|
28 February 2001
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
February 28, 2001
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any
announcements or statements, so I would be glad to take your
questions.
Mr. Schweid.
Question: On the sanctions, could we go through it one more time?
There are three categories: there are consumer goods; there are
military materiel; and there are so-called dual-use things. I take it
while you are easing up on consumer shipments, you say you are
tightening the sanctions overall.
How do you do that if you are going to be easier on dual-use material
-- more permissive on dual-use?
Mr. Boucher: Let me go back to what the Secretary said to you
yesterday at the European Union. He said we are going to tighten the
sanctions on weapons of mass destruction, tighten the sanctions on
armaments, tighten the sanctions on the sorts of equipment and other
materials that put the people of the region at risk. That is the
direction that we are headed in. That is the direction we discussed
with people in the region, as well as allies when we got to Europe.
That goal, I think that direction, is one that we found a lot of
support for, and it is one that we will work in further detail again
with the people of the region, with the allies, with the Perm 5, as
well as within our own Government as we go forward.
To do that effectively, we know you have to strengthen the controls we
have on the Oil-for-Food money, and part of the Secretary's diplomacy
was to talk to the Syrians and others about bringing some of the
exports that are not currently under the Oil-for-Food money, bringing
that money into the UN accounts so that we have better control on
that.
Part of the effort has to be to tighten up on his ability to smuggle.
The Secretary talked to you about that yesterday, and that will be
another direction that we have to formulate details for.
As you know, the trip was intended to discuss ideas, to hear views, to
gather ideas, and to report back to the President. The Secretary has
talked to the President this morning by telephone to fill him in on
many of the things he heard and discussed during the trip. I think it
is safe to say the President is pleased with where we are on this, and
we will continue working to develop the details.
As for how those details will affect this category, that category or
the other, I am not in a position to come out with lists of prohibited
items or items for further attention or items that are fairly well
assumed to be safe. But those kinds of details aren't developed at
this point.
Q: You have spent most of your answer talking about tighter military
-- the category of military items. We understand that. We were also
told that more consumer goods will be permitted to go to Iraq, and we
were also told that dual-use will be reviewed, with an aim of trying
to take some of the burden -- all sorts of heartfelt things were said
on the plane about the way these sanctions are falling on the Iraqi
people.
So I'm asking how you're going to go about being tougher on military
equipment if, at the same time, you're going to take a more lenient
view of dual-use material? Because there's a reason they would do --
there was a reason for this in the first place.
Mr. Boucher: Let me give you the one-sentence version, the
one-sentence version of the longer answer I just gave you. If you
tighten the controls on the weapons of mass destruction and further
define the dual-use equipment that might be key to that process so
that you can further define it and control those as well, then you can
remove some of your restrictions, make the civilian stuff go more
smoothly. And that will be the direction. But as I said in my previous
answer, the details are not worked out yet.
Q: It sounds like this plan is going to require inspectors on one end
to certify in Iraq what kinds of commercial goods are being brought
in. I mean, how do you expect to get the Iraqis to agree on
inspectors?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think that's been said that it's required,
necessary, to carry this out. It's up to the Iraqi Government if they
want to invite the inspectors back in and implement the --
Q: I'm talking about inspectors for the actual goods themselves.
Mr. Boucher: We will take steps to tighten up on his ability to
smuggle. That's clear. There have been cargo inspections in the past,
airplane inspections in the past, and making that process work
smoothly is obviously something we'll want to look at.
Q: On Iraq, do you have more about the kind of support you would be
ready to provide to the Iraqi opposition to carry its activities
inside the country?
Mr. Boucher: No, I can't really tell you more at this point. We are
discussing with them new licenses, new grant agreements. Haven't
worked out all the details, but continuing to work within the
framework of what we announced in September. So really the September
framework in terms of policy and activities, that remains the guiding
framework. We are working with them on the specifics of the money.
Q: Can you say exactly where things stand after the Secretary's
conversation with Bashar about the oil that's going through that
pipeline?
