|
13 March 2001
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the U.S. is concerned
that Russia may be selling advanced weapons or sensitive technology to
Iran.
At his March 12th daily briefing in Washington, Boucher said the U.S.
would raise its concern "quite energetically and repeatedly" if the
Russians initiate "defensive weapon" sales to Iran.
Commenting on the violence in the Middle East, Boucher called on the
Israelis to ease the economic pressure on the Palestinians by lifting
travel restrictions and transferring tax revenues owed to the
Palestinians.
"We've been clearly against all measures that make it impossible for
ordinary Palestinians to survive economically," Boucher said. He also
commented on the status of Jerusalem, saying it is a matter to be
resolved between the parties.
When asked about the Taliban's decision to destroy the giant Buddhas
in Afghanistan, Boucher said that the U.S. government "strongly
condemns this destruction of the irreplaceable world heritage."
Boucher said most of the Buddhas have now been eliminated, despite
pleas from the world community.
Boucher said the Afghan people are "suffering from an unprecedented
humanitarian crisis which is the result of continuing warfare,
drought, harsh winter, and misrule by the Taliban."
Following are excerpts relating to the Middle East and Afghanistan
from Boucher's March 12 briefing:
(begin transcript excerpts)
Q: Do you have any comment on President Putin's offer to supply Iran
with defensive weapons?
Mr. Boucher: Let me say a couple things about that. I think first and
foremost, you know that the issue of proliferation and the issue of
Russian proliferation activities is a top-priority issue for this
administration. It's one that the United States has raised frequently
with the Russians in the past, and one that we will continue to raise
into the future.
With regard to Iran, we are particularly concerned about sales of
advanced conventional weapons or sensitive technologies, things like
nuclear missile technology. And that will be an area of particular
concern to the United States and one which we would be most energetic
about.
As far as what constitutes defensive systems, I guess the Russians
haven't been quite clear on that. But we would be looking particularly
closely at anything that was advanced technical -- advanced
conventional weapons or sensitive technologies. We think it's
particularly counterproductive for the Russians to sell things to
their -- in their neighborhood in areas that affect us as well that
might threaten us all.
Q: Are you talking about that in general terms, or are you
specifically talking about this -- what was coming out of Moscow
today?
Mr. Boucher: Well, what's coming out of Moscow today is not well
defined in terms of what they would intend to sell, though I think,
you know, I've seen in wire stories examples and things like that.
What I'm saying is that the areas that I identified -- advanced
conventional weapons and sensitive technologies -- are in fact of
great concern to the United States, and we would expect to raise them
quite energetically and repeatedly, if that was the area that they
started going into.
Q: Right, but you said that -- that's been said in the past when it --
many -- frequently. But you don't have anything specific in terms of
today's developments?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have any -- it's up to the Russians and the
Iranians to specify in more detail what they may or may not be doing.
But this is an issue of great concern to us, and particularly to this
administration.
Q: If you know, can you comment on whether this might violate the
Wassenaar agreement?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: Okay.
Q: There's evidently a high-level Russian official who is coming here
on Wednesday, who will meet with Secretary Powell and, I think,
Condoleezza Rice.
Mr. Boucher: I think that's national security -- their equivalent to
our national security adviser --
Q: Right.
Mr. Boucher: Sergey Ivanov is coming.
Q: Do you know if this is -- did we ask him to come? Does this involve
--
Mr. Boucher: My understanding is that this is not specifically -- he's
not coming to talk to us about this, that he's coming because he is
Dr. Rice's counterpart.
.........
Q: On a related theme, there are persistent reports in the Arab press
about this administration making secret contacts with the Iranians
through Iraqi dissidents, presumably people related -- connected to
SCIRI. Do you have any comment on these reports?
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't.
Q: And in that -- in connection with that, does the administration
plan to take any steps against the Mujaheddin Khalq, the People's
Mujaheddin of Iran, who are continuing to have that office a few
hundred yards from the White House?
