|
07 February 2001
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Wednesday, February 7, 2001
Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I think
we've given you on paper the joint statement with the South Koreans
that we've just issued. If I can just reiterate a few of its points
orally for those who want to hear from us that way.
Secretary of State Powell and Republic of Korea Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Trade Lee Joung-binn today had a long conversation in
which they reaffirmed the fundamental importance of the political,
economic and security partnership between the United States and South
Korea. This partnership has worked to promote democracy and prosperity
on the Korean Peninsula for over five decades.
The two ministers talked on the basis of the US-South Korean security
partnership which remains vital to both of us. They talked about
reconciliation and cooperation between South and North Korea. And they
talked about our support, the United States support, Secretary
Powell's support, for the South Korean Government's policy of
reconciliation and cooperation with the North.
They talked about close coordination between our two governments as
well as with Japan, and each pledged regular consultations at senior
levels as we go forward in this together. And then they talked a bit
about the prospect of a meeting between President Bush and President
Kim at the earliest time, but no dates were set.
Question: When you say "at the earliest time," can we add the word
"possible"? I mean, I don't understand "earliest."
Mr. Boucher: You can add it if you want. I'll add it if you want, too.
At the earliest possible time, at the earliest time it can be
scheduled. Whatever. All that's understood.
Q: You may consider this a little bit radical, eccentric. Given the
long relationship with South Korea, which no one is questioning,
doesn't the US have a specific interest of its own, so far as a
missile defense program, that calls for face-to-face negotiations or
discussions or something with North Korea; that is a US decision to
make irrespective of its allies? You seem to be taking the South
Korean lead more than the Clinton Administration did.
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't think we're contradicting that in any way
with what you say. Obviously South Korea has its interests as it goes
forward, things it wants to work on, that may not be the core part of
our agenda, like family reunification, economic cooperation, whatever.
And as South Korea goes forward with its process, it will consult very
closely with us.
Similarly, we have certain interests with North Korea that may be
shared or may be similar, maybe have a different status with us,
including tensions on the Peninsula generally that we're concerned
about in dealing with the North. Obviously that's a concern of South
Korea as well. Questions of missiles, nuclear developments, also a
concern to South Korea, but in some contexts also a broader concern to
the United States.
So as we each pursue the issues of concern to us, we keep in mind the
issues that others have. The Japanese have certain issues that are of
concern to them, and they will pursue those. We will keep them in
mind. And in most cases -- in all cases, I think -- what you have seen
and what you will see is the United States, Korea -- South Korea --
and Japan, as we pursue our agendas, also stressing the importance of
reaching agreement with others on the issues of their agenda as well.
Because we all know that we need to go forward together, and in
particular stress the importance that progress be made between South
Korea and North Korea in those talks.
The Secretary talked today about the importance of building on what
the South Koreans have achieved and done with North Korea and moving
forward from there, and that it clearly remains of key importance to
us as we look at how to pursue our own issues with North Korea.
Q: Did the subject of South Korea's missile program come up? And if it
did, could you elaborate?
Mr. Boucher: No, it didn't, it came up only very briefly to the extent
of noting that we had recently reached agreement with South Korea on a
number of issues, including the issues of their missile program,
issues of status of forces, and I forget one or two others.
Q: Richard, did the subject come up of Colin Powell continuing on with
the Albright initiative with North Korea, and any timing?
Mr. Boucher: No specific timing was discussed. What the Secretary has
said in his confirmation hearings was he was very mindful of the work
that had been done and looked forward to moving forward from there,
and that is generally the tenor of our discussions here. But there was
no specific discussion at this point, nor announcements that I have to
make about how and when and in exactly what format we intend to pursue
that work.
Certainly the Secretary has talked before and talked again today about
the need to move forward to advance our interests with North Korea, to
move forward in a step-by-step fashion as North Korea addresses the
issues of concern to us, and to move forward but in a realistic way
that understands the nature of events and concerns out in the
Peninsula.
Q: Has there, in fact, been any contact through what you call the New
York channel since the new Administration came into office?
Mr. Boucher: There has been regular contact through the New York
channel with North Korean diplomats. As I said, no new departures or
policy announcements at this point.
Q: Is Ambassador Kartman still in place, or what's the status of that?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, he is still in place. He was at the meeting this
morning.
