News & Policies
History & Tours | Kids | Your Government | Appointments | Jobs | Contact | Graphic version
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 22, 2001
By Senior Administration Official
on the G7-G8 Summit
Press Filing Center
12:27 P.M. (Local)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm going to give you an overview of the entire summit. Today, you know, was not a substantive day, per se; there was just one short meeting in the morning where the leaders approved, formally approved the communique, and that ends the summit. So what I'd like to do is review the entire summit for you very quickly, just focusing on the highlights.
And let me just say at the outset that the President and all of the leaders, the G8, collectively, had a very successful, very productive summit. They had important work to do, they came to do it and they got it done, and I can quickly walk you through some of the highlights, as I said.
Again, the entire context of this summit was attacking poverty, alleviating global poverty. It was the focus of the G7/G8 Summit. It is a priority of U.S. foreign policy, it's a passion of the President's. He committed the United States to developing real partnerships with developing countries to address their development needs, ranging from hunger to disease, trade, to education. It's a partnership based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility.
To achieve those ends, the President and the G8 leaders agreed upon a series of actions. And I'm going to walk through these largely in order in which the summit itself took place. Remember that the G7 was the first session, focusing on the global economy, and then we moved to the G8 -- I should say the G7 focusing on the global economy and trade, and then we moved into the G8 setting, where we focused on a lot of the social sector issues.
First, the world economy. President Bush, of course, believes that a dynamic, growing global economy is the ultimate poverty reduction strategy, and if each of the G7 countries committed to putting in place pro-growth policies, the U.S. of course is showing the way with dynamic and flexible markets, decisive action, both the rate cuts and the tax cuts, those tax cuts, recall, will inject about $40 billion into the U.S. economy in the third quarter alone.
Second, the new trade round. The President believes that one of the most important things we can do to ignite a new era of global economic growth is expand world trade, opening markets worldwide. Thus, he and the other G7 leaders pledged to engage personally and jointly to ensure the successful launch of a new global round of trade talks under the World Trade Organization, and that meeting is scheduled, or that launch is scheduled for November in Doha.
Third, the leaders collectively, the G8, agreed to form a new partnership with Africa, focused on poverty alleviation. They welcome the so-called new Africa initiative, which embraces many of the same principles that the President has emphasized: responsibility and a sense of ownership for policies. And you will recall that the notion here is that these nations need to step forward, take ownership of the policies and the programs they have in place, put the right ones in place, and the developed world, in turn, responds to provide -- help them acquire the tools they need to take advantage of trade, of aid, to building the education infrastructure, address the issues of infectious disease, et cetera.
The President has made Africa a priority of his administration. He's met with seven of the major African leaders in his first half-year in office. He's instructed the Secretary of State, you will recall, shortly before he left Washington to develop an education initiative focused on Africa, focused on improving basic education and in particular teacher training; teachers, having been disproportionately impacted by the ravages of AIDS. Some countries losing as many as 10 percent or more of their teachers.
And he will inaugurate in October the first U.S. sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum involving the 35 African nations that currently participate in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.
In addition, another major accomplishment of this summit was the formal establishment of the Global Fund To Fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. The President, you will recall, in May, together with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Nigerian President Obasanjo, pledged U.S. support for a global fund to fight the AIDS pandemic. At the same time, he laid out a set of principles to ensure the effectiveness of that fund, and he announced a founding contribution of $200 million.
And at the time, Kofi Annan also spoke and noted that that day, today, he said, may be remembered as the day we turned the corner. And in point of fact, since that time, the G8 was working very hard to develop a fund along the lines of the principles that the President had articulated. And that fund is what was unveiled at the summit, on the first day of the summit on Friday evening in a press conference.
In addition to the fund being a public-private partnership and the G8 collectively contributing some $1.3 billion to it, as well as other parties contributing an additional $500 million, so the rough estimate is that we're at about $1.8 billion now for the fund.
In addition, and importantly, the leaders committed to ensuring that the fund was operational by the first -- before the end of the year. And in order to do that, they've put together a start-up team that will be tasked with making the fund operational. And the United States is going to help manage and fund the secretariat for that start-up team to ensure its success.
