U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #103, 00-10-20

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing

INDEX_ FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2000_

Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

NORTH KOREA
1,9-10   Secretary's Travel to North Korea / Schedule
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
1-4      Steps by Israel and Palestinian Authority after Sharm El Sheikh
1-2      Continuing Violence on the Ground / Security Contacts Resumed
10-11    Upcoming Arab League Summit / Peace Process
YEMEN
5-9      USS Cole Explosion / Investigation/Department's Travel Warnings
TURKEY
9        US House Withdraws Armenia Genocide Resolution
SERBIA (FRY)
12       Possible Travel by UN Ambassador Holbrooke
EGYPT
12-13    Elections

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #103

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2000, 12:35 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, the few, the hardy, the brave, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I don't have any statements, so I would be glad to take your questions.

Mr. Lee.

QUESTION: Is there anything new, anything more to report, on the details of the trip to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is, actually. We look forward to going out there. We talked about the schedule as much as we could yesterday, and the details of sort of different meetings and things like that have yet to be worked out so we don't have the details of her schedule.

QUESTION: You still don't know, then, when the Kim Jong Il meeting is, whether it's --

MR. BOUCHER: Don't know which day it is, no. We just know it will happen.

QUESTION: All right. Well, then let's move to the Middle East. What's new there?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you have seen the media reports of violence and things that are going on. In the last several days since the Sharm el Sheikh meeting, some things have happened. Both sides have issued the statements calling for an end to violence. Israel has opened the Gaza airport and the international passages. Israel has also taken steps to lift the internal closure of the West Bank. However, there are some areas that remain closed due to continuing clashes.

There are indications that the Palestinian Authority has moved to re-arrest militant extremists and/or restrain the activities of Hamas. In addition, the security contacts between the two sides have also resumed.

Nonetheless, as we said from the beginning of this, we have no illusions about how difficult it is going to be. Today has been a particularly difficult day, and we certainly regret the additional loss of life and the violence that has occurred.

However, despite the anger and the frustration at what was happening on the ground, at Sharm el Sheikh there was a recognition from both sides that a negotiated solution was the only way to end this confrontation; and both sides seemed to recognize that a negotiated solution, however difficult it is to achieve, is immensely preferable to a future of continued violence and bloodshed.

So the bottom line is we continue to have hope. We continue to work with the parties and expect the parties to work to calm the situation so that we can all get back to the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

QUESTION: You said you will continue to work with the parties. Can you be more specific about who is working with them, how, what they are saying?

MR. BOUCHER: The principal venue for that -- in security terms-- is meetings of security officials from both sides and contacts between them. We have people through our diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, our Embassy and Consulate, who work with them to make those things happen and to help facilitate their contacts and hopefully reach outcomes that serve to quell the violence.

QUESTION: Okay, so those mainly. Is there anything at a higher level above the security committee meetings?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, the President talked to the Prime Minister and the Chairman yesterday, so his efforts are also useful.

QUESTION: Today has anyone --

MR. BOUCHER: I am not aware of any phone calls today, but actually I didn't check on the Secretary's phone calls from the airplane. She is on her way back from Palm Beach. So I will get you additional information if she has been active, too.

QUESTION: This is in the media at least that Arafat has been silent since Sharm el Sheikh. Is the Administration fully satisfied with the Palestinian statement, and would you like to see more coming from him personally?

MR. BOUCHER: I think at this point we are trying to work with both sides to carry out all the steps that were agreed at the Sharm el Sheikh meeting, to get them to take effective steps to calm the violence. I have to say we don't think it is useful at this point to keep a scorecard on who is doing what. The first priority is to end the cycle of violence. At some point we may decide to comment on how each party has been carrying out its obligations, but at this particular stage we don't think that would be useful.

QUESTION: So you're preparing a scorecard?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we are not.