Q: And he is expected to -- is he one of the people that was asked to
stay on for -- until what, March?
Mr. Boucher: I forgot to check on how -- he is still in place, and he
is still working on this. I don't have any --
Q: But I mean, he doesn't intend to leave imminently?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have any -- I don't know exactly how long his
tour is or how long his future is, but I'll check on that and see if
we have anything definitive at this moment.
Q: And also along the personnel lines, what about Wendy Sherman's
position?
Mr. Boucher: No decisions on exactly how Secretary Powell wants to
organize his effort vis-?vis North Korea, but he is certainly relying
on the people who are here, who have great expertise.
Q: And perhaps this is one for the Historian's Office, but exactly --
the statement notes this cooperation in promoting democracy over the
past 50 years. Was that really a US concern in the 1950s and 1960s? I
don't remember Syngman Rhee being exactly the most democratic -- I
mean, how much US policy towards --
Mr. Boucher: Has worked to promote democracy and prosperity on the
Korean Peninsula for over five decades. Obviously the promotion of
prosperity on the Korean Peninsula is something that goes back for
five decades. I think you will find the United States has consistently
promoted democracy throughout our relationships there. And I think
what is important to note at this point that Korea is indeed a strong
partner in terms of democracy around the world, and that has become a
more and more important part of our relationship as these years have
gone on.
Q: The peace treaty issue between the North and South was on the table
today? And then what was Mr. Powell's stance on that?
And my second question is are there any difference between the United
States and South Korea in terms of the principle of reciprocity and
the speed of dealing with North Korea?
Mr. Boucher: Again, we've been here for two weeks now in this briefing
room, and I've avoided sort of trying to recite every mantra around
the world of everything that we've ever supported, so I'm not
intending to use today to do that between South and North Korea.
The issue of moving towards a peace treaty through the Four Party
Talks did come up today. I would say to a very great extent today's
meeting was a comprehensive and detailed briefing by Minister Lee on
the way they are proceeding with the North, their views on various
issues and things that are coming up. This is one of the elements that
he touched on.
Secretary Powell certainly appreciates the insights and the
comprehensive nature of the briefing, but at this point, as I said, in
terms of sort of the specific elements of how we want to proceed, I
don't have any announcements. Clearly Four Party Talks and proceeding
towards a peace treaty has been part of the agenda and will remain
part of the agenda.
Q: How about my second question?
Mr. Boucher: Repeat your second question.
Q: Were there any difference between the United States and --
Mr. Boucher: That's the kind of thing --
Q: I see.
Mr. Boucher: Obviously there was tremendous agreement today on the
elements that they discussed. There was tremendous agreement on the
importance of moving forward and on the importance of very, very close
consultations as we each move forward. I didn't detect any particular
differences today, but in terms of sweeping statements, we're not here
to recite that every day.
Q: When Mr. Powell met with Mr. -- (inaudible) -- a couple of weeks
ago, he stressed that the conventional force issues are very important
to reach an agreement with North Korea. He stressed it again?
Mr. Boucher: Again, in Minister Lee's briefing on the situation on the
Peninsula, he several times highlighted the importance of the
reduction of tensions, the reduction of military tensions on the
Peninsula. Clearly that is something of great interest to us. The
Secretary, too, has talked about it in his confirmation hearing.
So when we say we want to proceed step by step, look at addressing our
concerns and proceed in a realistic fashion, understanding what's
going on on the Peninsula, that is the kind of thing we're talking
about, the status of the conventional forces as well as other threats
on the Peninsula. So clearly an area that will become an area of focus
and cooperation.
Q: Is it a kind of precondition?
Mr. Boucher: Again, I'm not laying out any particular preconditions.
I'm talking about the way we intend to proceed, which is the way I've
described it.
Q: Can I ask about Japan?
Mr. Boucher: Sure.
Q: The Okinawa government has today demanded that the Marine general
be replaced because of his comments. I am wondering if this incident
has yet risen to the level of a diplomatic -- something that the State
Department is handling, or are you still wanting to have nothing to do
with it and leave it all to the Pentagon?
Mr. Boucher: Well, I think the Pentagon, I think the general involved
has explained, has talked about his statements and what he meant.
Clearly the admonition to his forces and his troops to respond to
discipline, to respect the discipline that he expects of his forces,
is an important part of what he needs to say. I believe our Embassy
has had discussions with the Japanese Government about it, but I think
I'll leave it to them to handle.