The U.S., of course, in addition to the $200 million, the emergency supplemental that recently passed contained another $100 million for the global fund, so that's a $300-million total founding contribution by the United States. And in addition, collectively, the United States spends about $1 billion a year internationally on its AIDS efforts, and I think the number is about $10 billion, international and domestic as well.
So this was a major accomplishment of the summit, and it follows the structure of accountability, and the focus on prevention and a continuum of treatment and care that the President outlined in May.
Debt relief, of course, the President believes and the G8 believes that debt relief is important. It's important to ensure that the poorest countries don't labor under an unsustainable debt burden. The communique notes how pleased the leaders are, that 23 of the countries currently participating in the heavily-indebted poor countries initiative are going through the process of debt relief, and have been relieved of some $54 billion worth of debt as the total stock.
They also pay particular attention and want to focus on countries in conflict and have asked those countries to lay down their arms, to put an end to the violence, and when they do so, we've said that we will be there to vigorously implement debt relief for them as well.
The President, however, went beyond debt relief. He notes that debt relief can often be merely a temporary solution. And, therefore, in his World Bank speech before leaving for Genoa, he proposed that the world bank make up to 50 percent of the resources that it provides to the poorest countries available in the form of grants rather than loans, the notion here being that grants, unlike loans, will permanently stop the debt.
Cardinal Bernard Law of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has welcomed this initiative. So, too, has Jubilee Plus, the successor organization to Jubilee 2000, which was one of the motive forces behind the debt relief initiative in the first place. Furthermore, the G8 took up this proposal, and you will see in the G8 communique that they have agreed to explore the increased use of grants for priority social investments, and in particular highlighting education and health.
In a related development, the President and Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill have both been arguing that the multilateral development banks, the World Bank and the other regional development banks, need to do a better job of focusing their efforts on key activities that contribute to increases in the standard of living and increases in productivity growth.
One of those key things is education. The President believes that literacy and learning are the foundations of democracy and development, and he believes that the multilateral development banks need to spend more of their resources on education. The United States has increased its bilateral development assistance for education by 20 percent. He's called on the multilateral development banks to increase theirs as well.
In addition, he's called on the multilateral development banks to do a better job and a more effective job of providing assistance. And to that end, you will see in the communique a series of reform proposals, including enhancing the accountability and transparency and governance of the multilateral development banks themselves. And in so doing, the G8, picking up on a notion that the President has urged the development banks to sharpen their focus on education.
Biotechnology: At the outreach session which occurred on the first evening of the summit, we heard from a cross-section of leaders of the developing world, from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Several of them spoke rather eloquently to the issue of hunger, that that is the fundamental issue when it comes to development.
The first thing you've got to do is feed the people. There are 800 million hungry and malnourished people in the world, 250 million of them children, and several of the leaders spoke relatively eloquently about that problem. And in response, the President believes that the world needs to utilize better the enormous potential for feeding the hungry of biotechnology. Biotechnology can help developing countries double, triple crop yields, while using less pesticides, fewer scarce resources like water and land. And the G8 communique acknowledges these benefits and commits the G8 to facilitate the use of biotechnology to meet the needs of the developing world and the food security needs, in particular, of the poorest countries.
This is the strongest and most positive statement ever about the benefits of biotechnology. And the President, himself, urged -- raised the issue and urged that greater use be made of these new technologies, in particular, biotechnology.
An environmental issue also arose -- the so-called environmental standards related to export credit agencies -- export credit agencies being entities like the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and Coface and Hermes and some of the other export credit agencies in Europe and elsewhere.
The export credit agencies have a potentially huge impact on the environment. They provide about five to six times the amount of project finance capital that all of the multilateral development banks combined provide. The U.S. Export-Import Bank, like the World Bank, follows a set of environmental standards in export credit financing activities. It requires environmental impact assessments to be made before it provides financing. It requires the release of those assessments prior to the financing, among other things.
The United States has been pushing other countries to agree to that same set of standards. Negotiations have been proceeding in the OECD, but we believe that that agreement is a weak agreement. And in the G8 communique you'll see that the G7 partners have agreed to continue to negotiate with a commitment to try to conclude an agreement by the end of the year to establish strong environmental guidelines for export credit agencies.
