|
09 March 2001
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
Friday, March 9, 2001
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be
here. I would be glad to take any questions you might have.
Question: Well, it's been a while, and since you were last here the
Israelis have formed a new government. I just thought you might want
to talk about where we go from here.
Mr. Boucher: I'd love to. First of all, I think it's important to note
the Secretary called Prime Minister Sharon yesterday to congratulate
him on his ascendance to the prime ministership, congratulate him on
forming a government and becoming a prime minister. And obviously we
look forward to working with the new Israeli Government on the many
issues that we have in common, issues of security and peace in the
region.
I would say, in terms of recent developments, we also welcome the
initiative that Chairman Arafat took in sending a letter to Prime
Minister Sharon, and the Prime Minister's positive response regarding
the possibility of a meeting between the two.
We have reiterated our belief that the parties should undertake direct
contacts so that they can begin to take realistic steps to restore
trust and confidence between them. We hope that they will work to end
the violence and establish an environment for peacemaking. So we
welcome any efforts that they will make to achieve that.
Q: Is there a disagreement between the Secretary and the President on
how the United States deals with North Korea?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: Can you tell me what lies ahead? We understand that North Korea
could have ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States in
the next four or five years, although we don't know. Can you tell me
if any negotiations will be done in concert with South Korea in the
near future?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything new on the sort of missile
development issues and the likely prospects of when they might be
capable. I don't think our basic estimate had changed, but the
analysts would have to decide if the moratorium somehow affects that
or whatever, where they stand right now.
Let me talk about the policy a little bit in terms of what happens
next and where we are. I think if you look at what this Administration
has said, from the Secretary's confirmation hearings, to the briefing
that we gave when the Secretary saw the Korean Foreign Minister about
a month ago, to the statements the Secretary made and the President
made in the last few days, you see a number of essential elements that
can describe this Administration's policy towards North Korea and how
we proceed.
The first and foremost is the issue of consultation: consulting with
the Japanese, consulting with our Korean allies, and having them
consult with us on their various tracks and prospects of moving
forward with North Korea.
The second is support for President Kim Dae Jung's policy of pursuing
a reduction of tensions on the Peninsula.
The third element is realism. It is a clear understanding of the
nature of this regime, no illusions about what they are and why they
are willing to open up a little at this point. And I think you heard
that from the Secretary, the President, and Kim Dae Jung yesterday.
The fourth, is a chance to review the policy, and that's what we are
still doing now. So it is a good look at the entire policy. The
review, the examination of the policy, is still going on so the
precise outcomes -- timetables, things like that -- have yet to be
decided and announced.
The fifth sort of stems from the earlier comment about the nature of
the regime, the need for verification. Verification and monitoring
remain very essential to whatever we do.
And the other is the stress, the emphasis on North Korea's
proliferation activities, which are of concern to the entire
Administration. I think there are, actually some of the Defense
Department and the CIA reports that have been put out recently
describe it probably in more detail than I will now. But concern about
those activities, possible export activity, as well as missile
developments in North Korea, but also concern about the level of
tensions on the Peninsula. And as you know, the South Koreans in their
dialogue are having defense ministers meetings and looking at
confidence-building measures or tension-reduction steps. And so those
are things that we will be talking to the South Koreans about.
So this all puts together a package of consultations, review,
considering the factors, looking at the elements, and then proceeding
at a time in due course, at a time when it is appropriate, and that
that's what basically the Administration has been saying all along. So
all those elements, I think, are present today.
Obviously we have moved down that path in terms of having had some
serious discussions with the Japanese and the Koreans, but we will
continue to do that as we review our policy.
Q: On this verification issue, on several occasions people have
accused, have said, that the element missing in the Clinton
Administration negotiations was the verification issue. Well, if you
go back over the record -- and I'm sure you're aware of this because
you took part in many of those meetings -- the verification was very
much on the agenda and was part of the public discourse over the last
six months.
Why has the Administration essentially fabricated this allegation that
the verification was not part of the mix?