Mr. Boucher: That we heard from President Bashar Assad of Syria a
commitment -- let me go to my piece of paper here, if I can find it.
Here we go. No, that wasn't it either. There we go. I'm almost there.
For some time, the Syrians have talked about adhering to the UN
practices and sanctions with regard to their interaction, their
economic interaction, with Iraq. They have agreed in principle in
general terms that this pipeline activity should be brought under the
UN Oil-for-Food program.
In the meeting with Secretary Powell, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
gave a direct commitment to do that. It was quite clear. This will be
a substantial accomplishment for the financial controls on Iraq. As
many of you have discussed, it's not the oil. Last year, Iraq was
pumping as much oil as it could, as it wanted to. The issue is the
money and bringing that money under the auspices of the UN program is
what's important.
The timing of this step will be explored with the Syrians and the UN
Security Council members. The Oil-for-Food resolution gets renewed
every six months. Sometime a few months from now it would normally be
renewed, but whether we and the Syrians and the other Security Council
members want to do that on a different schedule or not is something
we'll have to discuss.
Q: I thought he had denied any circumvention. Your rather gentle
description has him as being in a conciliatory mood all along. If you
want to say that, fine, but there has been --
Mr. Boucher: No, I didn't --
Q: You said he wants to get along with the -- that's what he told the
Secretary now finally. But in the weeks leading up to it, we kept
asking you every day what they say about these reports, and you kept
saying they're checking into it. But they were denying they were doing
anything wrong.
Mr. Boucher: I think, Barry, you may be confusing apples and oranges.
Q: No, oil. Oil, illegal and legal.
Mr. Boucher: As far as the facts of what has been flowing through the
pipeline and our discussions, I think I've talked about that quite a
bit. As far as the policy that the Syrian Government has stated all
along, they have indeed stated there was a policy of bringing this
under the UN auspices. The question was whether it was at a point in
the testing or production phase. They talked about doing that when the
production phase was under way, and obviously there has been a lot of
differing information as to exactly where they were.
The point is that now they made a direct commitment to bring it under
UN auspices at whatever phase it is now.
Q: Having talked to these -- some of these leaders in the region, not
all of them, Mr. Walker went out to talk to some others -- do you know
anything more about leakage? Can this leakage have occurred without
the complicity of the leaders of these countries? Evidently you find a
need to tighten. Tightening means something has been going wrong. It
hasn't been going wrong in a vacuum; it's been going wrong. Is it
because pirates are afoot in the land, or have these leaders been --
have these leaders been conspiring, or the governments conspiring with
Iraq to circumvent the sanctions? And how can you tighten that up by
looking at cargo, is the only example I think you've given?
Mr. Boucher: There is smuggling. There is private smuggling. Somebody
smuggles something out of Iraq. He makes a payment to the Iraqis for
it, and that money goes in outside of the Oil-for-Food program. There
has been some government-to-government activity, or government
corporate activity like the Syrian pipeline that was not being handled
under the payment system that the UN has set up.
So it is a variety of things. And how do we change it? Some places we
change government policy, sometimes we work with governments to
provide better oversight, and I'm sure we will come up with other
ideas as we work out the details.
Q: A quick question. Has he received any promises --
Mr. Boucher: Somebody else might ask a question, eventually. But sure,
go ahead.
Q: They'll get their chance. But I'm trying to get direct answers to
problems that you discovered, instead of your forward-looking positive
spin on this.
Mr. Boucher: I know you're looking for direct answers, but part of
what we are doing now is going to be working out with the other
governments involved with the Perm 5, within our own government, how
to answer some of these questions and how to come up with effective
answers.
Q: Did anybody promise better oversight? Let me just simply ask, did
any leader there -- I know about the Syrian part --
Mr. Boucher: Yes, we have talked about talking with the Jordanians
about this policy, we talked about talking with the Turkish
Government, Foreign Minister Cem in Brussels about the policy. I think
everybody talked about a desire to go in this direction and to make
the controls on Iraq's ability to acquire weapons tighter, better, and
to make sure that Iraq was not allowed to threaten the people of the
region again with weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
In our discussions with people about the direction, they understood
that part of that was going to be getting a better handle on money and
on smuggling, and that those two things would also be part of our
policy. I would say, in agreeing to this direction for policy, people
also understood that we would have to work out more effective measures
to cut down on smuggling and money.