Mr. Boucher: Do you mean other than arresting a bunch of people that
were fundraising for them in Los Angeles?
Q: Oh, have you done that?
Mr. Boucher: Yeah.
Q: Sorry. (Off mike.) (Laughter.)
Mr. Boucher: Yes. I would expect the administration to continue to
take the appropriate steps. I'll leave it at that.
Q: Might you close down their office as well?
Mr. Boucher: I'll expect the administration to continue to take the
appropriate steps. I'll leave it --
...........
Q: (Off mike) -- ask one about Iran?
Are you picking up where the Clinton administration left off -- pardon
the phrase -- (laughter) --
Mr. Boucher: Please.
Q: -- vis-a-vis Iran policy? It was the previous administration's
goal, you know, to establish a dialogue with the Iranians. Is there
any difference from what they were doing?
Mr. Boucher: The secretary has talked to a little -- to some extent
about Iran. I don't think we've tried to enunciate any particularly
new policy. Obviously, the areas of concern that were of concern
before have not been dealt with -- the issues of opposition to the
peace process and support for groups that violently oppose the peace
process, questions of weapons of mass destruction. You've seen
secretary and others in this administration express their concerns
about Iran's intentions with regard to nuclear capabilities and things
like that. So I think the secretary has been fairly clear. We haven't
tried to enunciate an entirely new Iran policy, but obviously we would
want to see those issues addressed as we go forward.
Q: And on that same subject, this week the sanctions against Iran have
to be renewed, or they are suspended. What's the plan for those?
Mr. Boucher: They -- the sanctions are done under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act by executive order. The authority
expires March 15th, unless it's renewed before that date. The
president has the authority, but I'm not aware that there is any
decision at this moment.
Q: (Off mike.)
Q: Do you have that -- (off mike)?
Q: Is that -- (off mike)?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Q: IEEPA.
Mr. Boucher: I won't pronounce it, because it doesn't sound nice.
Q: And it's called the International --
Mr. Boucher: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It's
been around for a while.
Q: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act?
Mr. Boucher: That's the legal basis for the sanctions. Yeah.
Q: IEEPA?
Q: There's a story in USA Today saying that they're going to be
waived.
Mr. Boucher: Yeah.
Q: But who needs -- (off mike)?
Mr. Boucher: Who needs -- (off mike)? Well, I think that probably --
(off mike).
Q: (Laughs.)
Q: Can we move on to the Middle East?
Mr. Boucher: Please, Jonathan.
Q: The secretary's taken quite a few attacks in the Gulf on his remark
that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I wondered if you would like
to clarify your policy on that.
Mr. Boucher: I think we have clarified. We've made quite clear there's
no change in U.S. policy, that the secretary was describing the
practical situation on the ground.
Q: Right, but what is the policy on it?
Mr. Boucher: What is policy?
Q: Yes.
Mr. Boucher: The policy has always been and remains that this an issue
to be resolved by the parties in negotiations.
Q: So you don't take a position on the status of Jerusalem? I just
want to get it straight.
Mr. Boucher: The position that we've taken is that it's a -- the
status of Jerusalem is a matter to be resolved between the parties.
Q: And on a related theme, what is your position on the Arab ministers
-- foreign ministers' demand that the international community should
provide protection for the Palestinian population?
Mr. Boucher: I don't know if they have specified any more detail. I've
just heard the initial press reports.
The issue for us has always been one where any sort of protection or
observers, whatever, should be done between the parties, by agreement
of the parties. It would be done in a way that's acceptable to the
parties.
At the same time, we've been quite clear in calling on the sides to do
everything they can to end the violence, calling on the sides to end
incitement and take steps to reduce the violence, as well as looking
to the Israeli side to ease the economic pressure, including turning
over the tax revenues and easing some of the restrictions on movement.
So I think we've been quite clear that we thought there were things
that both sides could do, and we'll continue to specify that, that we
are concerned about the violence.
