 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Thursday, 26 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-02-28U.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 28, 2001 INDEX: IRAQ TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any announcements or statements, so I would be glad to take your questions. Mr. Schweid. Q: On the sanctions, could we go through it one more time? There are three categories: there are consumer goods; there are military materiel; and there are so-called dual-use things. I take it while you are easing up on consumer shipments, you say you are tightening the sanctions overall. How do you do that if you are going to be easier on dual-use material -- more permissive on dual-use? MR. BOUCHER: Let me go back to what the Secretary said to you yesterday at the European Union. He said we are going to tighten the sanctions on weapons of mass destruction, tighten the sanctions on armaments, tighten the sanctions on the sorts of equipment and other materials that put the people of the region at risk. That is the direction that we are headed in. That is the direction we discussed with people in the region, as well as allies when we got to Europe. That goal, I think that direction, is one that we found a lot of support for, and it is one that we will work in further detail again with the people of the region, with the allies, with the Perm 5, as well as within our own Government as we go forward. To do that effectively, we know you have to strengthen the controls we have on the Oil-for-Food money, and part of the Secretary's diplomacy was to talk to the Syrians and others about bringing some of the exports that are not currently under the Oil-for-Food money, bringing that money into the UN accounts so that we have better control on that. Part of the effort has to be to tighten up on his ability to smuggle. The Secretary talked to you about that yesterday, and that will be another direction that we have to formulate details for. As you know, the trip was intended to discuss ideas, to hear views, to gather ideas, and to report back to the President. The Secretary has talked to the President this morning by telephone to fill him in on many of the things he heard and discussed during the trip. I think it is safe to say the President is pleased with where we are on this, and we will continue working to develop the details. As for how those details will affect this category, that category or the other, I am not in a position to come out with lists of prohibited items or items for further attention or items that are fairly well assumed to be safe. But those kinds of details aren't developed at this point. Q: You have spent most of your answer talking about tighter military -- the category of military items. We understand that. We were also told that more consumer goods will be permitted to go to Iraq, and we were also told that dual-use will be reviewed, with an aim of trying to take some of the burden -- all sorts of heartfelt things were said on the plane about the way these sanctions are falling on the Iraqi people. So I'm asking how you're going to go about being tougher on military equipment if, at the same time, you're going to take a more lenient view of dual-use material? Because there's a reason they would do -- there was a reason for this in the first place. MR. BOUCHER: Let me give you the one-sentence version, the one-sentence version of the longer answer I just gave you. If you tighten the controls on the weapons of mass destruction and further define the dual-use equipment that might be key to that process so that you can further define it and control those as well, then you can remove some of your restrictions, make the civilian stuff go more smoothly. And that will be the direction. But as I said in my previous answer, the details are not worked out yet. Q: It sounds like this plan is going to require inspectors on one end to certify in Iraq what kinds of commercial goods are being brought in. I mean, how do you expect to get the Iraqis to agree on inspectors? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's been said that it's required, necessary, to carry this out. It's up to the Iraqi Government if they want to invite the inspectors back in and implement the -- Q: I'm talking about inspectors for the actual goods themselves. MR. BOUCHER: We will take steps to tighten up on his ability to smuggle. That's clear. There have been cargo inspections in the past, airplane inspections in the past, and making that process work smoothly is obviously something we'll want to look at. Q: On Iraq, do you have more about the kind of support you would be ready to provide to the Iraqi opposition to carry its activities inside the country? MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't really tell you more at this point. We are discussing with them new licenses, new grant agreements. Haven't worked out all the details, but continuing to work within the framework of what we announced in September. So really the September framework in terms of policy and activities, that remains the guiding framework. We are working with them on the specifics of the money. Q: Can you say exactly where things stand after the Secretary's conversation with Bashar about the oil that's going through that pipeline? MR. BOUCHER: That we heard from President Bashar Assad of Syria a commitment -- let me go to my piece of paper here, if I can find it. Here we go. No, that wasn't it either. There we go. I'm almost there. For some time, the Syrians have talked about adhering to the UN practices and sanctions with regard to their interaction, their economic interaction, with Iraq. They have agreed in principle in general terms that this pipeline activity should be brought under the UN Oil-for-Food