Q: Actually, I would like to get it in pretty early in the briefing,
if possible. Six people were arrested in L.A. for conducting
fundraising for an Iranian terrorist organization, the MEK. Apparently
there is a press conference within a few minutes in L.A. about this.
What, if anything, does this building know about these particular
suspects, and do you know about this group, the MEK, and how do you
regard this group?
Mr. Boucher: One, I am not going to do somebody else's press
conference before they do it. I hadn't heard about this, and we will
let somebody else announce since I don't know anything and somebody
else does.
As far as the MEK, I think they are covered in our Patterns of Global
Terrorism Report. I would refer you to that.
Q: Can you talk about the budget which has been released today in kind
of outline form? Can you fill in some of the specifics? It talks about
substantial increases -- well, first of all, there is a substantial
increase of 5.5 percent for international affairs, from 21.9 billion
to 23.1 billion in the next fiscal year. And this outline --
Mr. Boucher: 23.1, right?
Q: 23.1, yes. The outline suggests major increases for information
technology and also for -- let's see --
Mr. Boucher: Are you looking at the same pieces of paper that I'm
looking at?
Q: I think I am. I'm hopefully looking at the same pieces of paper.
Can you give us some sense of what more is going to be spent on things
like information technology?
Mr. Boucher: You've got the same piece of paper I do, right?
Q: Right.
And what is going to be cut, because there are mentions here of
de-layering the bureaucracy by cutting a number of middle management
positions, cut some foreign aid and foreign investment guarantees?
Mr. Boucher: I'm afraid that the first thing to tell you all is those
have been to the website already, the access.gpo.gov website, and then
the blueprint that's underneath that, will find the same information
that Barbara and I have on the budget proposal, and that's about all
there really is to say at this moment. It's a 1.2 billion increase for
the State Department -- for the international affairs program -- sorry
-- of which State Department operating budget is a portion.
It allows us to spend some extra money on things like Colombia and
support for the anti-drug programs in the Andean region, let's us
spend some extra money on HIV-AIDS education in Africa and elsewhere,
some money on military assistance to Israel, payments to multilateral
development banks, a whole list of things like peacekeeping, heavily
indebted debt countries, land mines, stronger programs to control the
spread of weapons and to help countries with their export control
programs.
It also lets us spend some money on the needs of the State Department,
the needs for information technology, for better support for our
personnel and the human resources of this Department that depends so
much on people. There is a certain amount of information on this
included in the budget blueprint. At this point, we don't have the
details for you. That usually comes out slightly later than the
initial budget figures. That's kind of where we are now.
Q: So you can't say, for example, how many deputy assistant
secretaries or special envoys --
Mr. Boucher: No, I can't tell you now many people we cut, how many
computers will be bought, how many new embassies we're going to build
with it, or how much money will go to any particular Andean country at
this point.
Q: When would we expect to be able to see some of these things?
Mr. Boucher: Over the course of this month. The Secretary has some
testimony, budget testimony, next week on the 7th and the 8th. He is
in front of the House Committee on International Relations on
Wednesday, March 7. He is in front of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on March 8 to talk about our budget. He may have a little
more detail there. Then I think it's normally not until the end of the
month that we come out with kind of the detailed breakdown of how
we'll spend all the money.
Are we going to do budget for a while? Okay, let's do budget for a
while.
Q: Secretary of State Colin Powell has made increasing funding for the
State Department a high priority. A simple question: Is there an
increase in funding for the State Department, as opposed to
international affairs?
Mr. Boucher: I think what the Secretary has talked about has been an
overall increase in the international affairs budget, as well as the
State Department. This additional money goes to both those kind of
programs. Some of the programs I described for you that this money
would be spent on are broader international affairs programs, and some
are particularly the information technology, security and personnel
needs of the State Department.