Two final issues. One is the so-called DOT Force, which is the digital opportunities task force that was created at the Okinawa summit. That was a unique combination of private and public entities coming together to try and wrestle with the issue of how both the developed and developing world can do a better job of using information technology to spur development. And they produced a series of nine action plans, a number of which correspond to priorities of the President's. For example, there is one action plan that deals with using information technology to train teachers, as well as to provide basic educational materials. Another one of the action plans deals with how to use information technology in the fight against AIDS, for example, in terms of disseminating information.
That report was endorsed, and in fact, in addition, the G8 asked the DOT Force to develop another action plan, one related to the issue of e-government, which we believe can reenforce not only democracy by empowering citizens to deal directly with their governments, but also improve the administrative efficiency of many of these governments.
Finally, on climate change, you'll see that the communique contains a positive statement about the G8 being united in the goal of reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases, being united in the commitment to work together to seek solutions to the problem of global climate change. And in addition, it talks about how they are determined to work together, as well as with other countries in that effort.
And, of course, the President on June 11th in his Rose Garden statement about climate change, noted that he intended to engage actively and lead internationally on this issue. And since then, the United States has agreed to cooperate with Italy on climate change science and technology. That was just announced a couple of days ago. The U.S. and Japan recently held the first of a series of high-level consultations on climate change. And the U.S. and the EU have agreed to similar consultations. And finally, the U.S. and Central America have agreed to intensify their cooperation on climate change through the CONCAUSA Declaration process.
The final thing that I'll note is that if you all have the communique, you'll see that it is significantly shorter than in past years, and hopefully, a little bit more readable, in an effort to ensure -- or try and improve the communique with respect to its ability to speak to a larger audience.
So those are the major accomplishments of the summit: the global economy; the new trade round; partnership with Africa; establishment of the global AIDS fund; debt relief moving forward; embracing the proposal to pursue grants as a way to permanently stop the debt; a focus on education and multilateral development bank reform; acknowledging the benefits of biotechnology; calling for environmental standards for export credit agencies; reaffirming the commitment at Okinawa that was made; hailing the action plans produced by the Digital Opportunities Task Force; and agreeing to work cooperatively to address the issue of climate change.
Happy to take questions.
Q On the summit for next year, Canada is -- very small. What has been the President's view, what's your sense of what needs to change in the G8 summits, besides the delegation? Berlusconi just announced that they will be smaller, no more than 30 people per country. And in terms of the kind of Rambouillet spirit, can you speak to that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The spirit of Rambouillet?
Q The idea of a smaller, more informal summit.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, this was one of the --first of all, let me say that I think that's an objective that's -- the informality of the summit is an objective that all the leaders share. This is -- all the leaders I think view this as an opportunity to really build relationships with one another among the G8, and if possible, demonstrate leadership on a few key global issues. And the more informal, the better.
I mean, the discussions at this summit were very informal. There were not -- they don't go around the table and call names in order of protocol. It is completely unstructured discussion with a lot of give-and-take. And I think they found it -- and I know the President found it -- very valuable.
So the informality is something we all share. In terms of the size of the delegations, as I said yesterday when asked this question, the truth is since the only people in the rooms are the leaders, or the leaders and the sherpas, there's always very few people in those discussions, which is important in order to ensure a substantial amount of give-and-take. So the size of the delegations has more to do with logistics and things like that, than the quality of the dialogue that takes place.
Q What's the size of the U.S. delegation here -- 800 or 900?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I have not a clue. Not a clue. It depends on if you're counting communications and press and all sorts of things. From a substantive standpoint, it's a very small number of people.
Q There's a couple broad areas of global warming that your counterparts have been very eager to share with their press corps. I was hoping you could help us out. First of all, which leaders expressed disagreement about the President's global warming stance, and what exactly did they say to the President about these disagreements? And as close to verbatim as you can give us, what did he tell the leaders about the timetable for presenting an alternative?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me answer the second question first, which is about a timetable. I think Ari and others have already answered that, and I answered it yesterday, as well.
