 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Sunday, 22 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-03-20U.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 March 20, 2001 INDEX: ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming this afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I have one brief announcement and we'll get a sheet up shortly, but the Secretary will be going on April 3rd for a day trip to the talks on Nagorno-Karabakh at Key West. So we can confirm that for you now, and then obviously we'll be putting up the appropriate paperwork as soon as we can. That's the only little announcement for you. I'll be glad to take your questions. Q: Well, it's not specifically on his travel but it's about the meeting today with the Armenian Foreign Minister. How much of that meeting is going to concentrate or be about preparations for this Key West summit, or whatever you're calling it? MR. BOUCHER: I suppose it's difficult to say exactly how much we'll concentrate. That's obviously one of the important issues to discuss with him. The Armenian Foreign Minister is here on one of his periodic trips to the United States. Obviously the Secretary welcomes the opportunity to meet with him. They'll talk about bilateral relations, including the situation in Nagorno- Karabakh, the progress that's been made in the discussions, and the plans for the meetings between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key West next month. So it's a principal point to be discussed with him. Q: Is the US hoping that you're going to be able to achieve some kind of substantial breakthrough in the dispute in this meeting? MR. BOUCHER: I would put it more in the context of the overall effort that's being made through the OSCE and the Minsk Group, the three co-chairs of this OSCE process. We're working directly with the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, looking at this stage in the Key West meetings to narrow the differences to seek a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It builds upon the direct dialogue that the leaders have had, build upon the work that they've done recently with President Chirac. We've also seen President Putin supporting the recent efforts to move the process forward. So the Key West talks are another attempt to move this process forward, to narrow the differences, and we'll see what they're prepared to do and how far they're prepared to go. Q: Who will lead the US delegation after the Secretary departs? MR. BOUCHER: Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh. And I've got to remember if he's still got a title. I'll get you the exact title. Q: It's in the statement. MR. BOUCHER: Well, then let me find that. Q: It hasn't been abolished since the -- MR. BOUCHER: No, no. Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh, will lead the US team. Q: This is the soft side of the question. And I always appreciate evidence of humor in the building, but Ambassador Cavanaugh has said that one of the reasons they picked Key West is because one of the presidents wanted to go surfing. So now I'm getting questions about who is paying for this, why would you pick a site like Key West. Do you have any of those details? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that he said it. If he said it, it is obviously purely a jest. The fact is we have a facility down there that is the former Truman White House*. It is a good place where we can do this and I think not have too much expense for the US Government of going out and finding a private facility. So it is a good place to do this, where we can have these talks in some privacy with some proper facilities, so the United States can play its part in these negotiations. Q: When it is our turn to host, does the host country pay for all the costs, or does the OSCE pitch in? MR. BOUCHER: The OSCE picks up a lot of the cost of doing this. There are obviously some attendant costs in terms of the facility, the maintenance. I think actually some of the press expenses that have to be picked up by the US. Q: Cavanaugh is also from Florida. Does that play a role at all? Q: (Inaudible)? MR. BOUCHER: Setting up the press facility kind of expenses. Q: I'm sorry. The Ambassador is from Florida. Does that play a role in the choice? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry? Q: The Ambassador is from Florida, I believe. Does that play a role in the -- MR. BOUCHER: The Ambassador? Do you mean Carey Cavanaugh? Q: Yes. MR. BOUCHER: I didn't realize he was. But I think, in the end, there are a few of these facilities around the country where the United States can host events like this. I know we have done some in various other locations, and this is a good facility for this particular purpose, and that is why we are using it. As I said, using a US Government facility gives us the opportunity to have some control over the area that we need to conduct private discussions like these, but also, I think in the end, spares the taxpayers some expense. Q: Richard, are these going to be for a finite period of time, or could they be open-ended, or do you anticipate how long they will go down there? MR. BOUCHER: It is anticipated about four days of talks will take place, from April 3rd to April 6th. That could be extended if needed. But that is the anticipation at this point, about four days of talks. The Secretary will go down for part of the day, actually, on the first day, April 3rd. Q: I don't want to get too into logistical details here, but -- well, I guess Phil -- I'll wait until we do it later, since Phil doesn't want me to ask it now. I was hoping to have some knowledge as to what you -- are you hoping for more progress than was made in the last meeting between the two presidents, which was in Paris? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it is comparing one meeting to the other that is our goal. Our hope is to make progress. Q: Right. But certainly you envision -- MR. BOUCHER: Our hope is to work with the parties to make progress. We think that there was indeed progress made at their meetings with President Chirac, and we would hope to make further progress in Key West. Q: Can we ask for some details on Macedonia? Can we switch and see what's the latest there? MR. BOUCHER: Macedonia. Let me try to do both an update and some background on this. I think we have made quite clear that we strongly condemn the continuing violence by the ethnic Albanian extremists in Macedonia. We have also made quite clear that we absolutely and strongly support Macedonia's territorial integrity and the government's efforts to protect the population and the ethnic minorities through the rule of law. NATO-led forces have continued on their side of the border to man checkpoints, to increase the number and the visibility of patrols and observations, and NATO has been sharing information with the Macedonian Government. NATO has also moved an operational reserve of the Kosovo forces to the border area in the American sector, so there have been 300 more troops repositioned for better border security in that area, and more NATO-led KFOR troops will be sent to beef up the border area as necessary. Together with our NATO allies, we are looking at ways to provide additional immediate support to the Macedonian Government. NATO has people on the ground and in Skopje to help plan that process with them. I would also point out that the United States all along has been a strong supporter of Macedonia. We are providing this year $33 million in assistance for democracy, economic, civic society programs. Our military assistance totals approximately $13.5 million, and we are ourselves looking at ways that we might continue the assistance and expand that assistance for the Government of Macedonia in the current crisis. I think that's the news. Q: Richard, has the Secretary had any contacts in the last 24 hours with anybody related to Macedonia? MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check on that. He hasn't talked to any of the Macedonians. I'll have to check on Europeans or others. Q: Richard, you've said that you're looking for ways to extend this aid. Do you mean in terms of military aid or in terms of civilian aid? What form could that conceivably take? MR. BOUCHER: The answer is yes. The US assistance of $33 million has been on the civilian side, and about 13.5 on the military side. Let me give you an example of what we do. The 33 million in non-military aid for Macedonia goes to the private sector development promoting democratic governance, legal reform, promoting decentralization through local government reform, through anti-corruption programs, higher education, including funding for an Albanian language university. So what we're looking at on the civilian side is to help the government continue those programs, to build democracy, to build civic society and provide what we would say was a peaceful democratic outlet for any grievances or any concerns that the Macedonian -- the ethnic Albanian community in Macedonia might have. On the military side, we have allocated a total of approximately 13.5 million in military assistance, in training. The training component is a little more than a half million dollars. On that, as I said, we're working with other governments in NATO to look at the military needs, what kind of further assistance they might need, and that is being looked at with NATO. Q: So (inaudible) funding from NATO instead of directly from this country? MR. BOUCHER: Ultimately, any NATO funding comes from the member governments, so that's where we're working on the immediate needs on the military side. Q: Just a couple of quick detail questions, and then I have some longer questions. How many US KFOR troops, then, are there on the border now? You said they added 300? MR. BOUCHER: I think the 300 are not US forces. They are from the operational reserve that was in Kosovo. So the Pentagon can tell you what was there, but it should be approximately the same now. Q: Okay. And do you have any idea how many insurgents there are that are involved in this? We've heard anywhere from hundreds to thousands. MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't know. And I'll have to check and see if we have any kind of estimate of that. Q: Okay, now just for the little longer question. Considering the fact that the Macedonian Government has asked for more US help and that its military isn't strong to begin with and that the situation only keeps getting worse, is it the Bush Administration's opinion that no more beyond this military aid would be required to prevent the situation from escalating? Or is this just all that we're prepared to do at this point? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I don't accept any of your premises, and I don't think those are the options. Let me try to make clear, what we're trying to do is to support -- we have supported the Macedonian Government all along. We very strongly support their territorial integrity. We have a substantial aid program that is to develop the society, to give the Albanian population peaceful outlets for any concerns that they might have. And we have been supporting them with military assistance. So we intend to continue to do that. In the immediate crisis, we are looking at ways to step up our assistance, particularly on the non-military side, and we're working with NATO governments to look at ways to step up assistance to the military, to see what we can do for them in the immediate need. So I think we're looking at various options, various ways of helping them, and we will continue to do that, as we have all along. Now, if that is a back-door way of saying are we going to expand the mandate and put more troops into Macedonia, that's a question I think we've answered sort of repeatedly. But at this point, the goal is to fulfill our