Q: Isn't the Secretary disappointed because it has been widely known
that he was looking for an increase of something in the region of 10
to 20 percent, and he'd been pushing for that. Now, I know this is
very erudite, but can you give us an idea of his reaction to it?
Mr. Boucher: His reaction is that he's pleased. We're pleased with the
increase that allows us to spend more money on important priorities.
We recognize this is a first increment to the many needs in this area
that the Secretary has identified. We all understand the budget
process this year, and we look forward to continue to working within
the Administration to meet the needs we have in coming years.
Q: Can you give us an idea of what kind of supplemental you might be
looking at?
Mr. Boucher: We just submitted the budget. It's not time to talk about
a supplemental yet.
Q: Okay. Do you have, then, figures for what the final spending for
this year was -- on the outgoing administration's proposal was for
2002? The outgoing administration made a proposed request for 2002
spending before it shut up shop. Do you know what it was?
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't. I don't remember that that was announced. My
understanding was that outgoing administrations normally take a
straightline budget plus inflation and leave that on the table when
they leave; and that with this budget then, the new Administration
gets a chance to review that and decide where to bump up. What we're
telling you today is the results of the adjustments that the new
Administration has decided to make in what was essentially a
straightline provision of the last Administration.
Q: It seems that some of the increases for some areas come at the
expense of foreign aid and overseas investment guarantees. There are
cuts that are being talked about for PL-480, for food, surplus food
and so on that's been given abroad. And I just wonder again whether
there is a concern that that might have a negative impact on some of
our assistance programs overseas.
Mr. Boucher: There is always a balance here. Money is not infinite,
and we need to make adjustments in the programs to decide at any given
moment where we can spend the money most effectively on behalf of the
US taxpayer and on behalf of the needs of our broad international
affairs programs to advance our interests in the world.
So, yes, adjustments are made. Increases have been added as well. But
I think here you have an Administration that has come forward with a
budget that tries to do some new things and tries to make sure that
things in the past are supported adequately, even if not quite at the
same level.
Q: I'm just wondering something, and that is how many deputy assistant
secretaries and special envoys are in the State Department who are
political appointees?
Mr. Boucher: I would have to look for it. It's a lot of numbers that I
would have to check. I haven't checked on it recently.
Q: Can I follow up? Does this somehow dovetail with the President's
notion that private charitable groups could take on some of the
burden? Will there be a shift here, or are you simply going to give
less food to hungry people?
Mr. Boucher: No, I'm not -- yes, we are going to take --
Q: I mean in deference to computers and security.
Mr. Boucher: Barbara, did you go into agriculture and find the food
aid numbers? My information doesn't show any change in --
Q: There are no numbers. Again, it just says that they are talking
about reforming the USDA food aid programs. It is on page 93 of the --
Mr. Boucher: Okay, I didn't get to page -- well, I got past that -- I
skipped page 93 and got to 126 and 127.
Q: There are cuts under Title 1 which are bilateral, and also --
Mr. Boucher: I think Agriculture will have to explain that to you,
that reforming and cutting are not necessarily the same thing.
Q: Right. But these aid shipments do have an impact on our foreign
policy.
Mr. Boucher: Absolutely, absolutely. They have been an important part
of our foreign policy.
Q: Can I try one more?
Mr. Boucher: Yes.
Q: Reports -- there were so many, I can't remember if it's the
Carlucci report or someone else's report, suggesting that the Foreign
Service has hundreds below normal working levels, that there is an
immense shortage of Foreign Service officers. The Secretary walked
into this building on the first day, did a pep talk and said, hey, I'm
with you guys, I'm going to do what I can to bring up morale, and I
think morale probably benefits when you are fully staffed.
Will there be more Foreign Service officers hired or, again, is this
money going for computers and security?
Mr. Boucher: I think I mentioned that some of this money is going into
our human resources needs. Exactly how many and how much of the money
will be put to that, we have yet to be able to specify for you.
