 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Tuesday, 23 April 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-02-13U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next ArticleFrom: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>DAILY BRIEFING Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC February 13, 2001 INDEX: STATEMENTS TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I think you all saw the statement we issued this morning about the Secretary's meeting with Foreign Minister Ivanov that will take place in Cairo on the 24th of February, so that adds another little piece to the trip. Let me also say a few words about Colombia. I can go into a readout of the meeting with the Foreign Minister, but let me start by noting something that happened down in Colombia. And that was the decision yesterday by the Colombian tribunal to convict and sentence a retired general for failing to prevent the July 1997 massacre of at least 22 people by paramilitary forces. It has long been our position that cooperation between members of the Colombia armed forces and the paramilitary groups is unacceptable, and we welcome this decision by the courts. So we'll have a formal statement out on that. Should I just go right into the meeting, maybe? Okay. The Secretary met this morning for about half an hour with Colombian Foreign Minister Fernandez. I think the fundamental aspects, the primary aspect of the meeting, is that this relationship between the United States and Colombia is a strategic relationship for both of us. It's fundamental to our domestic situation as well as to our foreign relations, and it's a very important part of policy for both our governments, and we want to work very closely together. That was the theme of many of the specific discussions during the meeting. The Secretary expressed our strong support, our strongest support, for Plan Colombia and the efforts that the Colombian Government was making to bring peace, stability, development, and an end to trafficking to Colombia, and in turn recognized that the problems that beset Colombia, particularly from the narco-traffickers, have at their origin the demand for drugs in the United States, and said we would be working on that as well. They talked a lot about the progress being made. The Foreign Minister updated the Secretary on the implementation of Plan Colombia, noting specifically in the area of Putumayo province in the south, that they have made considerable progress in eradicating coca production. He gave figures of something like 30,000 hectares, some 50 percent of the production in that province, having been eradicated recently. And noted also that this is not taking place with some massive outflow of people or hardship to the small farmers. Much of this is taking place in large, industrial-size growing areas, and that the government has been successful in working with families, working with communities and working with several thousand, I think, families who have accepted alternative development models. So it was basically talking about how the experience in this province is showing that the model of Plan Colombia of eradication, but also alternative development and economic and social development, with communities can, in fact, work in these areas. And that was good news to us and the Secretary expressed our strong support. They also talked about continuing to work on how we go forward on these issues, the Secretary expressing once again, as he has in public, I think, his desire to look at also the regional picture, the Colombian Foreign Minister saying that was a good thing, and looking at the whole Andean situation as well as supporting Plan Colombia would be important. They talked about working with the Europeans and especially looking for more European support for what's called the soft side of the Plan Colombia, the economic and social development aspects which the Europeans have been interested in. So the Secretary promised to do what we could to help them out with that. They have some meetings coming up with the Europeans, I think, in a month or two. And in part of the discussion as well, they talked about the need to support democracy and human rights in Colombia. I think the Colombian Foreign Minister first mentioned that as among their priorities. The Secretary supported him on that, reiterated the need to keep the focus on democracy, on human rights and control the paramilitary groups, made quite clear that had to be an aspect of the plan as it went forward as well. So I would say it was a very positive, somewhat detailed discussion with the Colombians of how Plan Colombia is working, how Plan Colombia is achieving some success and how we can go forward in the future. Q: Do you have any information as to whether eradication is outstripping production or not? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have that -- he didn't talk about it in those terms. That may be the case. He talked about, I think, 50 percent of the production of the cultivation in that province having been eradicated. So I would assume that means the answer is yes, but he didn't specifically say it, and I think the Government of Colombia would probably be better at analyzing the figures than I am. Q: Is there a review of Plan Colombia? The Secretary said last month that a number of issues are being reviewed. Is Plan Colombia one of them? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think he talked about it in terms of any formal review. This is obviously an area of interest to the Secretary, and particularly looking at the possibilities, looking at what we do with neighboring countries, how we make it an Andean sort of strategy in addition to our continuing support, looking at ways we can continue to support Plan Colombia. That clearly has been something on the Secretary's agenda, and it was discussed in this meeting today. Q: The Foreign Minister, when he left, said that President Pastrana would be coming at the end of this month to meet with President Bush. I'm just wondering if during the discussion was there any invitation for Secretary Powell to go down to Colombia? He said in his confirmation hearings that he wanted to get down there at an early point. Is that still -- MR. BOUCHER: I can't remember it being a major issue or accepted, but I don't remember precisely whether at some point he said -- he suggested the Secretary might want to come to visit. I can't say absolutely not, but I think it's assumed that this is one of the places the Secretary would like to go to, and they talked about upcoming cooperation. So I don't remember it specifically, but I can't say for absolutely sure that it didn't come up in passing. Q: Well, can you confirm that Pastrana is coming? MR. BOUCHER: No, that would be for the White House to do. Q: Did Secretary Powell ask the Foreign Minister whether or not -- and I don't know, does this Administration think that the Colombians have made any progress, the Colombian Government, in controlling the paramilitary and their alleged human rights abuses? Have they made any progress since Plan Colombia was started? MR. BOUCHER: What the Foreign Minister mentioned and the Secretary emphasized was the need for a commitment to keep working in practical terms on control of the paramilitaries, improving democracy, making respect of human rights an integral part of this entire program. The Secretary said very clearly we want you to keep the focus on these things after the Foreign Minister said that he would focus on them. I think the evidence that they are doing some of that -- and obviously our human rights report and other areas will be very clear about where it is happening and where it's not happening -- but the specific thing that I cite today in terms of this court conviction I think is some evidence that there is a focus and that they are dealing with some of these issues. Q: And on the DMZ, the demilitarized zone, there are reports that the FARC have been using that area to cultivate more coca plants. Is that something that the US thinks is, in fact, happening and did Secretary Powell raise that with -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if the issue is more -- I can't tell you the exact size of production or cultivation in that area. What I think is important is that the government is aware of the need to eliminate coca production from that part of Colombia and that, in fact, in the understanding that was reached with the guerillas, with the FARC, there was provision for continued eradication programs in those areas, as well as alternative development proposals. So that is something that has been on my mind, on our minds as well as theirs. Q: So there is cultivation going on within the demilitarized zone of coca plants? MR. BOUCHER: And an understanding that there will be continued eradication in those areas as well. Q: Richard, there have been a lot of complaints coming from -- by campesinos down in Putumayo that the spraying is not only hurting the coca crop but also just regular crops. I am wondering in today's discussion whether there was any talk about how this could be avoided in the future. Any concern about that? MR. BOUCHER: That didn't come up, and nobody said that in the meeting one way or another. What did come up was the fact that there are several thousand families who have accepted the alternative development schemes. And I think, in our view generally, this has not been harmful for small farmers but rather has really been targeted on large cultivation areas. And as for small farmers, as the Foreign Minister said today, the government has been successful in terms of working with families, with communities, with small farmers, to move them into new crops where they can prosper. Q: Do you have a statement on the situation about the FARC, narco- trafficking and the guy from the FARC that was arrested in Mexico this morning? MR. BOUCHER: They didn't discuss that particular situation, but once again the general question of the links between the FARC and the narco- traffickers and the need for the FARC to eliminate those ties came up, and that was seen as very important to making progress, and making progress in the peace process as well. Q: (Inaudible) now that the general has been punished for the massacre, it is actually the first time something like that happened with a high- ranking member of the military. But there is more to be done according to the last report of the Human Rights in the State Department, so I will guess that there is advice to do some work and not stick with just the last punishment for General -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, the Secretary raised this in the meeting, not this particular case, but said it is important to keep the focus on democracy, human rights, controlling the paramilitaries. We would certainly describe this decision yesterday as an important step, but we would also say we do look forward to more signs in the months ahead that the Government of Colombia is actually severing its links -- severing the links between paramilitary groups and the military. Q: Did the question of formal human rights certification come up in the talks? And could you kind of fill us in where that is at this point, through Plan Colombia? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: Could you fill us in where that is right now? MR. BOUCHER: I think we've dealt with that a month or two ago, and I don't think there is anything new to say at this point. I will check in and see if there is anything new on the certification process for Colombia, but I am not aware of anything at this stage. Q: Could we switch to the Russian meeting in Cairo? Is that okay? Could you -- a very brief announcement here, a brief announcement there. Let's assume it's worth a story, so we need a few more words. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: I assumed it was worth a story. That's why we told you about it. Q: Well, I think you did about 47 words. On National Missile Defense, is this a chance for the Secretary to try his sales pitch on a missile defense, or do you have to wait until your evaluation is made here of the technology and of what plan to pursue, or can you do the two simultaneously, apropos the ABM Treaty? MR. BOUCHER: No, yes, maybe. Q: No, yes, maybe. Okay. MR. BOUCHER: Here is how I would describe the discussion. Obviously they are going to want to discuss the concepts involved with National Missile Defense. The Secretary has made it clear to you, and I'm sure will make clear in his discussions, that we think defense needs to be a part of the strategic concept as well as issues of offensive missiles and nonproliferation. I am sure they will want to discuss all those areas that relate to safety for both our governments, for both our countries, for both our peoples. So in those terms, yes, I would expect missile defense to be part of the discussion. This is going to be the first meeting between Foreign Minister Ivanov and the Secretary of State. I'm sure they will want to discuss a whole range of issues. They've had some conversations on the phone about the Middle East, about sort of the future of our relationships, about some of the issues in our relationship. I would expect the in-person meeting to be similar, to cover a large number of issues that will take place in Cairo. They will certainly want to talk about the situation in the Middle East. And missile defense will probably come up. But in terms of the question you asked, will he be selling a particular system, no, not until we have a particular something to sell. Q: He will be pushing the concept of a need for a missile defense? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Q: Okay. Now, on the assumption everybody has more nuclear weapons than they need, is this an opportunity to begin talking about getting rid of some of them? MR. BOUCHER: Barry, in terms of this meeting, I don't think we are prepared with an exact list of subjects that will come up in a couple weeks when they meet. Some of it will depend on where we stand with issues and where they stand. But I did say that I would expect this whole issue of strategic approach to these things to talk about -- you know, the subject of offensive weapons, nonproliferation efforts, defense -- those would be part of the strategic discussion that they might have. Q: An atmospheric question and then I'll let it go. The previous administration put a great deal of emphasis on relations with Russia. There was a new Russia emerging from the Soviet Union. It's there, it's got its problems, et cetera. Does this Administration intend to put all that much focus on Russia, or will Russia take its place as one of many issues that have to be looked after? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is a competition between administrations or a competition between governments and countries as to which ones we pay attention to. The Secretary has already spoken twice with Foreign Minister Ivanov. The President has spoken with President Putin already. This is obviously an important relationship to us and one that we will take seriously and work on seriously. Q: I meant, does Russia require from this Administration in 2001 the kind of attention, large attention, given Russia eight years ago by the Clinton Administration? Or has the situation evolved so that you don't have to do a day-by-day hand -- MR. BOUCHER: It sounds like a comparison to me. But, in any case -- Q: No, a comparison of Russia, not a comparison of administrations. MR. BOUCHER: I am not able to say that we are going to pay more attention to Russia than we are to France or more attention to France than we are to Colombia. Clearly, from what the Secretary has said to you, that you know Russia for us is an important country, an important relationship, and he will be working on it. Q: I know you said yesterday, I think it was, that you had nothing new from Moscow in terms of signs of flexibility regarding NMD. But I was wondering if you had anything more to flesh out these proposals that Moscow made as an alternative to NMD last year, since Lord Robertson is saying that he wants to raise those specifically when he goes to Moscow next week. MR. BOUCHER: Well, we welcome the statement from Foreign Minister Ivanov yesterday that Russia intends to be constructive in dealing with security questions, including National Missile Defense, but we will have to see when we have a chance to talk to him more about the details. Q: Something he said he intends to bring up with American officials is comments made by Condoleezza Rice in an interview carried by Luftahigaloo* Magazine at the weekend in which she described Russia as a threat. Is that something which has been discussed by people in this building with their Russian counterparts, or do you have anything more about the context of that? MR. BOUCHER: I think we saw the comment and then we went -- I mean, we saw the Russian comment on that yesterday and we went looking for the actual quote to figure out if she'd said it or not, and couldn't actually pin down that she said it. Maybe you have done your research better than I have. But I would suggest you might want to ask at the White House about that. Q: Am I correct in assuming that the venue for this meeting was purely a scheduling thing? There is no significance to the fact it's in Cairo as opposed to Kuwait or Brussels? MR. BOUCHER: It was a scheduling thing. I mean, obviously both of our governments have an interest in the Middle East, so it was a place that we were both able to travel to and wanted to be at. But we looked at various venues along the trip and this is the one that worked. Q: Does this give us any hint as to what the itinerary might be? Is it going to be the 24th, so is Egypt the first stop? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, Egypt is the first stop. I haven't put all the rest of the pieces together yet, but they are more or less in the order the Secretary described when he came down on Friday to tell you the trip. Q: And not alphabetically? Q: By the way, could you clear up a real small point? I believe, and if I'm mistaken I'm mistaken, but I thought he said Gaza and the West Bank. Is he going to both? Or was he just speaking -- MR. BOUCHER: I am not sure how he said it, but we will be seeing the Palestinians. I don't have an exact location yet. Q: But in one place, not two places? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, in -- Q: One or the other? MR. BOUCHER: In a place. (Laughter.) Q: Just one small thing on the Ivanov meeting. Do you know if they have ever met before in any other capacity before Powell was Secretary of State? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. Q: Can you say whether Marc Rich is an American citizen? And I know what your probable answer is going to be, and if that's what it is, then can you answer whether Congress has asked you to provide them with that information? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've gotten a direct request from the committee to the State Department. I think Treasury might have gotten it. We're working with Treasury to get documents back through them to the committee. We don't comment ourselves on the citizenship of private individuals. But I think, first of all, I would caution those writing about this to be very careful. It is a complicated area of law and one shouldn't speculate too much. But I would point out once again, as we have before, that the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled on his citizenship status in December of 1991 for the purpose of litigation that was before the Court. We weren't party to that litigation, but of course we're quite aware of the Court's findings, and that ruling is publicly available. Q: But you wouldn't dispute -- MR. BOUCHER: No, we wouldn't dispute the Court's decision. Q: Richard, when you say that you think the Treasury Department might have gotten such a request, do you know? I mean, if you say that you're working to get the documents back to Congress through Treasury -- MR. BOUCHER: Treasury has received a request and has identified over there -- I guess they had copies of some State Department documents, so they got referred -- we get asked before they're released back to the committee by the Treasury. That's what's going on. Q: So the request -- MR. BOUCHER: The request went to Treasury. Treasury is looking at their stuff. They found some State Department documents. They ask us before they release the whole bit to the committee. And so we would expect to authorize Treasury to release them on our behalf to the committee. Q: Richard, the case that you refer to found that Rich did not have the intent to give up his citizenship, intent being very important under the law. Does that mean that The New York Times was wrong on Sunday when they said that he is no longer a US citizen? MR. BOUCHER: I would refer you to the Court decision and ask everyone to read it as closely as you have. Q: The last time you talked about this, you said very clearly that -- you said exactly what Betsy asked you to say now. On January 31st you said he failed to show intent to abandon his US citizenship. MR. BOUCHER: That's what the Court found, yes. Q: Well, why didn't you just say it again for Betsy instead of asking her to go read the Court decision? Has something changed? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't ask her to read it. I asked everybody else to read it. Q: To follow up on that, The New York Times isn't the only one that's using this information. Yesterday, I believe on MSNBC, Michael Isikoff said that the US did not want to lose tax revenues from Marc Rich, and that's one of the reasons they didn't want him to give up his citizenship. What do you say to this? MR. BOUCHER: That's what we might call a personal hypothesis. It doesn't have any basis in fact. We don't make citizenship determinations based on tax revenue questions. We don't talk about any individual citizenship status. But still, I think as a general proposition I can reassure you that we do not decide on citizenship status based on tax revenue. We decide based on US law. The sole criteria are the ones in US laws and regulations, Sections 349 through 351 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Q: Richard, you said the State Department wasn't a party to that '91 suit. MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: But it was a participant, was it not? There were people from the Department that expressed an opinion as to whether Mr. Rich had -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what we submitted to the Court at that time. I would have to check. But we weren't a direct party. Q: Well, do you know if there was any participation? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know at this point if we had submitted some information or briefs or anything. Q: Richard, the Pentagon acknowledged today that their top Africa official has met with Savimbi's representative here in Washington after the inauguration. Was the State Department informed, and did the State Department approve of that contact, which apparently goes against the UN sanctions and the US policy? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what kind of contact or meeting or whatever this could have been. You would have to look to the Pentagon for that. We don't have official contacts with UNITA. We severed our official contacts in 1999 and there is no authorized or official contact with UNITA. Q: If I could follow up, apparently the UNITA representative met before the Inauguration with Carl Rove and asked for a review of that policy. Is any such review under way that you know of? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any change in our policy. It's quite clear what we've done, and I think it was done in accordance with UN decisions, too. Q: Do you have anything on the meeting this morning between US and British officials and Libyan officials? MR. BOUCHER: Not much because I think it's ongoing or just recently concluded. Let me check. They are meeting today. The discussion is about post-Lockerbie steps. People there -- our acting permanent representative, Jim Cunningham, the British permanent representative and the permanent representative of Libya. It is a continuation, I would say, of the consultations we held before the verdict on February 8th regarding the UN Security Council's requirements that Libya must fulfill. And as we said before, we will be looking to Libya to fulfill the requirements of the UN resolutions, including acceptance of responsibility and payment of compensation. Q: Can I follow up? Can you flesh out some of the goals of this particular meeting, like what was it you were hoping to get from this meeting? I know that the Council -- there are informal consultations on the Council later this afternoon. Is there something, an outcome of the meeting, that you are hoping to take to the Council? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe the meeting in those terms. The meeting is a chance for us to continue the discussions we had before the verdict. Now the verdict is out and there is a chance for us to reiterate that we will look to Libya to fulfill its obligations under the resolutions. Q: Do you have anything on the meeting with UN -- MR. BOUCHER: Do you want to do Libya some more. Q: Oh, sorry. Okay, after that, the meeting with Vendrell, perhaps? MR. BOUCHER: The Vendrell meeting. Still going on, too. Q: I just wanted to ask, you never mentioned in your comments the idea of indicting Qadhafi himself, and some experts are suggesting that he wants reassurances that he will not be indicted before paying compensation to the families. Does the United States Government have a position on whether he personally should -- MR. BOUCHER: The United States Government position, which we have reiterated here again and again, which the Secretary conveyed to the families in his letter and when he talked to them, is that we will follow the evidence wherever it leads. That remains our position. Q: That doesn't really address the direct issue of Qadhafi's personal potential -- MR. BOUCHER: We will follow the evidence wherever it leads. I think there was a dispute over a letter written last year that seemed to imply that we wouldn't go that far, but we have said quite clearly we'll go wherever it leads. Q: With no exceptions? MR. BOUCHER: There is no qualification of that statement. Okay, Vendrell. Q: I know it's still going on. Do you know where the matter stands on -- (inaudible) -- would ask the US not to -- (inaudible) -- ? MR. BOUCHER: No, and you'll have to get from him what he wants to say. I guess I'd just say in general, first of all, we support Mr. Vendrell's efforts on behalf of the United Nations. The peace efforts that he is undertaking are very important to us, and we have worked very closely with him for some time now. We will obviously take into account his views, but as I said, the meetings are going on today so I'm not able to get you any more detail until after we've finished talking to him. Q: Well, what about in general the US position on whether it should or should not enforce the UN sanctions? MR. BOUCHER: We generally believe that we should always enforce UN sanctions. Q: Usually in Washington, several intelligence experts said that the most powerful Islamic terrorist organization, they joined to forces and resources against the US citizens and the terrorists are planning to attack the interests and the US citizen lately. Did you have any this kind of intelligence? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, about whose joining forces? Q: Islamic terrorist organizations. Several Islamic terrorist organizations. MR. BOUCHER: Is this the meeting we heard about in Beirut? Q: Yeah. MR. BOUCHER: Okay. The convention, I think it was called. That's what it was. Mine says CONFAB, which is interesting. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: We have obviously seen reports that members of several terrorist groups met in Beirut in late January and that they pledged to work together against Israel. We believe the participants included Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups, but we have no information on other participants. The United States has consistently highlighted the destructive agenda of these groups who are working to undermine the cause of peace in the region. I think it goes without saying that we are absolutely opposed to this endeavor. Q: Can I follow up on that? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Q: Given that the meeting was in Beirut, is there a chance that there would be reconsideration that Lebanon should be on the terrorism list? They hosted a meeting with terrorists, and isn't harboring terrorism one of the conditions for being placed on the US list? MR. BOUCHER: I think obviously the issue of terrorism in Lebanon is a complicated issue, and one we've dealt with many times. We have bilateral cooperation with Lebanon. We work with Lebanon on the issue of terrorism. We all know that there are groups that continue to operate in this area, but as for our assessment of the situation, I think I'll invite you to wait until the terrorism report comes out. Q: Has there been any decision yet on the personal status of the Taliban rep? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of, no. Q: Could I follow up on this? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Q: Would it be fair to say that the United States -- that the State Department in any way would be willing to look at finding a formula that would allow them to keep a delegate in New York, even if the office wasn't open? MR. BOUCHER: I can't speculate in that direction now. I said we would -- obviously we will be listening to Mr. Vendrell's views and concerns, and we'll take them into account. We do have, and we have had, a variety of ways of having discussions, exchanging views, with Taliban and other Afghan representatives, and we would expect those to continue. Q: Can you give us a few words on the Secretary's hours tomorrow at the UN? Is it just Kofi Annan, or is there more to it? MR. BOUCHER: It will be a series of meetings. I don't have a full schedule for you now but he will be seeing some of our people, probably some other UN representatives and some things like that. Q: A very grim situation once again in Dhaka. Five people have been brutally killed in a mob attack sponsored by the government. A leading member of parliament was involved in that, and a spiking of moderate Islamic forces being attacked, which may trigger an extraordinary situation as days goes by. What is the position of the State Department on the grim political democratic flaws now visible in Bangladesh? MR. BOUCHER: I would say we have reports from our embassies about these clashes between pro-government and opposition demonstrators in Dhaka. They reported that at least four persons -- you say five -- including a police officer, were killed. We deplore the violence. It's unfortunate that it's once again disrupting the Bangladeshi political process. We've repeatedly stated that the government and all major parties should demonstrate tolerance and seek political accommodation. We understand the opposition has called for a second day of general strike on February 14, and we urge all political parties in Bangladesh to avoid violence while peacefully expressing their political views. For Americans, I would say or note that our Consular Information Sheet on Bangladesh addresses the issue of violent demonstrations and strikes, notes that visitors to Bangladesh check with the US Embassy in Dhaka for updated information. We have no information that any Americans have been killed or injured in this. Q: (Inaudible) for the US traveling to Dhaka? MR. BOUCHER: Information of this nature is contained in our Consular Information Sheet which is available on the web as well as frequently through travel agents. Q: The Israeli -- the three delegates from Mr. Sharon's -- for Mr. Sharon. But do you have a few words on at least who they will see? Will they see the Secretary? He's going out there. What do you expect to get out of this visit? MR. BOUCHER: They are meeting today with Assistant Secretary Walker and we would expect them -- well, they will meet tomorrow with Secretary Powell. Let me go back to the meeting itself. The discussions we would have with them, we would expect to focus on sort of the full range of US-Israel bilateral relationship, Prime Minister-elect Sharon's plans for what he does after he forms a government and the issues of advancing peace in the region. Q: Meanwhile, it seems not everybody is giving Sharon the chance to form a new government and be non-provocative. But there is violence on the ground and reports of rocket attacks even in the West Bank and Gaza? MR. BOUCHER: We are watching this situation very closely because, really, our assessment is the events over the last 48 hours represent a serious deterioration of the security situation on the ground at a time that we all recognize is very, very sensitive. The use of Israeli helicopter gunships, Palestinian attacks against settlements and motorists, the use of mortars by Palestinians and the targeted killings by the Israeli Defense Force today are producing a new cycle of action and reaction which can become impossible to control. And the Secretary, I know, has spoken to you several times about the need to avoid these kind of actions. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to do everything they can to stop the violence, to maintain calm and to create the right environment for dialogue and negotiation. Q: Can I ask, because just today we have two really different views of security. The Israelis are talking about willing to energetically pursue peace but they have to have a secure environment first. Hassan Nassrallah this morning saying you can't arrange security before negotiations; security comes out of a just agreement, it flows from an agreement. It can't be a precondition to the Palestinians getting, you know, their just desserts or their rights. How does the Administration feel particularly about Israel wanting security before it moves ahead? Or do you just move ahead and hope for the best? MR. BOUCHER: Obviously we will talk to the parties officially about their views of this, particularly once we have an Israeli government, we will talk in more detail and have a better idea of how to proceed. But I think if you look at the way the United States has addressed the issue of security and continues to address it today, security is its own virtue. Security is what the people of the region need because they need peace, they need calm, they need an end to the violence, an end to the tragedy and an end to the killing. So irrespective of what is or is not going on in the peace process, I think we've had a very clear view that both sides really do need to do everything they can to bring calm and tranquility to people's lives, that we expect the parties to take such steps. And I think you have heard me be quite clear today about some of the steps we think are risking a new round of provocation and counter-provocation. Q: Is it risking? It's already happened -- MR. BOUCHER: It's starting. Q: Has the Secretary spoken to anyone by telephone on this specific subject, since this deterioration began? MR. BOUCHER: No, not in the last 24 hours. Obviously, we have embassies in the region and people who are very active out there diplomatically. Q: Can I go to China? There seems to be another -- a week away or a little over a week away from your Human Rights Report coming out, and I don't expect you to preview that. But I was wondering if you could address two things happening. There is the trial going on that's been closed of this Internet web publisher. And also there is some new information coming out about an even stronger crackdown on Falun Gong. Do you have anything to say about those two? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I can speculate on either of those specific matters. I would say that we will come out with our Human Rights Report very shortly and would refer you to that for a lot of specifics of what we deal with. But we have been quite clear about the need for respect for human rights, the respect for transparent judicial procedures, et cetera, in China, and I think we have maintained that position very clearly. Q: The Human Rights Report is not going to cover these things that just happened -- MR. BOUCHER: Would not cover necessarily the last few days. But you would have an opportunity at that time to ask people about that in more detail, I'm sure. Q: I have another Asian one -- Q: (Inaudible.) I wonder if you have any comments on this. It is, indeed, a bit delicate time for these things to happen, you know? MR. BOUCHER: I am not sure it's a new incident. The report I saw said the Japanese were looking to have someone arrested for it. And certainly our people out there -- I've seen Marine spokesmen out there answering the questions and dealing with the issues, so I think I will leave it to them. They do cooperate with local authorities in matters such as this. Q: That was my question. If I may follow up on that, this is the Marine commander there has issued what is now the US's third apology to the Japanese Government -- the Japanese national government or to the Okinawa government in the past week. Are you yet prepared to say that the situation is not as good as you would like it to be, that there is, in fact -- I mean, it is pointless to deny that there are strains in this relationship now. MR. BOUCHER: Thank you for that advice. But -- Q: You're going to say again today that there is no strain in the US- Japan relationship? MR. BOUCHER: Thank you for the opportunity to say what I want to say. All I can say is obviously these incidents are regrettable. We don't like to see things like this happen. We try to cooperate with the Japanese, pursue any crimes that occur, cooperate with them when we have a tragedy like the ship sinking near Hawaii. Clearly, none of us want these things to happen. They are very regrettable and we work with the Japanese on them because they are a concern to us, as well as we feel we understand the depth of Japanese concern about them as well. But the fact we do cooperate on these matters, that we do work with them as partners and friends in a compassionate way, is a reflection of the fact we have a fundamentally solid relationship with Japan. We have a fundamentally strong relationship that is based on our mutual interests. It's an alliance that goes back 50 years. And we certainly regret that all these things happen. But I would just caution you from moving from various specific incidents that occur from time to time to some broad view of the relationship. The relationship is solid, and the fact is that we need to deal with these things in a cooperative manner with the Japanese because we have such an important relationship. Q: So you seem to be implying that there is a little bit of a bump in the road but that it can be overcome. So I just don't understand why you can't say that, yes, we would like -- we want to work to resolve these problems, the fact that they are in fact problems. MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Matt, I'm going to have to explain things the way I explain them and not adopt somebody else's words. Q: Richard, can we go back to Angola for a second. You mentioned this week and earlier a Defense Department official and somebody in the UNITA movement -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't; somebody else did. Q: You explained it? MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't explain it. I don't know anything about it. Q: Well, it happened. MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Thank you. Q: And I wanted to know -- my question to you is how is this not a violation of sanctions by the United States in international law, this meeting? MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I said I didn't know any details of this supposed meeting or encounter, but I would note that we have not had any official meetings of any kind. We have severed our official meetings or ties or contacts with UNITA since early in 1999. That remains our policy. Q: There remains the fact that there has been this meeting. MR. BOUCHER: Well, then, we will look into it and see what kind of meeting it was. But in terms of it being an official meeting of the US Government with UNITA, it was not -- I would not put it in that category. Q: Which category would -- how would you describe it? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know anything about it; I can't describe it. I've said that about 12 times. Sorry, okay, I said that three times, for those who want absolute accuracy here. Q: Iraqi opposition groups are in the State Department today. Whom did they meet with and do you have any more information -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there were some meetings today with the Iraqi National Congress, or there will be. Assistant Secretary Walker is scheduled to meet with them this afternoon. The meeting is part of our ongoing cooperation with the Iraqi National Congress and other elements of the Iraqi opposition. Today's meeting will focus on operational details involved in implementing the cooperative agreement between the Iraqi National Congress and the Department of State. Q: We never quite wrapped up on Colombia. Just a quick question. Ambassador Moreno has said that, in addition to the $1.3 billion that we are providing under Plan Colombia, that Colombia will need at least another $500 million. I'm wondering, was that discussed at all today. MR. BOUCHER: No, not in those terms or in specific monetary terms. The discussion centered on the desire of the United States to continue to support Plan Colombia. There was actually considerable discussion of trade and the need for the opportunity to trade and, frankly, to go forward in the whole hemisphere with the free trade agreements to provide the kind of economic opportunity that Colombia would need in the future. So the subject of economic development, trade and support for Plan Colombia was discussed, but nothing in those kind of specific terms. Q: I would like to go back to the story about Ukraine. The European Union -- the Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh, said that they were also concerned about media freedoms but they wouldn't consider imposing -- or they are unlikely to consider imposing sanctions on Ukraine. I wondered if apart from calling on European leadership to conduct a proper inquiry into the disappearance of Heorhiy Gongadze, if the United States is considering any additional ways of trying to encourage them to do so. MR. BOUCHER: I think in our public statements and in our diplomacy, you've seen us make quite clear to the Government in Ukraine that we are troubled by the developments there and by the way this case has been handled. But I think I will leave it at that for the moment. I would expect that to continue. Q: Can you explain what is going on with Vicki Huddelston and her dog, and if this building is actually taking this as a serious thing? MR. BOUCHER: Well, you've got to take it seriously because it's a man- bites-dog story, and so therefore it's obviously news. It strikes us as somewhat Orwellian of the Cuban Government to try to use every aspect of life for political reasons. I guess we would say that it's unfortunate that the Cuban Government would even kick Ambassador Huddelston's dog. (Laughter.) Q: Do you mean Orwellian in the "1984" sense or the "Animal Farm" sense? Q: Or "Politics in the English Language," sense? MR. BOUCHER: All of the above. (Laughter.) Q: Can I follow up on that? MR. BOUCHER: Please. Is this going to lead to more Afghan questions? Q: She actually called her dog Havana. I mean, do you think that's an appropriate name for an American envoy to give her dog? (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, we believe in freedom of expression, including in the naming of dogs. Q: Can I do one more opposition question? I understand the Zimbabwean representative of the Movement for Democratic Change was in a meeting here yesterday. Who did he meet with and should we read this as a signal to the Zimbabwean Government about the situation over there? MR. BOUCHER: I would just describe this as a standard meeting that we have with prominent members of society, a prominent member, in this case, of Zimbabwean society. On Monday, our Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Africa Bureau, Mark Bellamy, met with the Zimbabwean minister of parliament who was visiting Washington. So we routinely have meetings with prominent people from all aspects of society. Q: Do you have anything more on that meeting? MR. BOUCHER: No, nothing more. Q: On Colombia again. The last agreement between President Pastrana and the FARC said that there will be an international commission on the DMZ zone next month. I wonder if the United States wants to be in that group of countries checking the peace process? MR. BOUCHER: That wasn't discussed this morning in those terms. US participation wasn't discussed this morning. I'll check to see if there is anything to say on it. Q: Hasn't it always been the US position that Castro's bark is worse than his bite? (Laughter.) Q: We've got to get him a job? MR. BOUCHER: We've got to get him a job, yeah. [end] Released on February 13, 2001
U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.