Mr. Boucher: Why are you fabricating a statement like that? Look at
the record, Jonathan. Look at the record, and you will see quite
clearly that verification was on the agenda, but it wasn't done. We
didn't work out, we never said that we had worked out verification and
monitoring arrangements. We said we were working on verification; we
said it wasn't finished. And the fact that the last administration,
for time and for a lot of reasons, wasn't able to finish verification,
leads to the statement of fact, that the Secretary and the President
have been making, that verification remains to be done, and it is a
vitally important element.
Q: How would you reach agreement on verification without having
negotiations?
Mr. Boucher: That eventually, that is the way you have to do it. But
we are not going to do that until we have had a chance to consult and
review the entire policy.
Q: Would the Administration still be open to the idea of launching
satellites on third-party rockets if verification issues could be
settled?
Mr. Boucher: Again, the Secretary has said, I think the President has
said, they want to move forward on the basis of what has been
discussed, adding, completing the work -- if you like that better --
on verification as an essential element. But sort of an exact piece or
portion of this, I don't think I can get into at this moment.
Q: Can I follow up that? That was -- at least, we were open to that
idea under the last administration, and we put that --
Mr. Boucher: Yeah, and the Secretary has talked about moving forward
with the elements that look promising in the previous package, and the
ability, the essential pieces of constraining or eliminating North
Korea's exports of missiles and missile technology, and getting rid of
their development programs. I mean, that remains the goal. And the
elements that were discussed in order to do that remain the basis on
which we go forward after review, consultation, and with a lot of
realism about the nature of the situation.
Q: Richard, I'm curious. When you say that you're reviewing the
policy, what does that mean? Because it certainly sounds as if, from
what Secretary Powell has already said, that he has found a couple of
things from the Clinton's Administration's engagement with North Korea
that he found promising. So what more reviewing is necessary?
Mr. Boucher: What we do next.
Q: You mean how to --
Mr. Boucher: Reviewing is not to look back and write a history of
what's been done. Reviewing is to look at what we want to do next.
Q: Okay, if I could just follow on that, then. If I understand your
answer to Jonathan correctly, you're saying that it is not a
prerequisite for there to be verification agreed to ahead of time for
negotiations to resume?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think I've set any prerequisites at this point
for our discussions or future discussions at the appropriate time.
Verification is a key element that needs to be worked out. And as I
said to Jonathan, obviously you have to talk to the other side to work
it out.
But when and how we proceed with that is a question that will be
decided in the review. We want to build on the positive elements from
the efforts of the past. We want to add to that the key, crucial
component of verification, and we want to do it with realism and in
consultation with our allies. And how exactly we'll proceed remains to
be announced.
Q: Okay, one more follow-up. I'm sure you're aware of President Kim
Dae Jung's disappointment and his statements following his meeting
with Administration officials. Would the Administration concede that,
while it is saying on the one hand it's offering support for President
Kim's sunshine policy, it has complicated it for him by not pursuing
negotiations with the North?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: No?
Mr. Boucher: First of all, I didn't see anywhere where President Kim
expressed any disappointment.
Q: Today's Washington Post was quoting him at the AEI luncheon
yesterday clearly expressing disappointment.
Mr. Boucher: I'm sorry, I wasn't there and didn't read that part of
the Post this morning. But I think it is quite clear that we support
his --
Q: In a diplomatic way.
Mr. Boucher: Well, there you go. Maybe he didn't. (Laughter.)
So, you know, I think it's quite clear we support his efforts. When we
talked to him and he talked to us, we were using the same terms. We
were using terms of realism. We were using terms of verification and
monitoring. And he has explained quite clearly, I think, in that
speech, at least the portions that I read yesterday on the wires, that
he is quite realistic, quite understanding, about what is going on in
the North and why they want to have this opening of necessity rather
than desire.
And so I think the discussion that he had with Secretary Powell and
the discussion he had with the President was quite a realistic one,
and where we and the South Koreans view the situation in very similar
terms, each wanting to go forward with no illusions but with a
clear-eyed understanding about what we might accomplish.