mandate on the Kosovo side, which we do. If we can prevent border crossings by stepped-up patrols, if we can prevent arms caches, if we can prevent the sort of sanctuary and the ability to move freely through this area, we assist the Macedonian Government in coping with the problem on their side of the border. So it's not an either/or situation. Q: Okay, Richard, you're saying that the Macedonian Government has not asked the US for further military help to put troops into Macedonia to help? MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying that -- those are two questions. For further military assistance, I don't know, but we are certainly within NATO considering what we can do to help them militarily. And that obviously involves a dialogue with the Macedonian Government. But in terms of further forces, further US forces or NATO forces, I'm not aware of any request to go into Macedonia, and no request at all for US forces. Q: So you're saying that NATO is now reviewing options for possibly putting some peacekeeping troops, or whatever, into Macedonia? MR. BOUCHER: No, I think I said NATO is not, and Lord Robertson has said - - Q: I thought you were said they were reviewing it. MR. BOUCHER: Looking at how we can assist them with their immediate needs. But that I think Lord Robertson has made quite clear he is not looking to expand the mandate. Q: But when you say -- I mean, usually the hardware -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes, hardware, logistics, expertise, more information- sharing. There are a variety of ways of helping people without putting our troops in necessarily. Q: You said Lord Robertson has been clear on not extending the mandate, but can you tell us about the possibility of having to have more US forces go into Kosovo as part of KFOR, which might go to a border area? MR. BOUCHER: As I said, I think we agree certainly that there does need to be this effort under way to beef up security along the Kosovo-Macedonia border, but we haven't received any request for more US troops to do that. Q: Are there any US troops right now in Macedonia? I remember when the KFOR was starting, they were -- MR. BOUCHER: I think there are logistics -- NATO has logistics bases. I assume there are Americans as part of that. But it is logistics support for KFOR, for the Kosovo forces. There is no NATO force on patrol. Q: Richard, when you cite US support for building democracy in Macedonia, does that extend to an endorsement for Macedonia to negotiate with these Albanian extremists? Would you encourage that? MR. BOUCHER: Albanian -- ethnic Albanian political parties participate in the Macedonian political process and negotiate and discuss things with the government all the time. So there is an opportunity for the government of Macedonia to discuss and take into account and try to meet the needs of the Albanian community. But I think I will leave it to their political process to determine how best to do that. Q: But I'm talking specifically about the gunmen, not the Albanian political people? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to have anything to specify on that. I will leave it to them to figure out how to cope with their situation. I think the fact is, they provide outlets and have shown an interest in taking care of the ethnic Albanian community. As I said, much of -- some of our money for civil society -- for the Albanian language university, for example -- goes into helping them with that effort and will continue to help them with that effort, because we believe that that political aspect of providing this outlet is a vital component of calming the situation and resolving it. Q: You keep saying there is no request for more US forces, no request for this and so on. I was up on the Hill today, and various Senators were criticizing the State Department for being passive in this Macedonian affair, and suggesting that you show leadership. Is there any consideration being given to taking an initiative on this rather than just sitting waiting for requests? MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are looking immediately with NATO at ways to assist the government with their immediate problems. We are looking ourselves at the assistance that we give and ways that we might help the government further, particularly in these areas where we've helped them in the past. And so I think that's not a passive situation. We've been in active touch with our allies, active touch with NATO, active touch with the Macedonian Government. The OSCE, with our support, is sending people down to work with them. NATO has people down there to work with them. There is information-sharing. There is coordination going on. There is stepped-up activity and patrols in the American sector on the Kosovo side of the border. So there's a lot being done, and I think a lot will continue to be done. Q: The Deputy Premier Qian Qichen is due in to see the Secretary tomorrow. Could you talk about what's on the Secretary's mind as the meeting begins? And also, Qian Qichen told some news media folks in New York this morning that a very serious situation would develop between the United States and China if the decision was made to go ahead with the sale of Aegis destroyers to Taiwan. MR. BOUCHER: Let me do the whole thing and try to address that in the context as we go forward. The Secretary will host Vice Premier Qian Qichen for a meeting and dinner on March 21st. That's tomorrow. The Vice Premier has an extensive schedule planned for Washington, and so the Chinese Embassy will probably be able to give you more details on other activities. The visit is a chance for the Secretary and the Vice Premier and others in the US Administration to talk face to face at some length about China policy in the new Administration. As you know, the Secretary has spoken quite clearly in public about this in his confirmation hearings. He has had a chance to meet with first the