 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Wednesday, 27 November 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-02-08U.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 8, 2001 INDEX: MIDDLE EAST TRANSCRIPT: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements. I would be glad to take your questions. Mr. Schweid. Q: Maybe you can confirm now that the Palestinians are saying that Mr. Powell called Yasser Arafat and perhaps tell us a little bit about the conversation, if indeed there has been one? MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has continued to make his phone calls to people in the Middle East and people interested in the Middle East, along the same lines as the calls that we described yesterday urging moderation, urging restraint, stressing the importance of working with the parties, consulting with the Israeli Government once they've formed a government, consulting with our Arab friends, in order to decide how to proceed towards peace. This morning he has talked to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, he has talked to Chairman Arafat, he has talked to the President of Tunisia, Mr. Ben Ali, and he has talked to Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia, all on this subject. Q: I'd like to isolate the Arafat call a little more on the assumption it's a bit more interesting than the call to the Tunisian president. Did he make the call after the bomb went off? The President's call apparently was hours before the bombing, but the timing seems to be that -- MR. BOUCHER: I think this would have been after the bomb went off. They didn't discuss the bombing in particular. They did discuss obviously the need to take steps against terrorism and the need to exercise restraint and to do everything one can, everything they can. Q: Steps against terrorism? MR. BOUCHER: Against terrorism or terrorists, and the need to do everything they can to restrain the violence. Q: One last question. Your overall description for all four conversations certainly applies to the one to the Chairman, right? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: It seems to be a little bit unusual that the bomb wasn't mentioned at all. MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if it was mentioned at all. I think neither one had any particular information at that point of the phone call on who had done it, what happened and who might be responsible. We can't -- we don't know -- have that information. Q: On that bombing, I presume that you have some words, condemnatory words, about it which I'm sure you'll get to as well, but wouldn't it have been appropriate if Secretary Powell had asked Chairman Arafat also to condemn the bombing? MR. BOUCHER: Again, Matt, I'm not saying the bombing did not come up; I'm saying that neither one had any particular information at the point of the phone call about it. I'm not sure how exactly it was discussed, but clearly asking all the parties to take all the steps they can, talking to them in specific terms about steps that people can take to condemn terrorism, to restrain terrorism and to restrain violence in general, clearly encompasses an attitude, a request, to take action if there is action that can be taken in a case like this. On the bombing itself, let me say that we do, in fact, condemn today's car bombing in Israel, as you asked. We offer our deepest condolences to the victims of this terrorist attack. We see no justification, no excuse, for this kind of cowardly act of violence. We at this point can't speculate on who is behind the terrorist incident until the facts are established, but we do call on both sides to take all steps they can to prevent acts such as this. There is no excuse or no justification for any other course of action other than a 100 percent effort against terrorism. Q: Would a reprisal to a bombing, the attack, sort of like this -- what's missing is the terminology, the boilerplate we used to get and we've gotten for years. We are all listening hard. We don't hear peace process anymore; we hear more specific references. You are not giving any advice to the Israeli Government how to respond to the bombing, are you? MR. BOUCHER: Barry, don't listen too hard. Clearly, remember what you've heard in the past three days, the past week repeatedly, from the Secretary of State. We want to avoid a cycle of provocation and counter-provocation. We want to avoid -- we want the parties to take steps not only to avoid violence in general, and certainly to take steps against terrorism, which I just said again, but also to avoid getting back into a cycle where one party does something and then another party does something else. Q: All right. Just quickly on the Palestinians -- well, the Palestinians describing the conversation, saying that it is a -- they're describing it with some -- what should I say? In a positive way, that it renews or reaffirms the US relationship with the Palestinians, that Mr. Powell said he would see Mr. Arafat when he is in the region. Do you know how long the conversation ran, and can you say anything about what Arafat said in response? MR. BOUCHER: I would expect the Palestinians to describe what the Palestinians were saying. I have described what the Secretary was saying. The Secretary has done a whole series of these phone calls to different people. They mostly run about 10, 15 minutes. I don't know exactly how long this one ran, but clearly he has talked to Chairman Arafat before, and at this point we will continue to work with them, and we will look forward to seeing them when we have a chance. Q: Richard, already, and probably inevitably, the question of the starting point for any future peace negotiations has emerged, with the Palestinians of course saying that they can't go