Q: Did you think that the comments made by Senator Biden yesterday,
then, that maybe the Administration wasn't moving fast enough are
impatient? Or, you know, did you get the sense that they wanted you to
move a lot faster than you feel prepared to?
Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to try to speak for Senator Biden. I think
he spoke for himself, and others did as well. And certainly there is
opinion. You know, we read the commentary out there. There is some
opinion out there that we ought to be able to do this faster or just
pick up immediately, but I think the Secretary has made clear and the
President has made clear we are going to do this in a, you might call,
it a methodical fashion.
Q: We understand USA is making entirely evaluation of Geneva
agreement. What is the meaning and content of it?
Mr. Boucher: Of what agreement?
Q: Geneva agreement.
Mr. Boucher: Is that the Agreed Framework?
Q: Yes.
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't think that's what the Secretary said
yesterday. The Secretary said yesterday -- well, I'll leave his words
-- he explained it better than I can -- that we support the Agreed
Framework, we intended to work with it and abide by it, but that we
are not closed to other variations or ideas, that we would look at
those as well.
Q: Richard, the North Korean statement about two weeks ago, maybe
three weeks ago, was interpreted here as a sign of impatience, and
that statement also included the first public offer to restrict
proliferation, to stop selling missiles abroad.
Given that the North Koreans are impatient, how do you justify this
very slow, methodical approach which you are advocating?
Mr. Boucher: I didn't describe it as slow; I described it as
methodical, so let's start with that. Second of all, how do I justify
this? I justify it by the fact that President Bush was elected by the
American people to conduct US foreign policy, and he'll decide how we
proceed, along with his Secretary of State. I don't think it requires
any other justification.
Q: Would you say that there is a greater emphasis on allowing the
South Koreans to take the lead at this stage than there had been in
previous months in the United States leadership?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think I would quite put it that way. I think we
have seen at various moments clearly that South Korea and President
Kim Dae Jung have been in the lead. He went first. And it has been his
policy to do this all along, his policy that we've been supporting all
along.
At some moments you have seen him in the forefront, you've seen the
United States in the forefront, you've seen the Japanese having
discussions and talks on issues that are of particular concern to
them. So we are at one of those moments where, as they discuss the
next North-South summit and the things to be accomplished there, we
are all consulting with each other.
Obviously we have a new Administration in Washington, so we are
looking at how we want to proceed. But there is a lot of emphasis
right now on the next North-South summit. I'm not saying that we will
either wait or not wait for that to happen before we engage with North
Korea, but clearly this is a moment where the next steps in the
North-South relationship are very important to us all. And as we've
said, we support their proceeding, and we think we have a very common
understanding of how we should all proceed.
Q: Richard, what do you think of the proposal for a peace declaration
by the two Koreas -- and possibly other parties, I suppose?
Mr. Boucher: I think I'm probably not quite prepared to go that deep
into the issues at this precise moment. Yeah, I think that's what I
think about it. (Laughter.)
No, the subject was obviously discussed. We have always supported the
Four Party talks, peace on the Peninsula, reducing tensions on the
Peninsula. How exactly this step fits in is something I am sure we
will be talking about further with the South Koreans, and we'll be
looking at in terms of the review.
Q: Richard, yesterday the Secretary made reference to possibly looking
at troop strength of the North Korean army position where it is. Can
you put that in perspective for us as a part of the new overall
review? And also, was looking at that a part of the last
administration's policy or not?
Mr. Boucher: At some point I'm going to stop talking for the last
administration. I think I'll do that now. This is the moment where I
stop speaking for the last administration.
Q: You don't have to speak for it. I just want to know if it's a new
-- if you can say it's a new --
Mr. Boucher: I don't know. I would probably ask a reporter rather than
the Spokesman for the new Administration.
The first part of the question is important, I think. The tensions on
the Peninsula that are created by the huge size of the North Korean
army obviously directly affect the situation for everybody who lives
there and who has troops there, including us. And it is an issue that
we and our South Korean allies need to discuss, and continue to
discuss, together.