The secretary, over the weekend, talked to Prime Minister Sharon, to
-- I guess, now former Prime Minister Barak, to Foreign Minister
Peres, about the situation, and will continue to be concerned about
the situation as we look to steps that they can take to, as I said,
end the violence, break out of the cycle of violence, as well as ease
some of the economic plight of the Palestinians, who are in dire
straits these days.
Q: Did he talk to anyone on the Palestinian side?
Mr. Boucher: Not this weekend, no.
Betsy?
Q: Richard, I have one -- excuse me -- one question related to that.
Is there anything that the U.S. is planning to do to help ease that
economic situation? Are we considering direct food shipments or
direct, you know, job assistance or something?
Mr. Boucher: We and a number of other countries have tried to be of
assistance to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinians. First
of all, I think on a policy level, we've been clearly against any
measures that make it impossible for ordinary Palestinians to survive
economically. We think some of the security steps and restrictions of
movement, in fact, do that. We've said all along that there needs to
be an end to the violence, but there also needs to be an end to the
economic pressure.
Second of all, in terms of money, in January, 2001, we redirected
nearly $57 million dollars in program funding to address emergency
needs. This included ($)10 million to assist with municipal services,
($)4 million for health-related activities, nearly ($)9 million from
the State Department's Emergency Refugee Migration account. We've been
involved in this issue with other governments, with governments of the
Arab world, with Europeans, in terms of our discussions with the
European Union on this economic situation there.
Our assistance doesn't go through the Palestinian Authority, it's
provided through non-governmental organizations and programmatic
funding to international organizations.
Q: (Off mike.) Is the U.S. trying to be a -- sort of an organizer and
a collector, or has the EU, or has anybody?
Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure who exactly is in the lead, whether there's
somebody who has called a donors conference at this point or not. But
there are a number of organizations that are very much involved. The
European Union has certainly done a lot and continues to work very
actively. But then some of the Arab governments have been quite
helpful. And as I said, the United States, in its own way, has tried
to be helpful as well.
Q: Richard, the Sharon government has eased some of the closures to
some extent. Would you say that the steps they've taken so far are
inadequate? Or what's -- (inaudible)?
Mr. Boucher: I think we've seen steps that both ease and make more
difficult the plight of the Palestinians, and steps that don't
necessarily always respond to security needs. So we are very concerned
about the economic situation. We certainly acknowledge Israel's
security needs. We think that the economic pressure, the restrictions
on movement, in particular, contribute to a deterioration in the
situation in the territories; they place hardship on families,
undermine relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and they
don't really quiet the security situation in the region. So that's why
we've been quite clear that some of these steps need to be eased.
Q: Can you be more specific on those steps which don't always respond
to security needs?
Mr. Boucher: I think at this point I'll just leave it at what we've
said. We said there are things that both sides need to do. Clearly,
stopping the shootings, ending incitements, ending the violence is a
very important issue, and -- so that we can see some easing of the
overall situation.
Q: Well, in that, what do you make of Chairman Arafat's remarks over
the weekend at the Palestinian National Council?
Mr. Boucher: Ian, I'm trying to avoid sort of direct commentary on
specific steps or specific statements. I think we've been quite clear
on what we think people need to do, and the fact that we're here today
saying that they need to do those things means they still need to be
done.
Q: Right. So you are -- but you don't want to say anything about
Arafat's lack of comment on the end -- possible end to the intifada?
Mr. Boucher: I don't want to try to get into an ongoing commentary on
a daily basis on what others might say. I want to make quite clear,
though, that the policy of the United States has been to say -- to ask
on the Palestinian side to -- an end to the shootings, an end to the
incitement, and take steps to end the violence. On the Israeli side,
we've also been looking, as the violence goes down, for steps that
would ease the economic pressure, particularly by providing the tax
revenues and by easing restrictions of movement.
John?