Clearly, one of the needs that we have identified over time is to have
enough personnel to fill those jobs that need to be filled, as well as
to let people have some training from time to time and not have every
vacancy be an urgent vacancy so that people could actually take some
time and get the training they need over the course of the career.
The money in human resources will be used to help recruit and retain
the highest possible caliber workforce. We will complete a
comprehensive examination of our current and future workforce needs,
and we will use the money to create and implement policies to ensure
that we hire and retain Foreign and Civil Service officers with the
right skills that are needed in the Department.
In terms of spending on the Department, we are going to make some
bureaucratic changes -- de-layering, as we said. We are going to spend
some money on information technology as part of a long-term investment
to bring us up to par. We are going to do some steps on human
resources needs, as I talked about, to recruit and retain the right
kind of people in sufficient numbers, and we are going to take a look
at best practices in the way we build and manage our facilities.
Q: When you say to better retain people, that means you are looking at
salary increases perhaps overall for the State Department people?
Mr. Boucher: Do I have to recuse myself, because I have a vested
interest in the answer to the question? No, I don't think we can be
quite that specific at this point.
Q: Secretary Powell, when he was giving testimony on the Hill, talked
about the need for a steep increase, and that he would be coming back
again and again. Can we assume then that at some point between now and
the next budget you will be asking for more money?
Mr. Boucher: You're asking me to predict a supplement on the day that
the budget goes up to Congress. I'm not going to do that in any way,
shape or form. I don't think this is the last year of the
Administration; this is, in fact, the first year of this
Administration. As I said, we are satisfied that this is a good first
increment to meet the needs to advance American interests around the
world.
Q: During the President's address last night, he really hardly
mentioned international affairs at all. It was far less than defense
spending and not a lot about what Secretary Powell has said, which is
really important is that diplomacy is the first line of defense for
international policy.
Was he hoping for a more kind of robust showing from the President in
terms of the demands of diplomacy?
Mr. Boucher: No. Next?
Q: Different subject. It's on Guatemala. There is a lot of rumors that
there were a coup d'etat organized by some military members and people
from the government. Do you have any --
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't have anything on that. I'll have to look into
it for you.
Q: Thank you. I have another question on Latin America. The Foreign
Minister of Chile, Soledad Alvear, in a press conference this morning
tells that his government present kind of upset on the position about
the unilateral Human Rights Report on Chile to the Ambassador of your
country in Santiago.
My question is have you -- do you have what the Ambassador responded
to the Government of Chile?
Mr. Boucher: No, that's something else I would have to look into. Of
course we have several foreign ministers coming to town over the next
few weeks -- or in the next few days -- including the Foreign Minister
of Chile who is here, so it may end up being discussed tomorrow with
the Secretary when he meets. I will look into the situation with
regard to the Ambassador and whether they talked to him.
I think as a general observation, we all know that there are critics
of our Human Rights Reports out there. You've seen a number of
statements from other governments in various ways that criticize
either the content or the practice of our doing the Human Rights
Reports. I have to say, we consider them a straightforward, factual
exposition of where things stand in the world as regards various
things that are very important to the United States. And they're done
as a report to Congress, to our Congress, to tell them where things
are in relation to those values and practices. We consider them fair,
accurate and a useful tool in terms of looking for areas where we in
our policy need to work with other governments to try to improve the
practices. So it becomes a basis for us to go forward with policy, but
it is very much something that we do because we think it's useful to
us.
Q: Has the Secretary made his decision about the certification
process? Has he sent his proposal to the White House? And how is it
going to be announced tomorrow? Here at the State Department, as
usual?
Mr. Boucher: We will have a briefing tomorrow afternoon about 2
o'clock here on the drug certifications, and I think there is
Congressional testimony actually before that that will start about 10
o'clock.
Q: You know there are huge problems in Turkish economy these days, and
Secretary Powell told Turkish Foreign Minister Cem that the US would
support Turkey. So what kind of support did he talk about?