Q: Were there any discussions today in the meeting regarding North
Korean officials visiting the United States, like earlier this year?
Was there any talk like that?
Mr. Boucher: No, that didn't come up.
Q: According to Athens News Agency on the Simitis government,
Ambassador Nicholas Burns met the other day with the Foreign Prime
Minister Konstantin Mitsiotakis, and they discussed the upcoming visit
to the Island of Crete of the former President George Bush as a guest
of Mr. Mitsiotakis.
I am wondering, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Burns has been instructed accordingly
by the Department of State?
Mr. Boucher: I don't know. I'll have to check.
Q: It's a news item by the Athens News Agency. It's the official --
Mr. Boucher: Well, I mean, okay, our Ambassador obviously wants to
facilitate visits by former United States Presidents. I know when
President Carter stopped in Cyprus we did a lot to help him out and
help him through, so I'm certain that our Ambassador in Greece will do
the same. Whether he has actually received any kind of heads up or
instruction telegram from us, I don't know. But in the normal course
of business, even without a telegram, our Ambassadors would certainly
help former Presidents in their travels.
Q: Do you know if it is true, at least?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: No. A story appeared yesterday in The Los Angeles Times by once
again upon the time employee of your Embassy in Athens, Wayne Merry,
against the Olympic Games to take place in Greece of 2004 in the name
of the terrorist organization November 17. Any comment?
Mr. Boucher: I don't know about that story. I'll have to check on it.
Q: It was a big story yesterday in --
Mr. Boucher: I'm sorry. I didn't read that section of The Los Angeles
Times yesterday.
(Laughter.)
Q: But you do read The L.A. Times every day?
Mr. Boucher: I read The L.A. Times every day, but sometimes I don't
read every story.
Q: Only if Robin --
Mr. Boucher: Only ones written by people I know.
Q: According to reports, the State Department instructed Ambassador
Burns not to allow US officials from now on to go into Greece to meet
the speaker of the Greek parliament, Mr. Apostolos Kaklamanis. Do you
have anything on that?
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't have anything on that. I think on the overall
situation and the remarks made by Mr. Kaklamanis, we discussed that
last week.
Q: I forgot my question. Can I ask about NMD? British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook this morning was talking at some length about how
Britain would like to see a full dialogue with Russia before the
United States takes a final decision on this, and I understand that
Secretary Powell assured him of that yesterday.
Could you give us any details at all about how you intend to proceed
with this dialogue, given the particular prominence it had with Strobe
Talbott and the last administration?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think there is a formal mechanism decided yet.
Clearly, as we work through these issues, as we work through any
issues, we are working first and foremost with our allies, discussing
them with friends and other interested countries. And I think the
Secretary was quite clear in his discussion of this issue yesterday
with you that we would be talking to the Chinese and the Russians as
we went forward in developing our plans and developing the ideas of
strategic stability that involved, obviously, questions of offensive
weapons, of proliferation, of information, but as well, issues of
defense.
So those will be subjects of discussion. The exact format, personnel
or timing of those, I don't think we have anything new to say on that
at that point. Obviously when the Secretary meets with the Russian
Foreign Minister, which they expect to do in the near future -- in the
coming months, let's put it that way -- then that would be a subject
of discussion.
Q: Can I follow up on that? President Bush said before he was elected
that he would proceed with NMD whether Russia agreed to amend ABM or
not, and yet we have heard talk in the last couple of days that would
tend to suggest that ABM -- that the United States would not pull out
of ABM.
Can you clarify that for us?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think we have said anything new on the ABM Treaty
since the Secretary's confirmation hearings. I would refer you back to
what he said then.
Q: Can I follow that, too? I was at the same session, and Mr. Cook, a
self-admitted polite person, had nothing rash to say about National
Missile Defense. Do you think now that the visit is over -- he's going
to come back, because Mr. Blair will be here in two weeks -- even if
you use the phrase "anchored in NATO," which I think I have heard a
few hundred times in the last two days, can you please tell us if
indeed there is any disagreement, any substantive disagreement, with
the European allies on a National Missile Defense?
I can't figure out if what Mr. Rumsfeld said prevails, or what Mr.