program. In the meeting with Secretary Powell, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gave a direct commitment to do that. It was quite clear. This will be a substantial accomplishment for the financial controls on Iraq. As many of you have discussed, it's not the oil. Last year, Iraq was pumping as much oil as it could, as it wanted to. The issue is the money and bringing that money under the auspices of the UN program is what's important. The timing of this step will be explored with the Syrians and the UN Security Council members. The Oil-for-Food resolution gets renewed every six months. Sometime a few months from now it would normally be renewed, but whether we and the Syrians and the other Security Council members want to do that on a different schedule or not is something we'll have to discuss. Q: I thought he had denied any circumvention. Your rather gentle description has him as being in a conciliatory mood all along. If you want to say that, fine, but there has been -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't -- Q: You said he wants to get along with the -- that's what he told the Secretary now finally. But in the weeks leading up to it, we kept asking you every day what they say about these reports, and you kept saying they're checking into it. But they were denying they were doing anything wrong. MR. BOUCHER: I think, Barry, you may be confusing apples and oranges. Q: No, oil. Oil, illegal and legal. MR. BOUCHER: As far as the facts of what has been flowing through the pipeline and our discussions, I think I've talked about that quite a bit. As far as the policy that the Syrian Government has stated all along, they have indeed stated there was a policy of bringing this under the UN auspices. The question was whether it was at a point in the testing or production phase. They talked about doing that when the production phase was under way, and obviously there has been a lot of differing information as to exactly where they were. The point is that now they made a direct commitment to bring it under UN auspices at whatever phase it is now. Q: Having talked to these -- some of these leaders in the region, not all of them, Mr. Walker went out to talk to some others -- do you know anything more about leakage? Can this leakage have occurred without the complicity of the leaders of these countries? Evidently you find a need to tighten. Tightening means something has been going wrong. It hasn't been going wrong in a vacuum; it's been going wrong. Is it because pirates are afoot in the land, or have these leaders been -- have these leaders been conspiring, or the governments conspiring with Iraq to circumvent the sanctions? And how can you tighten that up by looking at cargo, is the only example I think you've given? MR. BOUCHER: There is smuggling. There is private smuggling. Somebody smuggles something out of Iraq. He makes a payment to the Iraqis for it, and that money goes in outside of the Oil-for-Food program. There has been some government-to-government activity, or government corporate activity like the Syrian pipeline that was not being handled under the payment system that the UN has set up. So it is a variety of things. And how do we change it? Some places we change government policy, sometimes we work with governments to provide better oversight, and I'm sure we will come up with other ideas as we work out the details. Q: A quick question. Has he received any promises -- MR. BOUCHER: Somebody else might ask a question, eventually. But sure, go ahead. Q: They'll get their chance. But I'm trying to get direct answers to problems that you discovered, instead of your forward-looking positive spin on this. MR. BOUCHER: I know you're looking for direct answers, but part of what we are doing now is going to be working out with the other governments involved with the Perm 5, within our own government, how to answer some of these questions and how to come up with effective answers. Q: Did anybody promise better oversight? Let me just simply ask, did any leader there -- I know about the Syrian part -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we have talked about talking with the Jordanians about this policy, we talked about talking with the Turkish Government, Foreign Minister Cem in Brussels about the policy. I think everybody talked about a desire to go in this direction and to make the controls on Iraq's ability to acquire weapons tighter, better, and to make sure that Iraq was not allowed to threaten the people of the region again with weapons and weapons of mass destruction. In our discussions with people about the direction, they understood that part of that was going to be getting a better handle on money and on smuggling, and that those two things would also be part of our policy. I would say, in agreeing to this direction for policy, people also understood that we would have to work out more effective measures to cut down on smuggling and money. Q: Actually, I would like to get it in pretty early in the briefing, if possible. Six people were arrested in L.A. for conducting fundraising for an Iranian terrorist organization, the MEK. Apparently there is a press conference within a few minutes in L.A. about this. What, if anything, does this building know about these particular suspects, and do you know about this group, the MEK, and how do you regard this group? MR. BOUCHER: One, I am not going to do somebody else's press conference before they do it. I hadn't heard about this, and we will let somebody else announce since I don't know anything and somebody else does. As far as the MEK, I think they are covered in our Patterns of Global Terrorism Report. I would refer you to that. Q: Can you talk about the budget which has been released today in kind of outline