 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Friday, 19 April 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-07-16U.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 PRESS BRIEFING Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC July 16, 2001 INDEX: STATEMENTS TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I could just start off and tell you one thing. The Secretary of State will have a press briefing on Friday at 9:30 a.m. to talk about his trip to Japan, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China and Australia. I think you are aware of the trip; we have announced it before. We leave on Sunday, July 22nd, and return from Canberra, getting back to Washington August 1st. We will be putting up a notice to the press for those who may wish to attend on how to do that. With that brief announcement, I would be glad to take your questions. Q: A question, please, on trying to reach some accommodation with the Russians on missile defense. The Secretary spoke that we maybe need something new, a piece of paper of some kind, in a newspaper interview. There was a notion at one point -- it was more than a notion -- it was repeatedly said that the US, the new administration, wanted the treaty amended. Is that -- MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look back, you will not find that in the lexicon of the new administration. Q: Well, whether it's there or not, I thought it was. At least that was the understanding, that we wanted the ABM treaty changed in a way that would clear the way for your program. Is that no longer the case? Do you want to start out afresh? Could you elaborate on what it is you don't want to do and what it is you might want to do? MR. BOUCHER: I think the newspaper was kind enough to print the actual words that the Secretary used. And you will see in there that what we are talking about, what the Secretary talked about is a whole range of things that this could be. The point is to reach some kind of understanding with the Russians and express that as appropriately in paper or non-paper or joint statements or treaties or modifications or adjustments, whatever. But the goal is to first reach understandings on the strategic framework as a whole. And then, second of all, to deal specifically with the areas we need to deal with, like the ABM treaty. Ultimately, the United States intends to go forward. And we have made clear that we have the right to withdraw from the treaty, if necessary. But we would like to work this out. And the goal is to try to work this out with the Russians, and then the exact form of that could be a variety of things. Q: Could that exact form include doing something with the treaty? MR. BOUCHER: It could include the whole range of things the Secretary talked about last week. Q: I am asking about doing something. Because whatever is -- MR. BOUCHER: Doing something with the treaty? Yes. Q: It could involve doing something to the treaty, changing the treaty? MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about getting beyond the constraints of the treaty. How exactly that gets codified or not codified or whether that is because we send a letter that says we're no longer party to this or whether it's because we agree to change it, or we agree to replace it, or we have a joint statement. That remains to be seen. Q: Good. Thank you. Q: Given the US desire to work with the Russians, a partner in some ways, on missile defense issues, how much of a setback is the joint pact that came out of Moscow with the Chinese? And particularly the statements regarding the ABM Treaty? MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, remember this -- we have been aware of this for some time, these meetings that they have had, and the fact that they were working on a treaty of friendship has been quite clear to many, all of us, for some time. It is a treaty of friendship, not an alliance. It doesn't have mutual defense in it or anything like that. And we have never felt that this was a zero-sum game. We have felt that it is important for us to have good relations with Russia and with China, and we have always felt it is important for them to have good relations with each other. They have a long border in the region, and it is important for them to get along. So we don't see it as any particular threat to us or to our plans. Q: There seems to be some confusion about your intentions -- the Administration's intentions regarding -- withdrawing from the pact. What is driving the agenda? Is it the test program, or is it the desire to achieve an agreement with Russia before you proceed with the test program? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think if you look at the testimony that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz gave last week and the other statements that we made last week, what is driving the program is the need to develop an effective defense against the kind of threats that we see coming up in the future. That program has been laid out to the extent it can be at this point, and the President has directed that we undertake an aggressive program of testing. There is no particular goal of breaking the ABM Treaty as part of that program, nor is there any particular constraint of staying within its limits. In doing this, in carrying out this program, developing an effective defense, we want to do this in cooperation, we want to do this by working it out with the Russians, who were parties to the ABM Treaty, and doing it in cooperation with our friends and allies. But the goal here is to develop an effective defense against the kind of threats that we see coming up in the future for ourselves, for our forces, for our allies. Q: You are talking about understandings on the whole strategic framework, with the ABM Treaty almost as a sort of small subset. Mr. Wolfowitz was saying last week, months rather than years by the time they bump up against that treaty. It's a heck of a timetable you're setting, isn't it? How are you going to -- how far have you gotten so far? MR. BOUCHER: We are going to work hard. Q: But would you say -- MR. BOUCHER: We have had a number of discussions already with the Russians. We will keep having discussions with the Russians. But as I said, the goal is not something to do with the ABM treaty; the goal is to have an effective defense against threats of the future. Q: The answers -- the body language, the way you're saying these things suggests to me, and I guess it suggests to my friend over there, that the priority for the administration is to go ahead with a missile defense, irrespective of the treaty, with Russia's acquiescence, if possible, without it -- MR. BOUCHER: I am not saying anything new in that regard. Q: Not saying anything new, but there has just been a successful test and the Russians are angry again, or opposing it again, opposing what you're doing, saying you are triggering an arms race, the US is. The allies are fairly silent about it. It's all right. I think your answer is, that's the top priority, getting a missile defense. The treaty somehow may figure in or may not figure in, is my impression of what you are saying. MR. BOUCHER: Yes. We intend to conduct the program the President has asked for in terms of an aggressive program of testing. I would point out the test on Saturday was well within the confines of what the treaty permits. But the focus of this effort is not the treaty; the focus is to develop an effective defense against limited attack, limited number of missiles. We will keep talking to the Russians. In the statements that they have made, the Foreign Ministry did reiterate their desire for consultation and cooperation. We've started a discussion with the Russians and we expect to continue that discussion. Q: Could I ask something else on the same subject, general subject? This may not be the origin of this story, but is there some second thoughts now about the program of trying to assist Russian scientists in a way that takes them away from, you know, arms programs and diverts them to something more civilian in nature? MR. BOUCHER: We have been conducting a review that is completed or substantially completed of our assistance programs to Russia, the nonproliferation programs that we have. We are now consulting with our Congress to get their views of these different programs. That will be done before we make any final decisions. Following those consultations, we will have to make the decisions on which of the recommendations of the review group to accept and what would happen to individual programs. But let me say in general terms that we continue to believe it is in US national interests to assist Russia in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the material and the know-how for weapons of mass destruction, as well as ballistic missile technology. So that point remains pretty firm. Q: But maybe in a different way from the way it has been done before? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to prejudice the outcome of the review. They are looking at these -- Q: Why not? It's in the newspapers this morning. It's on page 1. MR. BOUCHER: So? There are a lot of things in the newspapers. Sometimes they're true. Q: Well, this is a reputable newspaper and it has the ring of truth to it. Two very good correspondents wrote -- MR. BOUCHER: Is that the standard that we hold newspapers to, the ring of truth? Q: No, I wondered if you wanted to try the agreements out on all of us -- the recommendations out on all of us, or just try it out on one or two -- MR. BOUCHER: You can ask the newspapers who they might have talked to. Q: No, I didn't say they came from here. It's no longer a secret, is what I'm saying. MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm not going to -- Q: That's all right. We'll get it. I assure you. MR. BOUCHER: Barry, you can do what you want. My job is not to stand up here and repeat things in the newspaper. Q: One more on missile defense. Richard, in order to have this system, that means the US fears some kind of threat from Russia or China in the future or from terrorists? MR. BOUCHER: I think we made quite clear that the missile defense system is not directed against the deterrent forces in China and Russia. It is a system to provide a limited defense against possible threats from other places in the future. Q: (Inaudible) -- China's military buildup is not directly against Taiwan but also Japan, US. What's your comment on that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any particular comment on that, no. Q: Also, in the pact with China with Russia, they said they are going to build a justified new world order, and what is your opinion on that? MR. BOUCHER: Again, I commented on that before. Nothing more to say. Q: Just back to missile defense, given the months, not years, time frame, and the fact that it takes -- I mean, you would have to notify the Russians at least within six months if you decided to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Can you give us any kind of timeline when a decision will be made as to whether or not the US will specifically withdraw from the treaty? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: Or not withdraw, make a decision? MR. BOUCHER: No. We can't be any more specific. We have said that we know that some of the testing can bump up into the limits. We don't feel we know the need to get beyond the constraints of the treaty, but exactly when and how we are not able to define at this point. Q: Do you happen to know -- can I just comment, last point -- do you happen to know -- it's probably in the treaty, if we look in the text -- but if you happen to know, does it provide like six months notice -- does it -- MR. BOUCHER: I believe your colleague is right. It's six months. Q: No, no, does the treaty itself provide a specific notice arrangement? MR. BOUCHER: He just said six months, and it sounds like he has checked it more recently than I have. But I believe that is correct. Q: European diplomats are saying that they have not been fully briefed on the Alaska part of the reports, which came out on the Hill at the hearing and so on last week. Can you tell us when the United States intends to consult in more detail with its allies about the testing program in Alaska? MR. BOUCHER: I think a lot of that the Defense Department would have to handle the kind of details of the various testing programs and deployment schedules. So I am not really able to do that. Q: Can I follow up? Do you have anything on North Korea's and the United States talks in New York? MR. BOUCHER: We will do that later. Let's finish with missile defense, if we can. Q: Well, while the Pentagon is leading the testing program, is the State Department in charge of the consultation part of it? MR. BOUCHER: As you have seen from the past, we work with colleagues and other agencies on this. The consultation teams that went out this spring included Defense, State and others. Actually some of the teams were led by different agencies, so we are working with them on this, but as far as having a schedule of different pieces of the deployment and the testing, that is a Defense Department thing. Q: Two questions. One, would you still call him General or President of Pakistan? One. Two, he has extended his two days stay in India out of surprise, and if anybody from India is in consultation with this Department over the talks in India, Kashmir? And what are your comments, the way talks are going on? MR. BOUCHER: Well, my piece of paper refers to him as President Musharraf two times, so that's good enough for us for the moment. And as far as going on, we would note that Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf have had extensive talks during four meetings since Saturday. According to press reports, the atmosphere of the talks is generally positive. We also understand he has extended his stay in Agra for additional discussions, and that Prime Minister Vajpayee has reportedly accepted an invitation to visit Islamabad. Obviously, further details will come from the Indian and Pakistani Governments. I would make clear for our part that while we were not involved in setting this up, we support strongly the sustained engagement at a senior level between India and Pakistan. This is the best way to address longstanding bilateral disputes and to make real progress towards a reduction of tensions and a resolution of their differences. Q: And no one has spoken yet from here or from -- the Secretary or anybody from here during these talks with the Indian Prime Minister? MR. BOUCHER: During the talks that are going on in Agra? Well, I just did. Q: No, has anybody spoken to the -- MR. BOUCHER: Oh, have we spoken to the Indians for the last three or four days? Not that I know of. Not that I have heard of. Q: You said that the talks were -- you had understood that the talks were going positively. But there seems to be a big disagreement on even what the agenda is supposed to be, with the Pakistanis obviously saying that Kashmir is the main issue, and the Indians saying there should be others discussed. What is your feeling on that? First of all, are you disappointed that there is this discord? And second of all, do you have a position on whether Kashmir should be resolved before these other issues can be discussed? MR. BOUCHER: We are not a party to these talks. We are not going to specify what the agenda is. Q: Different subject. There is a story in the papers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, yesterday and today about an immigration proposal by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Justice. One of those proposals on immigration is allowing 3 million illegal Mexicans living in the US to have a legal status in the future. Is that one of the main proposals in the plan that is going to be presented to President Bush? MR. BOUCHER: The focus of these discussions is the safe and orderly process of migration between the United