I would also say that the stage that they have gone to in their
discussions with the North, the fact that they are having defense
minister visits, that they're talking about train lines across the
DMZ, that they're talking about tension-reduction measures, these also
bring us to the stage where it is important to focus on the size of
the army and the men under arms, because that is the source of much of
the tension on the Peninsula.
Now, obviously the United States and South Korea, Japan and other
friends are concerned about the effects of North Korean missile
exports and exports of missile technology that go around the world,
and the effects of possible missile developments in the region that
affect all of South Korea's neighbors and those of us who are allied
with those neighbors.
So, yes, missiles and exports and weapons of mass destruction, nuclear
programs, things like that, are obviously of primary concern. But we
are also getting to the stage where we need to address the issues of
the tensions on the Peninsula because of the high level of military
forces in the North. And so that is something that is the stage we are
getting to in this whole process of discussions, and the South Koreans
are getting to in their discussions.
Q: Different topic? Kosovo. Could you tell us what US involvement
there was in events yesterday -- and, if so, any today -- and whether
the US has now sort of drawn a line in the sand -- or a line in the
dirt in their case -- saying that no US troops will indeed go into the
buffer zone?
Mr. Boucher: Let me talk to you about the events of the last day or
so. I think, in terms of facts, we have reports of an exchange of fire
that began last night between ethnic Albanian extremists and
Macedonian forces on the Macedonian side of the border. A civilian
government police convoy was attacked by extremists. One Macedonian
policeman was killed. Obviously we deplore this death and the others
that occurred earlier this week.
NATO peacekeeping forces -- NATO-led peacekeeping forces -- are taking
measures on the Kosovo side of the border and communicating,
coordinating activities with the Macedonians, as appropriate. We
strongly condemn the continued violence by ethnic Albanian extremists.
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson and US officials reiterated
yesterday that NATO and the United States support Macedonia's
security, stability and territorial integrity.
The UN Security Council issued a strong statement of support for
Macedonia on Wednesday. In a special session of the North Atlantic
Council with Macedonian Foreign Minister Kerim in Brussels today, the
permanent representatives denounced the violence and reaffirmed their
support for Macedonia's territorial integrity.
On the issue of sort of where NATO and KFOR operate, let me put it
this way. You have seen the announcements, I think, from NATO. When we
were out there, Secretary General Robertson and Secretary Powell both
spoke about this phased and conditioned reduction of the size of the
ground safety zone. That was agreed in principle. Then yesterday, NATO
put out a statement saying they worked out some of the arrangements,
and you will see that phased and conditioned reduction in the ground
safety zone taking place starting probably very soon.
The issue here, though, let's remember, is letting Yugoslav forces
return to an area of Yugoslavia, of Serbia, where NATO has not been.
NATO had exercised authority over the area by telling the Yugoslav
army to stay out of it. So the phased and conditioned reduction is to
allow the Yugoslav forces to come back in and to maintain security and
stability in that area, which had neither a NATO nor Yugoslav army in
it, and which was still and always remained part of Yugoslavia and
Serbia. NATO was on the Kosovo side, not the Serbian side of that
line.
So that is essentially what's taking place, is the Yugoslavs coming
back in to maintain security in an area of Yugoslavia, in an area of
Serbia, and that's the essential nature of these decisions. NATO, as
part of this process, is not looking to expand its role. NATO is not
looking to occupy new territory or to conduct new patrols in part of
Serbia. The essential arrangement is for the Yugoslavs to come in
there and maintain stability in that area.
Q: Why wasn't there an effort to do that? Didn't -- I think it was the
EU -- want to put in monitors, observers, and to have NATO protect
them? And NATO, in effect, is saying --
Mr. Boucher: The European Union has offered to have put in observers
there, and this was discussed a bit in Brussels when the Secretary was
there. It has been discussed with the European Union presidency and
representatives who came the other day, and with Lord Robertson
yesterday.
The actual sort of operational side of that is under discussion still
in NATO, how they decide what NATO KFOR-source troops can offer in
terms of facilitation for the European observers. But it is not NATO
taking over the zone in any way, or going over there to patrol or take
on the burden of security in that area.
Q: But has the US said that none of their troops would go to support
or protect EU monitors?
