|
22 February 2001
Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing
(Link to discussions of North Korea 1 and 2, Ivanov meeting, China)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
Daily Press Briefing
Thursday, February 22, 2001
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Mr. Boucher:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me mention a
few statements and then we can get on with your questions about these
or other topics. First of all, we want to say that we welcome the
judgment in The Hague by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia in the matter of the Prosecutor against Kunarac,
Kovac, and Vukovic. This is a historic verdict in which three members
of the Bosnian Serb armed forces were found guilty of violations of
laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity for acts of rape
torture and enslavement.
This is the first case before the International Tribunal that has
focused entirely on crimes of sexual violence, and the first to enter
a conviction for enslavement as a crime against humanity. We strongly
condemn the acts that led to this case and commend the International
Tribunal for its pursuit of accountability in these matters.
Let me just mention the other statements, then. Every year, we put out
a statement for students on the risks of overseas travel, so we're
putting that statement out today. There is the spring break travel
safety information for students. And, Matt, you'll be especially
interested to know that we have a special statement on spring break in
Cancun. So those are coming out today.
Those are all the statements I have. I'd be glad to take your
questions.
Q:
The Secretary is leaving tomorrow, but Mr. Blair -- will he simply
sit in on or participate in the President's meeting, or will there be
any other interaction.
Mr. Boucher:
He is not having a separate meeting with Prime Minister
Blair, but he'll be participating in the President's meeting.
Q:
That's tomorrow, of course.
Mr. Boucher:
Yes.
Q:
On a related matter, related to the ICTY, are you happy with the
arrangements for the trial of General Nirko Norac* in Croatia?
Mr. Boucher:
Well, the arrangements -- whatever arrangements there are
for the trial will be made in Croatia by the Croatians.
Q:
Are you happy with --
Mr. Boucher:
Our understanding is the Tribunal, the International
Tribunal, decided not to prosecute this case, not to pursue this case,
and we support the Tribunal in that decision and we support Croatian
authorities in whatever decision they make about trial within Croatia.
Q:
North Korea? Have you seen the official commentary, you know,
suggesting unhappiness with the supposed hard-line team now in
Washington and raising the possibility of suspending the moratorium on
tests?
Mr. Boucher:
Let me say a few things about this. Clearly we do remain
concerned about North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs,
and we hope that these issues can be dealt with constructively. The
Secretary, as you know, has indicated in his confirmation hearings
that he is very mindful of the work that has been done with North
Korea, and says that we will continue to use that as we form an
overall policy. He said that we will abide and agree to the
commitments made under the Agreed Framework as long as North Korea
does the same. So that's the foundation on which we will base future
policy.
On October 12th, North Korea and the United States did issue a joint
communiqu?noting that North Korea "informed the United States that it
will not launch long-range missiles of any kind while talks on the
missile issue continue." We expect North Korea to abide by that
commitment. And the Secretary, as I said, has said that we will abide
by our commitments under the Agreed Framework, and we would expect
North Korea to do the same.
Work on the light-water reactor is moving forward, and we do remain in
touch with North Korea through the New York channel.
Q:
They argue that the talks are not continuing. Do you consider talks
to be continuing now, and what plans do you actually have to --
Mr. Boucher:
Well, as I say, we remain in touch with the North Koreans
through the New York channels, but I don't think they asserted that
there was any change in this overall situation at this point.
Q:
Do you have any plans for any talks at levels above the New York
channel, which is basically a logistical channel, as I understand it?
Mr. Boucher:
Not at this point, but I think we've made clear that
we're looking at the policy with regard to North Korea, that it's a
policy that will be built on the work that was done before and the
commitments that have been made before.
Q:
With regard to the statement, might you accelerate your plans to
have meetings?
Mr. Boucher:
We haven't scheduled anything since they made the
statement, no.