Q: Is it fair to say, Richard, that the secretary discussed these
steps with Mr. Sharon, Prime Minister Sharon, in his call?
Mr. Boucher: I don't know exactly to what level of detail he got in
those phone calls. The general issue of the violence and the way
forward was discussed.
Q: But the terms of easing the economic pressures?
Mr. Boucher: I'll have to double-check with him and see how they --
whether they raised those specific steps or not, discussed them.
Q: He made these calls from home, I presume?
Mr. Boucher: Yeah, I think so.
Q: Are there any consequences in the U.S.-Israeli relationship if they
continue to restrict movement and continue to withhold the tax
revenues?
Q: The U.S.-Israeli relationship is fundamentally vital to both of us.
Our support for Israel's security is ongoing, constant, continuous,
but we also will provide our views, as we do, on steps that we think
they should be taking as well as our views to others, like the
Palestinians, on steps we think they should take. Leave it at that.
............
Q: Did the secretary misspeak last week when he said additional funds
had been released for the Iraqi opposition? It was my impression that
there was simply an extension of money that would have expired on
March 1st.
Mr. Boucher: No, he didn't misspeak. He spoke very precisely.
Q: Could you give us some more information about it?
Mr. Boucher: Do I have the numbers with me today?
Q: Mm-hm.
Mr. Boucher: Basically, he didn't -- what he has been doing is
releasing tranches of that $4 million. The grant authority was
extended. His decision-making is to release pieces of that money for
individual projects and activities, and he's been doing that. He's
been releasing money, the way he said he did. I don't have the numbers
in my head right now, but I'll try to get them for you.
Q: Yesterday's Washington Post --
Q: I'm sorry; just one follow-up. Can you tell me what the money was
for?
Mr. Boucher: The basic humanitarian and public activities that have
been described in the past that that $4 million was for.
Q: (Off mike) -- if we can, for the record.
Q: The secretary has spoken several times about a review of the no-fly
zone policy, that being one of the three baskets of policy. What,
exactly, is being reviewed? Is there something about the no-fly zone
that's considered inadequate and that needs to be changed? What ideas
are being kicked around? I realize he's also said that it's Rumsfeld's
issue, but I wonder if he's got any input, since he's just back from
the region and has a military expertise and is weighing in at all on
this.
Mr. Boucher: He is secretary of State; Secretary Rumsfeld is secretary
of Defense. This is a Defense Department issue.
It's within Secretary Rumsfeld's jurisdiction to look at it, determine
how best to carry out the mission of the no-fly zones. Obviously, the
overall Iraq policy, in all its elements, is a matter of discussion
between senior people in this administration and, to that extent, the
secretary participates. But when the secretary has talked to you about
this, he's been quite clear that it was the Defense Department's job
to look at this.
Okay?
Q: The government of Turkey, they are looking for some kind of
commercial tie with the Iraq without violating the sanction regime. Do
you have any reaction on the subject? They already announced it.
Mr. Boucher: I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you're
describing.
Q: The government of Turkey, they said that they are looking for a
commercial tie with Baghdad without violating the sanction regime.
Mr. Boucher: Well, we have discussed with the government of Turkey, as
we've discussed with many people in the region, especially the
front-line states, an Iraqi policy that would tighten up, as we know,
on controls of weapons, money, and smuggling while at the same time
allowing an easier flow of civilian goods for the civilian population.
So to that extent, yeah, they could have economic ties with Baghdad
and not violate the sanctions.
............
Q: Back to the special envoys, among those that you know of that have
been eliminated, does that include the special Middle East coordinator
and the coordinator for dealing with the Iraqi opposition?
Mr. Boucher: The special Middle East coordinator, the secretary's
decision was to move that function back into the regional bureau, into
the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, so that the pursuit of peace, as
he's talked about, can be done in a regional context. That's the way
he's discussed it, and that's the way it will be handled in the
future.
As far as the --
Q: (Off mike.)
