 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Sunday, 22 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-04-02U.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 April 2, 2001 INDEX: FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, let me start off telling you about certification for Yugoslavia and then we will continue on to other topics after that. Today, on April 2nd, the Secretary of State conveyed his decision to Congress on the issue of the certification of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the purposes of our aid programs there. The Secretary determined that Yugoslavia had met the criteria of Section 594 of the Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriation Act of 2001. In making this determination, however, the Secretary qualified the certification. The Administration intends to continue to press Yugoslav authorities to follow through on their stated intention to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. United States support for holding of an international donors conference will depend on continued progress by Yugoslavia and Serbia toward full cooperation with the tribunal. So that is the essence of the decision. I would be glad to take any questions you might have? Q: What does "full cooperation" mean? MR. BOUCHER: Full cooperation can involve any number of steps. Clearly, the cooperation has to be worked out with the tribunal. What we have noted so far is things like they've drafted a law on cooperation with the tribunal; some suspects have indeed been turned over or turned themselves over with the help of Yugoslav authorities; they've set up an office for the tribunal in Belgrade. So there have been a number of steps. These steps need to be fulfilled. We look forward to seeing the full cooperation in terms of international legal matters with the tribunal, passage of the law, things like that, transfer of further indictees. Q: Richard, would Milosevic have to go to The Hague? MR. BOUCHER: As with this particular certification at this moment, clearly having Milosevic face international justice for international crimes remains a top priority of the international community and a key factor in their cooperation with the tribunal. But in terms of holding the donors conference, we will make clear that these and other steps are the kinds of steps we would expect them to take. But I think the judgment will not be based on a single step alone, as this judgment was not. Q: What will be the consequences if Milosevic is found guilty at home, because he could face a 15-year sentence? MR. BOUCHER: We have always said that the cooperation between the Yugoslav authorities, the determination of how the sequencing goes between domestic justice and international justice, and how those work together, that those are things that they should work out with the international tribunal. So we will look for them to be doing that as part of our look at how they continue to cooperate and continue to fulfill the commitments that they have made to respect their international obligations. Q: Richard, you say US support for the donors conference. Does that mean if they don't continue their cooperation that the US will not attend the donors conference, that you will attend and lobby for no more money to go to them? What does that mean? MR. BOUCHER: In the donors conference, the United States would play a principal role in any donors conference because we are strong supporters and we give a lot of money. I would not anticipate that a donors conference would be held without the support of the United States. Q: So -- but you would kind of use a veto to stop the donors conference? MR. BOUCHER: We would not support the holding of a donors conference and we would not help organize one unless we continue to see them carry forward on these kinds of steps. We will look for them to continue to carry out their commitments. I grant them, they have made these commitments. They have only been in office, in the case of the Yugoslav Government for four or five months, in the case of the Serbian Government for two or three months. We have seen the beginnings of cooperation. We think the cooperation has been adequate to certify that they meet the minimum threshold of our law. But the Secretary qualified that decision by saying that we want to see continued cooperation before we support a donors conference. Q: What will the implications on debt rescheduling be of your decision, if any? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware there are any particular implications at this moment. I would have to check. Q: The same question regarding World Bank and IMF loans? MR. BOUCHER: The certification means that we can disburse aid under our aid programs and we can continue to support loans in the World Bank and the IMF. Q: Richard, as a matter of general principle, do you think that the jurisdiction of the ICTY trumps that of any domestic court? MR. BOUCHER: That is a matter of international law that I don't think I can do at this moment. I am not going to try to interpret international law on the fly. So clearly we think that these things can be worked out and should be worked out between the government in Belgrade and the international tribunal. The tribunal obviously has authority in areas that involve international crimes. Q: Can you say a bit more on the expected donors conference? Exactly when would you expect it to be held? MR. BOUCHER: I think it is generally assumed that there would be a donors conference about early summer, that that will be held and that, as I said, our support for that will depend on seeing the continued cooperation with the tribunal. Q: Are there amounts that are now being discussed of possible aid altogether from the international community? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of any at this stage. We are still a ways away from that. Q: How about continued US aid? The $100 million runs out, I think, in September or -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, it would run out at the end of the fiscal year. And when we reveal the budget for next year, we will reveal the budget for things like this. Q: Richard, has this been directly communicated to Belgrade, or how has it been communicated? MR. BOUCHER: It is being communicated to Belgrade. We asked our Ambassador -- this morning we asked our Ambassador to communicate this to the government of Belgrade, so I assume it has been done by now. Q: Richard, just to review, in terms of Milosevic ending up at The Hague or not ending up at The Hague, you said no one act is going to determine anything. Including that -- including that act? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. It remains our goal to see him face justice in The Hague. We should be absolutely clear about that. We should be absolutely clear that we want that to take place sooner rather than later. But the overall standard that we will use in looking at the donors conference is whether they continue to make progress on their commitments toward full cooperation with the tribunal. Q: Does that progress also include democratization, as was written into the law? MR. BOUCHER: Clearly we want to see progress on democratization continue. In terms of the donors conference, this is the standard that I have said at this point. Q: So that cooperation with The Hague Tribunal is the conditions that you're laying out for support -- MR. BOUCHER: For support for the donors conference. We expect them to keep fulfilling their commitments in any number of areas, but in terms of the decision that we just made on certification, the key element that we were concerned about is cooperation with the tribunal. We recognize how short a time the government has been in place, but also recognize that they have taken steps sufficient to meet the minimum standards of the law. We think it is good that they have done that, but we think there needs to be more cooperation and we will continue to press for that, including by using the donors conference. Q: Any indications from the Yugoslavs how long their own legal procedures might take? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of. You'd have to get that from them. Q: Have you set a new deadline for when they would have to provide further cooperation before you decide about the donors conference? MR. BOUCHER: Not a specific date. But as anticipated, if the donors conference were to come off as anticipated in the early part of the summer, we would have to see continued cooperation in the next few months to be able to prepare that. Q: Richard, when did Secretary Powell make this decision, and was it a direct consequence of Milosevic's arrest? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't talk to him over the weekend so I can't give you a precise moment. Over the weekend he decided, and he announced it to us at this morning's staff meeting. Q: So, presumably, after events in Belgrade? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: When he decided on Friday to put off his decision until today, was it with the anticipation of some of the events that later unfolded? Did he have some sense that something might be happening? MR. BOUCHER: He didn't decide on Friday to put off this decision until today. He decided on Friday to put off the announcement until today. He was going to decide over the weekend anyway. We obviously had been reading your reports in the press to say that there was action on Milosevic anticipated shortly, and we were happy to see that over the weekend. So anticipating that something might happen, he wanted to make sure that the decision was made with the full knowledge of what the government was doing to fulfill its commitments. Q: Richard, do you have any confirmation whether Chinese authorities have boarded our plane? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. Q: Are we checking on those reports? MR. BOUCHER: I think you'd have to get information -- as I read the reports, you'd have to get information from the Pentagon about that. Q: Can you tell us what the diplomats now in Hainan are doing and an update on their contacts with the local authorities or whoever they're contacting? MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me try to go through the whole thing. Clearly, as the President just said, our first priority is to get access to our people, speak directly with our crew members. We have been told that they are safe. We want to talk directly to them. The Chinese have told us -- late morning Washington time, they told us in Beijing in the Ambassador's meetings that we will have access to our people tomorrow. Now, the President made clear that we were troubled by the lack of prompt access, made clear that we were troubled by the lack of prompt response, first of all, and then second of all by the lack of prompt access. It is already Tuesday in Beijing, so we'll see what happens, but clearly access to tell us that we may have access tomorrow is not a complete response. We look for early access, as the President said; we look for prompt access, and we will keep pushing to have that prompt access tomorrow as early as possible. The people that we have down in the area are the military attaché from Beijing, one of his staff, our consular chief from the Consulate General in Guangzhou. They arrived in Hainan