Q:
Are you aware of Under -- Assistant Secretary-Designate Bolton has
expressed an interest in the -- in having some kind of a meeting with
the North Koreans?
Mr. Boucher:
I haven't heard of anything from him on that, but
obviously he wouldn't have a meeting until he were confirmed by the
Senate.
Q:
Right, but -- okay, you don't know. What about now on the kind of
question of envoys and things like that? Does Charles Kartman --
what's -- and Wendy Sherman, those posts -- what is the deal with
them?
Mr. Boucher:
What's the deal with them?
Q:
Well, it's hard to have talks if you don't have anyone who is going
to be --
Mr. Boucher:
Well, Ambassador Kartman is still working these issues.
He's still working within the East Asia Bureau on issues regarding
Korea and North Korea. He has, in fact, just been traveling to Seoul
and Tokyo to discuss the issues related to the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization with our partners in that organization in
Japan and South Korea. He also took the opportunity there to meet with
officials and others for updates on recent developments related to
North Korea.
Q:
When?
Mr. Boucher:
When? The 19th through the 21st when Kartman has been out
there.
Q:
Did he have a trilateral meeting during that --
Mr. Boucher:
I don't think they had a trilateral meeting, but he was
in Seoul and Tokyo.
Q:
This KEDO meetings that he had, is that what you refer to when you
say the work on the light-water reactor is continuing?
Mr. Boucher:
Well, there is work on the light-water reactor, too, but
it's all part of this KEDO organization.
Q:
And what about the Counselor, Wendy Sherman?
Mr. Boucher:
There's nothing new on that.
Q:
Could I ask you, while pieces are falling into place, two things?
Will Mr. Bolton be the ranking person on arms control, sort of John
Holum's replacement, if not with the same title? And is there
definitive word yet on whether there will be a special mediator for
the Middle East? Because there isn't one --
Mr. Boucher:
Did I somehow not -- I mean, I didn't read the exact text
of the White House announcement. I assumed that the job that he was
nominated for was the job that John Holum had.
Q:
Well, it's an Under Secretary's job.
Q:
Correct. I wasn't sure if it was Under Secretary.
Q:
I thought he said Assistant.
Mr. Boucher:
It was described to me as "T", which is what we've always
described as the Under Secretary --
Q:
It's hard to confirm a negative, though. The Mideast special
mediator -- can we finally be told that you're dispensing -- that the
State Department is dispensing with that semiautonomous team?
Mr. Boucher:
No.
Q:
Richard, the Chinese again have denied that they have people in
Iraq. You said yesterday you wanted a further explanation. Have they
given it to you and/or do you accept what they're saying today as the
final answer?
Mr. Boucher:
No, we still expect to get a more detailed response from
the Chinese.
Q:
So you haven't heard back yet?
Mr. Boucher:
We haven't heard anything new, no.
Q:
Richard, there's been some reports out of Oman quoting diplomats as
saying that the number of Chinese in Baghdad has quadrupled in the
last month. I'm just wondering -- I'm not asking you to talk about
that, but yesterday we were asking about numbers. Is there -- do you
--
Mr. Boucher:
I don't have any numbers for you that I can share.
Q:
But is it hundreds of workers? Are we talking about thousands? Or
you just don't know?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't think I can even give you an order of magnitude.
Q:
Are you saying, then, that what China said today in Beijing is
wrong?
Mr. Boucher:
I haven't seen what China said today in Beijing.
Q:
Well, they denied that there are any Chinese there and they said
the US is just trying to change the subject about Iraq.
Mr. Boucher:
I think, you know, we've made clear in January to the
Chinese that we were concerned about the presence of Chinese firms in
Iraq doing work in telecommunications and in area particularly optical
fiber projects. We made quite clear our concerns in January. We have
continued to pursue this. The Secretary raised it yesterday, and we do
still expect to get a response from the Chinese.