Cook said prevails, or what the Secretary's statement -- I'm still a
little confused. There is a lot of politeness going on.
Mr. Boucher: Okay, hold it. The phrase "anchored in NATO" is used in
connection with European Security and Defense Identity.
Q: Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Boucher: So you want to find out if I'm as polite on European
Security and Defense Identity as he is on National Missile Defense?
Q: I can't think of the clich?for --
Mr. Boucher: And the answer to the fundamental question is yes, we are
as polite on European Security and Defense as he is on National
Missile Defense. These are both issues on our security agenda, both
issues that we expect to work in conjunction with our friends and
allies, and in particular in conjunction with our British friends and
allies. And the fact that they had extensive consultations on these
subjects yesterday, that they were able to discuss how to proceed, and
to work together, in fact -- not just to think together, but to work
together and to act together-- with the British as we proceed with
these items.
So as the Secretary said yesterday, "anchored in NATO" is the phrase
that we look for in terms of how the European Security and Defense
Identity needs to be pursued. We welcome it; we welcome any increase
in European capabilities; we welcome the Europeans having the ability
to carry out actions where we might not be implicated, involved, or
might not decide to get involved. And we will work with the British
and other allies to make sure that this is done in a manner that adds
to capabilities, doesn't duplicate them, and is anchored in NATO. That
is clearly what we are doing with the British, and we will continue to
do that.
Q: Does the US have a national missile -- you haven't said anything
yet about -- just now whether there is a general agreement with the US
program -- acceptance of it.
Mr. Boucher: No, I am not going to characterize other views. I think
he characterized his own views to you this morning.
Q: Okay, I'll try it this way. Is the United States standing alone in
its pursuit of an ambitious, a multi-trillion dollar, so far
unprovable, missile defense program?
(Laughter.)
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: When you say that both ministers decided how they were going to
proceed with National Missile Defense and with ESDI, can you elaborate
on that?
Mr. Boucher: I'm not quite sure I said it that way. I said that both
ministers decided they would proceed together on these issues, that we
will work together as we proceed on these issues.
Q: New subject. Has Secretary Powell yet begun to make phone calls to
the Middle East following the election?
Mr. Boucher: What makes you think he would?
Q: No idea. I just wondered. And any update on trips?
Mr. Boucher: Nothing new to say about travel. I think the Secretary
talked to you yesterday and mentioned the fact that we would be
traveling towards the end of the month, and that we would go to
Europe, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf, to take them in
alphabetical order and not imply anything about destinations or
timing.
On the subject of phone calls, clearly you have seen the White House
statement, you have seen the base fundamental approach of the United
States as we get a new government in Israel. The Secretary has been
making phone calls. He talked to Prime Minister-Elect Sharon yesterday
evening -- evening or afternoon -- late afternoon, early evening our
time -- after the declarations and concessions and things like that.
Today he has talked to King Abdallah of Jordan, he has talked to Crown
Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia. He has talked to Foreign Minister
Shara of Syria. He has talked to Foreign Minister Moussa of Egypt. And
we would expect him to make additional calls during the course of the
day.
Q: That's an interesting itinerary. That could make an interesting
itinerary.
Mr. Boucher: No, that's not an itinerary. This is merely a list of
phone calls.
Q: And what was his message?
Mr. Boucher: The message is basically the one that he said to you,
that he said in public, that we are at a delicate time, that the Prime
Minister-Elect will need to form a government, and that during this
period we should avoid provocations, we should avoid
counter-provocations. Everyone should be exercising restraint and
moderation. And we need to work together and talk to our friends and
allies in the region and talk to the new government once it is formed
about how we can proceed towards the search for peace.
Q: Arafat? Did he talk to Arafat?
Mr. Boucher: We'll get you names of other people as they proceed.
Q: If he talks to Arafat, that would especially be interesting to us.
Mr. Boucher: Okay.
Q: Did he talk to any of these four about the Iran sanctions
situation?
Mr. Boucher: The Iran? The Iraq sanctions situation?
Q: Iraq sanctions.
Mr. Boucher: The principal subject of the phone call was Middle East
peace, was the situation in the region at this current moment. I don't
know whether Iraq came up in any of the calls. I know that it didn't
come up in one or two that I heard. So that was not intended to be a
conversation on that subject at this point.
