Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
G8 Summit Raises Mountain of Issues
Aired July 21, 2001 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DONNA KELLEY, CNN ANCHOR: We begin this hour in Genoa, Italy, where world leaders are meeting, but the gathering of protesters could steal the spotlight by force. As the G8 summit continues its second day behind closed doors, Italian police have tried to defuse another day of demonstrations.
Among our correspondents covering all angles of this developing story, CNN's Alessio Vinci. He's at the flashpoint of today's protests.
And CNN senior White House correspondent John King is outside the meetings. And we'll start with our John King -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Donna, just moments ago, the first direct reaction from President Bush to the killing, the death last night of one of those demonstrators out on the street in a confrontation with police. Mr. Bush during meeting with the French President, Jacques Chirac, telling reporters that he obviously regrets the loss of life; but Mr. Bush taking a tough line, saying he profoundly disagrees with those who choose violence to make their anti-trade views known.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm very concerned about the violence. It's a tragic loss of life that occurred. It's also tragic that many police officers have been hurt. Men and women who are trying to protect democratically elected leaders and our necessary right to be able to discuss our common problems. I -- in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, I said as clearly as I could, and I'll say it here again, those who claim to voices of the poor aren't doing so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now as you mentioned, Donna, much of the focus here on the violent demonstrations, but Mr. Bush in this meeting now underway with the French President, Jacques Chirac, expecting tough questions and tough criticism of the U.S. position on global warming. Mr. Bush refusing to sign onto to the Kyoto protocol, which requires mandatory cuts in the emissions of so-called greenhouse gases.
Mr. Chirac in the closed meeting earlier today, we're told led a spirited discussion critical of the United States. The European allies united as well Japan, in trying to get Mr. Bush to reverse course and sign on, but he will not do so.
So Mr. Bush in for some criticism, some tough times of his own, at G8 summit where much of he focus though has been on the violence in the streets and the bitter disagreements over whether world trade helps the poor or exploits the poor -- Donna.
KELLEY: John King there at the summit. Thanks very much.
And talking about those protests, let's go to our Alessio Vinci, who is close to there in Genoa -- Alessio.
ALESSIO VINCI, CNN ROME BUREAU CHIEF: Well, good afternoon, Donna. World leaders meeting inside the G8 summit are saying that in due respect, the will of the people to demonstrate peacefully. And this is what the majority of the protesters here came to do, According to police, some 100,000 people protested today peacefully in downtown Genoa. The organizers put a number at about 150,000. They gathered around the 12:00 local time and they start marching through a route along the streets of Genoa, without seeking any kind of contact with the police or any of the security forces.
However, as the demonstrators went on, a small group of anarchists of extremists tried to break off from that group and tried seek direct confrontation with the police. We even witnessed some of the demonstrators themselves trying to hold on to those group, to hold them back and try prevent them from coming into direct contact with the police.
However, as a group of about 2,000 to 3,000 of those extremist broke off from that group, they came into close vicinity of where the police was standing by. They start throwing some rocks, some bottles -- empty bottles. They overturned some garbage bins. They set them on fire. And at that point, the police answered with a volley of tear gas.
We have seen at least several hundred of those tear gas canisters being thrown into the air and then where demonstrators for a couple of hours there were locked into a sort of a bitter confrontation with the police.
This time, however, the security forces tried to avoid a direct contact with the demonstrators, the sort of street confrontation hand to hand battle will that we have seen yesterday. During one of those confrontations, on reminder -- one policeman shot dead -- one of the demonstrators, and therefore today, there is a lot of anger, a lot of nervousness, especially among those anarchists today who have been calling those policemen assassins as they were demonstrating.
Back to you, Donna.
KELLEY: All right, Alessio Vinci. Thanks very much.
Now an issue coming under fire from some of Washington's most loyal allies, the Bush administration's missile defense plan. We have two guests to share their insights into the political mine field that's surrounding this military initiative. John Parker covers politics for "The Economist" and Celeste Wallander is the director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the center for strategic and international studies.
Hello to both of you. Thanks for coming to talk with us.
JOHN PARKER, "THE ECONOMIST": Thank you.
KELLEY: Celeste, let's start with you. This is one of the issues that will certainly be on table. They're going to talk about it, certainly, at the summit, particularly when President Bush meets with Vladimir Putin. How does it look to you at this point? Do you think that they've made any progress against, "No, you can't do this," and "Yes, we're going to do it anyway?"