Q:
You just used the plural word. You said "projects." What beyond the
one that we know about is the US concerned about?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know what the one that you know about is. I have
not spoken here of any particular --
Q:
The one that we ostensibly tried to bomb last week.
Mr. Boucher:
I have not asserted that that was a particular project. I
have not asserted any particular project.
Q:
Okay. Well, what beyond the one that we think we know is the one
that the Chinese -- (laughter) --
Mr. Boucher:
I don't accept the premise. I just can't accept the
premise. I'm sorry.
Q:
You're not going -- so you don't want to go into where these
projects are or what --
Mr. Boucher:
I don't want to confirm any
particular project by advertence or inadvertence or implication.
Q:
Well, if we lay that project aside, are you able to give us any
examples of projects that the Chinese are currently working on?
Mr. Boucher:
I am not in a position to do that.
Q:
Richard, the Italian Foreign Minister today -- can you give us a
readout on the meeting, and especially the Iraqi aspects of it?
Mr. Boucher:
I can't give you any readout on the Iraqi aspect of it
because they were going to continue their discussions over lunch, and
lunch is taking place now, so we will have to do that subsequently. I
had to absent myself from lunch to come down and spend this lovely
time with you all instead.
During the meeting portion of this -- I should have brought my notes
with me. During the meeting they discussed, first of all, the firm
foundation of US-Italian relations, Secretary Powell referring to both
our countries and Foreign Minister Dini as old friends.
On that foundation, they started off discussing cooperation in the
Balkans, particularly Kosovo. They talked about European Security and
Defense issues. They talked about the Middle East quite a bit. They
talked about -- compared notes on Russia, since the Secretary is going
off to meet with Foreign Minister Ivanov. I think those are the
subjects they discussed at the meeting.
Q:
That was the part you were in?
Mr. Boucher:
Yes. Now they're at lunch and they may be talking about
Iraq and other -- Q:
And Iraq didn't come up at all --
Mr. Boucher:
Hasn't come up yet in the meeting.
Q:
Can you expand a little bit, other than just to say that they --
you gave us a laundry list of what they talked about. What exactly did
they talk about in terms of Balkans and Kosovo?
Mr. Boucher:
They talked about the cooperation between the United
States and Italy throughout the events there and the continued need
for cooperation, our continued cooperation, in that regard. They
didn't get into any particular aspects or decisions. They also talked
about the NATO meeting in Brussels and the issue of NATO enlargement.
Q:
Did the Secretary expand on the Administration's attitude towards
the US presence in the Balkans?
Mr. Boucher:
No, certainly not beyond anything he said to you already.
That we would be reviewing this ourselves in terms of our deployments,
and we intended to discuss this with our NATO friends and allies.
I think what I would say from the meetings that the Secretary has had
and from our knowledge of what's going on in NATO that all of us in
NATO want to make sure that we have the right kind of deployments out
there, and all of us in NATO want to make sure that we don't waste
money on troops that aren't needed. So that's a process that goes on
within NATO that we're participating in within NATO. NATO sets agreed
levels and helps us decide how our deployment should be.
But in addition, the Administration has made clear we are taking our
own look at deployments throughout the world, including in the
Balkans.
Q:
Richard, did the Secretary ask the Foreign Minister or raise any
concerns with the Foreign Minister about an upcoming trip to Tehran?
Mr. Boucher:
Not during the portion that I was in.
Q:
Did Foreign Minister Dini express any particular concern about the
US troops there, or was it pretty much the same --
Mr. Boucher:
No, he didn't. Actually, I don't remember any specific
discussion of US troops. Just more a discussion of the continued
cooperation.
Q:
Because other foreign ministers, European foreign ministers, when
they have -- they have raised --
Mr. Boucher:
In some cases, they've asked what exactly do you think
about this, and he has given them the same explanation that you have.
I don't think that happened in this meeting.
Q:
There were no (inaudible) -- didn't come up ?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't remember him saying that today. He said it
yesterday and the day before. No precipitous, I think, withdrawals was
the way it's phrased.