outgoing Chinese Ambassador and then the incoming Chinese Ambassador to talk about the basic parameters of the relationship. But I think this will be the first time that they get a chance to delve into the various issues that constitute our relationship with China, things like Chinese membership in the World Trade Organization, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles, also issues of missile defense, the cross-Strait situation, the human rights situation and our concerns, regional and global issues, including things like the Korean Peninsula, South Asia and the Persian Gulf. In some of these areas, we cooperate quite well with China; in other areas, we have differences. So the Administration's goal at this point is to identify our goals and objectives where we converge with China and where we do not. We will communicate a strong desire to expand the common ground, but we won't shrink from discussing the differences candidly and on the basis of mutual respect. We do expect differences on the role and the impact of US arms sales to Taiwan. The Chinese, on some of these things that they've read about, have made quite clear their views. I want to reiterate the basic policy: we don't consult with China on our arms sales to Taiwan; we sell to Taiwan what we think is appropriate and necessary to meet their legitimate defensive needs. We do believe that our unofficial relations with Taiwan promote cross- Strait talks, help give Taiwan confidence and comfort to engage with the People's Republic of China. The People's Republic of China's military posture shapes Taiwan's perception of the military threat it faces. So we would encourage the Chinese to maintain a long-term perspective as the two sides on the Straits look to solve their fundamental issues. Q: You would encourage the Chinese to take a long-term perspective? The Chinese are famed for their long-term perspective. It's the United States which seems to change every eight or four years, changes its perspective. Is that not a bit much? MR. BOUCHER: I would say, Matt, that United States policy on this has been very consistent since the Shanghai Communiqué in 1972. Q: Well, not the indications on the Aegis -- MR. BOUCHER: And if I may, since the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, the establishment of relations in 1979, and throughout Republican and Democratic administrations ever since. So our view has been and continues to be that peaceful resolution of the issues across the Straits between Taiwan and the Mainland is necessary, that we will continue to encourage that, and that it's very important to us that whatever happens take place peacefully. That has been a longstanding US view. Q: Yes, but as the Vice Premier was jetting his way here, there were all sorts of indications that this Administration is about to go beyond what the last one did in terms of arms sales to Taiwan. I don't expect you to make any kind of announcement about that, but certainly the atmosphere right now does not -- I mean, the atmosphere -- it doesn't seem like -- I don't know what I'm trying to say here except that it doesn't -- it seems that it's a little more tense than it might -- maybe even tense isn't the right word, but it's a little more tense than the way it was, you know, three weeks ago. MR. BOUCHER: First of all, on the issue of sales to Taiwan, we go through a process; we consult with the Taiwan authorities on their needs, what they see as their defense needs. We consult with our Congress. We don't consult with the Chinese Government, but we do consult throughout the American Government on these things. There is a normal process. We're following that process. And we will continue to do what we've always done, and that's to help Taiwan meet its legitimate defense requirements. That process is under way. It usually is at this time of year. And as things appear in the newspapers in Taiwan or elsewhere, the Chinese always state their views. So we would not be surprised to be hearing the views of the Chinese Government in this case. But at the same time, I think we have made quite clear the basis for our sales to Taiwan, and that we will continue to do that as necessary. Q: Qian said specifically today that the Aegis sale, if it occurs, would be a violation of the '82 agreement. He said that the quantity and quality of weapons sold to Taiwan cannot exceed those of any previous year. Could you address that issue? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can address it with regard to any particular weapon system at this point, since the process of review is still under way. Q: Richard, a moment ago you just sort of seemed to give a good -- lay a good groundwork for if the Aegis sale is approved next month for telling the Chinese that it is their fault because of their build-up on their side of the Straits. And yet last year when the Aegis was requested, they were -- we had the white paper, and the tensions actually seemed a little higher, as far as their threats to actually attack Taiwan. Is there -- MR. BOUCHER: I mean, I suppose it is interesting to have a thermometer of US-China relations in the room every time we do this, but the fact is that that is -- Q: Well, with the clock going towards midnight. MR. BOUCHER: Yes. The issue is Taiwan's legitimate defensive needs. And clearly we do believe that the perception of those needs in Taiwan has something to do with the Chinese military posture, but there are many other factors besides that that need to be looked at. Q: The key factor wouldn't be the perception of Taiwan's needs in Taiwan; it would be the perception of Taiwan's needs here, wouldn't it? MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't want to try to specify one or the other. There are many other factors that need to be considered. That process is under way, and we will do this in the normal fashion. Q: It's related, but can you give us any update on this November