form? Can you fill in some of the specifics? It talks about substantial increases -- well, first of all, there is a substantial increase of 5.5 percent for international affairs, from 21.9 billion to 23.1 billion in the next fiscal year. And this outline -- MR. BOUCHER: 23.1, right? Q:23.1, yes. The outline suggests major increases for information technology and also for -- let's see -- MR. BOUCHER: Are you looking at the same pieces of paper that I'm looking at? Q: I think I am. I'm hopefully looking at the same pieces of paper. Can you give us some sense of what more is going to be spent on things like information technology? MR. BOUCHER: You've got the same piece of paper I do, right? Q: Right. And what is going to be cut, because there are mentions here of de-layering the bureaucracy by cutting a number of middle management positions, cut some foreign aid and foreign investment guarantees? MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid that the first thing to tell you all is those have been to the website already, the access.gpo.gov website, and then the blueprint that's underneath that, will find the same information that Barbara and I have on the budget proposal, and that's about all there really is to say at this moment. It's a 1.2 billion increase for the State Department -- for the international affairs program -- sorry -- of which State Department operating budget is a portion. It allows us to spend some extra money on things like Colombia and support for the anti-drug programs in the Andean region, let's us spend some extra money on HIV-AIDS education in Africa and elsewhere, some money on military assistance to Israel, payments to multilateral development banks, a whole list of things like peacekeeping, heavily indebted debt countries, land mines, stronger programs to control the spread of weapons and to help countries with their export control programs. It also lets us spend some money on the needs of the State Department, the needs for information technology, for better support for our personnel and the human resources of this Department that depends so much on people. There is a certain amount of information on this included in the budget blueprint. At this point, we don't have the details for you. That usually comes out slightly later than the initial budget figures. That's kind of where we are now. Q: So you can't say, for example, how many deputy assistant secretaries or special envoys -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't tell you now many people we cut, how many computers will be bought, how many new embassies we're going to build with it, or how much money will go to any particular Andean country at this point. Q: When would we expect to be able to see some of these things? MR. BOUCHER: Over the course of this month. The Secretary has some testimony, budget testimony, next week on the 7th and the 8th. He is in front of the House Committee on International Relations on Wednesday, March 7. He is in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 8 to talk about our budget. He may have a little more detail there. Then I think it's normally not until the end of the month that we come out with kind of the detailed breakdown of how we'll spend all the money. Are we going to do budget for a while? Okay, let's do budget for a while. Q: Secretary of State Colin Powell has made increasing funding for the State Department a high priority. A simple question: Is there an increase in funding for the State Department, as opposed to international affairs? MR. BOUCHER: I think what the Secretary has talked about has been an overall increase in the international affairs budget, as well as the State Department. This additional money goes to both those kind of programs. Some of the programs I described for you that this money would be spent on are broader international affairs programs, and some are particularly the information technology, security and personnel needs of the State Department. Q: Isn't the Secretary disappointed because it has been widely known that he was looking for an increase of something in the region of 10 to 20 percent, and he'd been pushing for that. Now, I know this is very erudite, but can you give us an idea of his reaction to it? MR. BOUCHER: His reaction is that he's pleased. We’re pleased with the increase that allows us to spend more money on important priorities. We recognize this is a first increment to the many needs in this area that the Secretary has identified. We all understand the budget process this year, and we look forward to continue to working within the Administration to meet the needs we have in coming years. Q: Can you give us an idea of what kind of supplemental you might be looking at? MR. BOUCHER: We just submitted the budget. It's not time to talk about a supplemental yet. Q: Okay. Do you have, then, figures for what the final spending for this year was -- on the outgoing administration's proposal was for 2002? The outgoing administration made a proposed request for 2002 spending before it shut up shop. Do you know what it was? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I don't remember that that was announced. My understanding was that outgoing administrations normally take a straightline budget plus inflation and leave that on the table when they leave; and that with this budget then, the new Administration gets a chance to review that and decide where to bump up. What we're telling you today is the results of the adjustments that the new Administration has decided to make in what was essentially a straightline provision of the last Administration. Q: It seems that some of the increases for some areas come at the expense of foreign aid and overseas investment guarantees. There are cuts that are being talked about for PL-480, for food, surplus food and so on that's been given abroad. And I just wonder again whether there is a concern that that might have a negative impact on some of our assistance programs overseas. MR. BOUCHER: There is always a balance here. Money is not infinite, and we need to make adjustments in the programs to decide at any given moment where we can spend the money most effectively on behalf of the US taxpayer and on behalf of the needs of our broad international affairs programs to advance our interests in the world. So, yes, adjustments are made. Increases have been added as well. But I think here you have an Administration that has come forward with a budget that tries to do some new things and tries to make sure that things in the past are supported adequately, even if not quite at the same level. Q: I'm just wondering something, and that is how many deputy assistant secretaries and special envoys are in the State Department who are political appointees? MR. BOUCHER: I would have to look for it. It's a lot of numbers that I would have to check. I haven't checked on it recently. Q: Can I follow up? Does this somehow dovetail with the President's notion that private charitable groups could take on some of the burden? Will there be a shift here, or are you simply going to give less food to hungry people? MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not -- yes, we are going to take -- Q: I mean in deference to computers and security. MR. BOUCHER: Barbara, did you go into agriculture and find the food aid numbers? My information doesn't show any change in -- Q: There are no numbers. Again, it just says that they are talking about reforming the USDA food aid programs. It is on page 93 of the -- MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I didn't get to page -- well, I got past that -- I skipped page 93 and got to 126 and 127. Q: There are cuts under Title 1 which are bilateral, and also -- MR. BOUCHER: I think Agriculture will have to explain that to you, that reforming and cutting are not necessarily the same thing. Q: Right. But these aid shipments do have an impact on our foreign policy. MR. BOUCHER: Absolutely, absolutely. They have been an important part of our foreign policy. Q: Can I try one more? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: Reports -- there were so many, I can't remember if it's the Carlucci report or someone else's report, suggesting that the Foreign Service has hundreds below normal working levels, that there is an immense shortage of Foreign Service officers. The Secretary walked into this building on the first day, did a pep talk and said, hey, I'm with you guys, I'm going to do what I can to bring up morale, and I think morale probably benefits when you are fully staffed. Will there be more Foreign Service officers hired or, again, is this money going for computers and security? MR. BOUCHER: I think I mentioned that some of this money is going into our human resources needs. Exactly how many and how much of the money will be put to that, we have yet to be able to specify for you. Clearly, one of the needs that we have identified over time is to have enough personnel to fill those jobs that need to be filled, as well as to let people have some training from time to time and not have every vacancy be an urgent vacancy so that people could actually take some time and get the training they need over the course of the career. The money in human resources will be used to help recruit and retain the highest possible caliber workforce. We will complete a comprehensive examination of our current and future workforce needs, and we will use the money to create and implement policies to ensure that we hire and retain Foreign and Civil Service officers with the right skills that are needed in the Department. In terms of spending on the Department, we are going to make some bureaucratic changes -- de-layering, as we said. We are going to spend some money on information technology as part of a long-term investment to bring us up to par. We are going to do some steps on human resources needs, as I talked about, to recruit and retain the right kind of people in sufficient numbers, and we are going to take a look at best practices in the way we build and manage our facilities. Q: When you say to better retain people, that means you are looking at salary increases perhaps overall for the State Department people? MR. BOUCHER: Do I have to recuse myself, because I have a vested interest in the answer to the question? No, I don't think we can be quite that specific at this point. Q: Secretary Powell, when he was giving testimony on the Hill, talked about the need for a steep increase, and that he would be coming back again and again. Can we assume then that at some point between now and the next budget you will be asking for more money? MR. BOUCHER: You're asking me to predict a supplement on the day that the budget goes up to Congress. I'm not going to do that in any way, shape or form. I don't think this is the last year of the Administration; this is, in fact, the first year of this Administration. As I said, we are satisfied that this is a good first increment to meet the needs to advance American interests around the world. Q: During the President's address last night, he really hardly mentioned international affairs at all. It was far less than defense spending and not a lot about what Secretary Powell has said, which is really important is that diplomacy is the first line of defense for international policy. Was he hoping for a more kind of robust showing from the President in terms of the demands of diplomacy? MR. BOUCHER: No. Next? Q: Different subject. It's on Guatemala. There is a lot of rumors that there were a coup d'etat organized by some military members