Q:
Does the State Department have any comment in general about the
upcoming trip of -- is it the Italian Prime Minister to Tehran?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know. I wasn't aware of the trip by an Italian
person to Tehran. I'll have to figure out what it is and see if
there's anything we want to say about it.
Q:
He's the second European to be going there recently.
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know that we'll have anything in particular to
say, frankly.
Q:
On Cuba. Mr. Boucher, there are some reports saying that the United
States is going to change or already changed their immigration policy
toward Cuba. I just wondered if you have anything on that.
Mr. Boucher:
There has not been any change in US policy towards Cuban
migrants that are interdicted at sea. We have the 1995 US-Cuba
Migration Accord. Under the terms of that accord, the Cuban migrants
interdicted at sea who don't have a credible fear of persecution are
returned to Cuba. We continue to fulfill our commitments under both
the 1994 and 1995 US-Cuba Migration Accords. We would expect the Cuban
Government to do the same.
Q:
I have another question on the hemisphere. In Peru, they are asking
about cooperation by the United States Government to get information
about the activities of Mr. Vladimiro Montesinos and help this country
to find him and arrest him. Do you have anything on that? Is the
United States ready to cooperate with the Peruvian authorities in this
case?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't have anything on that at this point.
Q:
Two questions on the upcoming meeting with Ivanov. Will Secretary
Powell bring up the -- I guess at this point it's unclear what the
status of this agreement not to have any future contracts in arming
Iran. Will this come up? It was at one point called the
Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement. I guess that's no longer applicable.
Mr. Boucher:
I hesitate, the closer we get to the meeting, to predict
specific subjects as coming up or not coming up. Meetings sometimes
have their own dynamic. But certainly the issue of nonproliferation
efforts is very likely to come up, and I think as we have explained to
you when you have asked about National Missile Defense and how it's
discussed, and the Secretary has explained to you that he sees the
need to discuss with partners and friends like the Russians issues of
the overall strategic concept, which includes questions of offensive
weapons but also of diplomacy of nonproliferation and of defense. So
that I think that that whole -- all those issues are likely to come
up.
Q:
To follow up, have there been any discussions at all with Moscow
regarding potentially new contracts, arms contracts, with Iran? I know
this was a hot issue at the end of Madeleine Albright's term.
Mr. Boucher:
I'm not aware that there are any specific new contracts.
I would have to double-check on that point, but I don't think I've had
any reported.
But certainly we've had, as you know, in late November or early
December we had discussions with the Russians over the need to avoid
sales to Iran and that we -- I'm not sure we've had the same kind of
sort of envoys, but this has been a subject of continuing discussion,
I am sure, by our Embassy that the issue of proliferation is one of
great concern to us. And I think all of us want to make sure that we
aren't faced with sales now that might cause problems down the road.
Q:
The first thing is that Ivanov was asked today if he expected the
Hanssen case to come up, and he said, no, we have enough better things
to talk about. Is that the position from this podium as well?
Mr. Boucher:
Again, they're going to talk about a lot of subjects.
Whether one particular one comes up or not, I don't know, but I'm not
anticipating any particular discussion about it.
Q:
Okay. And the other thing is is that not only have the Russians
come out very loudly in protesting today's Allied bombings in Iraq,
but Ivanov has also gone back and talked about how -- talked about the
inviolability of the ABM Treaty. Does this make the meeting in Cairo
any more tentacious -- contentious?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know. I guess that's one you can ask him whether
he is trying to raise attention but --
Q:
(Inaudible.)
Mr. Boucher:
Well, you will. You can ask this afterwards. We're
anticipating a positive meeting and a chance for them to talk to each
other face to face for the first time. As you know, they've talked a
couple times on the telephone. There are certainly issues to bring up
and issues that we want to pursue. Secretary Powell will do that in a
straightforward manner, I am sure.