Mr. Boucher: No. The precise arrangements for security or operational
-- facilitating the operations of EU monitors -- that's the subject
that is still under discussion. But as I said, once again, NATO is not
looking to go in there; NATO is not looking to patrol or take on
responsibility in that zone. The NATO, the KFOR commander will
maintain the sort of overall responsibility. So should there be
trouble and he needs to ask the Yugoslav forces to leave once again,
he could do that. But the essential nature of this is to have the
Yugoslav forces come in and maintain stability in that area.
Q: Yesterday, the Macedonian Foreign Minister asked NATO to create a
buffer zone between Macedonia and Kosovo. Is that something that the
US thinks NATO, is reasonable for NATO to consider?
Mr. Boucher: I am not aware of that specific suggestion, so I am
really not aware of what the discussion has been at NATO about that.
NATO has been asking its military advisors to look at additional
measures that can help provide security along that Kosovo-Macedonia
border. Communications with the Macedonian security forces have been
improved. NATO has been encouraging the international community to
provide assistance to the Macedonians in many different ways, and we
continue to be in very close touch with the Macedonian Government. So
that discussion at NATO today was part of that, but I don't really
have the details of that discussion at this stage.
Q: Are there any other steps that are being considered right now?
Mr. Boucher: I think Lord Robertson yesterday talked about working
with the Macedonians on de-mining, working with them on
information-sharing, things like that.
Q: Your position on the continuing insistence of the Bulgarian
Government, even yesterday, to send troops and military supplies to
(inaudible) against the Albanian separatists?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think we have taken a particular position on the
specific offer. We have encouraged governments to help Macedonia,
pursue this to maintain stability and security on their side of the
border. So within that general framework, I suppose we would address
the specifics, but I don't have anything on the specific for you.
Q: I might advise my colleagues that Richard want to be out of here
sooner rather than later today, as he has an appointment.
Mr. Boucher: We'll answer all your questions and then go.
Q: I just thought on the outside chance that people wanted to be
deferential.
Mr. Boucher: Not to me. No, that's not --
Q: I understand there is a brainstorming session today on Sudan and
what might be done to stop the fighting. Do you have anything?
Mr. Boucher: It is well described as a brainstorming session. It's a
chance to discuss with the Secretary the information, the history, the
past, the future, and to really look at what we do about the situation
there in terms of the war, the human suffering in Sudan, that have
been an enormous tragedy. Ending the conflict remains a priority.
I would describe this as an informational meeting, a discussion
meeting. It's in-house. It's with people inside the building, not even
interagency at this point. So it's a chance to discuss all these
issues of Sudan with the Secretary because, as you know, in testimony
and elsewhere, he has expressed an interest in looking at these issues
and seeing how we deal with them.
Q: A new subject? Yesterday in his testimony, the Secretary revealed
that China has answered officially on the potential help to Iraq.
Could you fill us in on that a little bit more?
Mr. Boucher: Our Ambassador in Beijing had a meeting with the Chinese
on Monday at the Foreign Ministry. In that meeting, the Chinese told
us that they intended to abide by US resolutions, that they intended
for their companies to abide by UN resolutions. And they told us at
that time that they had issued instructions, reissued instructions, to
all Chinese companies to abide by UN sanctions and, in particular, had
instructed some Chinese companies, certain Chinese companies, to cease
and desist, I think was the way the Secretary put it, to cease work
that they had been doing in Iraq.
Q: So this was a --
Mr. Boucher: So that is what they have told us. Obviously the
situation is important to us. It remains of concern to us that no
country engage in work outside the UN sanctions regime. We raised
these concerns with the Chinese because we had information that
Chinese telecommunications companies were working in Iraq without
approval of the Sanctions Committee. And we will continue to monitor
this situation and work with the Chinese to make sure that the
instructions, general instructions to Chinese companies, are abided
by, the way the Chinese Government says it wants.
Q: But if you consider that an admission that certain companies were
doing work like that, are there any repercussions? Are you intending
to push it further that there should -- I mean, obviously they know
they have to comply with UN sanctions. Why would there need to be a
reminder?