and people from the government. Do you have any -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything on that. I'll have to look into it for you. Q: Thank you. I have another question on Latin America. The Foreign Minister of Chile, Soledad Alvear, in a press conference this morning tells that his government present kind of upset on the position about the unilateral Human Rights Report on Chile to the Ambassador of your country in Santiago. My question is have you -- do you have what the Ambassador responded to the Government of Chile? MR. BOUCHER: No, that's something else I would have to look into. Of course we have several foreign ministers coming to town over the next few weeks -- or in the next few days -- including the Foreign Minister of Chile who is here, so it may end up being discussed tomorrow with the Secretary when he meets. I will look into the situation with regard to the Ambassador and whether they talked to him. I think as a general observation, we all know that there are critics of our Human Rights Reports out there. You've seen a number of statements from other governments in various ways that criticize either the content or the practice of our doing the Human Rights Reports. I have to say, we consider them a straightforward, factual exposition of where things stand in the world as regards various things that are very important to the United States. And they're done as a report to Congress, to our Congress, to tell them where things are in relation to those values and practices. We consider them fair, accurate and a useful tool in terms of looking for areas where we in our policy need to work with other governments to try to improve the practices. So it becomes a basis for us to go forward with policy, but it is very much something that we do because we think it's useful to us. Q: Has the Secretary made his decision about the certification process? Has he sent his proposal to the White House? And how is it going to be announced tomorrow? Here at the State Department, as usual? MR. BOUCHER: We will have a briefing tomorrow afternoon about 2 o'clock here on the drug certifications, and I think there is Congressional testimony actually before that that will start about 10 o'clock. Q: You know there are huge problems in Turkish economy these days, and Secretary Powell told Turkish Foreign Minister Cem that the US would support Turkey. So what kind of support did he talk about? MR. BOUCHER: If you're looking specifically for things in the area of the banks or the Treasury Department, I think financially and things, you'll have to really look over there. The economic situation in Turkey was discussed during a meeting between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Cem, but actually it was discussed fairly briefly in terms of appreciation on the Turkish side for the things that we've done so far. They didn't talk about any specific next steps, but obviously we're following the situation there closely, and the people from our Treasury Department and the multilateral banks are working closely with them. Q: Did they talk about the Turkish image from Iraq on the sanctions and other things? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they talked about the Iraq policy direction that we've been discussing with people throughout the region. They talked about the kind of steps that we heard from Syria and others, and they talked about the need to cooperate with Turkey. Foreign Minister Cem said he supported the direction and that we would work together on this. The Secretary will also be seeing Foreign Minister Cem at the end of the month. He's coming to Washington on the 30th of March so they'll have a chance to talk more. I point out that Assistant Secretary Ned Walker is in Turkey today, is going to Turkey today, and will talk to them I think tomorrow to the Turkish Government about the whole Iraq policy and how to implement this. Q: The Secretary met after the Cem also the Papandreou. MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Before. Q: Before. I'm sorry. It shows that they have discussed about the Greek- Turkish relations, Cyprus situation or Aegean situation. Did they discuss? MR. BOUCHER: No, yes, no. (Laughter.) Let me give you a better rundown. With both gentlemen they talked about Cyprus. The Greek-Turkish relations -- it didn't come up to any extent. I can't remember if there was a mention or two along the way with one or the other gentlemen, but it wasn't a major topic of discussion. Certainly, the general attitude that we have of supporting rapprochement between Greece and Turkey, looking for areas of cooperation, that generally came up. But there wasn't any specific discussion on where they stand in terms of the things they are doing with each other. I think I have described both meetings with Foreign Minister Papandreou and Foreign Minister Cem as useful and constructive. With Papandreou, they talked a bit more about the useful role that Greece plays in the Balkans, and with Minister Cem they discussed Iraq a little more, although I think these subjects sort of came up in all the meetings. The issue of Cyprus was discussed with both foreign ministers, and then they discussed some of the NATO -- the NAC business with regards to the Balkans, with regards to European Security and Defense initiatives. Obviously we talked with the Turkish Foreign Minister, the Secretary did, about some of the concerns that he has had about areas of detailed cooperation between the European Union and NATO, and they have been talking with Turkey and other allies about how those issues can get resolved. Q: Did they discuss the issue of the European reaction force and the concerns of Turkey? And I'm wondering if they was any disagreement on that issue. And the second question, any