Q:
Do you have any comment about the American people working in a
rescue crew in Colombia that were involved in gunfire? And how much
the United States Government worried about the people that are
training the Colombia military since they are called military targets
by the guerrillas?
Mr. Boucher:
I think that's two separate issues, is my understanding.
Let me explain to you what we know happened on Sunday, February 18th.
It was about 10:15 a.m. that a Colombian National Police unit
helicopter that was escorting a routine spray mission in Caqeta took
ground fire and made an emergency landing. There were no fatalities
among the Colombian National Police crew, but the pilot was wounded in
the leg.
Colombian National Police helicopters regularly accompany spray
missions in an escort capacity. In addition, there was a Department of
State airwing helicopter with a mixed US contractor and Colombian
National Police crew that provides search-and-rescue capacity in that
area.
During the emergency landing, the search-and-rescue helicopter, as
well as the Colombian National Police helicopter, landed immediately
and rescued the injured pilot and evacuated the other crew members.
Colombian military units provided aerial support and ground troops to
assist in this rescue effort of the crew and the helicopter. The
Colombian and US Governments have numerous security measures in place
to minimize the danger to American contractors during spray missions;
however, serious injuries and loss of equipment is inevitable due to
the types of aggressive operations the Colombians are currently
undertaking to eradicate coca in guerrilla-controlled areas in
Putumayo and Caqeta.
Last year -- that's in 2000 -- there were over 60 aircraft operating
in support of the Colombian Government's spray operations. They were
hit by ground fire with no casualties. So despite this incident, the
ground and spray operations continue in Colombia.
Q:
What about the concerns from the United States about the military
in Colombian land? You know they're called military targets from the
guerrillas. Are you worried about that?
Mr. Boucher:
Well, I mean clearly we are quite aware of the threat to
our people, along with to the Colombian Government people who are
carrying out these operations. People that are spraying narcotics
anywhere in the world are often the targets of attacks from the people
whose illegal gains they are threatening. So it's not a surprise and
I'm sure that we take all appropriate security measures. But it's an
important task and a job that needs to be done, and a job that we're
proud to be part of.
Q:
Are you aware of a report by NATO inspectors stating that there
were no nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad?
Mr. Boucher:
No.
Q:
Okay. And could we go back to Korea for a moment? North Korea is
saying that they're being put under pressure to disarm, to undertake a
unilateral move to disarm, by the United States. Is that true? Does
that reflect any reality as far as you are concerned?
And can you tell us anything about what the nature of the contacts
with the New York channel is at the moment?
Mr. Boucher:
The nature of the contacts of the New York channel are
sort of diplomatic contacts, logistical contacts, discussions of
issues that are already under way and implementation of things that
are under way. I wouldn't describe them as opening up a new policy
front in any way.
As far as unilateral pressure to disarm, certainly we've been looking
for a reduction of tensions on the Peninsula. We've been looking for a
reduction in North Korean missile development and elimination of their
missile exports. But I don't think we would equate that as pressure to
unilaterally disarm. It's something of benefit to all people on the
Peninsula, whether North or South. It's worth pursuing from both
sides.
Q:
Following up on Elaine's question, is that something that you've
previously announced or publicly discussed, the fact that US diplomats
have been meeting with North Korean diplomats, if I understand you
correctly?
Mr. Boucher:
We talk about it all the time. The New York channel.
Q:
Okay. When was the last time they met?
Mr. Boucher:
The last time they met? I don't know exactly. I think I
remember talking about a meeting about two weeks ago when they came
down here. I assume that we've had discussions since then.
Q:
Is that something that the US initiated or was initiated by the
North Koreans?
Mr. Boucher:
It's the ongoing way of communicating with North Korea,
basically. It's been going on for a long, long time in terms of the
way that that's the way we talk to the North Koreans. They don't have
an embassy here; we don't have an embassy in Pyongyang; we talk to
their people in New York.