agreement that we reached with Beijing with regards to weapons sales and notification on that? Have they submitted lists of what they are doing? MR. BOUCHER: I would have to double-check on that. I'm not aware of any problems, but let me double-check. Q: Do you have any comment on Israeli plans to build 3,000 housing units in Har Homa, a suburb of East Jerusalem? MR. BOUCHER: In a general sense, I think we would say that we do not support unilateral actions in this situation. We think it is important for all sides to be careful and to be sensitive at this particular moment, and we don't think that continued construction activity like this contributes to peace or stability. So we have urged both sides to refrain from unilateral actions, and the Secretary did that again yesterday. Q: But is it a violation of international law, as most people believe? MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we don't think it contributes to peace and stability. That's about as much as I can say at this moment. Q: Foreign Minister Cem is coming (inaudible) with the Secretary on March 13th. What is the agenda? Could you give any special detail about it? Because it is very important in view of the meeting about Karabakh and Turkey is a Minsk Group country, but she is not in that meeting. MR. BOUCHER: I think when we were in -- we haven't actually formally announced the meeting, but I think I can confirm it because I think we talked about it when we were in Europe, and the last time they met was at NATO, when we were there. Indeed, Foreign Minister Cem is coming. I think the date is the 30th, and I will try to confirm the meeting for you formally. But certainly we look forward to the opportunity to talk to the Turkish Foreign Minister about a whole host of issues. We have an enormous relationship with Turkey, and there is a lot of things going on these days. The Iraq policy is one thing we need to talk about, Nagorno-Karabakh issues. Turkey is -- I guess I better get this right -- they are a member of the Minsk Group, but not of the three, if I remember the correct designation. Well, I can't find it, but I will clarify it for you later. It must be there somewhere. Yes. Turkey is one of the 12 countries in the Minsk Group and obviously has interest in this region. It is a neighbor to both countries, playing an important role in the process. When we get to the implementation phase they are not one of the co-chairs, therefore, and they don't have a mediating role in the conflict. So among other issues they will want to discuss with us, we will want to discuss with Foreign Minister Cem the Minsk Group issues. Then there is also plenty of issues that we work with Turkey. I think the European Security and Defense Initiative is still on both our agendas. And we will obviously be interested in Turkish economic reforms and what is going on within Turkey, particularly in terms of working with the IMF and the World Bank. Q: (Inaudible) on the ESDI issue? MR. BOUCHER: I think this is an issue that we and our ally, Turkey, have tried to work together on. We have tried to work together with the Europeans to make sure that this turns out the way we all expect. Q: As the Arab summit approaches, more and more Arab countries are saying that they expect a resolution basically calling for the abolition of sanctions against Iraq. And none of them seem to be mentioning in any way the package of sanctions which the Secretary touted around the region last month. Are we missing something here? I mean, are you making any headway with -- are they speaking double-talk, or what? What is going on? MR. BOUCHER: You ask that question every week, and I think I will give you the same answer as I gave last week. And that is we are confident that we, in our discussions with our Arab friends in the region, with the frontline states, are confident that we have a common understanding on the basic approach. As you know, the Secretary has been out there. The Secretary has had subsequent communications back and forth. Our embassies have been in close contact with these governments. Assistant Secretary Walker has been in the region as well. We think that there is a consensus on tightening controls on weapons of mass destruction and allowing the flow of civilian goods to civilians in Iraq to flow more smoothly; tightening controls on weapons, money and smuggling. And we will continue to work that with governments in the region. We will obviously be interested in what happens at the Arab League summit, but I would say that this is an issue that we'll continue to work till we actually can put in effect this policy that we think there is a strong consensus for. Q: That was basically my question, except I would like to add that now the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister also is saying that his country agrees to lift sanctions. You say you believe you have a consensus, and he says I don't think there are Arab countries that don't call for lifting of sanctions, and we see a consensus. Does that change the equation at all, when even Kuwait is calling for sanctions to be removed? MR. BOUCHER: I suppose you have got to look in a little more detail at some of these quotes that are told out what people mean by sanctions. I don't think that anybody in the region that we talked to thought that we should be supplying Iraq with weapons or material to make weapons of mass destruction. Q: Let me just go ahead. I mean, your understanding is that when they talk about lifting sanctions, they just mean controls on civilian -- MR. BOUCHER: I think they are talking about the flow of civilian goods, yes. Q: But they are just leaving out the other half of the equation on that? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not going to try to take a thousand statements that people have made and explain them all to you in one swell foop, but I do think that we can -- sorry. Q: Is that an intentional spoonerism from the podium? MR. BOUCHER: It's a family expression that shouldn't -- anyway, I'm not going to try to cover the entire range of statements that might have been made in a single phrase. But I do think that there is strong support in the region for making sure that Iraq cannot threaten the people of these countries, cannot threaten the children of these countries, and cannot use weapons of mass destruction in the future as they have in the past. Q: Richard, will the Secretary be making calls ahead of the Arab summit to see if this continues to be the understanding that we have with them, or are you just going to wait until after the summit to see how it turns out? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we have any particular phone calls planned by the Secretary, but certainly we have been in touch with these governments. There have been -- our embassies are working with people. Messages are being conveyed on the Secretary's behalf about the approach, about the sanctions policy, about the approach that we want to take on this. And we will continue to work the substance of the approach, including the steps necessary to make it effective. Q: So that is also on what you base your opinion that things haven't changed since we were there so much, the continued -- not just the time we were there? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that we have confirmation of the discussions that we had there, and we are now talking about it in somewhat more detail. Q: Does that mean that you have actually presented some kind of an outline of what was suggested to us might be -- was hoped to be completed by the time that the summit began? MR. BOUCHER: If I remember correctly, the Secretary's phrase was "progress", not completion. So I would say that we have continued to make progress since the Secretary's trip, along the lines of the approach that was outlined to you during that trip; that we have been in further contact with many of the governments about some of the specific steps, the ways and the means of making sure it is effective, and that work will continue. But I'm not planning on -- I don't think there is any announcement planned in the next few days. Q: And along those lines, have you heard back yet from the Syrians on President Asad's comments to the Secretary about putting the pipeline under UN control? MR. BOUCHER: We have continued to discuss that with the Syrians, and heard it confirmed again. I would say that the issue I think that we left it with was when that should take place and what sort of action at the United Nations. I'm not sure if that is decided yet. Q: When -- you got your second confirmation when? Q: At what level is that? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not even sure it's just the second. We have been continuing to communicate back and forth with the Syrian Government all along and -- Q: There hasn't been a peep out of Damascus about that. Q: And at what level is that confirmation? MR. BOUCHER: At what level? Q: Yes, I mean -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I think it has been at various levels. Q: On Colombia, there is an article in today's Washington Times talking about the links between the FARC and drug trade, and they talk about exporting cocaine from Colombia to Brazil produced by the FARC. And if you have any comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: I think this is something we have talked about before. You will remember the Mexicans arrested some people -- what was it, six months or so ago -- that demonstrated some of the links between the FARC and the narco-traffickers. As the Colombian Government has gone forward with their counter-narcotics program, they continue to identify evidence of deep involvement by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the narcotics industry. This is longstanding and well-known. It is not the first time that we have seen credible evidence of FARC personnel directly participating in drug transactions. In the past, the FARC's leadership has denied these charges in the press, despite the evidence, and we would call on them to demonstrate their claim of non-involvement in narcotics trafficking by in fact severing all their ties with the narcotics industry. Q: Richard -- well, it relates to Brazil. Have you all had any requests from the Brazilian Government to help in the oil platform collapse? Any expertise? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I have heard of. I will double-check to make sure that's true, but not that I have heard of. They may be using American private expertise. Q: Following your remarks about Foreign Minister Cem coming, I'm wondering -- Foreign Minister Singh has said that he is coming as well. Are you in a position to say anything about that? MR. BOUCHER: April 6th. Q: That, yes. But I mean a little more. MR. BOUCHER: If I remember correctly. That's the one in my head. Foreign Minister of India Jaswant Singh is coming on April 6th. I suppose he has a slightly longer visit to the United States. He will meet with the Secretary on April 6th, and we look forward to those discussions. Q: You don't want to say anything more about that? MR. BOUCHER: It will cover the full range of our relationship. (Laughter.) Q: Okay, fair enough. Go to someone else because I forgot what I was going to ask. Q: Thank you. Q: Oh, wait. I remember. (Laughter.) It's very brief. Just the message to the Iranian people that was put out -- or the Persian New Year. I just wanted confirmation that that's an annual thing that every Secretary of State has done for the past several years? MR. BOUCHER: I have to check. I'm not sure it was always the Secretary of State. I have to double-check. Q: Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. *ANNOTATION: The Harry S Truman "Little White House" facility is owned by the State of Florida. [end] Released on March 20, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.