‘THANK YOU FOR coming today.’
The president was making the statement in the East Room, flanked by Defense Secretary Oakley and Treasury Secretary Opitz.
‘I would like to make a few remarks concerning some of the key issues that are facing us. The last weeks have not been easy ones for the American economy and I think the time has come to set this clearly in perspective and show that in fact our economy remains sound and the American people can be confident as we enter the holiday season that there is no return on the horizon to the kind of experiences we went through ten years ago. I also have some news to give you on our two brave airmen who were shot down in Uganda a month ago. I would like to start with that.’
The reporters gazed at him expectantly, pens poised. They had been told that he would not be taking questions.
‘As you know, we have been working constantly to locate our servicemen, Captains Pete Dewy and Phil Montez, utilizing all the intelligence capabilities at our disposal, and I would like to thank the many men and women in our military and intelligence services who have spent long hours in this quest. Their efforts have not been wasted. We now have what we consider to be incontrovertible evidence showing that Captains Dewy and Montez have been moved across the Ugandan border into Sudan and are now either in the control of the Sudanese army or at the very least that the Sudanese army is aware and permissive of their presence there.’ He paused. ‘This is a state of affairs that is not acceptable to the United States of America nor should it be acceptable to the government of any member state of the United Nations. I call on the Sudanese government to immediately release Captains Dewy and Montez, shot down and abducted while carrying out an operation sanctioned by the United Nations, who have been illegally conducted into Sudan and are being held either by an internationally proscribed terrorist group or by the Sudanese army itself. The Sudanese government should be aware that a failure to comply with this requirement at the earliest possible opportunity will be met with the severest response from the United States. Let me be clear on this – I take nothing off the table.
‘To the Dewy and Montez families, I will say what I have said from the start: we will get your boys back. We will leave no stone unturned, no effort undone, until they are with us again. We will get them back.
‘I would also like to take this opportunity to speak to the friends of Sudan within the international community. A true friend is one that tells its friend when it is in the wrong. So to the friends of Sudan: the United States expects you to use your good offices with Sudan to help achieve the immediate release of Captains Dewy and Montez, just as the United States would use its good offices with any of its allies, in the unlikely event that they would be so foolish as to engage in such an illegal act, to ensure that such an episode would be brought to a rapid conclusion. Any member of the international community that can use its relations with Sudan to help achieve this objective and chooses not to do so, will be seen by the United States for what it is – part of the problem and not part of the solution. Now let me say explicitly in this context, that the United States expects the government of the People’s Republic of China, as a friend of Sudan, to play its role. I remind the Chinese government that Captains Dewy and Montez were shot down and abducted while in the execution of an operation sanctioned by the United Nations, and as such it is the obligation of every member of the United Nations to do what it can in order to ensure the return of these two brave men. I expect that the government of the People’s Republic of China will comply with that obligation.’
He paused.
‘Now, I turn to the economic situation. It’s clear that we face a perfect storm of uncertainty that is creating widespread anxiety across the financial markets and the economy more broadly. I would like to step back and remind ourselves what has actually happened here. We have seen the bankruptcy of one bank resulting from a series of poor commercial decisions that were taken many years ago. This bankruptcy has created understandable caution on the part of other banks, for two reasons. First, they themselves have been exposed to losses from the failure of Fidelian. The Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have all worked closely with affected banks to understand the scale of these losses and at this point we do not believe that any other bank is in danger of failure as a result of Fidelian’s bankruptcy. Where additional liquidity has been required, Chairman Strickland of the Federal Reserve has been quick to provide this. The second reason: banks are understandably concerned about the possibility of additional banks being found to be in difficulty. This saps confidence and reduces the willingness of banks to lend to each other, with the effect of further freezing the system. The measures already taken have provided critical assistance and we believe that, as a result of this firm action, confidence is returning. Chairman Strickland and Secretary Opitz continue to monitor the situation on a daily basis and are ready to step in with further measures as needed. So let me be clear. There is no banking crisis in this country. There will be no banking crisis. Our banks are sound. Our regulatory authorities are closely monitoring the industry. The executive arm is ready to act.
‘So where does the uncertainty come from? It’s no secret that the collapse of Fidelian Bank took place in circumstances that were, to say the least, confusing. Inquiries are in train, both in Congress and within the Treasury Department, to understand the decisions that were taken by the Fidelian management in the days and weeks leading up to the collapse. The relevant law enforcement agencies are also looking into it. If there is even a hint of illegality in what was done, the full weight of the law will be brought against those responsible. But there is another question, and I want to openly acknowledge it. Were government-owned foreign investment funds involved in, or responsible in any way for, the decisions that were taken by the executive management of Fidelian Bank? And if so, was this involvement motivated purely by financial considerations – as would legitimately be the case with any investor – or was this involvement guided in some way by the ultimate owners of these funds, the relevant foreign governments, with non-financial motives?
‘Now, let me state this very clearly. The United States will not tolerate the manipulation of its markets for political purposes by any foreign government. We would view this with the utmost gravity as an attack on a vital interest of the United States. Now, let me also state this very clearly. I do not believe that this has happened. I do not believe that it will happen. We have already seen Prime Minister Peskarov of Russia state explicitly that in the case of Russian state investment funds, there is complete separation of the commercial management of the funds from the political process, and I thank him for his willingness to speak frankly on the matter and for his offer to cooperate with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities should this be required. I am very confident that you will see over the coming days other governments whose countries also run large investment funds making the same commitment. I invite all countries whose state investment funds hold US assets to provide this assurance. Most importantly, I expect the countries with the largest such funds to take a lead in making their position clear.’
He paused to ensure the implication was noted.
‘In case they do not – and I think they will, but in case they do not – I have asked Secretary Opitz and the relevant authorities to look at developing a set of regulations that can be enforced to ensure there is no manipulation of our markets. This is no different in principle from the many measures that already exist to prevent market manipulation. We have strong laws and we take firm action against individuals and institutions who engage in insider trading, propagation of rumor, and other manipulative practices. If there is the possibility of a new form of manipulative practice, in this case from foreign governments, we will introduce new measures to stop it. We will cut it off. States with funds that do not provide an assurance that they are acting purely on commercial grounds – and I hope there will be no such states – should expect to see these measures enforced rapidly and vigorously against them.
‘Those are the remarks I wanted to make today. I will leave it to Secretary Opitz and Secretary Oakley to provide further clarification.
‘Thank you. I wish you all happy holidays.’