Q:
Back on the Middle East. There have been anti-US demonstrations
near US embassies. Have there been any security problems? Has there
been any scaling back of employees or anything during this time?
Mr. Boucher:
The events in Beirut -- there was a crowd of about 1,100
to 1,400 students yesterday. My information is protestors never came
near the US Embassy; the Embassy was not in danger at any time during
those protests.
We did have excellent cooperation between the Embassy and Lebanese
security forces. There were reports of slight injuries among the
demonstrators and Lebanese security personnel. The Embassy obviously
in that circumstance takes precautions, but they are open for business
as usual today. They didn't close yesterday. So there has been no
change in our travel warning for Lebanon, either.
Q:
No other embassy closings?
Mr. Boucher:
Not that I'm aware of. Did we do a scan or did we just --
we did a check and couldn't find any.
Q:
(Inaudible) if this Russian missile plan would be a violation of
the ABM Treaty?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't think at this point we've had time to study it
enough to say one thing or another about it.
Q:
Your comments tend to suggest that you don't really see anything
new in their statement, but are you concerned about it? Do you have
anything you can say about the timing of it or how you interpret the
fact that it happened?
Mr. Boucher:
No.
Q:
You have no conclusions? You're not concerned by it? I mean,
they're talking about not --
Mr. Boucher:
I don't think we regularly do commentary here on fill-in
statements and articles in that fashion. They're sort of why and the
motivation and the -- you know, we'll tell you what our position is.
I'm happy to do that.
Q:
Okay. I'm asking if you're concerned about the fact that North
Korea is saying it's not going to observe indefinitely its moratorium
on testing long-range missiles.
Mr. Boucher:
A missile launch by North Korea would certainly be a very
serious matter, but we also note North Korea's willingness, as stated
in that commentary, to continue to discuss missile issues and the
Agreed Framework. Those are obviously part of the subjects we're
working on. And as I mentioned before, the Secretary said that we were
mindful of the work that had been done; we would abide by the Agreed
Framework; and we would be looking at our policy from that point.
Q:
The agreement in October was never -- I mean, although the United
States might want it to be an indefinite suspension or moratorium, I
mean it's only --
Mr. Boucher:
I read the language. "As long as the missile talks
continue."
Q:
I mean, it never said indefinitely.
Mr. Boucher:
No.
Q:
I was just wondering, listening to tonal changes, or lack thereof,
I wondered if --
Mr. Boucher:
It's the same dull and boring tone, Barry.
Q:
No, is there -- you don't hear the other side any more. The other
side of the coin isn't flipped, it strikes me, since Mr. Bush was
elected. The hope that you can improve relations with North Korea, the
hope that somehow you could establish your relationship with Iran. Are
those hopes harbored by this new Administration as they were by the
previous one, even while you're looking for North Korea to behave, for
Iran to behave? Is there another side to this anymore, or is it a
matter of policing the relationship, or lack of relationship, with bad
ones?
Mr. Boucher:
I'll take Option D, none of the above. I think we've been
quite clear from here -- the Secretary has been quite clear in his
testimony and elsewhere -- that we do look forward to a step-by-step
process where we can see changes in North Korean behavior and where we
can improve the relationship with North Korea. That's been a
fundamental premise.
But how exactly we go about that is something that we're looking at,
so we don't have a grand vision or a new statement of that to give,
but the fundament framework, the fundamental method of proceeding,
have been reiterated in this Administration.
On the issue of Iran, again, you know, sort of we've had things to say
about it. I don't have a brand new policy for you at this stage.
Q:
What, if anything, do you make of the arrest in Sudan of Mr. Turabi
and his associates?
Mr. Boucher:
We have obviously seen the reports. We understand that as
of this morning he remains -- Mr. Turabi remains in custody. His
detention follows the signing in Switzerland this week of a Memorandum
of Understanding with the separatist, southern-based Sudan People's
Liberation Army.