Mr. Boucher: Well, as the Secretary said yesterday, we may, after we
look into this further and see what's being done, we may decide that
we need to go to the UN Sanctions Committee and discuss it there. But
we'll see about that in coming days.
Q: Richard, considering that the Chinese Foreign Minister said earlier
this week -- denied the fact that the Chinese Government or any of its
companies were working in Iraq --
Mr. Boucher: Finish the sentence.
Q: Okay. And considering that that took place after Ambassador Prueher
had met with the Foreign Ministry, is it somewhat disingenuous for
them to deny it?
Mr. Boucher: My understanding is that he specifically denied the
Chinese companies were putting in fiber-optics for the Iraqi air
defense system. I didn't see him deny that Chinese companies were
working on telecommunications projects in Iraq. And that is what we
had asked them about and that is what they responded to.
Q: Did they take you any (inaudible)?
Mr. Boucher: You guys flip the coin.
Q: Do you recognize the statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry as
an admission of guilt as regards sanctions that --
Mr. Boucher: "Guilt" is kind of a strong word. They told us that there
were, in fact, Chinese companies who had been carrying on some
activities in Iraq, and that they had instructed those companies not
to do this.
Q: Have you any ideas as to what these companies are doing, or --
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: I'd like just one more on China, if I may. As you probably know,
the Army has admitted that it is ordering some of its black berets for
all troops from China, although at this session, or at least half an
hour before, they didn't know how many of the nearly three million
they are getting from China.
Does the Secretary, as an old soldier, have any concern, one, about
black berets being issued to all troops; and, two, that many of them,
or some, are being made in China?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think that's a China question. And the Secretary,
I don't want to say anything about old soldiers because I remember
what was said 50 years ago about old soldiers. But I think that that's
not really a question I can express a concern about at this point.
Q: Richard, last day Congressman Frank Pallone raised concern on
Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and he says that Administration tries to promote
and support the pipeline, despite reluctance of the major US oil
companies and despite the pipeline being not commercially viable.
What is your comment on that?
Mr. Boucher: I don't really have any particular new judgment on that.
We have been working with the companies. We will continue to work with
the companies and the governments of the area. We think that multiple
pipeline routes are necessary because of the need to get the reserves
and the supplies out of the region and for there to be alternate
routes, various routes, available. We think this is a good one, and we
will keep working on it. But we will keep working with the companies.
And as you said, ultimately it is not for me or for anybody else to
say it's economically viable; it is for the companies to say it's
economically viable.
Q: One more point. He also requests Bush Administration withdraw
subsidizing to the pipeline if it bypasses Armenia, and we know that
Frank Pallone is the co-chairman of the Armenian Congressional Caucus.
Is it some kind of -- some ethnic minority to influence the foreign
policy of the state, or what?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything particular for you on the
financing, and it is a free country.
Q: On Colombia. Mr. Boucher, the US Government has already changed
their position on the peace talks in Colombia. Now they are talking
about in the future to participate as observers to the peace talks.
What is the reason of this change of position? Is the European
conference, or Latin America conference in Brazil or Mexico taking the
lead in the peace talks in Colombia? Why they change their position
after President Bush last week emphatically said no to participate as
observers in the peace talks?
Mr. Boucher: I want to come out here someday and tell you we have
changed our policy, but it is not the day today. (Laughter.)
We have not talked to the FARC, and we are not talking to the FARC,
and the considerations remain the same. And I think that was made
quite clear by Assistant Secretary Romero in his discussions with
people yesterday.
We have said many times in the past, the United States is not going to
engage in talks with the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, until it begins to cooperate with the appropriate government
authorities on cases that involve American citizens.
Specifically, we look to them to cooperate in the efforts to determine
the whereabouts of the three New Tribes Mission members that were
kidnapped in 1993, and to cooperate with the investigation of the
murders of three American nongovernmental organization workers in
1999.
In the latter case, the FARC has acknowledged that it has under its
control the alleged perpetrators, and we demand that they be turned
over to the appropriate authorities. That position on the part of the
United States Government has not changed.