QUESTION: But you just said --

MR. BOUCHER: We are at a stage when people are in the process of implementing obligations. We don't think this is the moment to try to judge how much this guy has done, how much that guy has done. At some point in the future that may be appropriate, but not now.

Okay?

QUESTION: It seems that a few weeks ago the Administration was still firmly in the position of Arafat does have complete control over what happens in the streets, and then -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but it seemed that the Secretary said on her way back from Saudi Arabia that, while he may not have complete control, he certainly had the authority to rein in the protestors. But that is something that people are continuing to question, and it seems like it may not be fair to Arafat if he doesn't have complete control to suggest that he does.

Does the State Department believe that he has complete control?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have actually ever said that he had complete control. We have always said that he had the authority and he had the responsibility. Leaders have the responsibility to take measures and to lead. And so we look to leaders on both sides to take steps and to lead and to implement their commitments. That is what we have always said -- that he had the authority to do so; he had the responsibility to do so.

QUESTION: But doesn't that suggest -- as the Sharm el Sheikh agreement was being announced, there were Palestinians who were saying that it didn't apply to them and that they weren't going to abide by it, regardless of what Arafat said. So are you saying that you do hold him responsible for those factions?

MR. BOUCHER: He is the leader of the Palestinians, and we think he has a responsibility to carry out the steps, and he should assume the authority or exercise the authority that he has in that position. But that applies to the leaders on both sides.

QUESTION: But what the question here -- the issue is -- does he have the capability of reining in, controlling all of the various factions of the Palestinian group? Does the US think that he has got that capability?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me put it this way. The leaders in Paris, and then in more detail in Sharm el Sheikh, made commitments about what they would do. They certainly have the capability to carry out their commitments, the authority and the responsibility to carry out the commitments that they made.

Now, if those commitments are somehow carried out thoroughly and there are still people who engage in violence, we would also expect that the basic structure of security cooperation between both sides would be able to cope with whatever was still going on. But first and foremost, everybody has a responsibility to carry out their commitments.

QUESTION: I'm a bit intrigued by your remarks about keeping scorecards and saying you might do this in the future, or you might release your scorecard. Do you consider that what you did before Sharm el Sheikh was releasing a scorecard? Because that is the way it came across to many people.

MR. BOUCHER: We have probably changed the metaphor several times. I don't think I'm going to get into that. We will characterize things when we need to characterize them. I think what we are just saying today is this is an interim point, a point at which people should be carrying out their obligations. It is not the point at which to judge exactly which party has done which steps. It is a time for us to keep working with the parties to get them to carry them out fully.

QUESTION: But at some stage you might do that?

MR. BOUCHER: We may want to do that at some point.

QUESTION: In terms of following up commitments, both sides have complained that written agreements like Wye have -- there have been breaches in contract. Why do you think this unwritten agreement will result in both sides keeping their commitment at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: The commitments are clear; the responsibilities are clear.

QUESTION: Well, clearly in what you said earlier about if both sides would only carry out those commitments, you don't think that Arafat has yet done that. What are some of the specific things that he has yet to do?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't exactly say that. I said that both sides have a responsibility to carry out their commitments, and we expect to see them carried out.

I have talked about some of the things that we have seen done. I think if you want to go back and compare that to the full checklist that the President gave at Sharm el Sheikh, you can do so. I think what is important is to see that these steps be made complete and effective and that we see everybody taking every possible step to end the violence.

QUESTION: Do you think that Barak has gone further than Arafat in upholding his end on the commitments made?

MR. BOUCHER: That is exactly what, for the last four questions, I have declined to do.

QUESTION: I thought I would try.

QUESTION: Can we move on to the Cole, or are there more questions on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure. We've got one back there, but I think I might know the topic, so let's do this one first.

QUESTION: There has been discrepancy or kind of back and forth about whether you are calling this an apparent terrorist attack or you have, in fact, decided that it is a terrorist attack. Can you clarify the position on this, and also talk about reported warnings that the State Department and/or other agencies received about threats to American interests abroad and when they received these warnings and who they notified?