States and Mexico. And the chief aspect of them is that we are working cooperatively with the Mexicans on establishing that. I would generally describe the focus as being on a guest worker program and how to make that work, and then in light of that raises questions about the status of people who are already here in the United States, and that will have to be addressed as well. But these discussions, these working group meetings have been going on since earlier this year. President Bush and President Fox met in February, as you know, kicked off the process. Secretary Powell and Attorney General Ashcroft met with their counterparts on April 6 for the kickoff of the working group. The working group has been meeting since then, especially I think we talked about the meeting here June 8. We are now looking at having Secretary Powell and Attorney General Ashcroft meet with their Mexican counterparts again in August. We are looking at a joint visit by the Mexicans who would come up here tentatively in August. We will pin that down later. But in light of that, the working group has been working on their interim report that would be done soon, go to the White House, and then we would hope to be able to discuss some of the results of that with the Mexicans when they come in August. Q: Would that plan erase the proposal of legalized 3 million illegal Mexicans -- MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't describe it that way, but I wouldn't be able to give you in any detail what the working groups have been looking at in terms of their interim report that will be prepared shortly. Q: If there is a proposal to make Mexican illegals -- 3 million Mexicans, illegal Mexicans, a kind of amnesty program, what about non-Mexicans, millions of illegal aliens or millions of illegal immigrants -- MR. BOUCHER: You are trying to take me another mile down the road that I wouldn't go down with him. I am not going to speculate on anything about the program. I would not describe the focus of the program as being some kind of "ollie ollie in-come-free" amnesty. It is really a question of an orderly guest worker program, the safe and orderly migration. And in that context, obviously looking at the status of people who are currently here. Q: Has the Secretary been in contact with members of Congress of the United States in discussions on this? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if he has had any particular discussions of this. I am sure this kind of issue arises from time to time in his meetings with members of Congress. But I don't think there have been any focused meetings on this particular topic. Q: A question on Bangladesh. The new care-taker government is in place. What is your comment on the new care-taker government who have been assigned to conduct a free and fair elections but amidst reports that may be widespread violence in the foreseeable future? Is there any comment to that extent on the new care-taker government? MR. BOUCHER: I think just the observations that you made, that the government is a care-taker government that would be expected to oversee elections within about three months. We think they deserve our support and encouragement as they try to administer what we all hope will be fair and free elections, with results that would be accepted by all the parties. Unfortunately, as you note, violence has become a recurrent feature of Bangladeshi politics and we deplore that violence and we would urge all parties to cooperate as they move toward elections in a peaceful manner. Q: Just a follow-up, if the US is sending any observer to observe the elections in Dhaka, Bangladesh? MR. BOUCHER: In Bangladesh? At this point, I don't know. Now, we had a longstanding question about North Korea. Q: Do you have anything up to date on the US and North Korea talks in New York? MR. BOUCHER: Not a lot of news. The Director of our Office of Korean Affairs went up to New York on Friday to meet with the North Koreans, as he has from time to time since the start of the administration. The context of the discussions was to continue our discussions with the North Korean side regarding arrangements for a bilateral dialogue. There's no particular further meetings set in that dialogue at this point. Q: Is the Secretary going to meet with the North Koreans on his travels, as he has apparently told The Washington Post? MR. BOUCHER: I think he said, I'll see him and I might meet with him. They will both be at the same meeting in Hanoi with the ASEAN plus at the ASEAN meetings, and we will just have to see what happens. There is nothing set at this point, but it is possible. Q: Just on that point, was that potential of a meeting discussed on Friday in this meeting in New York? MR. BOUCHER: They discussed how to continue or how to proceed with the bilateral dialogue, but as I said, there is no particular meeting set at this point. Q: No, but did the ASEAN conference come up at all? MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to get into the elements of that discussion. Q: Just to follow up on that one, were you able to get any inkling of when you would get a response on the Bush -- the President's offer of dialogue, or if there would be a response, and if there was, what that response would be? MR. BOUCHER: We didn't get a response. I'm not sure I can deal with