Island on Monday, China time. We have been having meetings with the Chinese to -- as the President said -- to press for prompt access. Our Ambassador met with Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong in Beijing yesterday. Under Secretary Grossman called in the Chinese Ambassador in Washington yesterday afternoon, and Ambassador Prueher met again this morning with China's Assistant Foreign Minister in Beijing -- this morning our time, so this afternoon. Our Ambassador met again today in Beijing with China's Assistant Foreign Minister. We have told the Chinese very clearly we want prompt access, as the President said. We told the Chinese, as the President said, we expect them to respect the integrity of the aircraft. We have told them we expect them to provide for the well-being and safety of the crew in accordance with international practice, to expedite any necessary repairs to the aircraft, and to facilitate the immediate return of the aircraft and crew. Q: Richard, you said they said you would have access tomorrow, meaning Tuesday China time? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they have told us that we may have access, I guess, tomorrow -- Q: May or will? I mean, there is a difference. MR. BOUCHER: I guess they told us -- Q: Allow them to. MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that we -- Q: Oh, may have access? Q: Right. MR. BOUCHER: Whatever. That we will be allowed to have access tomorrow. But I think the point is that is a fairly vague formulation, as the President made clear in his statement. We continue to press for prompt access. Tomorrow is just starting in China. We would hope that access would take place as early as possible. Q: (Inaudible) daybreak in Hainan, which is another sort of six hours or so. So does that count as prompt? MR. BOUCHER: We would want to see it as early as possible. The President made quite clear we are looking for prompt access and not further delay. Q: Richard, what have the Chinese told you is the status of these crew members? How are -- I mean, you are looking for prompt access under what international standard? And also, I'm also very confused about this claim that you guys are making that this plane is somehow territorially the United States? How do you make that argument that this is -- that if they did board the plane, it would be a violation of US sovereignty? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not in a position to go through a detailed legal explanation. Our view is that military aircraft have sovereign immunity under international law and practice. We have made that view quite clear to the Chinese. As far as getting access to our air crew, I don't think the Chinese have said if they are under detention or what they consider their status to be. We consider that international air crews that make emergency landings need to be provided with the ability to communicate and to speak directly with their national government, and that it is standard international practice and basic handling of an emergency situation to get them in touch with us as soon as possible. And it is under that international standard of international practice and law that we would expect to be able to see them. Q: But that is a consular access thing, correct? I mean, it would be almost the same as if someone was arrested and -- MR. BOUCHER: Again, well, that is the question. I don't want to sort of verge on the point of declaring these people in detention or something like that. The Chinese -- clearly they are located with their aircraft at a Chinese airfield, and the Chinese need to permit us to have access. We consider that access to be routine, normal, under standard international practice. And as you have heard I think from Admiral Blair in Hawaii, he described the way something like this would work in Hawaii, and we have made quite clear that access would be first and foremost on our minds. Q: Can you confirm that each of the crewmen is being held separately, and do you have any information from the Chinese about their conditions right now? MR. BOUCHER: What we have been told is that they are safe and that they are well. And we appreciate that, but we need to speak to them directly for us to find anything more out about the conditions and the situation. Q: Richard, I know you've told us about the diplomatic contacts so far. Are there any further contacts planned today with calling of the Chinese Ambassador in, perhaps? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any schedule at this point. I am sure that there will continue to be contacts. Many of these contacts have taken place over the phone. Some have taken place in person, like Under Secretary Grossman's discussion with the Chinese Ambassador yesterday. So I am sure they will continue, but I don't have any particular ones to cite for you. Q: Could these contacts be described as including the lodging of formal protests or anything along those lines? MR. BOUCHER: I have described them the way I have described them, and I'll leave it at that. Q: And the plane is going to be there until it's able to fly. Is the United States going to, in addition to making a request for contact with the crew, going to request permission to leave the crew with the plane until the plane is airworthy and can get out? MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are talking to them about the safety and well- being of our crew, about the need for prompt access, about the need to expedite any necessary repairs to the aircraft and facilitate the immediate return of the aircraft and the crew. Clearly, how exactly that occurs will depend on our judgments of the airworthiness of