 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Thursday, 18 April 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-04-04U.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 4, 2001 INDEX: STATEMENT TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can at the start just confirm for you the Secretary's travel next week, he'll be in France, Macedonia and possibly other stops in the Balkans between the 11th and 13th of April. There will be both bilateral meetings and we hope some multilateral discussions on the Balkans during this time. We leave the night of April 10th, Tuesday night. That's April 10th, right? And then there will be discussions -- a meeting of the Contact Group on the Balkans on April 11th in Paris. He will travel to Skopje, Macedonia, on April 12th. Foreign Minister Kerim will host a meeting of regional foreign ministers, which the Secretary will attend while he is in Skopje. And then after that, on April 13th we would expect to make one or two other stops, and we'll get those for you as soon as the details are pinned down. The Contact Group meeting in Paris -- the Contact Group, for those of you who haven't worked on this for ages, is the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. They'll have wide-ranging talks on current Balkan issues, including obviously the situation in Macedonia, the situation in Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Bosnia. So let me stop with that announcement and take your questions on this or other subjects, if you would like. George. Q: The Secretary Powell says he regrets the loss of life of the Chinese pilot. Is this an attempt to send a gesture of some sort to the Chinese to cool things? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if it will cool things or not, in terms of how the Chinese see it. I think it's a clear statement of what our policy has been and what our belief is. On Monday, I expressed concern about the incident, about the loss on the Chinese side. Yesterday on the airplane, the Secretary said we regretted the loss of life. He said it again now. As Ari Fleisher just said over at the White House, this is certainly part of our understanding of the situation; it's a very unusual situation and an accident which resulted in damage and an emergency landing for our plane, but which also appears to have caused a very regrettable loss of life on the Chinese side. Q: Does expressing regret not amount to an apology? MR. BOUCHER: I think they are different words. I'd just leave it at that. Q: Richard, the Chinese are insisting that they are the injured party here. Do you, in making this statement of regret that's been made today, yesterday, or whatever, do you accept that because the Chinese lost a plane and very likely the pilot that the Chinese are an injured party? MR. BOUCHER: Well, clearly there is a loss on the Chinese side, as well as damage and an emergency on the US side. Q: Well, but no one to blame? MR. BOUCHER: This is a tragic accident. This is something that is regrettable -- the event. It is certainly the fact that there is loss of life on the Chinese side, or appears to be loss of life on the Chinese side is something we all regret. Nobody wanted this to happen. In terms of what we need to do, we need to get a chance to talk to the Chinese, to explain to each other, to understand with each other about what went on, and we are looking for channels and diplomatic means to do that. Q: So you do not accept -- that barring anything else, only taking into account the loss of the plane and the likely loss of life, you don't accept that as an injury to China? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the point that we are arguing here. There is clearly a loss -- Q: The Chinese are insisting that they are the injured party, and they need to be apologized to for this. MR. BOUCHER: There is clearly a loss on the Chinese side which we all regret. But at the same time, we don't know what happened and how this happened. We won't know that until we get a chance to talk to our crew members in a long and unfettered fashion. We won't know that until we get a chance to look into the matter ourselves. So at this point, to try to provide you with an explanation of injury and what happened is impossible for me because we are not in a position yet to understand fully what happened. We do think we need to talk in detail with our pilots and air crew about the events that led up to the collisions, and we can't really have that kind of thorough discussion with the Chinese about these details until we know all the facts. That is what we are looking to do, to get the access, to talk to our people, certainly to take care of our people, get them home with us, get the airplane back. But also we want to understand what happened, the Chinese do as well, and we need to exchange explanations and have some better understanding of what happened. Q: Richard, this is somewhat different language, "exchange explanations", and you say that we are looking for channels to do that, and that Ambassador Prueher has met with the Foreign Minister, and that the Ambassador here is coming in for a second time today. Why aren't these sufficient channels if explanations exchanging is all that is needed? MR. BOUCHER: Well, they may be. There are probably various ways of doing this. The meetings that we have with Ambassador Prueher in Beijing, with the Chinese Ambassador here are clearly a way of addressing these issues, and we have been addressing the issues. But as you know, we have been addressing the immediate issues, the welfare of our people, the welfare of our pilots, the status of our airplane, the nature of the events to the extent they have been discussed as an accident and an emergency. Yes, they have been discussed in those meetings, but if the Chinese are looking for a more detailed