Nevertheless, we have to be clear as well that our decision not to
attend the March 8 meeting in Los Pozos, Colombia does not signify
that we do not support President Pastrana's efforts to achieve a
negotiated solution to the Colombian conflict. We fully support
President Pastrana's bold and untiring efforts to achieve a peaceful
solution to the conflict.
As we have indicated in the past, we believe the international
community can play a constructive role in supporting dialogue between
the FARC and the Government of Colombia. However, the efforts of the
international community cannot substitute for real willingness on the
part of the FARC to begin negotiating in good faith substantive
agreements that would reduce and eventually end the human suffering
that daily confronts the people of Colombia. The FARC has yet to
demonstrate a willingness to do that.
So one additional reason why the United States chose not to
participate in the international meeting held on March 8th in the FARC
zone in Colombia is that we do not yet see that clear intention on the
part of the FARC to begin serious substantive negotiations with the
Colombian Government. If anything, the FARC has left a trail of broken
promises and commitments since the peace process began over two years
ago. These range from avoiding verification of its behavior within the
demilitarized zone to its total failure to abandon its inhumane
practices of murder, kidnappings, forceful recruitment of children,
and indiscriminate use of gas cylinders to attack civilian
populations.
So the essential elements are the same: accountability, cooperation
for the cases involving Americans, and a good faith substantive effort
in the peace talks. Until we see those, we don't think we have a need
to talk to them.
Q: You have confused the issue slightly. Yesterday, we heard that the
case of the missionaries and the three killed Americans was one
element or one ingredient in the decision -- on the decision whether
to take part in any talks.
Are you saying that those steps that have to take are preconditions
for taking part, and they are part of a set of preconditions, or are
you saying that these are all just considerations that you will take
into account before you decide whether to take part? There is a big
difference between the two, as I think you will understand.
Mr. Boucher: I think yesterday you were told this is one of the
conditions, one of the considerations. And today you are told, we are
saying, I think as we did yesterday, there is another one as well. So
both of these issues -- the accountability and substantive, good-faith
efforts -- remain. They are both issues that we want to see addressed
before we would start talking to the FARC ourselves.
What I said is we are not going to engage in talks until it begins to
cooperate with the appropriate government authorities on these cases
involving American citizens, and until it begins to show signs of a
substantive, good-faith effort in the negotiations.
Q: Is there any difference -- again, on the same subject -- is there
any difference between taking part in talks and monitoring or
attending? I mean, is there any distinction here, or is it -- or are
you using these words in exactly the equivalent --
Mr. Boucher: I'm talking directly, talking to them is what we are
talking about.
Q: Talking to them is what you said. But I mean, sitting in on a
session --
Mr. Boucher: I mean, obviously we are in touch with the Colombian
Government on what they are doing. We are in touch with the other
foreign ambassadors who might be meeting with them. But we don't
intend to meet, sit in, participate in, these discussions ourselves
until we start seeing a kind of cooperation, until we start seeing a
good faith substantive effort on the talks.
Q: Do you have any comments on the decision or the sentence of General
Pinochet in Chile?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think so. I think generally we have left that to
the judicial process at this stage.
Q: The Japanese press is reporting March 19th as a scheduled date for
Prime Minister Mori to come to Washington to meet with the President,
despite the Prime Minister's announced intention to resign. I'm
wondering if you can confirm the date and, if so, what value there is
in meeting with a prime minister who has already announced his
intention to resign?
Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't do that here. It's a meeting with the
President. The White House would have to do it.
Q: Do you have any details on an American missing in Bolivia?
Mr. Boucher: Not in my head, and not in my book either.
Q: No?
Mr. Boucher: So we'll have to check on that one for you.
Q: He's been missing for a couple weeks now, I think a Peace Corps --
you do have --
Mr. Boucher: Oh, the Peace Corps question? Yes, I can get you -- I
think we can get you something on that.
Q: Do you have anything on this controversy surrounding the nomination
of Otto -- is it Reich? -- for the Under Secretary of State for
Inter-American Affairs?