appointment with Foreign Minister Papandreou in March in Washington between the Secretary and Mr. Papandreou? MR. BOUCHER: I am not aware of any specific visit by Foreign Minister Papandreou at this point. I think he and the Secretary certainly did talk in general about getting together. I don't know that anything is scheduled at this point, but I am sure they will have a chance to talk to each other in the up and coming weeks, or at least months. The discussion with both Foreign Minister Cem and Foreign Minister Papandreou, the issue of European Security and Defense initiatives, and how Turkey and the EU relate to each other, was discussed in both meetings, obviously in a bit more detail with the Turkish Government since they are a direct party. The Greek are an indirect party, part of the European Union, part of this; the Turks are an important, non-EU NATO ally that needs to be considered. Q: Can we talk about the American arrest in Moscow? MR. BOUCHER: Voronezh, right? It's not in Moscow. Q: Oh, he's in -- yes, sorry, in Russia. MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how much you went through -- people who were here, people who are not encased in a silver tube might have discussed it here yesterday. But for the sake of those of us who were traveling, let me go over some of the basics of that situation, if I can. A US citizen by the name of John Tobin, T-o-b-i-n, was arrested in the Russian city of Voronezh several weeks ago. I think it was basically at the end of January. We don't have a Privacy Act waiver so there is a limit to how far I can go into his particular background and circumstances. But consular officers -- a consular officer from our embassy in Moscow has gone down to visit with him there, and our embassy has been in touch with -- our embassy in Moscow has been in touch with the Russian Government on the issue. The situation is of concern to us. We want to look at his welfare and look at the exact circumstances of the situation with him and with Russian officials and his attorney in Moscow that we have been talking to as well. Q: Is it tit-for-tat for Hanssen? MR. BOUCHER: It has, I don't think, anything to do with Mr. Hanssen. It occurred several weeks before anything happened to Mr. Hanssen. Q: But yesterday they seemed to be suggesting that because he had gone to the Monterey Language School that he was somehow tied to the CIA or somebody else in the intelligence community in this country. Are you all concerned that they will try and use him as a scapegoat? MR. BOUCHER: And today they are on the wires saying that is not what they are suggesting, so I leave it up to them what they want to suggest. Connections with Hanssen and Edmond Pope, these things we think are absurd. This person is an exchange scholar, and that's all that is going on here. Q: Have you all given him a list of lawyers? MR. BOUCHER: He apparently has an attorney already, so we have been working with his attorney. Q: Macedonia? Do you have anything on the latest fighting in Macedonia, and any reaction to the fact that the situation seems to be escalating a day after the Secretary came out with his warning? MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen exact details of what is going on today. NATO is taking steps. The situation I think we think is still relatively stable there. There was the attack on February 26 that led to the concerns that many of us expressed yesterday at NATO, not only Secretary Powell, but also Secretary General Robertson and others. Clearly we condemn any violence by the extremists who are trying to undermine stability in Macedonia, in Kosovo and in the region. NATO has taken steps. Lord Robertson made clear yesterday that NATO is committed to supporting the stability and the security of Macedonia, including enhanced security at the borders. There is a NATO political-military mission in Skopje today that is looking at this firsthand. Lord Robertson announced yesterday the mission, and they are already there in Skopje. The US has supported steps by NATO. We have also supported the Macedonian Government's measured response to these criminal acts. So you may get more details at NATO about the specific steps that NATO and NATO-led Kosovo implementation force in the region can take on that side of the border. Secretary Powell talked to the Macedonian President yesterday after the NATO meeting. He spoke to him from the airplane, and they talked about how to make these steps effectively in restoring security in that area. Q: On Chiapas. The Human Rights Report mentioned the urgency to have a dialogue within the government and the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas are on their way to Mexico City, trying to have their voice here at the congress -- the Mexican congress. Do you think this march and the probability that they are going to have a chance to speak before the congress will help these dialogues to the peace process in Chiapas? MR. BOUCHER: It seems like every week you find one way or the other to try to get me to do something on Chiapas, and I will decline again. Q: (Inaudible) something before on Chiapas -- the peace process, during the government or the -- MR. BOUCHER: We are for dialogue. I am for what we said in our Human Rights Report. But no, you have asked me about three times about the march. I am not going to get into that much detail. We encourage a dialogue. We encourage a peaceful resolution of the issues down there. Certainly we are interested in what the Mexican Government decides to do on this, but it really is up to the Mexican Government to decide how they want to handle it. Q: Why is that? Because it was before a PRI government, and now it is a different government? During the (inaudible) government -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I