inklings. We are looking for not a inkling; we are looking for a response. We have not yet gotten a response that indicates whether the North Koreans accept our proposals or not. They have been seeking further information. I would characterize the meeting on Friday as part of that process. We have not yet heard an answer from them yet. Q: Richard, can you bring us up to date on the Middle East, whether the Secretary has talked to the Prime Minister or Chairman Arafat or others? And anything? Q: Can I squeeze in a last Asia question? This happened over the weekend, and I know there was guidance out, but nothing on-camera. Can you bring us up to date on Li Shaomin -- on this situation with Li Shaomin's trial, and if you have any new information on when he might be leaving China? And do you have anything more about Gao Zhan? MR. BOUCHER: Well, just to review for those who weren't on camera. On July 14th, Beijing's first intermediate court sentenced Li Shaomin to be deported. We welcome China's decision to release Mr. Li so that he can be reunited with his family. This has been a matter of great concern to many people in the United States. As you know, the President has raised it with President Jiang, and the Secretary has made clear our emphasis on this case as well. We do not know when he will be deported, nor do we know where he will go to. We are currently inquiring with the Chinese Government about the details of his release and deportation. We expect that he will be released in the next few days, but we don't have a specific date or destination. Q: But is there any hope that the same may happen to Gao Zhan? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, again, no real information on the status of Gao Zhan. We have urged the Chinese to promptly resolve the case so that she, too, can be reunited with her family. We are seeking information about the case, but we don't have any new information on it. Q: Do you see any difference between being supposedly convicted and deported or just being allowed to leave? It doesn't matter, as long as they are getting out of there? MR. BOUCHER: The point that we have emphasized over and over is that these people are being detained, and they deserve to be reunited with their families. So to us that is the most important aspect of this. I leave it to them and their legal counsel to comment on any legal proceedings. Q: Middle East? Q: One more on Asia, please? MR. BOUCHER: Why don't we take smaller bits of regions, and we can go from Japan to Korea to China and not have to do all of Asia at once. You want to do China? Q: Still on Gao Zhan, since she is a permanent resident and not a US citizen, has there been any contact from this Department in that regard to emphasize that maybe we regarded her case similar to Li's since then? Or is there some concern that they won't expel her? MR. BOUCHER: Well, we have been quite clear all along of the importance we attach to the welfare of these individuals and the importance we attach to allowing them to be reunited with their families. I think we have made that clear in all the cases of American citizens and permanent residents who were detained in China. The legal status of our ability to have consular access is obviously different. We have asked to attend the trial of Gao Zhan if there is one or when there is one, but we don't have any information about the trial nor about our ability to attend it. Q: Middle East? MR. BOUCHER: Okay, now, Middle East. Where are we? Let me run through where we are and then give you some thoughts on the situation as it now stands. First, I would like to stress that our representatives in the region are maintaining a continuous contact with Palestinian and Israeli leaders on both political and security issues. In this context, our Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, David Satterfield, remains in the region. Our efforts are largely focused on security cooperation and the practical efforts to bring down the violence and to move forward the discussion of the Mitchell time-line. The Secretary spoke to Chairman Arafat on Saturday about the situation in the region. He impressed Chairman Arafat with the need for further action to calm the situation and to seize the opportunity presented by the Mitchell Committee recommendations. We think that both sides have an obligation to exert maximum efforts to halt the ongoing tragedy, to avoid escalation, to desist from provocation and incitement and to strive to create and sustain through words and deeds an environment of trust and confidence that permits them to move forward with the implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations in all their aspects. We have said repeatedly that Palestinian attacks from and Israeli incursions into Palestinian controlled areas must be brought to an end immediately and that there is no military solution to this conflict. So we continue to be out there working on the situation as well as in touch with the leadership in order to impress upon them the importance of making a maximum effort and having productive cooperation on security issues. Q: To follow up on that, you mentioned security efforts and practical steps, but you didn't mention the specifics of the Tenet work plan or cease- fire agreement. At this point, I mean, is there something that we don't