back to square one and the Israelis saying that anything that Barak discussed is no longer valid. Can you state -- I don't think you have actually said this under the new Administration. Could you state where the United States stands on this? What should be the starting point for any new peace negotiations, given that the sides themselves can't agree on it, and what offers have any validity? What of the many offers remain valid, if any? MR. BOUCHER: I think first of all, it is not necessarily up to us to prescribe the starting point. It is up to the parties to agree, and obviously the Prime Minister-elect in Israel first needs to form a government. As he prepares to take office, we will consult with him, we will consult with the Palestinians, we will consult with our Arab friends, to elicit their thinking about how they see the period ahead. And then once we've had a chance to consult with both sides regarding their view of the negotiations, we'll have a better idea of how we can assist the parties to achieve peace. I think the Secretary has made quite clear over the past few days the ideas and parameters that were discussed in the last few months were President Clinton's parameters, and therefore when he left office they were no longer a US proposal or presidential proposal. The parties have not agreed on any other basis for final status talks at this point, although they had their discussions at Taba. And so we'll be talking to the parties and we will consult with them. We'll have a better idea at that point how we can best assist them to achieve peace. But as we've said, it's premature to try to describe it at this point because they haven't formed a government. We haven't had a chance to do that. Q: Can I just follow up? The Palestinians seem to be saying, in effect, that they still consider the Clinton parameters to be an offer that stands, in some sense. Are you saying you completely disagree with them on that? MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm saying that I�m not going to stand up here and try to respond to everything that someone seems to be saying. I'm saying that in the course of events as the Israeli Government is formed, we will have a chance to talk directly to the Palestinians, talk directly to the new Israeli Government, talk to our Arab friends in the region, and get a much clearer idea ourselves about what basis there might be and how we can assist them. Q: Are there any efforts right now from the US to work on simply security cooperation, as under Clinton? Tenet was down there several times. There was a lot of talk about these committees set up under Wye. Anything on that? MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to get you an update on what we may still be doing on the ground. Clearly the issue of violence remains of great concern and is one that we speak out on frequently, is one that our emissaries in the region talk to the parties about. I'll see if there is any more to say than that in terms of the actual format of cooperation, things like that. Q: Could you be a little more specific on what Powell spoke about? MR. BOUCHER: We just talked about it for ten minutes, and I think that's about the length of the conversation, so I think that's about as much as I can do. Q: I just would ask you if I could, he has made enough -- several calls now to people in the region. Can you summarize in any way how they are responding to this effort to put the peace process -- I forget the phrase -- to put the peacemaking in a broader context and a more regional context? Is it getting a good reception? I mean, the President talked to the Sultan of Oman today, for instance. This is a flurry, a significant flurry, of calls. MR. BOUCHER: Primarily directed at this point to all the parties in the region doing what they can to restrain violence, to make sure we take this period calmly, to make sure that we all look at what is going to be done and judge by what is done, rather than by assumptions. So in terms of the regional approach to peace that Secretary Powell has described, and I think the President has described as well, I mean certainly the regional parties and people interested appreciate the need to pursue a regional approach, appreciate the fact that we want to work with them to achieve peace in this region. And so I think I would say the reception is generally positive, but obviously as we get down to work, as we talk to people more specifically, there may be different views at that point about how we proceed. Q: The Ivanov call -- Q: Can we stay on the Middle East? Q: Well, this is Middle East. MR. BOUCHER: It is Middle East, too. It's a similar phone call is all I have to say on that. Q: While the Administration is taking a step back from participation, Sharon is immediately, within 24 hours, sending this team of three top advisors to Washington. Do you see that as a way for the Sharon side to engage the US further in peace talks, or are they presenting it to you as a wider agenda of simple bilateral relations? MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me not accept any of the alternatives, nor the premises, but other than that I'm happy to answer your question. Q: How do you that if you don't accept any of -- MR. BOUCHER: Tell her what the facts are. Tell you what the facts are. "This Administration takes a step back from participation"? We stopped participating in the Taba talks two weeks before the new Administration came. We weren't participants there. Q: (Inaudible) administration? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to accept the premise that somehow today we're taking a step back from participation. We're looking at the situation. We'll be talking to people as they go forward, and we'll be involved, we'll be engaged, as the Secretary has told you. Q: I'm just implying you're not sending people there, for example, as we used to. Go ahead. MR. BOUCHER: We stopped doing that two weeks before the new Administration took office. The visit by several members of the -- I don't quite know what to call it-- the Likud Party members or members, people, advisors, to the Prime Minister- elect -- we know of it. We're in touch with the people involved. We'll be talking to them. No meeting is scheduled at this point. No schedule is set up for them yet. Q: On the Ivanov call, I realize it was generally the same thing, but did the Secretary in that call suggest to Foreign Minister Ivanov that the United States might, at this juncture, particularly welcome some re- energizing of the Russian role in peacemaking efforts? MR. BOUCHER: I think I'll have to see how to characterize that. I don't know that that was discussed one way or the other. Q: And nothing else came up in that? Just Middle East? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of, no. Q: The Secretary is meeting with Mary Robinson this afternoon. Could you preview the meeting, particularly as it might relate to China? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position at this point to talk about any specific issues that they might want to discuss. Obviously there are a number of things that might come up as we head towards the Human Rights Commission meeting in a month or two. It is a chance to get to know her, to talk to her, to talk about the important works of human rights in the world that she does and things that we want to pursue as well. Secretary Powell himself has talked to you and made clear that this will be an important part of his foreign policy; that human rights, freedom and the rule of law are central to his view of the world, and therefore it is a chance for them to discuss various things that they are doing and how they want to proceed. But I will leave it to maybe afterwards to talk about what specifics might have come up. Q: Aside from the meeting, do you have anything to say about how China has done vis-�-vis human rights recently? Deterioration, improvement? MR. BOUCHER: No, but we will be glad to say it in about 15 days in our human rights reports when they come out. Q: And speaking of that 15 days -- Q: Richard, Mrs. Robinson this morning at a breakfast asked for United States financial support for the conference that they are putting on, the World Conference on Racism and related activities -- racism and xenophobia-- in South Africa. MR. BOUCHER: The one in August? Q: I think it's in -- yes, maybe August. South Africa. MR. BOUCHER: I think it is in August in South Africa, yes. Q: I guess the Clinton Administration gave them about $250,000; the Europeans gave the $3 million. And they are wondering whether the United States is going to give them some more money. MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I will have to check on that and see later. We are certainly aware of the conference, look forward to it. I don't know where we stand financially vis-�-vis this conference. Q: Will you give us a readout after he meets with her? MR. BOUCHER: I will try to give you something, yes. Q: Can I ask one on human rights? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Q: Fifteen days from now, yes, the new Human Rights Reports are coming out, but do you know if the Secretary intends to have someone filling -- occupying the position of Assistant Secretary by that time? MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I have to answer the question to say that the announcements come out of the White House. Q: I just want to know, would he like to have someone -- MR. BOUCHER: Any schedule of announcement comes out of the White House; any predictions of announcements comes out of the White House; any expectations regarding announcements, any desires and hopes regarding announcements, comes out of the White House. Sorry. Q: Well, I'll just have to take that as a no. MR. BOUCHER: No, you don't take that as a no. You take that as a different answer than the one you want. Q: In the last few days, former State Department and Pentagon official, Mr. Merry in a series of articles in newspapers and periodicals, makes some very strong accusations about the Greek Government, the government party in Greece. Among them, that the government party in the Greek Government considers human life of Americans and some Greek officials who are not -- who are non-Pasok members, as expendable. Do you have any position on that? And also, the CIA Director yesterday expressed some concerns about the 2004 Olympics in Athens. And do you have anything on that also? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think a lot of the charges and accusations that were made by the former -- and emphasis on former -- State Department official did relate to the Olympics, so let me try to answer both parts with that. We have said very often that the United States supports a safe and secure Olympics in Athens in 2004. As in all such events, the possibility exists that terrorists will attempt to use the venue to advance their agenda, and that was evident, I think, in the CIA threat assessments testimony yesterday. But at this time we have no specific information that would indicate a particular threat to the Games. The United States, along with several other countries, has formed an Olympic Security Advisory Group for the 2004 Olympics. The group has traveled to Athens to meet with Greek officials late last year, and they will return this spring for further consultations. As we have said many times, it is very important for the Greek Government to continue to take concrete steps towards the arrest and prosecution of terrorists, but in terms of the Olympics and this project, there is this