As far as explaining the events, I don't think we can tell you much
more than that. Certainly we would urge the Sudanese Government to
respect his civil rights and to observe due process of law.
Q:
So you don't think that signing an MOU with the SPLA was a good
idea on his part? I mean, isn't that --
Mr. Boucher:
I think we're just observing the coincidence of the two
events, rather than saying one way or the other.
Q:
Yeah, but isn't peace in Sudan something that you want?
Mr. Boucher:
Peace in Sudan is good. We support that, yes.
Q:
So then can you say anything about the signing of this -- forget
about his arrest, but what about -- had you been asked when it was
signed, would you have welcomed it?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know. Since I wasn't asked when it was signed, I
don't know what I would have said. If I'm being asked now what we
think of the signing of this memorandum --
Q:
-- yes --
Mr. Boucher:
-- I don't have anything for you right now on it. I'll
see if we decide to say something.
Q:
Richard, did you see the reports about the new trial for Lori
Berenson, and do you have a comment?
Mr. Boucher:
We would be hopeful that oral arguments phase of Ms.
Berenson's trials would begin soon. We have long pressed for a
civilian trial, but it is, I think, inappropriate for us to comment on
outcomes until we see the proceedings.
Q:
The funding agreement for the Iraqi resistance group, the INC,
officially expires on February 28th. I understand that there have been
some discussions to get an extension on that, to spend the remaining
$2.5 million, but is there any progress you can give us on this? I
mean, do you guys intend to grant an extension on this contract?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't know. That's the kind of operational stuff that's
handled on a fairly straightforward and routine manner when it comes
to any funding. I think there's time periods that can be extended.
I'll check and see if this one needs to be extended or whether
disbursements can be made.
Q:
Do you have anything more on the potential US envoy going to Japan?
Mr. Boucher:
I don't think I have anything more at this state. Let me
double-check. No, we'll provide details on that as soon as we have
them. We're working on it.
Ambassador Foley did extend our apologies and deepest regrets to the
Emperor and the Empress when he met with them -- I think it was today.
He also met with the family members yesterday to assure them that
details of the investigation will be announced as soon as they're
available.
Q:
Richard, how would you characterize the effect that the sub
accident has had on the US-Japanese relationship? I mean, clearly
there's a lot of apologizing going on and there's a lot of anger in
Japan. Do you think that -- has that carried over at all?
Mr. Boucher:
I guess I get asked this every day. Fundamentally, the US
and Japan have a very solid relationship. That relationship remains a
very solid one, a very cooperative one, one that is very, very broad
for both our countries. It's a reflection of that that we have this
kind of close cooperation when a tragedy occurs, and we are doing our
utmost to make that cooperation as close as possible to work with them
at the investigators level or to have our Ambassador meet with the
families. The fact that there's that sort of personal relationship
when a tragedy occurs I think is reflective of the fact that we do
have a very deep and very broad relationship with Japan.
Q:
But the word is regret, not apology?
Mr. Boucher:
Again, I said Ambassador Foley extended our apologies and
deepest regrets. I've used that word a number of times.
Q:
Can I go back briefly to China-Iraq? Do you have anything to say
about the presence of military personnel in the construction site of
this fiber optic telecommunication project?
Mr. Boucher:
I didn't ten minutes ago, and I don't now. Thank you.
Q:
Richard, the former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright yesterday
at the OAS, she said that there is the necessity of the US to change
its policy toward Cuba. My question is what's happening with the
former Secretaries of State? As soon as they get out of this building
they change their view toward the policy of Cuba.
Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Boucher:
I'm afraid I'm the Spokesman for current and active
Secretaries of State. And we, in our country, leave former Secretary
of States to express themselves any way they want. So, no, I don't
speak on -- much as we have admiration for her, we don't speak on her
behalf here.
Thank you.
Return to the Washington File
|