MR. BOUCHER: The question of what it is called, I mean, I think we have from the beginning sort of said it appears to be a terrorist attack. That is quite clear to all of us. It is probably abundantly more clear every day as we proceed into the investigation. At what point the investigators want to make some kind of statement that it was terrorism, I think we have to leave to them. And I think all you have is some of us deferring to them to make that declaration, if it is appropriate for them to make at some point.

It is clear to everybody that this was terrorism. The Yemeni president, I think, has called it a criminal act. Obviously, the investigators will make whatever formal declaration is made, but I think, to all of us who have looked at this, to you all who have looked at this, we certainly all are convinced that that is what it is. But whether there is some sort of formal thing that has to happen in the investigation, I would leave that to the investigators.

The investigation is continuing. They are still working. As Director Freeh noted yesterday, the Yemeni police and security authorities are running the investigation, the United States obviously playing a very strong role in support of those efforts. We have praised the Government of Yemen -- and I will do that again -- for the excellent cooperation we have had, the very good investigative work that they have done thus far. The FBI presence, obviously, there is temporary.

Director Freeh cautioned against speculating as to who might have been responsible, noting that such conclusions will be based on facts uncovered as the investigation proceeds. So I know there is a lot of reporting out there on that today.

Now, with that introduction, let me get to the second part of your question, which is questions of warnings and information we may have had. First, I have to say I can't talk too much about the specific information because we don't comment on intelligence matters. I would note a couple of things, though.

First of all, we routinely share threat-related intelligence information with our posts overseas, as well as with friendly governments; but, in addition to that, we have a very clear policy not to have a double standard when it comes to informing Embassies and the American public about possible terrorist threats. When we receive information about a possible threat to Americans that is specific, credible, and cannot be countered, we make it available to the public through our consular information program. And, indeed, you have just seen that yesterday -- or the day before yesterday -- we did put out information that individuals may be planning terrorist actions against the United States citizens and interests in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey. We have put out announcements like that in the past when we had information that we needed to inform our posts and the public about.

More on this?

QUESTION: To follow up on that, yesterday in a hearing on the Hill, it came out that there was no real vetting process from our Embassy in Yemen. Are there any kinds of repercussions at this point given --

MR. BOUCHER: I know people are looking to cause trouble on this, and I'm just not going to get into that. The investigators are going to have to look at how this specific attack happened. The military, I believe, has looked into the procedures, is looking into the procedures for establishing security as appropriate at the ports.

We and the military and the admirals and the generals have said the same thing to you all along -- they make these final decisions in consultation with us and other agencies around town. We are in this together. If we can learn anything from this attack that helps us make American sailors and soldiers safer overseas, as well as Embassy personnel, we are going to do that. I am sure we will all be looking at what happened and how one can do a better job in the future and help protect people. And that is what this is all about, but I'm not going to get into these games, frankly.

QUESTION: Not the specific -- just in a more general sense, though, if you do receive a threat that is able to be countered rather than just a very vague -- or if there was something that you couldn't do to counter the specific threat, that you wouldn't issue a public warning, you would just beef up that area where --

MR. BOUCHER: No. I mean, if there is no danger to people, we don't need to tell them about the danger. I am sure we have had instances in the past where there might have been a threat against a specific flight where we could have gone to the airline and said, "Cancel this flight. Book your passengers somewhere else." In that case, people get rebooked but you don't need to make a big announcement because there is no danger to people. So situations like that or where there is a specific target or a specific thing where somebody gets arrested and the threat is countered, then obviously we don't have to tell people there is a danger because there is no more danger.

QUESTION: This might be overly obvious, then, but since we didn't get a travel warning about Yemen until after the blast, you're saying that there was no specific information received in advance, as has been -- as at least mentioned, speculated in the press -- against US interests in Yemen?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you don't have to infer that from the travel warning. I think you have to accept the fact that we have said that. There wasn't a specific warning of this kind of attack in Yemen. I think you should, however, be aware of the Consular Information Sheets in places like that where we would, I am sure, talk about the possible dangers of Yemen and the fact that it is a place of considerable potential in terms of violence and dangers like this.