international group that will be meeting with the Greeks and will be working with them to ensure that we have a safe Olympics. Q: Can I assume from your answer that you don't share the accusations of Mr. Merry against the Greek Government, the specific accusation? MR. BOUCHER: Not having read the entire article, I can't parse through them, but generally, no, we don't share the accusations, and this is our view of the situation. Q: (Inaudible) the White House that President Bush does not intend to have any more presidential envoys on the Cyprus issue, but only deal with coordinators. Do you know the new Cyprus Coordinator under this Administration -- the State Department? MR. BOUCHER: I go back to the answer that I just gave Matt on any other personnel issue. Q: The non-answer. MR. BOUCHER: The response. Q: Richard, I'm wondering if you're aware of there were reports out of Islamabad that the Pakistani leader General Musharaff has offered Pakistan as a venue for a trial for Usama bin Laden. Has the Pakistani Government been in touch with the US Government on this matter? MR. BOUCHER: I just saw the reports. I didn't have a chance to check on it, so it's something I'll have to get you later, if I can. Q: A former deputy commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, General Jean Heinrich, said today that he was told that US officials had opposed the arrest of Radovan Karadzic back in the mid- or late 1990s. He made these comments in a trial in Paris today. I'm wondering if you had any comment on that. He is alleging that the US did not want to go forward with the arrest. MR. BOUCHER: I was not aware of the statement being made, but obviously have no corroboration of such a statement. Let me look into it, but I think our tendency, if it did come up in a trial, is to leave the rebuttal or the explanation to whatever might happen in the trial there. [See end of transcript for answer to taken question] Q: Well, because it wasn't really a trial. It was actually in testimony before the French parliament. MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we'll look into it and see if we can get you something. Q: And what he said specifically was that NATO had the means and the intelligence to arrest Mladic and Karadzic in 1996, but that he, in his position, was told either by the Americans or through an intermediary that the Americans didn't want them arrested. Now, there's been a lot of speculation that it's actually the reason that these two are still running out there is because of French reservations about actually arresting them, so that is what makes this particularly relevant. Was there any time that you're aware of that the United States was not -- post-indictment -- that the United States was not in favor of arresting these two people if the means were there to do it? MR. BOUCHER: Let me check on that. As you know, I wasn't around doing this job in those days so I don't remember. It seems to me that there were stories like this at the time, but as you say, they may have related to the French more than to us. I mean, what I would say is I think if you look at the consistency of our actions over time, if you look at what we've done recently since the change in Belgrade, I think you can say that the United States has very consistently looked for the arrests and helped whenever possible to carry out the arrests of the indictees, the people who were wanted as war criminals. And I think that has been a very consistent policy. And to go back all the way to 1996, I'll have to check, but I don't have any doubts about the way we conducted our policy in recent years. Q: Could you fill us in on the purpose of the visit to the Secretary of the Pan Am 103 families? MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary is meeting right now with the families of Pan Am 103. I think there is 48 people who are coming, meeting with him upstairs on the eighth floor. He wanted to get together with them and talk to them personally about their concerns, as I said the other day, to show our respect for the efforts that they have consistently made for the pursuit of justice and to hear from them about their concerns, to consult with them and discuss how we move next on these issues after the trial and the verdict. Q: A new subject? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: Yesterday, while Robin Cook was suggesting that Britain would be very interested in dialogue and cooperation on the missile defense issue, and Sweden, their foreign minister, who holds the European Union Presidency, was actually urging the United States to drop the entire project. I'm wondering if you could tell us what the United States' understanding is of the European position on this, and whether you believe Sweden was speaking for all of its members? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think clearly you have to ask Sweden whether they were speaking as an individual government or on behalf of all the members. We certainly know from our conversations with the various Europeans that we have talked to so far that there are many people that are interested in talking to us about this. I think the President and the Secretary have made quite clear that we do intend to consult very closely with our allies and friends as we proceed, but also that they feel that there is a need to defend ourselves if the technology and the threat are there. Q: Can I follow up on that, though? I noticed a slight tendency to refer to missile defense rather than "National Missile Defense." Have you actually stopped referring to this project as "National Missile Defense"? MR. BOUCHER: No, we haven't. I think the Secretary yesterday, or the day before, whenever it was he was out with Robin Cook, he referred to both National Missile Defense and Theatre Missile Defense, and so the issue of missile defense is more general than one or the other specifics. And I think he has made quite clear, we have tried to make quite clear, that our approach to this is to continue -- is to look ourselves and look together with our friends and allies at the overall issues of what you might call strategic stability, the issues of offensive weapons, non- proliferation efforts, diplomatic efforts. But we felt that defense also needed to be part of that concept and needed to be something that we talked about. Q: On that, Richard, when you say that a number of these European governments have shown themselves to be interested in talking to us, are you implying that they have given Secretary Powell the impression that they are open to the possibility of National Missile Defense and supporting it? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to characterize their positions or claim that anybody has changed their position on this. What we do know is that allies are interested in consulting with us; they appreciate the fact that we have committed to talking to them as we go forward with this process, as we look at it ourselves on how to proceed. I think you may have seen -- if you haven't you will soon -- that the Secretary General of NATO is organizing a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on February 27, and that Secretary Powell will attend that, so that as part of this trip to Europe and the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, there will be a stop at NATO where he looks forward to meeting with as many NATO foreign ministers as can get there on that day. And we thank NATO and Lord Robertson for organizing this. So this will be a continuing subject of discussion with our friends and allies as we go forward. Q: What was that date again? I'm sorry. MR. BOUCHER: February 27th. Q: The 27th. Okay. Q: Will Foreign Minister Ivanov also be invited, as you understand it? MR. BOUCHER: I think the NATO announcement says that Lord Robertson is inviting the North Atlantic Council of Foreign Ministers, and I don't think Foreign Minister Ivanov is part of that yet. Q: No, but if there is -- there is a precedent for inviting him along to these events. MR. BOUCHER: No, certainly the Russian Foreign Minister and others participate in the series of events that take place around the semi-annual NATO meetings because, at that time, we also have meetings with the Partnership for Peace and we have the joint council meetings and other things. This is not that kind of NAC meeting. This is a stand-alone meeting that Lord Robertson is organizing with NATO foreign ministers. Q: But would there be a chance to -- well, will he be invited anyway to -- I mean, I know there was talk of -- MR. BOUCHER: They have talked about getting together at an early date. I don't have a date for you at this point. I don't have a date or location for that to happen, but I'm sure that will happen soon. Q: Are you in a position to say that the Secretary will be in Kuwait for the anniversary on the 26th? MR. BOUCHER: Not yet. Q: Mr. Boucher, did you check for me, as you said yesterday, if your Ambassador to Greece, Nicholas Burns, and the former Prime Minister, Mr. Kosanimic will be receiving in the island of Crete the former President George Bush, as was reported by Athens News Agency. MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I'm afraid I have to leave you with the former President's office in Houston to get any confirmation of his travel. He has traveled to Greece in the past on a regular basis. We have always been helpful when he has gone there. But in terms of what he is doing and where he is going, it's up to his office to talk about that. Q: But as far as for instructions to Mr. Burns for the visit, is it going to happen? MR. BOUCHER: I can't talk to you about instructions for a visit without somebody else talking about the visit, so I'm afraid I just can't go there. Q: About Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, in the past you are very supportive of this pipeline; even the US EximBank and OPEC is providing some finance and some sources. But lately in Washington we have a lot of rumors that the new Administration doesn't like this idea. Is there any change on this pipeline project -- any policy change, any support change-- on this subject? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of, but let me get you an expansion of that later, if I can. Q: Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. (The briefing was concluded at 1:40 P.M.) Taken Question Bosnia: French General Charge that U.S. declined to arrest Mladic and Karadzic in 1996 Q: What's your reaction to the charge by French General Jean Heinrich that the U.S. prevented NATO troops from arresting Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic in 1996? Is this true? A: I'm not going to comment on the events in 1996 to which the French general was referring. Longstanding policy in Bosnia has been that NATO-led forces are to detain indicted war criminals encountered in the course of normal operations and when the local commander determines that the tactical situation permits this to be done safely. Our policy has not changed. I would point out that the number of indictees taken into custody in the Hague has grown from one in January of 1996, when General Heinrich was in Bosnia, to 50 today. It is true that Karadzic, Mladic and others are still at large, so there is still progress to be made, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. NATO operations were carried out under NATO-agreed rules of engagement. I would remind you that NATO operates under rules of strict unanimity among all allies. [end] Released on February 8, 2001
U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.