Q Nobody has answered what the President said to the leaders about --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not going to get into characterizing what individual leaders said in those sessions. What I can tell you --
Q Well, you do know, though, that the other delegations are saying that the President told their leaders that he'll have a proposal in October. I need to know what the President told the leaders.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The President told the leaders exactly what I believe Ari said earlier.
Q Ari didn't tell us what the President told the leaders. Ari didn't tell us what the President said, he told us what the U.S. position is.
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Ron, Ari took your question and he's working on that, okay?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's been asked and answered, and it was posted up there.
Q In all due respect, the question is simply: What did the President of the United States say to leaders about the timetable? Either tell me what he said, or tell me you can't answer the question. But don't say it's been answered.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can tell you that I'm not going to get into characterizing what people said. What I can tell you is that it was a good discussion. There were other discussions that were equally as in-depth. And what came out of that discussion is what's reflected in the communique, which was a cooperative spirit to work together to find ways to address this problem.
Q You won't characterize his conversations -- go past that. Can you tell us which leaders expressed disagreement with his global warming position, and what did they say to the President about it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There was a good discussion of global warming. It wasn't a question of people -- the focus of the discussion was how we can work together to advance this issue. And, in fact, there was -- I shouldn't say a great deal of consensus -- there was consensus on the objectives; there was consensus on the need to work together cooperatively and actively; and there was a consensus on the need to draw on the power of markets and technology in doing that.
Q Can we report that you declined to characterize what the President said about timetable, and you're declining --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The issue --
Q -- to characterize who criticized and what they said?
MS. COUNTRYMAN: I'm just going to interject, because Ari did take your question, Ron, and he's working on it. No one is declining to answer your question.
Q He is --
MS. COUNTRYMAN: Ari -- no, he's not declining to answer the characterization of what the President said. Ari's trying to get the verbatim from the President, okay?
Q Okay. On the second question, you may not be able to tell me because maybe you weren't there or didn't hear, or maybe no criticism came up. But the question I would like answered, one way or another, is which leaders raised criticism of the U.S. position on global warming, and what did they say about it? I'll take a "no comment;" I'll take an "I don't know." I just would like an answer.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer is, this was not a contentious debate and there was not criticism. There was a focus on what the G8 could do together to advance this issue.
Q Thank you.
Q A couple of things. The WTO round -- is that now a done deal, or do a number of other countries besides the G8 countries have to agree to it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Do you have more?
Q Yes. I do. On the debt relief, you said that $54 billion has already been relieved, in essence, but I thought what we were being told was that $54 billion was on track. I'm curious, because this theme is antipoverty, I'm curious as to how much that money has actually been forgiven at this point.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Is it all now done, or is that expected at the end of the process -- the $54 billion?
We'll get back to you on the $54 billion; I'll clarify that. On the new round, no. As you know, the U.S. and the EU and the G8 need to come together on an agenda, but that's only half the equation. That has to be an agenda also acceptable to developing countries. And in fact, if you look at the communique, you will see that a large part of the G8 discussion was directed at what could be done to bring those developing countries more into the process and how to respond to their concerns.
They have a series of concerns regarding market access, increased market access, implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements, capacity-building, and there was a series of initiatives that are highlighted in the G8 that have to do with drawing the developing countries, integrating them better into the global trading system, and giving them the tools to do that.
So that's part of that whole process. But those discussions on the agenda, sure, they are going to proceed. The G8 alone can't launch a round. The round can only be launched by the WTO. We believe, however, that substantial progress has been made in -- or, I should say that there has been increasing convergence between the U.S. and the European Union in particular that was announced in Washington shortly before the President left by Ambassador Zoellick and his EU counterpart, Pascal Lemy. We believe that that will give significant impetus to the launch of a new round.
Q Does launching a new round require a majority vote within the WTO?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I believe it requires a consensus.