QUESTION: Since it really kind of falls to the State Department to make not just the host government but the host country feel comfortable with all the investigators there, and repeated issues in the newspaper, including today, about how uncomfortable the people of Yemen may be with such a strong US military presence there now with all the investigators that have come in, what is the State Department doing to try and make the people of Yemen more comfortable? Are they even asking maybe military officers not to be in uniform, or what are some of the things that you may be considering?

MR. BOUCHER: Frankly, I don't know what sort of local guidelines we might have established. I know our Ambassador has been on the scene working closely with the military.

The number of people there actually fluctuates because of the different teams that need to be in there to do different things. We have the medical and the military and the recovery and the families and the investigators, different kinds of people that go in at different times. And then as the ability of the military to house people offshore or otherwise take care of their people grows, then some people can move out to ships.

But at this --

QUESTION: Is this something that you all are asking them to do, to not be such a visible presence in --

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't put it in terms of asking. I think, first of all, the first goal of this is to take care of the people who were injured; and then, second of all, to get the investigation under way and find out who did this. So that remains the priority. And we have said all along we have had excellent cooperation from the Yemeni Government on this. They have helped us out, and I think they share those goals as being the first goals.

Now, how we manage that in the process, I will check and see if we have issued any instructions from Washington but, in most of these cases, our Ambassador is on the scene. She works with the people on the ground and the local government to try to make sure that we do accomplish those goals, but we accomplish them without too much disruption and inconvenience to the people around us.

QUESTION: You may not have anything on this because it came up just before we came in, but Ned Walker was meant to testify to a closed session of the Senate Armed Forces Committee this morning, and it didn't happen. Do you know what the problem -- what came up?

MR. BOUCHER: I think he didn't testify because the Pentagon, which was in the lead, either rescheduled or wasn't able to attend or something like that. So the military was in the lead on this one, so when the hearing was canceled he didn't go either.

QUESTION: But he's still planning on speaking tonight, yes?

MR. BOUCHER: Is he?

QUESTION: Actually, Richard, they said -- they were kind of blaming it on the State Department. They said that it was the State Department that wasn't ready to give testimony.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, who is "they"? I mean, Ned -- I talked to Ned this morning, and he told me he was ready to go up on the Hill, but the thing was canceled because the military wasn't going to be there.

QUESTION: No, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that, I guess --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, tell "they" they are wrong, okay?

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: If you would.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, Senator Warner's office is saying that it was the State Department that --

MR. BOUCHER: All right. Well, you can tell "they" that they are wrong, if you would, on my behalf.

QUESTION: I think they told him -- (inaudible) -- for a delay.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Well, there you go.

QUESTION: This happened just before we came in, or fairly late this morning. Do you have any reaction on the first guilty plea on the Africa bombings?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't at this stage. I think certainly our desire to pursue justice in this case is very strong. I just saw the wire report. I don't know what role we have had in this particular prosecution, but certainly the Africa bombings was a terrible tragedy for us all, and we want to see it pursued.

QUESTION: Can you make someone available? We had put in a request for someone to be available to comment on this, and we were told it would be you at the briefing.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's nice. You tell them that they are wrong, too.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: They work for you.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, sometimes even people that work for me get things wrong. I will see if we have something on it, but I don't have anything on it right now.

QUESTION: The Speaker of the House last night withdrew H.R. 596, which is the so-called Armenian Genocide Resolution. Do you have any reaction on this?

MR. BOUCHER: I have the same reaction that the White House had. We applaud the decision. We think it was the right decision for the United States and for our national interests.