understanding, and we all want to know what happened, then I think we do need to have further discussions and explanations. Q: On (inaudible), are you saying that you still do not think an apology is required on this, even though you are saying it was an accident? MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has addressed that. It was clearly an accident, we have -- Q: But an accident doesn't preclude the possibility of apologizing for it. It's not to say it is intentional if you apologize. MR. BOUCHER: I would just stick with where the Secretary was on that yesterday. He has addressed the question, we clearly see it as an accident, a very regrettable accident, and we are concerned and regret the loss of life on the Chinese side. Q: Richard, can you accept any responsibility for what happened? MR. BOUCHER: Again, you are kind of asking questions that prejudge the facts, and until we have a chance to look at the facts, I don't think I can answer questions like that. Q: Can you tell us a little bit about what the Secretary plans to discuss today? Is it to again express regret? Is it to talk about setting up a process and these channels for communication? Can you give us a sense of what is likely to be discussed at -- MR. BOUCHER: With whom? Q: With the Chinese Foreign Minister -- sorry -- I mean Ambassador. MR. BOUCHER: Okay. The Secretary is not seeing the Chinese Ambassador today. The meetings that we have here in Washington are a continuation of meetings we've had here yesterday in Washington, but also the meetings that Ambassador Prueher had overnight. The discussions that he had with the Chinese Foreign Minister -- he had quite a lengthy meeting-- so let me tell you about that and just sort of those are the topics that we will continue our discussions of. Our Ambassador in Beijing, first of all, requested the immediate release of our air crew, requested full access to the air crew until they are released, and he requested return of the aircraft. Ambassador Prueher urged the Chinese to act quickly to resolve the matter. We certainly do not want this to turn into an international incident, and we want the Chinese to work with us to that end. He also expressed the concern on behalf of the American people for the Chinese pilot who is a missing as a result of this accident. And we do, as I mentioned, understand and sympathize with what the Chinese family is going through. So, really, those are the topics of discussion: the crew, access to the crew, the airplane, and the nature of the incident and understanding what happened and exchanging explanations in that regard to see if we can do that in enough detail that people understand what went on. Q: Since the accident, I was wondering if you could tell us what progress has been made diplomatically; and then second, at what point does this become an international incident? MR. BOUCHER: Those are not questions that have an easy answer. You can't measure them with miles or kilometers or meters or pounds or whatever. The progress since the accident, first of all, our crew landed safely. That, to us, is very important. Second of all, after working on this, we got access to our crew and we've been able to verify that they are well, that they are in good spirits, and that they're being properly cared for. We certainly would have liked to see them home by now, but we'll keep working on those things. We'll keep working to take care of them. We have made the formal request to the Chinese for additional meetings and visits with our crew. We are trying to provide daily use supplies and things that they might need in their current situation. But first and foremost, what we are looking for is the release of our crew and access to our crew, because those are the people that matter to us most. Q: To me, it seems like it's already an international incident. I'm trying to figure out diplomatically at what point -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to play word games with you. It's an accident. It's an accident. It's a very regrettable accident, and we're trying to resolve it in the manner that it should be resolved, without blowing it into an international incident. Q: Have you in previous -- in other bilateral forums brought up the approach of Chinese jets to our surveillance planes in international waters? MR. BOUCHER: This is something we've talked about with the Chinese before. We talked about it a couple of times last year. I think we talked to them as late as late December about these kinds of intercepts. Q: Can you characterize those discussions? I mean, has there been any understanding on this? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I can characterize them beyond saying we expressed our concern about the way the intercepts were conducted. Q: Are the Chinese still requesting that this be kept within the Foreign Ministry, and is there any plans for President Bush to call President Jiang? MR. BOUCHER: I think the question about President Bush was properly asked at the White House, and I'll refer you to the answer that Ari Fleisher gave or didn't give on that topic. The question of the foreign ministry. Clearly foreign relations are conducted through the foreign ministry. This is an issue that involves us. Clearly it involves a number of people on the US side and on the Chinese side. How the Chinese choose to coordinate that in the end is up to them, but the Ambassador saw the Foreign Minister, who just got back from a trip. He has been seeing the Vice Foreign Minister, one of the senior people of the ministry, on several occasions. So we expect to continue to be able to conduct this dialogue with the Chinese and to continue to discuss how we need to take care of our crew and resolve the situation. Q: There are several US Congressional delegations scheduled to go to China in the next couple of weeks. In light of the situation, should these trips go forward? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that we have been asked. I would have to check on that one for you. Q: If the Secretary is in touch with any of the world leaders or his counterparts in this connection, or seeking any authoritative country's help or advice on this matter? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe it that way. Obviously it is a topical issue, it is an issue that is going on. Even with the discussions with the Jordanians today at one point they asked, and he explained a bit about what was going on with China; everybody is interested. That is the way I would describe it. It comes up in conversations with his counterparts. Q: Richard, after Ambassador Prueher's meeting, Foreign Minister Tang apparently spoke to the press and accused the US of being arrogant. These were his words: "using lame arguments and making groundless accusations against China". Would we have such a pessimistic view of how that meeting went? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we don't see it that way. I have expressed to you how we saw the meeting. The important matters that we raised during this meeting, and we would expect the Chinese to treat them with the importance we attach to them. Q: Was the tone that negative? MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't describe it that way. Q: Richard, if you can -- just one very, very briefly, because I don't want to belabor this, but isn't this by definition an international incident? The second thing is, I want to get back to this idea of sovereign immunity that you guys keep saying this plane has, or carries. The Chinese say it doesn't. When Ambassador Prueher goes in to the Chinese, or when the Chinese come here, are you able -- have you been giving them specific chapter and verse of international law that specifically says that this-- in this situation, aircraft like this enjoy sovereign immunity? Because I know a bunch of us have been looking through all of the documents and treaties that have been pointed out to us by various officials, and I certainly haven't been able to find any kind of reference that would make that -- that supports that? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't want to play amateur lawyer either, and I think it is not a good idea for us to get into a debate here over international law, that we think quite clearly international law provides that this kind of aircraft, state aircraft, carry with them sovereign immunity, including in circumstances like this. And that has been established, we think, in terms of law and precedent internationally. I'm not going to try to be the lawyer and give you the complete argument, but I think for our part we think that is quite clear and that we have made that clear to the Chinese. Q: Yes, but we -- this question has been raised at the White House, here, at the Pentagon for the last three days, and no one has been able to come up with a straight answer. Yesterday, Admiral Quigley said, well, we'd like them to give back the plane because it would be the right thing to do. We're not talking -- I mean, obviously it would be nice if the Chinese -- if they did everything that you asked them to. But where is it in the body of international law, treaties and precedents that they have to do it? There is nothing -- what is it that legally binds them to do so? MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, Matt, that we think the law is clear, that there is international law and precedent for this position, and I will try and see if we want to give you a more complete legal explanation. I think we've made certainly our point of view quite clear on this. Second of all, in addition, this is not a matter of law, completely. I mean, certainly there is international law that applies in these situations, and we think it justifies the position we've taken, but clearly it's within the power of governments to do the right thing if they choose to do so. And we certainly are interested in seeing this situation resolved as quickly as possible. We hear from the Chinese that they are interested in seeing the situation resolved as quickly as possible. We want them to do that in manner that is satisfactory to all of us, and for us that means returning our crew and returning our airplane. Q: Richard, whether or not this becomes an international incident in your eyes, one of the things that seems to have changed language-wise is the word "detainees." Monday, you didn't want to use that word but Secretary Powell, I believe, used it on the plane yesterday. Could you clarify that? You now believe the crew members are detained? And what has changed? Is it just a matter of time? MR. BOUCHER: I think the circumstances to us are clear. Secretary Powell used it on the airplane last night. I'm happy to use it again today. We consider these people detained. They are clearly not free to go and we don't have free access to them. I think that, by any definition, is detained. Q: That wasn’t the case on Monday? MR. BOUCHER: On Monday we didn't know as much about where they were and what the circumstances were and when we would get access and whether there would be conditions applied and things like that. Q: In the discussions both in Beijing at the Foreign Ministry that our Ambassador has had and the discussions here, so far are these discussions verbal only or is paperwork or is language being exchanged as to is this satisfactory, would this be satisfactory as a solution, or is it all verbal? MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to think if I know the answer to that. I think my answer has to be I don't know of any, but I'd have to check. I don't know of any paper being exchanged, but I'd have to double-check. We are really at the point of telling each other our positions