Q And, thirdly, why wasn't the President able to get agreement on his call for the World Bank to shift into a 50-50 formula for loans and grants?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Because you can't get agreement in the G8 for that. I mean, in other words, that's going to be taken up in the context of the replenishment negotiations and, in fact, that's the context in which the grant proposal is talked about in the communique. There are ongoing negotiations for the replenishment of IDA, which is the facility within the World Bank that deals with the poorest countries. And the issue of how much of IDA lending will be in grants versus loans is obviously an issue that will be taken up in the context of the IDA replenishment.
Q -- G8 clearly endorse the idea?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The G8 did endorse exploring grants as an alternative to loans. And in particular, with respect to education, very precisely what the President had proposed.
Q In the previous G8 meetings, G8 communiques used to address that security issues as the importance of CTBT and ABM Treaty. But this communique doesn't mention those things at all. Do you think it's a reflection of conflicts between the United States and the other countries over those issues?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I don't. There were discussions at some of the sessions I didn't attend that dealt with political issues and regional issues. However -- and there have been separate statements issued on those. But at the sessions I attended, those issues did not come up.
Q An Italian newspaper report says that the President indicated to his G8 counterparts while here in Genoa a concern about strengthening the dollar. He apparently said that the dollar is creating problems for U.S. manufacturers, and he also expressed dissatisfaction with European central bank monetary policy. Did the President say either of these things here?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.
Q So you're rejecting the Italian newspaper report on --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm telling you that to my knowledge, he didn't say either of those things here.
Q I didn't hear the question before last, so maybe you answered it. I'm puzzled why the communique is silent on issues like the Middle East, like Macedonia --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's a separate statement on those issues, a separate statement was issued on Macedonia, and there's a separate statement on the Middle East. That's traditional. We should have copies. Yes, traditionally, the regional political statements are issued in a separate communique from the larger G8 communique. And, in fact, there's also a separate statement on Africa that was issued last night, as well, I believe.
Q How confident are the leaders that the worst is over in terms of the economy? And is there a risk of being over-confident now?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All I can tell you -- I mean, you can interpret the statement for itself. It's a consensus statement: While the global economy has slowed more than expected over the past year, sound economic policies and fundamentals provide a solid foundation for stronger growth.
Q The LA Times said this morning that President Bush at one point suggested that the final communique make no reference to the Kyoto protocol. And on the same topic, Prime Minister Chretien, among other leaders, said the U.S. would present a plan, modification, or improvement of Kyoto before November; Ari said that's not true. I wonder how that miscommunication occurred.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know how the miscommunication occurred. What I can say -- the first part of your question was the President never suggested that it not deal with Kyoto. We've spoken frankly about Kyoto and the President is -- always speaks frankly and candidly about his positions on all issues. And is not in any way reluctant to do so. So the issue of the communique not speaking to that or, frankly, any of these other issues never arose.
Q On the same topic, does it concern you that these other world leaders, speaking on the record, misunderstood what the President said about when the U.S. would present the planned modification or improvement of Kyoto?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I haven't heard what they've said or seen what they've said.
Q To follow on that, we're on background here, obviously. We have three world leaders who are telling their delegations on the record they all had the exact same interpretation coming out of the exact same sessions with the President. Now, how is it that they're saying that and you can't verify?
And secondly, on a broader point, obviously this is about alleviating poverty; they talked a lot about that. But the President, himself, and Condi before we came over here also talked about his eagerness to discuss Kyoto and discuss missile defense. And there doesn't seem to have been much movement, based on the communique, on either of those points. So in the context of that, on those points, would you classify this summit as a success for the President, given the terms he, himself, set?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, first of all, missile defense is not taken up in any of these documents, and never was intended to. And, frankly, I was not present for any discussion involving that. You will have to talk to the folks that attended the bilaterals, or whatever. In terms of this being a success, I think it was a success for President Bush, absolutely, and a success for the G8, collectively. There is a very positive statement in here about climate change. There's a very strong statement about being personally and jointly involved an engaged in the launch of a new round. There is the establishment, finally, of a global fund to fight HIV/AIDS.
I mean, this was a gleam in people's eyes in May when the President made his announcement, and now you have a start-up team getting ready to pull it together and get it up and running. You have the most powerful statement to date on the benefits of biotechnology to combat hunger and malnutrition. You've got a very powerful statement about reforming the multilateral development banks.