CELESTE WALLANDER, STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, there has been a process of discussion. And what that process has focused on, on the Russian side is trying to figure out what system the United States is interested in deploying, because the Russian response will be different depending on what system the United States would like to develop.
From very limited system that merely say deploys some part of it in Alaska as opposed to something that would be based on sea in the sea, and also in space. So I think that that's what they're trying to figure out and what Putin is probably focusing on.
KELLEY: John Parker, how does it look to you at this point? Does it look like there is some room for compromise and that they could make some progress on the issue?
PARKER: Yes, I think so. At the last summit between Bush and Putin in Slovenia, they did agree that there should be talks, at least, about a treaty. And routing the missile defense in an agreement between Russia and America, I think, does make it possible, more likely anyway that America could deploy the system with the agreement of the Russians and therefore also with the agreement of the Europeans. Rather than just saying, "We're going to deploy this. Everyone just better get used to it. If they can do that, if the Americans can get that done, I think that will, you know, please them and to some extent allay the fears of the allies.
KELLEY: John, what about meeting though that Russia and China have just had? Where they've kind of cemented this informal or friendship partnership that they had before. How does that play into the equation?
PARKER: Yes, it's almost irrelevant, because in effect, the Russians are playing the China card. And they're saying, "Look, you know, unless we can come to some sort of an agreement, we'll maybe increase our sales of defense equipment to China. China might deploy more missiles, that's bad for the Americans.
I'm not certain, though, that this really makes a huge amount of difference because the fact of the matter is that whatever happens with national missile defense, that process is going to happen anyway. Russia is going to sell more equipment to China. And China, whatever happens with MMV, is going to deploy more missiles. So, I think to some extent if it's a threat, it's a fairly empty one.
KELLEY: Celeste, what do you think about that between Russia and China? Does that matter and how much?
WALLANDER: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I'm having actually trouble hearing you and I haven't heard anything that John said.
KELLEY: Sure. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. We just were visiting a little bit about how Russia and China, Mr. Parker was saying that in essence Russia was playing the China card, that this alliance and this meeting that they've had over the last couple of days, how that could play and if that makes a difference or not?
WALLANDER: Well, it does make a difference to Russian calculations, but not only because China gives Russia the option of having other countries on its side looking like the position against the American intentions, looks substantial and has a lot of international support.
One of the things to keep in mind is that the Russians are concerned that one of the Chinese responses to the American development of national missile defense might be that China will increase its deployment of offensive weapons not only directed at the United States, but also directed against China. So in addition to calculating what they might do in response to an American ability to shoot down their offensive missiles, Russian offensive missiles, the Russians are trying to calculate what it would mean to have more Chinese missiles pointed against Russia itself.
And so that makes the situation quite complicated for Russian military planners because they have to think about having the capability to deal with two different countries at the same time. And this is at the same time when they're trying improve politically, relations with China and develop a better political course of events in the Far East because they're concerned about China's role in the Far East. So I think the real problem that Putin is dealing with right now is the enormous uncertainty about what the United States is going to do, how that will affect China's role in the Far East and how that will affect Russian security interests globally, but also regionally in the Far East.
KELLEY: And quickly, if you can, Celeste, in addition to the 1972 ABM treaty, you think that perhaps other treaties could go by the wayside if something came on the table that Russia did not like?
WALLANDER: Well, certainly it's the case that if the United States begins to deploy any kind of missile defense that is not consistent with the ABM treaty. That is, if the United States decides to withdraw from the treaty, Russia will automatically withdraw from the START II, that it has already ratified.
One of the conditions of ratification that the Russian legislature put on ratification was that the ABM treaty continue in existence. So they would withdraw from the START II treaty, and that would enable them to maintain a greater number of nuclear missiles, but more importantly to deploy a larger number of nuclear warheads to deal with some of these contingencies I mentioned.
KELLEY: And real quickly, John if you can, can you tell us how likely you think it is that something might come out of this summit that would be some common ground?
PARKER: Well, I think that the sort of attempts to find the treaty is really a long-term thing. I think we're probably talking, you know, several years. The main step was made last time. I'm doubtful that we'll see more than a kind of couple of inches of progress. It seems to me that it's more now the sort of level of kind of, under secretaries of state. You know, they're down in amongst the details. And there's nothing likely to be ready for signing and talking at the very top.
KELLEY: Sure glad to have both of you join us. Thanks very much. John Parker covers politics for "The Economist" and Celeste Wallander is the director of the Russia and Eurasia program at Center for the Strategic and International Studies. Thank you both.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