know about that wasn't printed in Ha'aretz that allows a loophole so that both sides don't have to do what they signed? Are you still trying to press them to live up to their agreements in that document? MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to comment on whatever might have been printed in Ha'aretz, whether that is a document or not. But I think it is quite clear to us that the steps that were outlined in their discussions with Mr. Tenet remain the important and the key steps to carrying through to creating a situation of calm, and especially in terms of security cooperation, that those steps need to be carried through so that we can implement fully the Mitchell report in all its aspects. You will note, I think, I can't quite do this because -- the kinds of steps that were reported to be in the Tenet proposal are also steps that are in the Mitchell Plan. So that achieving the Tenet discussions are a way of achieving the unconditional cessation of violence and getting on with the process of the cooling off and building confidence that are in the Mitchell plan, so that we can actually carry out concrete steps. So to the extent that we continue to say how important it is to create that period of quiet and to move forward with the Mitchell Committee plan, one of the chief ways of doing that is to carry through on the steps that they agreed with George Tenet. Q: Specifically, is Satterfield and our other representatives in the region, are they waving this piece of paper and saying, hey, you guys sign this; it's over a month now; what's going on? Or are you coming at it from another approach? I realize that there is an overlap in what was reported in the Tenet and the Mitchell Report, but at the same time, is this still considered a live document? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that the general approach is to stress to the parties that they have agreed to take certain steps, to stress to the parties that they agreed to achieve an unconditional cessation of violence and then to carry forward the steps of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, in addition to the steps they agreed to with Mr. Tenet, and to look to the parties to do that. On the Palestinian side, that means carrying out their efforts to cooperate on security issues, to avoid provocation and incitement, things like that. We are looking for things from both sides. Q: But Richard, a month later -- more than a month later, from Tenet, both sides are not doing what you are stressing. MR. BOUCHER: Does that mean it's wrong? Q: I didn't say that -- I'm saying -- MR. BOUCHER: What I am saying is it's still the right thing to do. We are trying to get the parties to do it. Q: Can I move on to a new subject? I'd like to ask about the talks in Bonn? Given that this Administration doesn't seem to have concrete proposals in terms of unilateral (inaudible) or anything else for -- as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you tell us what kind of proposals or plans or suggestions might be in the works for the G-8 in that regard? MR. BOUCHER: The climate change talks in Bonn remain important to us. We have a delegation out there headed by Paula Dobriansky, our Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. The initial focus in Bonn is going to be determining the procedures for the consultative process before ministers arrive and for the ministerial segment that will take place from the 19th to the 22nd. Our goal remains to work with our friends and allies constructively within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We were the first industrialized country to ratify that Framework Convention, and we remain interested in working with the parties with a broad range of interests in the work of the Convention. So as we proceed down this road that we have outlined, of developing an effective and science-based approach to addressing the problem of global climate change, we will keep working with friends and allies who are involved in this process as well. And that opportunity takes place in Bonn. As you note, we also will probably be discussing climate change with the G- 7, G-8 during the discussions in Rome, and then there's additional meetings on climate change planned for the fall in Marrakech. So we will continue to participate in this process, continue to discuss how to address this problem effectively. Q: Does that mean you won't have any new proposals for the G-8? MR. BOUCHER: The focus of discussions of proposals is as much in the Bonn process and the conference of the parties, and then the meeting in Marrakech. So I am not predicting a new set of proposals at any particular point. The President has made quite clear where he wants to go with this. He has made quite clear the series of proposals on research and modeling and work on climate change that we put out before, that we put out last week, so we have already made some new proposals in terms of addressing this issue with science and technology. And I think we will continue to make proposals as we go along. Q: I just wanted to explore-- if you don't mind going back to missile defense -- your earlier comments. You are talking about understandings on the strategic framework. Can you explain what exactly those would cover, first of all? And secondly, you mentioned the Russian