Mr. Boucher: Yeah, in a separate office, but, I mean, you should be
quite aware that other than Dennis Ross, the people who have been
working on this issue for many years, who have toiled away in the
vineyards and devoted time and energy to this, will be working on the
issue in the regional bureau, so that the expertise is not being
abolished or lost in any way. And, obviously, the people in the
regional bureau have considerable expertise on the matter as well.
As far as the Iraqi opposition -- what's he called, special
coordinator --
Q: -- for transition in Iraq.
Mr. Boucher: -- for transition in Iraq. That position is being
retained, but it will be looked at in six months, as far as its
continued function.
Q: With the same occupant still in that position, Frank Ricciardone?
Mr. Boucher: Yeah.
............
Q: While we're talking about meetings, can you go over what the
secretary talked about with the secretary of Energy, and also with the
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees this morning?
Mr. Boucher: The secretary of Energy, they're meeting as we speak, so
I can't put it in the past tense, yet. They were obviously going to
have a chance to discuss issues where they're both involved on the
international stage, particularly, I suppose, the issue of oil pricing
and oil diplomacy.
............
Q: While we're talking about meetings, can you go over what the
secretary talked about with the secretary of Energy, and also with the
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees this morning?
Mr. Boucher: The secretary of Energy, they're meeting as we speak, so
I can't put it in the past tense, yet. They were obviously going to
have a chance to discuss issues where they're both involved on the
international stage, particularly, I suppose, the issue of oil pricing
and oil diplomacy.
............
Q: One more? On Afghanistan. The Taliban is destroying the standing
Buddhas statues. Do you -- or do we have any international law or
regulation to protect historic artifacts in all of the countries, all
of the world? And can we stop that?
Mr. Boucher: The reports now are that the moveable statues have been
destroyed and that the giant Buddhas have been 80 percent destroyed.
We have no confirmation, but we don't have any reason to doubt these
reports. We, along with many other countries, private institutions,
international organizations, have made efforts over recent weeks to
try to persuade the Taliban not to destroy this irreplaceable part of
Afghanistan's cultural heritage. The efforts were apparently not
successful. Along with many other countries, we strongly condemn this
destruction of the irreplaceable world heritage. Secretary Powell
called it horrible, described it as a tragedy, a crime against
humankind. He deplores it and we deplore it.
I want to say that we shouldn't let our dismay with the actions of the
regime or the Taliban authorities distract us from helping the Afghan
people. As I mentioned, this was a discussion this morning with the
High Commissioner for Refugees. The Afghan people are not responsible
for the Taliban decision. And indeed, most Afghans disagree with
what's been done. The Afghan people are suffering from an
unprecedented humanitarian crisis which is the result of continuing
warfare, drought, harsh winter, and misrule by the Taliban. So we're
continuing our emergency humanitarian aid. We would urge other
countries to do the same.
So there we kind of have it. It appears to have gone forward. We and
others who have tried to stop it have been not successful in getting
it stopped. At the same time, we do differentiate between the actions
of the Taliban and the need to support the Afghan people, who are in
dire straits these days.
Q: Did you say -- I may have missed it -- did you say that this had
come up in the secretary's meeting this morning with the high
commissioner?
Mr. Boucher: The plight of the refugees from Afghanistan had come up.
Q: Right, but that this destruction of the statues wouldn't affect
U.S. assistance to Afghan refugees.
Mr. Boucher: Yeah. That -- I'm trying to remember. The destruction of
the statues came up in passing, but it was quite clear that it was not
going to affect our assistance for the refugees and that we would
continue to work with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and
others to make sure that those people were taken care of.
Q: Do you know, was that a concern of the high commissioner, that
somehow the U.S. might --
Mr. Boucher: It may have come up in passing. I can't even remember
exactly how it came up. But it was not a major concern of his. When
they talked about the plight of refugees, they discussed the other
issues involved in handling and taking care of them.
Q: Thank you.
Return to the Washington File
|