Mr. Boucher: If you're looking specifically for things in the area of
the banks or the Treasury Department, I think financially and things,
you'll have to really look over there. The economic situation in
Turkey was discussed during a meeting between the Secretary and
Foreign Minister Cem, but actually it was discussed fairly briefly in
terms of appreciation on the Turkish side for the things that we've
done so far. They didn't talk about any specific next steps, but
obviously we're following the situation there closely, and the people
from our Treasury Department and the multilateral banks are working
closely with them.
Q: Did they talk about the Turkish image from Iraq on the sanctions
and other things?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, they talked about the Iraq policy direction that
we've been discussing with people throughout the region. They talked
about the kind of steps that we heard from Syria and others, and they
talked about the need to cooperate with Turkey. Foreign Minister Cem
said he supported the direction and that we would work together on
this.
The Secretary will also be seeing Foreign Minister Cem at the end of
the month. He's coming to Washington on the 30th of March so they'll
have a chance to talk more. I point out that Assistant Secretary Ned
Walker is in Turkey today, is going to Turkey today, and will talk to
them I think tomorrow to the Turkish Government about the whole Iraq
policy and how to implement this.
Q: The Secretary met after the Cem also the Papandreou.
Mr. Boucher: Yes. Before.
Q: Before. I'm sorry. It shows that they have discussed about the
Greek-Turkish relations, Cyprus situation or Aegean situation. Did
they discuss?
Mr. Boucher: No, yes, no. (Laughter.) Let me give you a better
rundown. With both gentlemen they talked about Cyprus. The
Greek-Turkish relations -- it didn't come up to any extent. I can't
remember if there was a mention or two along the way with one or the
other gentlemen, but it wasn't a major topic of discussion. Certainly,
the general attitude that we have of supporting rapprochement between
Greece and Turkey, looking for areas of cooperation, that generally
came up. But there wasn't any specific discussion on where they stand
in terms of the things they are doing with each other.
I think I have described both meetings with Foreign Minister
Papandreou and Foreign Minister Cem as useful and constructive. With
Papandreou, they talked a bit more about the useful role that Greece
plays in the Balkans, and with Minister Cem they discussed Iraq a
little more, although I think these subjects sort of came up in all
the meetings.
The issue of Cyprus was discussed with both foreign ministers, and
then they discussed some of the NATO -- the NAC business with regards
to the Balkans, with regards to European Security and Defense
initiatives. Obviously we talked with the Turkish Foreign Minister,
the Secretary did, about some of the concerns that he has had about
areas of detailed cooperation between the European Union and NATO, and
they have been talking with Turkey and other allies about how those
issues can get resolved.
Q: Did they discuss the issue of the European reaction force and the
concerns of Turkey? And I'm wondering if they was any disagreement on
that issue.
And the second question, any appointment with Foreign Minister
Papandreou in March in Washington between the Secretary and Mr.
Papandreou?
Mr. Boucher: I am not aware of any specific visit by Foreign Minister
Papandreou at this point. I think he and the Secretary certainly did
talk in general about getting together. I don't know that anything is
scheduled at this point, but I am sure they will have a chance to talk
to each other in the up and coming weeks, or at least months.
The discussion with both Foreign Minister Cem and Foreign Minister
Papandreou, the issue of European Security and Defense initiatives,
and how Turkey and the EU relate to each other, was discussed in both
meetings, obviously in a bit more detail with the Turkish Government
since they are a direct party. The Greek are an indirect party, part
of the European Union, part of this; the Turks are an important,
non-EU NATO ally that needs to be considered.
Q: Can we talk about the American arrest in Moscow?
Mr. Boucher: Voronezh, right? It's not in Moscow.
Q: Oh, he's in -- yes, sorry, in Russia.
Mr. Boucher: I don't know how much you went through -- people who were
here, people who are not encased in a silver tube might have discussed
it here yesterday. But for the sake of those of us who were traveling,
let me go over some of the basics of that situation, if I can.