QUESTION: And also, for that reason, your Embassy in Ankara, they issued a travel warning because of some demonstration might happen. Do you plan to lift this travel warning?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure as things calm down, assuming that they do, that we will adjust our advice to Americans accordingly.

QUESTION: Is the State Department currently considering the real IRA for -- to be designated as a terrorist organization? And is there also any concerns over the shooting in Belfast last week, where it has been attributed to the provisional IRA, whether or not you are now considering that also as a breach of --

MR. BOUCHER: Both good questions that I will have to check on. Sorry, I don't have an answer for you right now.

QUESTION: Richard, as I walked in, you were talking about Korea, though not very much. Is your well dry there? You can't say anything about how --

MR. BOUCHER: Please tell me something about Korea. We don't have any more details on the schedule. I think we got to the people who wanted to travel with us. We got to them last night with information about who we can get on our plane and the people that we will be going out of Beijing on the press charter that will go on Sunday. And then I think the goals for the visit remain the same as they were yesterday, so I am afraid I don't have too much in the way of updates for you.

QUESTION: You don't have agenda items that she is going to raise while she is there?

MR. BOUCHER: Not at this stage, no.

QUESTION: Are you going to have any kind of briefing for the trip this afternoon?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we will be able to do anything more in advance. We have done considerable amounts of Korea briefings in the last week or two, but we will have to get there and get to work and talk about it then.

QUESTION: Actually, I just thought of, scheduling-wise, isn't it true that something has changed about the Seoul stop? Aren't we spending the night now in Seoul, please?

QUESTION: Tell "they."

QUESTION: I don't have a "they."

MR. BOUCHER: I got here new schedule this morning. I punched holes in it and put it in my little notebook, but actually I didn't read it. But I didn't notice that anything had changed. Is Sahar here? Do you want to look at my little notebook and see if I can say no?

QUESTION: I think the question is: Are we spending Wednesday night in Seoul?

MR. BOUCHER: That is a good question. I will check on it. All right, we will check on it and get to you afterwards. I am not sure this is the definitive schedule, anyway.

QUESTION: Richard, can I ask about the Arab League for a second? On Tuesday, Qadhafi was on Algerian television saying that -- reading, I guess, a draft of an Arab League resolution requesting that certain states that have low-level ties with Israel break them off. This is being considered. Can you describe, besides the visit to Riyadh, what kind of diplomatic efforts are being -- the United States is undergoing right now in anticipation of the summit?

MR. BOUCHER: I think, once again, I think what I have said is we have been in touch with a lot of people about Sharm el Sheikh and about the need to implement that and support it, support the leaders -- and, in this case, Chairman Arafat -- as he proceeds to implement those agreements and commitments from Sharm el Sheikh.

So that has been the context for our discussions, and obviously in those discussions with various Arab leaders the question of the Arab League summit comes up. It is clear from our discussions with -- that I think a wide spectrum of Arab leaders understand the sensitivity of the current situation and the commitments that were made at Sharm el Sheikh. We expect t at this critical juncture that Arab leaders will want to make a constructive and positive contribution to the successful implementation of the Sharm el Sheikh understandings and the eventual restoration of negotiations.

I think President Mubarak had some comments this morning on television. I am sure others will be commenting as well. We know that there are a substantial number and a wide spectrum of leaders who support the Sharm el Sheikh agreements who will want to be positive about it, and I am sure we will hear voices on the other side as well. But we see this as an opportunity for the Arab League to support the path towards an end to violence and to support the path back to its peace, which is the only way in the end to resolve the issues in the region.

QUESTION: Does "constructive" in this case mean not sanctioning Israel, or trying to persuade others not to sanction Israel?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have been able to write the Arab League communiqu�. They are going to have to do that. They are going to have to decide. Obviously we don't think it is a time to break relations with Israel or cut off contacts or things like that; that both sides need the support of everyone in the region in terms of implementing the commitments and bringing calm back to the situation. I don't think anybody wants more violence.