the aircraft and things like that. But this process has to begin as early as possible, and the President made quite clear prompt access was our chief concern at this point. Q: Richard, does the United States at this point view the incident as an accident or as a provocation by the Chinese? Were they trying to force the plane down somehow? MR. BOUCHER: We see this as an accident, as a mid-air accident. That is what we know. The Pentagon has discussed it. Obviously we had two airplanes that suffered damage: the US aircraft that was forced into an emergency landing and the Chinese aircraft that has gone missing. Obviously we are as concerned about the loss of their aircraft and are prepared to help them with search and rescue, as we've said. Q: There was at least one report, though, that the Chinese jets had fired warning shots. Do you have any information on that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any information like that. Again, you can check with the Pentagon or with the Pacific Command people about any more details that we might know of the exact situation and the incident. I know about the diplomatic side of things. Q: Have the Chinese told you why they won't let the crew speak to Washington? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. Q: Have the Chinese made demands on the US? Have they demanded an apology? They seem -- they say this is the US fault. They claim that this was international waters. Is there anything that they have demanded from us, and do we accept their premise that this was not in international waters but in Chinese? MR. BOUCHER: I think both the Chinese and the United States have said it was some, what, 70 miles to the south of Hainan Island. I think their numbers and our numbers were fairly close together. I don't think there's much dispute about where the situation occurred. As far as what they have demanded, I have seen a few things in public. I frankly don't know what they might have said in private. I would just make the point that we think that international practice and law require them to give us prompt access, and that remains our chief concern here. Q: Richard, you say they haven't given you prompt access at this stage, and you say it is a requirement that they do. Are there any repercussions for China-US relations, and what consequences are there if they -- if you don't get prompt access Tuesday, China time? MR. BOUCHER: I think we will start speculating after things occur, rather than before they don't occur. Q: What about the -- any damage so far? MR. BOUCHER: No, at this point, I will just say this is a very important issue to us. We have made very, very clear our concerns about this situation, our need for prompt access, the fact that we are concerned and troubled by the lack of timely response and the lack of timely access. The President has made that clear in his statements at the highest levels of the US Government. Q: When you say that the Chinese have to respect the integrity of the aircraft, is there some international convention to which they are a party that governs this kind of an incident and that kind of situation? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not in a position to do the full interpretation of international law, but it is clearly our view that military aircraft have sovereign immunity under international law and practice, and that is what we consider to be a well-established fact. Q: Has China accepted that view in the past, or is there any indication that they have asserted it? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. You would have to ask them. Q: Richard, I'm a little unclear on the crew itself. Do we know where they are physically? Are they on the plane, are they somewhere else on the base? And secondly, could you talk a little bit more of Secretary Powell's role in this whole thing? MR. BOUCHER: As far as exactly where the crew is located at the airfield, no, I don't know. I'm not sure if the Pentagon has any more information than I do on that. Clearly we haven't spoken to them. We haven't had the access that we think we need and that we think that we deserve. Those kinds of concerns, those kinds of questions about their location and condition, can be answered by letting us speak to them. So that is another reason why we want it. We have been assured by the Chinese that they are safe and that they are well. We certainly welcome that news, but we need to speak to them ourselves. Q: The promise of access Tuesday was conveyed by whom to whom? MR. BOUCHER: By the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister to our Ambassador this morning, late this morning Washington time. Q: And you say that this is common international practice. Are there any precedents you can cite where a plane has gone down in similar circumstances, and it has not been touched by the country in which it landed? A Russian, a Soviet plane that landed here, or Chinese planes? MR. BOUCHER: I would have to do a more exhaustive search on that. Maybe the Pentagon has that information. Q: Richard, the other part of the question was: Could you talk to us about Secretary Powell's role in this whole thing? MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Powell's role. This Secretary has been working on this issue throughout the weekend. I think Admiral Prueher had counted six phone calls from the Secretary over the course of the weekend. The Secretary has remained in close touch with him, in close touch with the other people in this building that are working on the issue, and talking to the Chinese Embassy, Under Secretary Grossman and the people from the East Asia Bureau. So he has been basically organizing our efforts on this matter, organizing our diplomatic efforts on this matter, working closely with Dr. Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, on the various other aspects of the matter, and keeping in very close touch with our representatives, with his representatives, as they go to meet the Chinese. Q: Richard, maybe this was covered over the weekend, but was there -- do you know of any attempts after the incident and before the plane landed in Hainan to inform the Chinese in advance that it was coming through diplomatic channels or -- MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. I think you would have to go back to the Pentagon for some indication of how long it took. But they were 70 miles south of Hainan Island. They declared an emergency landing, and they landed in southern Hainan Island, so I can't imagine there was much time involved between the moment that they had to declare the emergency and make the landing. Q: Richard, amidst this there are reports that there is yet another Chinese-American being detained in China, this time for eight months. Can you confirm that? A third person. MR. BOUCHER: No, I would have to look at that specific situation. I don't know about that. Q: Do you have anything more on the second? Q: Or the third. Q: I thought you said -- didn't you say the other day there were 20? MR. BOUCHER: There are as many as 20 Americans being held under different charges in different places. Q: Right. MR. BOUCHER: Some of these are going to be criminal charges. Q: Right. MR. BOUCHER: So not all of these are going to be necessarily academics or political situations. Let's see. On the American citizen for whom we have had consular access, we visited the American citizen again on April 2nd. That would be today. This is the American citizen. I have talked about one permanent resident and one American citizen. Q: (Inaudible)? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not allowed to say the name because we don't have a Privacy Act waiver. But we confirmed on Friday that there was an American citizen in jail in China, a case that we have been working on since late February, and we were able to see him again on April 2nd. We continue to be in close consultation with the family of this American citizen, but I can't go beyond that because we don't have a Privacy Act waiver on that. This is a case where the Chinese did give us notification and allow us consular access in a timely manner under the agreement. As far as the situation of Ms. Gao Zhan, we raised this case again on March 30th with the Chinese, both in Washington and in Beijing, and we continue to urge the Chinese to release Ms. Gao immediately so that she can be reunited with her family in the United States. Q: Can I go back to the plane for one second? You said there were, I think, three -- there's the defense attaché and his assistant? MR. BOUCHER: There are three people down on Hainan Island, yes. Q: From Beijing? MR. BOUCHER: From Beijing. Q: And one from Guagzhou? MR. BOUCHER: The consular section chief from our Consulate General. Q: Are there plans for any more to go, or is that -- would that been seen as kind of too many cooks? MR. BOUCHER: I think those are the people that we felt could go down and fulfill the immediate need to speak to our crew and have access. How things would evolve in terms of repairs and repatriation, that could involve other people and different people. Q: Okay, so at the moment, there are no plans to send anyone else? MR. BOUCHER: At the moment, these are the people that are down there. Q: Okay. And can you look into, for maybe later on in the day clarify exactly this -- how you've determined that this military plane is territorially sovereign? MR. BOUCHER: I think -- I'm trying to be careful with the words, too. I'm not sure whether sovereign territory and sovereign immunity are the same thing, but we think the aircraft carries sovereign immunity and therefore its integrity needs to be respected. And we think that is a well-established principle of international law and practice. Q: Can you say whether there have been -- before this incident, whether the US had been concerned about Chinese planes getting very close to US planes in what we considered international waters and what they did not, and whether we had gone to them to discuss a problem that we felt existed? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I question the premise as to whether they don't consider this to be in international waters or international air space. I haven't seen any dispute on that point. This practice of intercepting our aircraft that fly in international air space is one that we have obviously seen for some time in the past, and we have been concerned over time about the way these intercepts have been carried out. So we have been concerned about this fact that there is a -- I think one of our admirals described it as a fairly aggressive practice of intercepting our aircraft. And we have raised this issue in the past with the Chinese. We have raised it largely in military-to-military channels at high levels. We have a military maritime consultative agreement that was signed last year by the Defense Ministers, both sides. That is a forum for discussing these sorts of things. They have discussed the Chinese intercept practices in the past at those meetings, and there is another meeting coming up in San Francisco in a few weeks, so we would expect to raise it again there. Q: Richard, I might have missed it earlier but I was wondering, have the Chinese given us any indication why they are denying access to these people? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any explanation for you. You'd have to ask them. Q: Have they expressed any? MR. BOUCHER: Again, you would have to ask them for any explanation they might want to give. Q: There are about 20 being held, 20 Americans being held? MR. BOUCHER: Overall in China. But as I said, I don't want to make these all into political cases. Many of these may be common crimes. Q: In how many cases do you have access of those 20? MR. BOUCHER: I would have to check. I assume we have consular access in all those cases because we know about them. Q: But are you suggesting, then, that there may be a certain number who are not -- you don't have access to and who you don't even know about? MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not trying to say that. If we can count them, we have access to them. I assume that that is all the cases. As you know, we have expressed our serious concerns about the way they handled the case of Ms. Gao's son because he was an American citizen and he was detained, in our view, for something like a month without our having the proper notice and access, and that is an issue that we have raised with the Chinese repeatedly. We have made quite clear our view that their actions were not consistent with their obligations. We have discussed in some detail their obligations, and they have given us the commitment to allow notice and consular access in cases, even when it involves a minor. So that is an issue that we have raised, and we want to make sure it exists, but I don't have any indication that we are not getting the proper access to Americans that are incarcerated in China under our consular convention. I do want to say the President's concern about the aviators is beyond that statement, that clearly we are very troubled by the lack of prompt access in this situation that we're facing right now. Q: Does (inaudible) have the right to question this crew or -- and if they don't, has the United States, you know, in a similar way notified the Chinese that they're not to be, you know, put under interrogation or questioning? MR. BOUCHER: I guess I'd have to look. That is kind of a slight wrinkle on what we have said that I would have to look up and find out. I'm afraid it is just not a question I asked. I will try to find out for you. Q: On this question of sovereign immunity, I actually saw a report as I was leaving my office that the Chinese had come on the plane. Do we have any indication that they have? And if they do board the plane in any way, that's a violation presumably of this immunity, and does it bring any consequences? MR. BOUCHER: I was asked that question about 15 minutes ago, and I referred people to the Pentagon to find out the facts. And as far as speculating on the consequences, I don't want to speculate at this point. Q: How are these things being handled diplomatically? Are they all being in separate baskets; for example, the Americans that are being held and the access to the airplane? I know there are a number of other issues regarding sale of arms to Taiwan, the US pushing for denunciation of China in Geneva. Is either side bringing up these other issues, or is it just one thing at a time? You're juggling? When the Ambassador meets with the Ambassador, does he -- MR. BOUCHER: It is kind of a hard question to answer because the answer is yes and no, or both. But clearly each of the issues that are of concern to us we raise at the appropriate time and the appropriate channels in our relationship. One day it may be a human rights case, the next day the consular chief, or the same day you may have one person, the Ambassador, raising one case and the consular chief with his legal counterparts on the consular side raising the question of obligations under the Vienna Convention. At the same time, when we have high-level meetings like the visit with Qian Qichen that occurred, they handle a number of issues, and the Secretary or the President in these cases makes quite clear how these different issues fit into the overall relationship and the pattern of the kind of relationship that we would like to have. And clearly, given the fact that we do want to have a productive relationship with China, that meeting obligations under consular access or following standard international law and practice with regard to access to an air crew that has made emergency landings, those become factors in the overall relationship that we would like to have. Q: Have the Chinese been attaching issues that they are upset about or concerned about to this case? Are they -- when you talk to them, do they mention other things? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. I would have to double-check to see what they have said. I am not here to report on what they have said in these meetings. I am here to report on what we have pressed for and what we think is standard practice and something that we would expect to happen. So if anybody does attach conditions to visiting with an air crew that has been downed in an emergency landing, that would not be appropriate. Q: Can we go on? I realize that most of the Middle East stuff is going to be coming out of the White House today, but I understand that the Secretary spoke with Prime Minister Sharon this morning? And I'm wondering if he did that -- if in that conversations -- am I wrong? MR. BOUCHER: No, you are right on that. I'm just wondering how come. Q: How come I know about it? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. That's okay. Q: Because -- Q: (Inaudible.) MR. BOUCHER: Oh, did he? Well, there you go. He's ahead of me. Matt has good White House sources there. Q: I wish. Did he bring up the latest -- this latest targeted assassination, or is that not -- did that happen -- I think it must have happened before their conversation. But anyway, what was the substance of their talk? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that specific event came up in the conversation. I don't think -- I'm not even sure it occurred or that we had the news when they talked. They talked first thing this morning. The Secretary talked with Prime Minister Sharon first thing this morning. They discussed what I would say is the overall situation, the steps that we were looking for between the parties to reestablish calm, to reestablish some peace, and to get back on track with direct discussions. As you know, the Secretary has encouraged the Israelis to look for opportunities to ease closures, to ease up on the economic pressure, to avoid overreaction, to exercise restraint in terms of their actions and reactions to things that happen in the region. We have also made quite clear in all our discussions and our meetings that we look to the Palestinian side to stop the shootings, to take steps against the violence, to take steps to preempt attacks and to find those responsible for attacks. Q: In his meeting on Friday with the Egyptian Foreign Minister and also this morning with the President, were the Egyptians pressing the US to become more involved in the peace process, to take a more active role? MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't describe it that way. I would say that we discussed the kinds of steps that we can take, the kinds of discussions that we need to have with the parties in order to encourage them to deal directly with each other to move forward. In the meeting this morning with President Mubarak, it was a chance for the Secretary to, first of all, review the excellent state of our relationship, talk about a wide range of cooperation on political, economic and security matters in the region. They discussed the dangerous escalation and the current situation in the Middle East. They discussed the urgent need for the parties to do all they can to halt the escalation, provide safety and security around the region, and restore normalcy on the ground. They discussed the situation with regards to Iraq and how we move forward on the Iraq policy. We would note that Egypt has consistently played a crucial and stabilizing role in the region, and we would look forward to continuing that partnership. Q: Let me word this question in a different way. Several of us have had meetings with the Egyptian and Turkish Foreign Ministers, as well as the Jordanian Ambassador in the last few days, all of whom have called on the United States to play a more active role. Do you see any change in the level or kind of US diplomacy as a result of the appeals of a number of players in the region? MR. BOUCHER: Several of us have had meetings with the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Turks in the last few days, and we will continue to have meetings with them in coming days, including the President having his meetings with President Mubarak, and his meetings -- I guess it's next week -- with the King of Jordan. The emphasis in those meetings, the discussion in those meetings, has been on the kind of role that we can all play in terms of helping the parties establish the kinds of direct discussions, establish the kinds of reciprocal and parallel steps that we are looking for so that they can bring stability to the situation and get back on the path of peace. We consider ourselves engaged in the process. You have the President having these meetings; you have the Secretary and the President in close discussion with the leaders in the region; you have our embassies and our officials in the region in close contact with the governments there. So the issue is not engagement. The issue is how we can help -- as people not in the region, how we can help the people who are directly affected and who do need to take the direct decisions, how we can help them do that. Q: Richard, even if the Secretary didn't bring up the target -- the assassination in his conversation with Mr. Sharon today, can you say something yourself about it? And also, what did you think of the way the Israeli forces handled the demonstrations last Friday, in which seven Palestinians were killed? Was there excessive use of force, as you have occasionally mentioned? MR. BOUCHER: I think our concerns about the violence, our urgings on both sides, including Israel, to exercise restraint, have been made quite clear. Certainly our strong opposition to targeted killings like the Israeli helicopter attack has been made quite clear as well. We look to the parties to take steps to reassure each other. We look for the parties to take steps to restrain the violence, stop the shootings, and to ease the situation. So we will continue to make that point. Q: On the situation of talking to the parties, does the Secretary have any plans to talk to Chairman Arafat, or has anyone else in the Department, aside from the Consul General, been in touch with Chairman Arafat? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any other phone calls to Chairman Arafat. The Secretary talked to him last week, so I would assume that they will talk again sometime in the future, but I don't have any particular time or occasion for that at this point. Q: So is it safe to say then that Ned Walker's comment last week to Congress that the US has absolutely no reply from Chairman Arafat in response to the urgings to quell the violence, that still stands? MR. BOUCHER: I would say it still stands, that we haven't seen the kind of steps we would like to see. Q: On the meeting with President Mubarak, can you give the state of play in terms of the discussion regarding the embassy -- or the Ambassador, rather -- in Jerusalem, the Egyptian Ambassador? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything new on that. I'm actually not sure if it came up. The meeting was a one-on-one with the Secretary and President Mubarak, and I'm not sure if it is coming up right now at the White House. So I think after the meetings are over, we will see if they can give you an update on that. Q: Perhaps you will give the same answer to this, but do you know if the Secretary pressed President Mubarak to exert influence on Arafat to take the steps that you want to see? MR. BOUCHER: I would characterize it the way I have characterized it. They discussed the kinds of steps we expected to see from the parties. We look, first and foremost, for the Palestinian Authority, for Chairman Arafat, to take steps to stop the shootings, to take steps to preempt the violence, to arrest those responsible and pursue justice in cases where violence occurs. We have said as well, we also look to the Israelis to take steps to exercise restraint. So in our discussions with the Egyptians and others from the region, we discussed the kinds of steps that we can all encourage the parties to take, and we discussed the steps -- what we can do to try to make the situation better. Q: New subject? Any update on the possibility of a Contact Group meeting in Paris on the 11th? MR. BOUCHER: No update today, no. Q: As far as you know, it's still under consideration? MR. BOUCHER: Under consideration, yes. Q: Not abandoned, at least? MR. BOUCHER: No, not abandoned, at least. Q: Can you define the steps on both sides a little more specifically? For example, has Israel been asked to stop the targeted killings, and she isn't obviously; and Arafat has been asked to go public, and he hasn't. Is there any definition of the US policy in terms of exact steps the two parties need to make before they satisfy the United States? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it is a question of satisfying the United States so much as it is a question of taking steps that are effective in calming the violence and thereby reestablishing the kind of trust. We have looked to Israel to do some specific things, to exercise restraint in the military response, to restore normalcy by using closures and removing checkpoints. We have talked about both sides resuming direct contact and direct bilateral security cooperation. We have also made quite clear that we look to the Palestinians to take steps to stop the shootings, to take effective steps to preempt acts of violence, to take steps to arrest and punish people responsible for acts of violence. So I think we have been quite clear on the kinds of steps we would like to see. The steps to restrain the current situation and to stop the shootings need to lead then to direct discussions between the parties, reestablishment of some sort of confidence, and an easing of the economic pressures and the closures and the kinds of things that make it difficult for both sides to have an interest and confidence in the process. Q: I wanted to ask if you specifically asked Israel to withdraw tanks and the use of heavy weapons, because that is what the Palestinians have said from the beginning needed to be done? MR. BOUCHER: There have been a large number of things discussed over the course of time. I don't think I have a particular list for you at this point that differs in any way from any previous list. But we clearly have called on both sides to take reciprocal and parallel steps, and I think it is in some ways imperative in the kinds of direct discussions that they have, that we want them to have, that they look at each other and figure out how they can take steps that will make the situation calmer for both sides. Q: Richard, do you have anything on a Korean-American jailed by the South Korean Government under the national security laws? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that situation today. Q: Do you have any answer to my pending question on the matter and the story published by The Washington Post last Friday regarding Albanians in Greece? MR. BOUCHER: I think we put up an answer on Friday. I would refer you back to that. Q: Thank you. Q: Wait, wait, I've got two small things. Apart from talking about how wonderful your bilateral relationship is and the strength of ties between the US and New Zealand, is there any big issue that is coming up -- (laughter) -- that is going to be discussed during the meeting? MR. BOUCHER: Can I say yes without giving you the details? Q: I mean, I don't want a laundry list of the whole -- of how great everything is. But is there anything of -- that is contentious between the - - (laughter) -- Q: Covers nuclear -- visits by nuclear -- MR. BOUCHER: I think at this stage I will leave it for the meeting, and we will tell you about it afterwards. Q: Okay, and just one more. Is there anything more -- obviously, as you can tell, on Friday or Thursday -- whenever it was -- the Colombians are none too happy with your public threat to retaliate for their vote in the UN, and I'm just wondering if any more thought has been given to what sort of -- MR. BOUCHER: -- consequences. Q: Consequence, yes. MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything new on that situation today either. Q: If I could follow up, are there similar consequences for Mauritius and some of these other countries that have also voted? MR. BOUCHER: I think we will look at each situation and determine what is appropriate. [end] Released on April 2, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.