If you recall, over the last several years a lot of the focus of the G7 has been on the International Monetary Fund and reforms. Here, you have very concrete proposals, and then you add -- on multilateral development bank reform, you add to that the President's proposal to shift to grants for the poorest countries for needed social services. You've got a powerful statement about a commitment to put in place pro-growth polices in the G8, in the G7 countries to stimulate a new era of global growth.
I think when you go through this list and you look at the summit and you say to yourself, did they accomplish what they came to do; did they address the issue of poverty alleviation in a meaningful, concrete way -- the answer has to be, yes. And then top it all off with the establishment of a new partnership to alleviate poverty in Africa based upon the new African initiative and principles of responsibility and ownership with a focus on capacity building -- the capacity not only to take advantage of trade, but to put in place an independent judiciary, rule of law, human rights.
And finally, if you look at the commitment in the Africa statement, the separate statement that was put out on Africa, you will see on the bottom of page one a whole series of very specific topics listed with the commitment that action plans will be developed on those topics between now and the next summit. It's hard to argue that anything but significant progress was made here on all of these issues, including, frankly, some of the most difficult ones. Trade, for example -- the launch of a new trade round. We have been discussing that for some time. Significant progress made on that, and significant impetus given to it.
So, for the President, I would say a very successful summit; for the G8, collectively, a very successful summit. I suspect you will find that view shared by all of the leaders because that certainly was the sentiment in the room today.
Q Well, I don't think anybody here is -- can I follow up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Could you just hold on for a second.
Let me just add, also, on background, that the summit was a part of the Europe trip, okay? There wasn't an implication that we're going to get progress on missile defense at the summit.
And I'd also like to refer you back to Dr. Rice's background briefing of the trip before we left, where she made the suggestion that you shouldn't consider international meetings with leaders like a football game, where there is a score at the end; what did we win on missile defense, did we lose on missile defense -- because that's not the way diplomacy gets done; that there's incremental progress; that the process of our relations with leaders such as President Putin is just that, a process, it takes time.
Q Understood, but he, himself --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The only other point that I would make is one of the other objectives of these summits is, as I said, to build relationships. And the quality of the conversations and the feeling among the leaders clearly, that, too, was a success from the standpoint of this summit. All you had to do was watch the leaders up on the podium for the photo, or sitting around the table chatting with each other before the sessions began and you could see it for yourself.
Q Does it concern you that a President who prides himself on being plain-spoken has apparently been misunderstood by at least three of his colleagues at the table?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can tell you -- all I can tell you is the President is a very plain-spoken guy, and he spoke candidly about his position on all the issues. And he spoke frankly and he spoke respectfully and he spoke constructively. And that was the atmosphere in that room, whether the issue was climate change or foreign aid or the new trade round or the issue of grants or debt relief.
It was -- at least in the sessions that I attended -- a very, very constructive and, in many cases, detailed exchange. There were a lot of issues on this agenda. We've given you the highlights; there were others that were obviously addressed at less length. That's a lot of issue to cover in about a day and a half for eight leaders. And the depth of the discussion on those issues and the knowledge displayed by everyone was something that I think also contributed to the outcome. And the outcome is concrete -- concrete, it's tangible. You can see it in the communique. You can write your check to donate to the global AIDS fund -- though I can't solicit it. I can tell you, you can do it, but I can't solicit it. And these are real things.
You know, there's a sense -- those of you who were at Quebec for the Summit of the Americas may recall that one of the themes of that was democracy, trade and real results for real people. There's a sense that it's important that -- that these summits produce more than just words, that they produce tangible results that can impact people's lives. And certainly from that standpoint, this was a successful summit, as well. The AIDS fund, the DOT Force initiative, the initiatives in terms of capacity-building to give developing countries the ability, the tools they need to put in place the things that we know are essential for growth and economic development -- these are real deliverables.
Q So these guys are making it up, then?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Making what up?
Q When they say that they understood the President to say it would be developed by Marrakesh?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You have --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think you really do.
END 1:07 P.M. (Local)
|Email this page to a friend|