Mr. Boucher: I don't think there is any nomination for the Assistant
Secretary for Inter-American Affairs at this point. I can't remember
what they are called. Western Hemisphere Affairs now. Well, they are
called ARA by some of us.
Q: I have two quick ones on the former Soviet area, the first being
the visit by Alfred (inaudible) from Gazprom Media. Following his
visit, does the United States Administration continue to view the
struggle for control of Media Most as an issue of media freedoms, or
is it more complicated than that?
Mr. Boucher: I don't. I'm not aware of the visits, but I'm also not
aware of any new developments. We continue to be concerned about the
situation of independent media, and the situation of Media Most in
particular.
Q: Okay. And on Ukraine, there have been some very violent protests
there today. Do you have anything to say about that?
Mr. Boucher: This morning, the Ukraine police forcibly prevented about
200 demonstrators from crossing police lines. President Kuchma was
preparing to lay a wreath at a monument of poet Taras Shevchenko.
There were reports that an opposition member of parliament was beaten
and hospitalized. In the afternoon, there were about 150 demonstrators
who clashed with police near the presidential offices, and there were
reports of further injuries.
Ukrainian officials have stated their commitment to resolve political
issues by constitutional means and to engage in a dialogue with the
opposition. We think that the current political atmosphere presents
Ukraine and its leaders with a test of their commitment to the rule of
law, democracy and human rights. We call on all parties to exercise
restraint, and of course we look to the Ukrainian authorities to carry
out their pledge to solve things by constitutional means and dialogue.
Q: Can we stay on the Ukraine, please? The Ukrainians are claiming
that a former security officer for President Kuchma, who revealed some
tapes implicating him in the murder of a journalist there, is
currently hiding on a US military base in the Netherlands under US
protection.
Do you have anything on that?
Mr. Boucher: I hadn't seen that report. I'm not going to speculate on
anything involving those tapes. I don't think we really have anything
particular to say on it.
Q: Well, can you check and see if the US is providing this man any
kind of security protection, or is he applying for asylum or anything?
Mr. Boucher: I'll see if there is anything we can say on it, and we'll
see if we can say no, or no comment.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Can I have a quick follow-up? Are you satisfied with the current
pace at which the Ukraine leadership is investigating the murder of
Gongadze, given that seems to have been the key issue for the
Government -- the US Administration in regards to Ukraine?
Mr. Boucher: We have commented and had a position on the importance of
investigating, on the importance of investigating in a transparent and
open manner. I don't think we have any judgment at this point on the
pace. But certainly that is a crucial element in resolving the
situation.
Q: Thank you.
Q: I have a question. Lawmakers on the Hill are going back to this
case of Michael Speicher and saying they are going to reopen an
investigation. Tariq Aziz said publicly that they never found any
remains of him, but since we filed it in March, have we heard anything
back from them?
Mr. Boucher: I have to check. I don't know.
Q: At the pace you are moving at present, what do you think you will
have ready on the Iraq sanctions front in the way of a package in time
for the Arab League meeting?
And has there been any -- what's the latest developments on the two
issues of inspectors on the borders and financial compensation for the
front-line states? Has there been any progress on these issues with
Syria and Turkey specifically, and Jordan?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have any new announcements on the specific pieces
and details of the policy approach that the Secretary outlined.
Certainly we found a great deal of support for the approach that he
was taking. We have continued our discussions with people in the area
of issues like the ones you raise and the issues of getting the money
into the Oil-for-Food program, controlling smuggling, tightening
controls on the weapons.
There are obviously steps and discussions that we will have to take
with regard to the Perm 5 and the operations of the UN Sanctions
Committee, as well as discussions and details that we have to work out
with the countries in the area.
So the answer to your question is really, we're working on it. Nothing
new to announce at this stage.
Q: You won't have anything ready by the Arab League meeting?
Mr. Boucher: We certainly look to. I don't know that we'll have every
detail of policy pinned down at that particular moment, but we are
certainly aware of the Arab League meeting, and we would like to have
as much done as we can by that time. But it depends on our working
with many different people, and we are doing that now.
Thank you.
Return to the Washington File
|