Q: Can you explain your objections to the expression, "Middle East
peace process"?
Mr. Boucher: I don't object to "Middle East peace process." I'm sure
we'll say a lot of different things at different times to characterize
the situation. But certainly the search is for peace, not for a
process.
Q: Can I ask you also, a couple of appointments at State, high-level
jobs, were announced today. I don't know if that's the end of the
line.
Mr. Boucher: Were there more announced today?
Q: Yeah, Grossman and --
Mr. Boucher: That was yesterday.
Q: Okay, yesterday. But is it -- does the --
Mr. Boucher: No, that's not the end of the line.
(Laughter.)
Q: But is it the end of the line so far as the special mediator? Is
that issue still up in the air?
Mr. Boucher: No news on that point about how exactly and who in terms
of organizing the search for peace in the Middle East.
Q: If I could go back somewhat to the issue of proliferation. And
another thing that Robin Cook mentioned today was that US and British
officials were going to get together to try and hammer out a new
approach to controlling proliferation. And one of the ideas he
suggested was an international treaty along the lines of NPT Europe,
the missile export control regime, because there was nothing that
applied specifically to missiles.
Could you tell us anything about what Secretary Powell's views are on
this since they discussed it yesterday?
Mr. Boucher: That idea was discussed at yesterday's meeting. It was
one of several ideas on the importance of proliferation and how we
needed to proceed. I am sure we will have people get together on this
subject but, no, we don't have a particular view at this point to
express.
Q: Change of subject?
Mr. Boucher: Please.
Q: Just two very quick ones on the Balkans. One is, is anything clear
about the incident yesterday involving the convoy that Ambassador
Montgomery was in?
And second, involving another Ambassador over there, have the concerns
that you raised yesterday about the comments made by the chairman of
the Bosnian presidency been now allayed? Are you convinced that
Ambassador Miller is not at risk of being thrown out of the country?
Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure if we've heard anything further on the
situation with Ambassador Miller. As you know, there was some comments
made by Zivko Radisic, the Serb Co-President of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We
see these as part of the internal political maneuvering in the run-up
to tomorrow's -- today's, now -- vote in their house of
representatives on the new central government.
Obviously the United States has full confidence in Ambassador Miller.
He and we will continue to work with the rest of the international
community on the economic and political development of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't think there is anything more I can say at
this point. It would be up to them to decide if they want to pursue
this issue or not.
Q: And on the --
Mr. Boucher: And what was the other one? The shooting incident. I
think the simple answer to, "Is there anything clear," I think the
answer is no, it's not clear. We know a few things. There were shots
that were heard in the vicinity of a convoy yesterday near the Presevo
Valley area. Let me make sure I know where they were. Well, let's go
through the people.
The people in the convoy were our Ambassador to Yugoslavia Bill
Montgomery, Balkans Coordinator Ambassador James Pardew. They were
heading to a meeting in Lucane with Serb officials. The motorcade also
included Serb foreign ministry officials and other Embassy officers.
Yugoslav army vehicles were in the area and traveling in the same
direction as the motorcade.
As the motorcade was nearing the location of its planned meeting, a
security officer heard two gunshots. Neither shot hit any of the cars
in the motorcade. There is no indication that the convoy was a target.
No one was hurt in the incident. As a precaution, the motorcade
immediately turned around and returned to Belgrade.
We have no information at this point on who might have fired the shots
or what the target may have been, and we're not going to speculate. So
I think the only thing you can say is that US diplomats, once again,
are out doing the nation's business in areas of shots being fired and
obvious danger.
Q: The meeting that they were going to was with Serb --
Mr. Boucher: With Serb officials in this town called Lucane.
Q: Was that to talk about the Conic plan?
Mr. Boucher: You're thinking of the Covic plan. Obviously that's --
for any discussions of the situation in the area, that's one of the
matters that would be discussed. We, in fact, have noted that the
Covic plan was approved Tuesday by the Serbian parliament. We
understand it's now before the Yugoslav parliament. As we said before,
we welcome the development of this plan. We think it's a positive step
towards building confidence among the parties in southern Serbia.
We would also note the meeting between Albanian leaders, where they
are preparing a platform for possible negotiations with the Serbian
Government concerning a political settlement of differences in the
Presevo region. So we once again continue to urge people to stop the
violence, but also to get together on these bases, and to get together
and talk about how they can work together to stop violence and
institute necessary changes and reforms.