QUESTION: Okay. A couple of related questions. First of all, very quickly, is there any difference between a "substantial body" and a "wide spectrum"? Or is it pretty much the same thing? Is that just your --

MR. BOUCHER: Those are just pretty much the same thing. They are --

QUESTION: Okay. Has the Secretary sent out the message to -- have you got an answer on that yet? I mean, we asked you about three days or four days and nobody ever --

MR. BOUCHER: Did you get our answer yesterday? I apologize for not beating somebody into giving me an answer on that. I will do that today.

QUESTION: You said it is not the time to break off relations with Israel. So you think the Omanis, for example, were -- made a mistake in doing this -- what they have done?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I will leave it as a general comment for the moment, to say that we think all the parties -- everybody in the region should be supporting all the parties, and not breaking off contact.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, I had a question about the Cole. Let's go back there just a step. Has there been any other warnings of any kind that you can share with us about any actions against this beefed-up force that is in there, especially the Marines and the FBI and those guys?

And, secondly, are those US personnel being protected by some kind of a perimeter? Do they have a base unto themselves that is safe?

MR. BOUCHER: On the first question, any other warnings of any kind against anybody that we have in Yemen, undoubtedly the answer is probably yes, but I don't have anything that I can share with you. I mean, I don't know for sure. I haven't seen anything myself, but I don't think it is worth us going to look for something that we wouldn't be able to share.

On the second issue, they provide, as part of the package of people who go in, as part of the operation that goes in, they make arrangements for security. So they are very well protected in these situations.

QUESTION: They are well protected?

MR. BOUCHER: As well as possible, yes. Everything that they can do.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to Congressional Republicans saying that the Clinton Administration is not answering questions that they have raised about the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I took the opportunity to answer them here for five or ten minutes the other day.

QUESTION: Right, but now yesterday --

MR. BOUCHER: And I would be glad to do that again, if I could. But --

QUESTION: But I think what we only went over before was all the times that the State Department points out that they have been briefed in the past. Has the State Department provided any briefings this week or any --

MR. BOUCHER: Have we been asked to and done any more recent briefings? I will have to check.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I believe Ambassador Holbrooke is due in Yugoslavia this weekend?

MR. BOUCHER: That is what I understand, but I am not sure I have any details on where he is going and what he is going to do. You might check with his office on those.

No, I don't think I am going to try to do it, Chuck. I think we will leave it to him. The underlined word says we are not certain about this, that and the other. I think we will leave it to him to detail whether he is traveling and where he is going.

QUESTION: I asked you yesterday about the Egyptian elections. I see that human rights organizations are now coming out in condemnation of the conduct of these elections.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think they are continuing. The elections are conducted in three stages as a result of new law, which requires judges to observe elections and all governorates to ensure against fraud. As they don't have enough judges to do all the governorates at once, there is a three-stage process. The first stage was conducted earlier this week for nine governorates. This yielded 29 clear winners on the first ballot, 121 seats to be decided in a runoff. They were orderly, with only minor procedural complaints. The second stage of elections for the governorates, several more -- Nile, Delta, Aswan, Sanai/Red Sea -- will be October 29th. The third stage will be November 8th.

The elections have really just begun. We haven't even seen the conclusion of the first stage, so we continue to watch with interest. We wish the Egyptians success, but it is too early for us to start drawing conclusions about it.

QUESTION: But what about the preparations? Are you satisfied with the preparations? I mean, in the past you regularly criticized the way preparations for elections are conducted.

MR. BOUCHER: In some cases where there is egregious and obvious examples of things being done beforehand, then, yes, we have criticized it.

QUESTION: So you haven't seen any egregious kinds of --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is a precise standard for this, but I think at this point we would like to see this process unfold without comment on the whole thing.

QUESTION: Have the Egyptian authorities so far met their commitments under the rules of --

MR. BOUCHER: So far. It is too early for us to say one way or the other.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 P.M.)

[end of document]

This is an for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article