statement, but what was your response to that actual comment that this test threatened international treaties based on the ABM? MR. BOUCHER: As I said earlier, this test was well within the confines of the ABM Treaty. And as far as understandings on the strategic framework, I think the President has discussed in his speech and in his meetings and discussions when he went to Europe, that we need to get beyond the Cold War attitudes towards nuclear issues; needed a new strategic framework that included both the issues all the way from offensive reductions to non- proliferation to diplomacy to counter-proliferation and missile defense. And that we were looking to discuss those issues broadly with the Russians in terms of a new strategic framework. Q: Do you have anything on the Albanian-American brothers believed to be found in a mass grave in Serbia? MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to be precise on this one as to what we actually know and don't know at this point. We don't yet have enough information to confirm the identity of the bodies that were found in the mass grave site in Petrovo Selo in Serbia. At this time, the Yugoslav authorities are conducting a forensics examination of the bodies. As Ambassador Montgomery has said, this is a very important case for us. US officials have been in regular contact with Yugoslav authorities. We are closely monitoring the results of their examination. We are also aware that the Bytyqi brothers have been missing since 1999, when they were released from prison in Serbia. US consular officers have been and remain in touch with the Bytyqi family. They are in the United States. Our thoughts are obviously with them at this difficult time. So we are looking to the Serbian authorities to work closely with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in their investigations, and obviously to hold accountable those who might be responsible for the war crimes. But at this point, we are awaiting the results of the investigation. Q: Can we go back to the Taiwanese leader's remarks? Because he said for the first time in a while that the demand is very unreasonable from China to have the one country, two system, and he pointed out that the source of the missile defense system partially was because China's missile build up towards Taiwan. Are you worried about the remarks? MR. BOUCHER: I don't really have anything particularly new to say on this. You know we have always supported the idea of peaceful dialogue across the straits, but always said that how they go about that dialogue is up to them. We think it is important, that is where our interest is, in seeing peaceful resolution of these issues, and we will continue to provide, as necessary, with Taiwan's legitimate defensive needs. So there is nothing new to say on this, I don't think. Q: (Inaudible) more military exchange between the US and Taiwan? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to speculate on the future in that regard. Q: What he said was that he is proposing a joint missile defense -- Japan, the United States and Taiwan. Do you have no comment on that, or just the US has never discussed this at all with the Taiwanese or the Japanese? That's what -- MR. BOUCHER: There is -- I think the situation remains what it was in the past. There is no particular program or proposal to discuss of that kind. Q: Procedure question. The decision on Title III Helms-Burton is imminent. Do you know when and where it is going to happen? MR. BOUCHER: Before tomorrow, it will be announced by the White House. Q: Before tomorrow? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I think tomorrow -- if the President should decide to continue the waiver, he has to do it 15 days before August 1st, which puts us back to it has to be done by tomorrow. Q: (Inaudible.) MR. BOUCHER: What? Q: By midnight tonight, in other words? MR. BOUCHER: Before tomorrow, yes. Q: Sri Lanka. The situation is horrible in Sri Lanka after the suspension of the parliament, and the opposition is trying to impeach the president, and there could be a civil war. So are you in touch, or anybody -- the US Embassy or anybody? MR. BOUCHER: We keep in close touch with our embassy out there, and they are following the situation for us very closely. We have put out a Public Announcement on travel last Friday that advises American citizens to exercise caution when traveling in Sri Lanka during this period. Q: Are you worried about what is going to happen there, or what is going on presently? MR. BOUCHER: Just say we are following the situation. Q: Do you have anything new on Macedonia? MR. BOUCHER: There are intense talks continuing today on the framework agreement. All documents for a political settlement are now on the table. Mr. Pardew and Mr. Leotard have made progress in narrowing the differences between the parties. And we are pressing the parties to reach a political agreement rapidly. But there is no deadline. We are just urging them to reach closure rapidly on the proposals that are with them now. Q: Would you agree that the description given by a senior participant in the talks on the Macedonian side, that the talks are actually completely stalled? MR. BOUCHER: We would describe them as intense. Q: Thank you. [End] Released on July 16, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.