on these issues, of urging the Chinese to return the crew, return the airplane, saying we regret the loss of Chinese life, sort of making clear what our position is. At the same time, the Chinese are making clear what their position is. Q: Can you, on that point, explain to us how this is evolving, or is it the same demands, the same requests, in every single exchange? As you described it, the meeting today between our Ambassador and the Foreign Ministry was basically the same language of the last couple days. Secondly, is there any consideration of having Powell make a call to anyone if Bush isn't? And third, do you think -- MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say Bush isn't. I said that's a question properly asked at the White House. Q: All right, let me ask it straight out then. Is Powell planning to make any calls himself? And third, does Jiang Zemin's trip make the diplomacy of this any more complicated? MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I get to choose which one to answer? (Laughter.) Q: No. MR. BOUCHER: I thought I had the choice on three-part questions. Q: No. MR. BOUCHER: I can't remember part number one. Q: How has it changed? MR. BOUCHER: How has it changed. Q: The language, the requests, the whatever. MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the way we've conducted this dialogue with the Chinese on these issues, first of all, don't expect a change in the significance and importance we attach to our crew; and until they're out, we're going to keep raising that. Don't underestimate the significance we attach to full access; and until we get full access, we're going to keep raising that. At the same time, I think both sides are saying to each other now that they are looking for a way to resolve the situation. We are saying that we think we need to understand the situation; we need to be able to exchange explanations. And as the fate of the Chinese pilot becomes clear, we are saying probably more clearly that we understand and sympathize with the plight of the Chinese family and regret the loss of life of the Chinese pilot that apparently occurred. So in some ways there is an evolution, but not a breakthrough. I don't want to try to claim that positions have been altered dramatically in these discussions, but we do have discussions. Q: Wait, wait, the other two. MR. BOUCHER: I chose the one I wanted. Q: No, no. Does Powell have any plans to make any calls? And Jiang Zemin's trip, MR. BOUCHER: Not at this stage. But again, I don't rule out anything other than what might happen in the next ten minutes. There is nothing planned at this stage. As far as the travel of Jiang Zemin, President Jiang of China, I have to assume that they have their ways of communicating, just as we do when we travel. They clearly will stay in touch with him, as we would with our President, were he traveling. And so I don't see that as being a significant difficulty. Q: Richard, this is a follow-up to Eli's question. The Chinese Ambassador said that China has been demanding an end to the reconnaissance flights. And even though he admits that the incidents Saturday was in international air space, and he repeated his demand -- or China's demand for an end to these flights -- do you have any response? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any response to that particular activity that we carry out around the world in different places. It is in international air space and international waters. We don't consider it a threat to anybody, so I don't think we have any particular response on that. You might check with the Pentagon. Q: Are talks about Gao Zhan going on? Any more meetings on that, or has this completely eclipsed her situation, especially today now that formal charges have been placed on her? MR. BOUCHER: We do continue to raise our concerns with the Chinese Government about this case. We continue to urge that she be released on humanitarian grounds. I don't think I have any new news of a particular meeting on this situation, but it is something that we do continue to raise with the Chinese, and we are disturbed by the news that they have filed formal charges against Ms. Gao. Q: Are they the same meetings? I mean, does Ambassador Prueher bring it up when he talks to -- MR. BOUCHER: I haven't actually seen the full report of the meeting to see if that came up in this one, but we raise different things at different times at different levels, so I don't know that it all has to be part of every meeting. Q: Would it be difficult to separate the two under these circumstances? MR. BOUCHER: These are clearly two different situations that have no linkage, so I don't think it is that difficult. We are able to work a number of issues at the same time. We have a lot of things going on in the US-China relationship all the time. We will continue to work each of these issues as we see best. Q: Does it make it more complicated, though? I mean, with relations going forward (inaudible) we'll be as receptive? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would speculate on that. We don't see any grounds for her being detained or charged, and we think she should be released. I don't think anything else should be allowed to complicate it. Q: Richard, going back to the sovereignty question on the plane, if you feel you are on firm ground on this, why not just clear it up and show us some passage or statute in international law that you can cite to pinpoint it, if that is what you are doing with the Chinese? And then these questions would stop, wouldn't they? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I know enough to know that international law is incredibly complicated in terms of status, precedent, accepted practice. It is not like the US code, where you do an Internet search on murder, and you find all the laws about murder. So asking all of our journalists friends to become amateur international lawyers may not be the most productive way to satisfy everyone's curiosity on this point. On the other hand, we do think we are on solid ground, and I am sure we will provide that as necessary. I will see what I can get you. Q: Richard, at what point would you call them criminals or hostages? (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Not today. Q: Some analysts have said that because so far contacts have been with the Chinese Foreign Ministry, that the bureaucracy there has a way of coloring these messages. Has there been any talk of trying to demand to talk to a top-level official in China at this point? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can make any better explanation of that than to say that the Ambassador has been meeting at very high levels at the Foreign Ministry. We are meeting with the Chinese Ambassador here. As you know, ambassadors don't just represent foreign ministries, they represent governments and the entire leadership. We would expect that our statements and whatever we say at the foreign ministry and whatever we say to the Chinese Ambassador here are indeed conveyed appropriately to the highest leadership of the country. Q: If I could follow up, is there any consideration at this point of trying to send a high-level emissary to Beijing on this issue? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be able to deal with every possibility, every speculative question about, is there any consideration to putting on beanies and dancing. I just can't deal with every possibility that way. Q: Just so I can understand this completely, are you not giving us details of the legal argument because it hasn't been completed, or because you don't have them? MR. BOUCHER: I am not giving you details of the legal argument because it hasn't been completed in terms of our ability to make a presentation to you, and I'm not that sure it is a really good idea. But we will try to satisfy your hunger. Q: But you don't have them? That's the truth. MR. BOUCHER: We have it, we know it. We know the law. We have some of the best international lawyers around, and I trust their judgment. Q: Can I just ask, have you guys been told specifically by the Chinese that an apology ends this, or have you been told that an apology would go a long way toward ending it, and they would also want -- as George and Elaine were talking about before -- they also want these flights to be stopped? Or right now -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to characterize the Chinese position. You've seen them ask for an apology in public. I think we've answered that question and dealt with it, but I'm not going to try to explain their position. Q: Right, but you seemed to say before that the reason that you hadn't called them detainees on Monday but now were -- the reason that you didn't do it on Monday was because you had no idea of demands. And since then, the Chinese have demanded -- MR. BOUCHER: I think I said conditions for access. Q: Or conditions for access. What -- when you said -- you said -- MR. BOUCHER: That's different. Q: You did say demands, but anyway -- MR. BOUCHER: All right. Q: You can't say that the Chinese have told you that an apology ends this? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to characterize the Chinese position. It's not my job. Q: Can you explain to us what the difference is between somebody who is being detained and somebody who is being held hostage? MR. BOUCHER: No, you can look it up in the dictionary yourself. Q: Can I just ask one more on China? Do you have anything new about access to the crew? I gather a second meeting was being requested, and as far as I know it's not been settled yet. MR. BOUCHER: That's right. We've made a -- let me get the exact status of that. At our Embassy in Beijing and our Consulate General in Guangzhou we have submitted the formal request for full access to the crew. The Chinese have our request but have not yet responded, so we don't at this point have another meeting with the crew scheduled. Q: And that's the top topic in the meeting this afternoon with Armitage and the Chinese Ambassador? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that release of the crew and access to the crew have been the top topics in every meeting we've had. Q: Richard, when you're making these requests, these formal requests, what is that under? Is that under a consular visit to what would normally be a person who is in jail? Or is it not something like -- is there no form that you follow? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've categorized it that way. We have requested the access -- as you know, earlier when the access was provided in Haikou the other day, the Chinese foreign affairs officials at that time said that if we wanted further meetings we would have to make a request for further meetings through the diplomatic channel, which is either the Embassy in Beijing or the Consulate General in Guangzhou. So we've done it in both places. It doesn't have -- it's not like we fill out a form that says, you know, access to detained people or access to people in jail. We submit a diplomatic note that says there are 24 of our air crew down in Haikou and we want to see them. Q: I realize there is a slight difference because these air crew actually are citizens, but is it the same kind of request, similar request, that you're doing for this woman who is detained? Is it under the same rubric? MR. BOUCHER: No. These people are American citizens. Ms. Gao is a permanent resident. Q: Two. One, do you have anything on the latest fighting going on in Nepal? Scores of people have been killed, and mostly policemen. MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that. I think I can get you something on it, though. We had something the other day, didn't we, Chuck? I'll try to remember. We'll see what we have on it. Q: And President Clinton is in India, left yesterday for five days on a trip for the earthquake area. One, is he carrying any message from the Department either on this Chinese incident or any Indo-US relations? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I've heard of. Q: Could you talk about security talks in the Mideast between the Israelis and Palestinians -- US presence? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. First, I think it's important for us to say that we welcome the meeting that took place between Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the Palestinian officials Nabil Sha'ath and Saeb Erekat in Athens. The Israelis and the Palestinians will meet later today for high-level security discussions in Israel. We have encouraged the parties, as you know, to resume their bilateral security cooperation as a means of halting the violence, and we are pleased that the parties have agreed to attend this meeting. A US representative will attend the meeting in order to facilitate, to monitor and to report back on any developments to the Secretary. Q: Just the way you phrased that makes it sounds as if you said, all right, guys, now's the time, come on over to the Ambassador's house and get together. Was this a -- was there a formal invitation issued to both sides by the United States, or did they kind of indicate -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe it that way. I would say that we've been in touch with both sides, as you know, all along to say that you need to discuss security with each other and you need to get going again on direct discussions and cooperation on the ground. And we've said to them all along if there's something we can do to help make that happen if we can facilitate that, tell us. And so we've evolved to a point whereby helping facilitate this meeting they're willing to get together. So I would just say that it's an evolution of the discussions. We are quite happy to be involved in this way, to help facilitate their meeting. Q: Well, I guess what I was going to say -- I mean, is this meeting coming about because the US agreed to host it and be present at it, or could it have -- would it have happened anyway? Were they moving in the direction of this happening anyway, or did it take a kick from the US to get it? MR. BOUCHER: It's kind of a tough question for me to answer. Certainly the role of the United States in encouraging this meeting and offering to facilitate the meeting, to the extent that we could help make it happen, has made it possible to have this meeting now. At the same time, they are having their own meetings. You just saw the meeting between Foreign Minister Peres and Nabil Sha'ath and Saeb Erekat. They have other contacts as well, I'm sure. So we have been encouraging them all along. In fact, in these discussions, both sides have expressed to us a certain willingness to get together and start discussing security issues. But it was always sort of questions about under what conditions, and who would go first, and things like that. So the fact that we were in there able to help facilitate probably helped it happen, but I wouldn't say it was not something that they wanted to do, because in the end, the important part is that they are engaging with each other and discussing with each other the security situations, which is something we have always encouraged. Q: Can you describe the excellent conversation Powell said he had with King Abdullah this morning on the peace process? MR. BOUCHER: Same region, but -- Q: Why now are you sort of delving back into participating in bilateral talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians when for such a long time you had purposely not participated? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that this is, you might say, more facilitating than participating, more precipitating than participating. It is different than the kind of role the United States played in these talks at some points in the past. It is similar to what we have been saying all along, that we encourage them to have direct discussions, and that if we could help, we would. So they want to have direct discussions, and we can help them do that, and that is always in our interest. Now, we're going to go to the King of Jordan and the excellent discussions. Q: Conversations. MR. BOUCHER: Conversations. They discussed a wide range of issues, started out I think with about 30 minutes of discussions in private, just the two or them, where they went over issues like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the peace talks, and also the Iraq questions. We took those questions up again at lunch, with perhaps a broader group and a wider-ranging conversation. Clearly the United States and Jordan both want to do all we can to help calm the situation, help the parties end the violence, reestablish normal lives for the people of the region, and get back on a path to peace. So that is the context for the discussion and the analysis of the situation and looking at what we could each do to help make that happen. In terms of Iraq, there was some additional discussion of the situation with the sanctions, removing the sanctions that prevent civilian goods from going to the Iraqi people, but concentrating controls on weapons of mass destruction and the material to make them. And a bit of discussion about the steps that would be necessary to carry that out, but primarily they agreed that there should be some experts discussions in the coming weeks, and when that is set up, we will tell you about it. The discussion, though, also focused on many of the economic issues in the region: first of all, the importance of the US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, both for our relationship