A US citizen by the name of John Tobin, T-o-b-i-n, was arrested in the
Russian city of Voronezh several weeks ago. I think it was basically
at the end of January. We don't have a Privacy Act waiver so there is
a limit to how far I can go into his particular background and
circumstances. But consular officers -- a consular officer from our
embassy in Moscow has gone down to visit with him there, and our
embassy has been in touch with -- our embassy in Moscow has been in
touch with the Russian Government on the issue.
The situation is of concern to us. We want to look at his welfare and
look at the exact circumstances of the situation with him and with
Russian officials and his attorney in Moscow that we have been talking
to as well.
Q: Is it tit-for-tat for Hanssen?
Mr. Boucher: It has, I don't think, anything to do with Mr. Hanssen.
It occurred several weeks before anything happened to Mr. Hanssen.
Q: But yesterday they seemed to be suggesting that because he had gone
to the Monterey Language School that he was somehow tied to the CIA or
somebody else in the intelligence community in this country.
Are you all concerned that they will try and use him as a scapegoat?
Mr. Boucher: And today they are on the wires saying that is not what
they are suggesting, so I leave it up to them what they want to
suggest. Connections with Hanssen and Edmond Pope, these things we
think are absurd. This person is an exchange scholar, and that's all
that is going on here.
Q: Have you all given him a list of lawyers?
Mr. Boucher: He apparently has an attorney already, so we have been
working with his attorney.
Q: Macedonia? Do you have anything on the latest fighting in
Macedonia, and any reaction to the fact that the situation seems to be
escalating a day after the Secretary came out with his warning?
Mr. Boucher: I haven't seen exact details of what is going on today.
NATO is taking steps. The situation I think we think is still
relatively stable there. There was the attack on February 26 that led
to the concerns that many of us expressed yesterday at NATO, not only
Secretary Powell, but also Secretary General Robertson and others.
Clearly we condemn any violence by the extremists who are trying to
undermine stability in Macedonia, in Kosovo and in the region. NATO
has taken steps. Lord Robertson made clear yesterday that NATO is
committed to supporting the stability and the security of Macedonia,
including enhanced security at the borders.
There is a NATO political-military mission in Skopje today that is
looking at this firsthand. Lord Robertson announced yesterday the
mission, and they are already there in Skopje. The US has supported
steps by NATO. We have also supported the Macedonian Government's
measured response to these criminal acts.
So you may get more details at NATO about the specific steps that NATO
and NATO-led Kosovo implementation force in the region can take on
that side of the border. Secretary Powell talked to the Macedonian
President yesterday after the NATO meeting. He spoke to him from the
airplane, and they talked about how to make these steps effectively in
restoring security in that area.
Q: On Chiapas. The Human Rights Report mentioned the urgency to have a
dialogue within the government and the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas are
on their way to Mexico City, trying to have their voice here at the
congress -- the Mexican congress.
Do you think this march and the probability that they are going to
have a chance to speak before the congress will help these dialogues
to the peace process in Chiapas?
Mr. Boucher: It seems like every week you find one way or the other to
try to get me to do something on Chiapas, and I will decline again.
Q: (Inaudible) something before on Chiapas -- the peace process,
during the government or the --
Mr. Boucher: We are for dialogue. I am for what we said in our Human
Rights Report. But no, you have asked me about three times about the
march. I am not going to get into that much detail.
We encourage a dialogue. We encourage a peaceful resolution of the
issues down there. Certainly we are interested in what the Mexican
Government decides to do on this, but it really is up to the Mexican
Government to decide how they want to handle it.
Q: Why is that? Because it was before a PRI government, and now it is
a different government? During the (inaudible) government --
Mr. Boucher: No, I think -- I am not going to do the whole history of
our statements on Chiapas, but I think you will find we are fairly
consistent.
Q: There is a report that Secretary Powell is visiting Japan and South
Korea in April? Could you comment on that?
Mr. Boucher: No. I hadn't seen the report. I haven't heard any
discussion of that, any timing. Obviously he is going to travel to
various places in the world, but we don't have anything new to
announce at this point.
