a global problem, and it requires a global solution.  If 
we cut out all of our global emissions, all of our greenhouse gas 
emissions, China is growing at such a rate, it will simply be the 
number one greenhouse gas emitter by 2020 or 2030.  The 
environment -- I mean the globe, the planet -- doesn't really 
understand where these gases are coming from.  They're just going 
to know that they're increasing.  So you have to have some kind 
of way of getting the developing world to buy in.  
	     The President's view has always been that a trading 
mechanism, where American industry is essentially able to swap in 
credits, is a way to get the gasses down -- doesn't matter 
whether that unit of greenhouse gas is diminished in Thailand or 
Toledo, from an environmental standpoint -- and at the same time 
from the developing world's point of view, allows them to take an 
energy development path towards less polluting energy sources, 
which is a lot better than the rest of us took in the last 50 
years.  So I just think he's wrong -- long answer.
	     Q	  Sandy, is there any solution that's been made 
to the F-16 problem for the Pakistanis?  And what kind of 
incentive can you give them besides just saying that they be 
"good guys," not to blow up a bomb?
	     MR. BERGER:  I think, first of all, the F-16s -- we 
have been trying for some time to resolve this issue with the 

Congress.  This is a complicated issue where they paid for the 
F-16s; we still have them.  There is reasons for that cutoff, 
this was not capricious on the part of the Bush administration by 
any means.  But it has resulted in what seems to be an 
unfairness.  We're now making money off the interest on this.  
When Ambassador Richardson was in Pakistan in the first half of 
April, he did raise with the Pakistanis some ideas that we have 
that we think that we could accomplish with the Congress that 
would resolve this issue.  I don't want to discuss them, 
particularly, publicly. 
	     I do think -- the larger question -- one of the 
problems we've had in expanding our relationship with Pakistan is 
the so-called Pressler Amendment, which has cut off virtually all 
U.S. assistance to Pakistan.  A few years ago, with our 
cooperation, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado amended that to open 
up some areas of cooperation, but not many.  I would have to 
believe -- and based on some conversations I've had with senators 
in the last few days -- that if Pakistan were not to test, that 
we would have a far greater chance to make inroads on the 
Pressler Amendment in the Congress, in a bipartisan way, than we 
have had before.  And I think that would be a welcomed 
	     Q	  To the end of delivering planes, perhaps?
	     MR. BERGER:  To the end of resolving the plane issue 
in a way that is satisfactory to Pakistan and the United States.
	     Q	  Which could include delivery?
	     MR. BERGER:  Let me leave it where it is.  There are 
a lot of ways to skin the cat and what's important here is it's 
resolved in a way that they are satisfied with and a way we're 
satisfied with.
	     Q	  Have you found a third country buyer 	     
then, Sandy?
	     MR. BERGER:  I don't want to thwart something by 
speculating on it.
	     Q	  Is there anything else beyond rolling back 
Pressler that you can do for the Pakistanis?  Apparently, one 
editorial in Pakistan said today that they wanted some kind of 
security guarantees from the U.S.
	     MR. BERGER:  Well, we have a security treaty with 
Pakistan.  Or a security alliance, I guess, it's not a security 
	     It's not been my sense here that the Paks put a 
price tag on not testing.  This is going to be a decision that 
they make based upon their own judgment of their national 

interest.  And as I say, I hope that they will do that -- I hope 
that they will decide that it is in their national interest as we 
head to the future to be part of the tide of history that is 
giving up nuclear testing rather than the undercurrent of history 
reflected by the Indians that seeks to go backwards.
	     Q	  Sandy, you said no decision had been made on 
whether the President will go to India later this year, but could 
you imagine the President going if India had not yet disavowed 
any further nuclear testing?
	     MR. BERGER:  I don't want to really speculate beyond 
what I said.  We have not -- in time, we will look at the issue, 
but no new decision has been made on that.  
	     Q	  You noted that this was President Clinton's 
sixth economic summit --
	     MR. BERGER:  Fifth or sixth.
	     Q	  I'm not saying that's wrong.  I assume that's 
	     MR. BERGER:  I thought I was wrong when I said it.  
(Laughter.)  Six, yes.
	     Q	  I guess that makes him senior to everybody 
except Kohl.  Can you talk about how his role has changed and 
evolved over those six summits, and kind of how you would express 
or assess his role -- 
	     MR. BERGER:  Let me answer it in two ways.  I pretty 
vividly remember the first summit in '93 in Japan when, 
basically, the international community saw the United States as 
the international economic problem.  We had $200 billion debt; 
there were no prospects of changing it.  We were basically being 
blamed for all of the economic problems in the world.  Today, I 
think the United States is an economic model.  And you see 
leaders around the world, in many respects, reflecting the 
President's policies, his approach, his politics.
	     I think that he is -- in these summits, I've noticed 
that he's rarely the first to talk unless he asked to.  He is 
listened to, I think, very attentively.  He tries to listen to 
others.  And I think he clearly has emerged the dominant figure 
on the world stage.
	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.

            END                        4:28 P.M. (L)