and for the Jordanian economy; and second of all, I think in some ways the broader economic situation. The Secretary asked the King to tell us about the Arab League Summit, and a lot of these same issues -- the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the Iraqi issue -- were discussed there. He filled us in on the discussion. But at the same time, he stressed the economic steps that they were looking at to open up and integrate the economies of the region. They also talked a bit about economic reform in Jordan, and I think both of them come at this from the point of view of saying that economics is very, very important to the future of the region, to the future of the people of Jordan, to the relationships, and that opening things up, helping the economies reform and modernize. They talked quite a bit about high technology, high technology centers and education and the way that Jordan is using that to improve the lives of their people and offer the population a future. So a lot of that was discussed in terms of the evolution of the region and how more open economies, more reformed economies, and economies that had a better sense of technology would improve the interaction in the region. Q: About the Armenia and Azerbaijan's presidents' meeting? MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we're going to stay with Jordan for a minute, and then we're going to go to points east, northeast. Q: Did the question of Jordanian lack of representation at the ambassador level in Israel come up? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't know if it came up in the one-on-one; it didn't come up during the lunch. Q: And was there any car talk? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there was a bit of car talk. Q: Yes? Has the Secretary invited the King to come out to his place and drive one of his -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't think they had time for it this time. There was a little talk about thought having been given to bringing the PT Cruiser down to take a little spin in the driveway instead of having a meeting upstairs, but in the end they decided to have the meeting upstairs instead of going for a ride together. Q: Okay, can I just say -- I'm sorry -- did you have anything -- beyond the usual calls, appeals for restraint and ending the violence -- to say about what happened yesterday in the Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip and today's mortar attacks? If it's just going to be the same litany -- MR. BOUCHER: I will be glad to give you the entire response on that. I don't want to try to separate yesterday, the mortar attacks, another several deaths yesterday, including the baby. There is all too much violence. We I think talked about the dangerously escalating cycle of violence at this point. We have talked quite clearly about the steps the parties need to take to exercise restraint and bring the situation under control. The President made quite clear we look to them to take reciprocal and parallel steps. We have outlined some of the steps that we think they can take, should take on the Palestinian side to stop the attacks, to curtail incitement, to fight terrorism, to arrest those responsible; on the Israeli side, to exercise restraint in their military responses, to ease the closures, remove checkpoints and lower the tone in their public statements. So we have been quite clear in terms of our interaction with the parties on the things they can do and we think they should do. And we hope that when they engage in direct security discussions that they will identify for each other the kinds of steps that they can take to bring the situation under control so that we can facilitate the discussions. But in the end, we recognize the parties need to make those decisions to bring the situation under control. Q: So that's what you would like to see happen at tonight's meeting? MR. BOUCHER: We would like to see it happen in any way possible, including at tonight's meeting, yes. Q: Right. Okay. Q: Richard, in private and in public some of the Jordanians and the Egyptians have been saying that they think that the United States needs to take a much more high-profile role in trying to reduce the violence and get the parties back together. In these meetings, do they bring that kind of urgency, calling for more United States involvement? MR. BOUCHER: What I heard was that they welcomed US involvement, they welcomed what we were doing, they recognized the Secretary's role. The Secretary this week has talked several times to Prime Minister Sharon, he has talked to Chairman Arafat on Monday. We have had the meetings here with King Abdullah. They met with President Mubarak on Monday. So there is really a lot of involvement of the United States. We are helping facilitate the security discussions. So really what I have heard from them is appreciation for the efforts that we are making, and coordination of the efforts that we can all make in the region to try to work with the parties to bring the situation under control and get back on a path for peace. Okay, we had Armenia and Azerbaijan? Q: Yes, and after the meeting of the Secretary with both leaders, did he get any feeling or hope they can reach any agreement on the Nagorno- Karabakh issue? MR. BOUCHER: I think we have given you the transcripts of what the Secretary said, both down there and on his way back. I guess what I would say is the Secretary expressed himself the hope that these talks would be productive, that we could lead the parties closer to peace. We are working with the other OSCE co-chairs in the Minsk process, France and Russia. The talks are an important step in the process to find peace for the region. They build on a direct dialogue between President Kocharian and President Aliyev. We think a peaceful settlement is the key to the future of the South Caucasus and is in the interest of the international community. The update today is that the co-chairmen and their negotiating teams met this morning among themselves, and then met separately with each president, first with Armenian President Kocharian, and then with Azerbaijani President Aliyev. The three co-chairs will hold a press briefing of the talks at 3:00 p.m. today, so there will be other news out of that. Q: The Secretary, is he planning to attend the closing session on the 6th of April? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, there is no particular plan to do that. Q: Richard, do you have anything on the Mexico talks? MR. BOUCHER: I'll make it up. Again, we are in a situation where there was a small meeting with the Secretary, the Attorney General, the Foreign Minister and the Minister of Justice on the Mexican side, and a very small number of their aides. And then they came downstairs and briefed the rest of us and set off the working groups. So we will work on some of the details. So what this is is an attempt following on the very significant decisions that were taken by President Fox and President Bush at their meeting in Mexico. This is the attempt to get together with the policy leadership and the experts in the very difficult and complicated areas of labor and migration to see how we can cooperate and how we can deal with these issues. What was clear from the discussion and the statements of the Secretary, the Foreign Minister, the Attorney General and the Mexican Minister of Justice is that the current Administration in Washington and in Mexico sees the border, both see the border as a shared responsibility and a shared opportunity. That we have a chance to make this border work for the benefit of our people, to have an orderly process, I think, was the way the President and the Secretary have described it, and to have a humane set of conditions for people who need to cross, want to cross, or who come to work here or there, and that we will work with Mexico in many ways to make that happen. Their experts are under a mandate from the President and the Secretary to work on this and bring out ideas and solutions to some of the problems as quickly as possible, so there will be ongoing discussions of these issues, and the experts are working on it today. Q: Can I move on to the Balkans, or go back to the Balkans? I missed the very beginning, but I don't think you gave any details of what the United States is hoping to achieve at this contact group meeting? And I wanted to ask, in Macedonia, is the Secretary expecting to meet other senior officials like himself while he is there, and what is the purpose of his visit to Skopje? MR. BOUCHER: The details of the visit are still being finalized. There are a couple of major events that we can talk about at this point. One is the contact group meeting in Paris, where they will really discuss the whole range of issues in the Balkans. They will have to talk about the situation in Macedonia and the situation and developments in Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Bosnia. In terms of the stop in Macedonia and Skopje, I think first and foremost, it is to express support for the efforts of the Macedonian Government to calm the situation and to provide a political route and access for the ethnic Albanian population. As you know I think, we strongly supported their efforts to launch the inter-ethnic dialogue in Macedonia. And so I'm sure everybody will want to express support. Foreign Minister Kerim has also invited his counterparts from the region to an informal forum to discuss developments in the region, particularly events in Macedonia and to encourage regional cooperation. So it will also be an opportunity to get together with a number of people from that area and discuss how they can cooperate together. Q: Do you know which foreign ministers will be there? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a full list of that yet, because the Macedonian Government is doing the invitations. Q: Could I go back to China just very, very, very briefly? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Q: Although we have such limited contact with them, do you have any information about their daily activities, what they are doing with the hours of their day, if they have reading material or are allowed to exercise or shop or see sites, anything? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have enough information like that from our initial meeting. The living conditions were described as like a hostel, h-o- s-t-e-l. (Laughter.) I think they're two to a room there. We have pointed out to the Chinese and encouraged the Chinese that these are military people; they are used to exercising, things like that. We've noted that they have been in the same pair of clothes, at least when we saw them, had been in the same clothes for a couple days. So we were looking to get them additional clothes and supplies and daily necessities and things like that which we'll be providing to the Chinese to pass on to them. So we are concerned about their welfare and their conditions, but the conditions were described as, you know, good, clean and basic, I think was the way it was. Q: On the Paris meeting, will Secretary Powell have a separate meeting with Foreign Minister Ivanov? MR. BOUCHER: The schedule in each of these stops is not fully set at this point, so I don't want to predict particular meetings. I'll leave it at that. Q: Along those same lines, are you in a position in this forum to say where the other stops being contemplated -- what the other stops are being contemplated where the Secretary might go? MR. BOUCHER: No. If I would have, I would have said it, but I'm not in a position yet to do that. [end] [End] Released on April 4, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.