Q: Do you have anything on meetings between Chinese officials in from
Beijing that deal with Taiwan and officials in this building?
Mr. Boucher: You would have to be more specific. There was -- I can't
remember his name.
Q: Mr. Zhou? Vice Minister Zhou, one of the head Chinese officials
that deal with Taiwan.
Mr. Boucher: Yes, I will go back and get you that. One of the
officials from the Chinese Government that deals with Taiwan was here,
I think about a week ago. And I will have to check on that and get
that for you.
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure if a week ago we were saying he was coming
this week, but I think last week we were saying he was coming here. I
will double-check on that, but yes, there was somebody in town.
Q: Do you have anything -- any reaction to this joint communiqu?which
was signed today in Seoul by the Russian prisoner put in (inaudible)
about President Kim Dae Jung calling for strengthening the ABM Treaty,
and calling it a cornerstone of stability in the world?
Mr. Boucher: Well, I think you have all probably seen the South Korean
Government's statement on this that said they were reviewing their
position on the missile defense issue. They have not stated any
opposition to missile defense, and that they -- there is no reference
to missile defense in this communiqu?that you have referred to.
They also explained how the language in the communiqu? where it came
from, how it got there. I think what I would say is that the South
Korean Government has made clear that it is engaged in this review.
The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that they didn't want --
they had not intended in any way to have their statement imply
opposition to missile defense. And as I pointed out, there is no
mention of missile defense in the joint statement.
We have a longstanding alliance and consult extensively with South
Korean Government on security measures, including close cooperation to
address regional and global concerns about proliferation. We look
forward to continuing those consultations when President Kim Dae Jung
visits Washington next week. It will be a chance for him and President
Bush to discuss the full range of security issues, including missile
defense. I would look forward to that point, if you want to hear
something further about missile defense.
Q: In the wake of a recent column in The Washington Post about
apologies over the Greeneville incident, do you have any comment on
that, or do you feel that the -- does the State Department have any
comment on whether the United States has apologized enough on that
incident?
Mr. Boucher: I think what I would say, we have a Special Envoy that we
wanted to send to Japan. He is meeting with the Japanese Prime
Minister, he is meeting with the families, he is going to travel down
to the location of this school on Thursday.
We have a very strong bilateral relationship. We believe it is
important to cooperate with Japan in all aspects of this relationship,
including, as I pointed out before, including cooperation when such a
terrible tragedy occurs. I think it is appropriate to continue our
cooperation under these circumstances, in whatever ways are important
to that relationship.
Q: Richard, this may have been gone into while we were away, but do
you have anything on Mr. Hanssen, the spy, and what was found in his
offices that the FBI has gone through here?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: (Inaudible) economic delegation from North Korea will visit
Washington, DC in the very near future, and do you have any
information to announce concerning this matter?
Mr. Boucher: No, I hadn't heard about it. I will look into it and see
if there is anything to tell you.
Q: Can you give us just an outline of what the Secretary expects to
discuss with the Irish Foreign Minister this afternoon? Is it going to
go into Northern Ireland peace process, and what role, if any,
particular individuals in this building will play in supporting it?
Mr. Boucher: I think after the meeting we may talk about some more of
the detailed questions about roles or things like that. I am not
predicting that, but it is certainly not something I can do for you at
this point.
I think, as with many of the meetings the Secretary has had, he looks
forward to having a close, personal relationship with the Irish
Foreign Minister, and establishing that relationship in their
discussions today is important.
Ireland currently holds a seat on the Security Council, so Secretary
Council business, including Iraq-Libya UN financing will obviously be
discussed. They will want to discuss bilateral issues as well,
multilateral issues like the European Union expansion, or issues like
national -- the Northern Ireland peace process.
I think the best thing to say on that is what President Bush said last
week with Prime Minister Blair. If there is a way the United States
can help, we will be more than willing to do so. But we will look to
the parties to tell us how we can help.
We certainly look forward to these discussions and to continuing the
strong, close cooperation that we have enjoyed with Ireland.
Thank you.
Return to the Washington File
|