think -- I am not going to do the whole history of our statements on Chiapas, but I think you will find we are fairly consistent. Q: There is a report that Secretary Powell is visiting Japan and South Korea in April? Could you comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: No. I hadn't seen the report. I haven't heard any discussion of that, any timing. Obviously he is going to travel to various places in the world, but we don't have anything new to announce at this point. Q: Do you have anything on meetings between Chinese officials in from Beijing that deal with Taiwan and officials in this building? MR. BOUCHER: You would have to be more specific. There was -- I can't remember his name. Q: Mr. Zhou? Vice Minister Zhou, one of the head Chinese officials that deal with Taiwan. MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I will go back and get you that. One of the officials from the Chinese Government that deals with Taiwan was here, I think about a week ago. And I will have to check on that and get that for you. Q: Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if a week ago we were saying he was coming this week, but I think last week we were saying he was coming here. I will double-check on that, but yes, there was somebody in town. Q: Do you have anything -- any reaction to this joint communiqué which was signed today in Seoul by the Russian prisoner put in (inaudible) about President Kim Dae Jung calling for strengthening the ABM Treaty, and calling it a cornerstone of stability in the world? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think you have all probably seen the South Korean Government's statement on this that said they were reviewing their position on the missile defense issue. They have not stated any opposition to missile defense, and that they -- there is no reference to missile defense in this communiqué that you have referred to. They also explained how the language in the communiqué, where it came from, how it got there. I think what I would say is that the South Korean Government has made clear that it is engaged in this review. The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that they didn't want -- they had not intended in any way to have their statement imply opposition to missile defense. And as I pointed out, there is no mention of missile defense in the joint statement. We have a longstanding alliance and consult extensively with South Korean Government on security measures, including close cooperation to address regional and global concerns about proliferation. We look forward to continuing those consultations when President Kim Dae Jung visits Washington next week. It will be a chance for him and President Bush to discuss the full range of security issues, including missile defense. I would look forward to that point, if you want to hear something further about missile defense. Q: In the wake of a recent column in The Washington Post about apologies over the Greeneville incident, do you have any comment on that, or do you feel that the -- does the State Department have any comment on whether the United States has apologized enough on that incident? MR. BOUCHER: I think what I would say, we have a Special Envoy that we wanted to send to Japan. He is meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister, he is meeting with the families, he is going to travel down to the location of this school on Thursday. We have a very strong bilateral relationship. We believe it is important to cooperate with Japan in all aspects of this relationship, including, as I pointed out before, including cooperation when such a terrible tragedy occurs. I think it is appropriate to continue our cooperation under these circumstances, in whatever ways are important to that relationship. Q: Richard, this may have been gone into while we were away, but do you have anything on Mr. Hanssen, the spy, and what was found in his offices that the FBI has gone through here? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: (Inaudible) economic delegation from North Korea will visit Washington, DC in the very near future, and do you have any information to announce concerning this matter? MR. BOUCHER: No, I hadn't heard about it. I will look into it and see if there is anything to tell you. Q: Can you give us just an outline of what the Secretary expects to discuss with the Irish Foreign Minister this afternoon? Is it going to go into Northern Ireland peace process, and what role, if any, particular individuals in this building will play in supporting it? MR. BOUCHER: I think after the meeting we may talk about some more of the detailed questions about roles or things like that. I am not predicting that, but it is certainly not something I can do for you at this point. I think, as with many of the meetings the Secretary has had, he looks forward to having a close, personal relationship with the Irish Foreign Minister, and establishing that relationship in their discussions today is important. Ireland currently holds a seat on the Security Council, so Secretary Council business, including Iraq-Libya UN financing will obviously be discussed. They will want to discuss bilateral issues as well, multilateral issues like the European Union expansion, or issues like national -- the Northern Ireland peace process. I think the best thing to say on that is what President Bush said last week with Prime Minister Blair. If there is a way the United States can help, we will be more than willing to do so. But we will look to the parties to tell us how we can help. We certainly look forward to these discussions and to continuing the strong, close cooperation that we have enjoyed with Ireland. Thank you. [end]
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.