Q: And one more thing. Has this meeting been rescheduled, or is this
shooting incident the kind of thing that would keep -- for security
reasons-- keep a US official away for an indefinite time?
Mr. Boucher: I suppose there's a constant evaluation of security, but
these kinds of meetings with officials, maybe they'll have it
somewhere else, maybe they'll have it some other day. I would expect
we would continue to meet with Serb officials in this region and that
where exactly they have a meeting will depend on the security people.
Q: Yesterday a group of nine democratic senators sent a letter to
President Bush in which they raised concern about the sale of 12 F-16
Group 50 plus to Chile, and the potentially destabilize in the South
Cone. Instead of, they proposed the sale of secondhand F-16s.
Does the State Department have the same concerns about arms race in
the South Cone?
Mr. Boucher: I think we have talked about this issue before. I haven't
seen this particular letter or statement, so I will have to check on
that. But certainly we have talked about the sale of F-16s before, and
I think we have -- well, we have said what we have said, and we don't
have any change to it, let's put it that way.
Q: But the State Department has a concern about the sale of high
technology weapons to the South Cone, South America?
Mr. Boucher: Well, once again, I don't want to repeat the entire
briefing, but obviously stability and not destabilizing any particular
region, including this one, with our sales is of concern to us. We
sell weapons to countries so they can meet their defensive needs.
But if you look back at what we said in this particular sale, there
were some elements of the package that we weren't going to deliver
precisely for that reason, to make sure that we didn't destabilize
things.
Q: Is it a possibility to sell them secondhand F-16s in the --
Mr. Boucher: I don't know that that has come up here. That is the
issue I said I will check and see if we have received a letter and
have any view.
Q: On the last question, do these have some link with the Free Trade
Agreement that the US are going to sign with Chile?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: Can you update us perhaps on the negotiations which the INC leaders
are having here at the State Department on the package, the money? And
is that money completely cleared now? Are they all -- I believe it's
now reached $33 million, or $31 million we're talking about.
Mr. Boucher: The meetings and consultations that we are having with
the Iraqi opposition -- we have had meetings yesterday. The Iraqi
National Congress met with officials of the Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs. They asked to meet with Assistant Secretary Walker, and that
will be scheduled probably later this week. Obviously we are looking
at our options with regard to Iraq policy. We have not taken a
decision on many of these issues that have been raised.
Q: (Inaudible) -- the package yourself? Is that money -- you didn't
answer the question of whether the money is being --
Mr. Boucher: The money, the package, the proposals, are all sort of
together. Many of these things have not been decided.
Q: So do you expect to take a decision while they are here, or is that
--
Mr. Boucher: I don't know. I'm not sure there is any particular
deadline on some of these issues.
Q: The opposition folks have been described in various reports from
out there, not -- I don't mean this current report -- but as you have
tried this policy in the previous administration, as kind of
disorganized, at odds with each other, and not very effective.
What is the assessment of -- I know the program is rolling now. Do you
think you have a group that can pull together and try to unsettle
Saddam Hussein, or are they sort of jockeying among themselves?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think I am in a position to really characterize
the group in the terms you want me to. I would say this is a group of
people that we work with, that we have worked with over time, on a
variety of programs. We have made public announcements about some of
those programs last September and before, and it's a group of people
we continue to meet with to discuss issues and work with. So I am not
going to try to give them any different characterization than we have
in the past.
Q: Are most of them expatriates, by the way? Are any of them operating
in Iraq?
Mr. Boucher: I don't know the exact details. Obviously we are going to
talk to them. We are going to talk about the issues with them and
continue to cooperate and work with them.
Q: Richard, to say that "they are a group that we have worked with
over time" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I mean, can you not say
anything a bit more sort of friendly towards them? I mean, you could
say that about the FARC, for example, as a group you've worked with
over time.
Mr. Boucher: No, I couldn't, because they are not a group that we have
worked over time. Yes, I will say many things friendly towards these
people. I don't want to criticize them through lack of enthusiasm. Let
it be considered that I have said many friendly things.
Obviously our cooperation with them has been important to us. We are
confident that we can continue to work with them, that they will
continue to advance the overall program that we laid out in September,
and that they remain important players for us in terms of how we
advance the overall policy.
Q: Can I change the subject?
Q: Can I just follow up on this? The support for the INC is one of
these subjects that we read about that there is a division in the
Administration on, specifically between the Secretary and the Vice
President. I understand that the Vice President was here for lunch
with the Secretary today.
Can you say anything about whether this subject came up?
Mr. Boucher: They are still having lunch as we speak. Let me --
Q: But can you say anything about the purpose of the lunch? I mean, is
this going to be a regular --
Mr. Boucher: We can make a list of questions; I'll answer them all at
the end. I will do it however you guys want.
Q: No, no.
Mr. Boucher: Okay. Let's start with the issue -- I mean, first of all,
on the question of the Iraqi National Congress, as I said, this is an
ongoing cooperation with the United States Government. It has been
something we have done in the past, something we continue to be --they
remain important players and continue to be part of our national
policy. I think there has been no differences in the way various
Administration officials have addressed this.
The Vice President is indeed here for lunch today with the Secretary.
The Secretary has weekly lunches with the Secretary of Defense and the
National Security Advisor. Secretary Powell is hosting this here today
in the building, and they are joined today by Vice President Cheney,
who has been with them from time to time.
So this is one of the means that they use to coordinate policy, to
discuss things, and to work things out together on how they want to
proceed as an Administration. Whether this specific topic will come up
today or not, I don't know.
Q: Do you have an idea what the Secretary wanted to -- did he want to
discuss everything, or is there just a limited --
Mr. Boucher: They usually discuss everything, and I would expect them
to do that again today.
Q: Okay. Can I change the subject? Unless I have been misinformed,
which is always possible, I understand that the Secretary is tomorrow
going to meet with some of the Lockerbie families -- or maybe Friday?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, tomorrow afternoon.
Q: What is he planning to tell them, or does he just plan to listen to
what they --
Mr. Boucher: I think it is both. I think we told you the day of the
decision the Secretary looked forward to meeting with the Lockerbie
families, so he will take the opportunity to meet with them tomorrow.
The meeting has been arranged. We are getting replies of people who
are coming.
He also -- I can't remember the exact day, a day or two after the
Lockerbie decision -- wrote a letter to the families. It has been
posted on their website that they all have access to. It is not a
public website; it is the one just for the families. So he has written
them a letter, even to those who might not be able to come tomorrow,
explaining the situation, explaining our views in terms, I am sure
that would be familiar to you as well, in terms of how we approach
these issues.
Tomorrow he will look forward to discussing with the families, hearing
from them, hearing their views on the verdict and the situation now,
and expressing to them again our respect for what they have done over
time to bring these people to justice, to pursue justice and make sure
that we were able in the end to get a verdict. He will express to them
our continuing commitment to asking Libya to live up to the UN
resolutions, and talk to them, I am sure, about how -- get their ideas
and talk to them about how we might go forward.
Q: Does he still want to know their position on the law suit, the
civil suit?
Mr. Boucher: That is not something for the United States, as a
government, to take party to. Obviously the people are allowed to
proceed -- have rights in court to proceed-- with the civil suits, and
we would not want to do anything that would abridge that right.
Q: Have you heard anything from Qadhafi to evaluate?
Mr. Boucher: Nothing new, no.
Q: Richard, some of these families are going to say, "What are you
going to do to follow the trail up the chain of command and get
somebody else?" What will the Secretary say to them when they make
this remark?
Mr. Boucher: Maybe we could have a conversation, and then they
wouldn't have to meet. No, the point, I think, is to let them meet.
What we have said in the past on that is that we will follow the
evidence wherever it leads, and that that remains our position. That
is the position that he has said to them in his letter that we had
posted on their website. So I am sure that they will be free to
discuss this tomorrow.
Q: Well, where does the evidence lead, in your view?
Mr. Boucher: Well, at this point, I have just said that we will follow
it wherever it leads. I don't think there are any further indictments
at this point.
Q: I assume the meeting is going to be closed tomorrow. There won't be
any --
Mr. Boucher: No press coverage. No, closed press.
Q: Richard, at the beginning you mentioned there was a communiqu?
between Minister Lee and Secretary Powell. How can I get a copy of
that communiqu?
Mr. Boucher: It was passed out a half hour ago, and we will give you
five copies if you want them.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Boucher: Thank you.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
