*EPF502 10/27/00
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, October 27, 2000
(Yemen/FBI, Halliburton, Russia, Azerbaijan/Armenia, Taiwan, U.S.-North Korea, El Salvador, Bangladesh, Middle East, Israel) (7110)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, October 27, 2000

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

YEMEN
1-2 Statement by Secretary Albright and FBI Director Freeh on Investigation of The USS Cole Bombing
2-4 Yemeni Cooperation with the Cole Bombing Investigation

DEPARTMENT
4-5 US Embassies Efforts to Assist US Businesses Overseas

RUSSIA/ARMENIA
5-6 Reports of Russian Troops in Armenia

CHINA/TAIWAN
6-7 Taiwan's Decision on Nuclear Power Plant
7 Reported Possible Visit to Cornell by Lee Teng-Hui

NORTH KOREA
7 Military Exercise/US Aircraft Accidentally Entered North Korean Airspace
7-9,10-11 Secretary Albright's Visit to North Korea and Human Rights Issues
9 Next Round of Missile Talks
9-10 Secretary Albright To Brief President Clinton on Her Trip
10 Prospects for Opening of Liaison Offices
11 North Korea's Change in Intentions

RUSSIA/IRAN
11 Documents Regarding the Gore-Chernomydrin Agreements

EL SALVADOR
11-12- Murdered Churchwomen's Case/US Visas Issued to Generals

BANGLADESH
12 Visit of Prime Minister to US/Discussions on Extradition Issue

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
13 Acting Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami Visit to Washington
13 No Travel Plans to Region by US Officials At This Point
13-14 US Role in Peace Process
14-15 Department Travel Warning for Middle East

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB # 106

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2000 1:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here, a pleasure to be back with you. And I don't have any statements right now, so I would be glad to take your questions.

Q: There has been a joint statement, the US State Department and the FBI, complimenting the Yemenis for their cooperation. Do you want to address that subject? I do have a question. But, well, let me --

MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't quite -- I said I don't have any statements right now because I was intending to do it a little bit later, but --

Q: Well, it's out, you know.

MR. BOUCHER: If our friends have put it out over at the FBI, I'm happy to do it over here, too.

Q: Well, you know AP. They hear about things.

MR. BOUCHER: They hear about things. Let me just generally, since you asked, bring you up to date and we'll get something out in writing later. The investigation in Yemen is now completed -- several initial phases -- or several phases of the initial part of the investigation, like forensics examination of the ships and analysis of various locations in Yemen.

First of all, we would like to express our appreciation to the Government of Yemen for its cooperation in these early phases of the investigations, and particularly for facilitating the forensic examinations in Yemen. The teams that were involved in these things, the forensic evidence teams, the laboratory examiners, the bomb technicians, other investigative personnel, have now completed their work, so you will see a rotation out of the people who have been doing those phases of the investigation. That will involve the departure of quite a number of personnel from on the ground in Yemen.

And we are now moving into a next phase of the investigation. The next critical phase will require the US and Yemeni personnel to work as partners in collecting information and participants in the interview process of witnesses who might have -- well, witnesses who have information on this criminal act of terrorism.

We do count on President Salih's commitment of full cooperation as we move to this most critical aspects of the investigation. We are seeking to solve this act of terrorism together. It took the lives of 17 US sailors and wounded numerous other Navy personnel, and we do look to those commitments to see the continuing cooperation of the Government of Yemen as we proceed into the further phases.

Q: Well, you touched on something I was going to ask you about. Indeed in this first phase, I don't know how much -- how important it would have been for the FBI to investigate -- not to investigate -- to interrogate suspects.

Are you saying that Yemen has agreed that American investigators will be able to question suspects?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I quite went that far at this stage. What I said is we have had their cooperation for the initial phases we've done. The FBI does this methodically, and they have gone through the forensics and the collecting of a lot of evidence from the ship and on locations on ground.

The next step is really to start talking more seriously, to do the interviews to the people who have been picked up, and that we do need to participate in that. And we count on this general commitment that President Salih has given us to cooperate. We count on that to be the basis of the cooperation. It is critical that we have Yemeni cooperation to make this investigation a success.

Q: So you wouldn't say, would you, that -- or would you say whether the US has asked and been told by the Yemenis that you can't talk to suspects?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't think we're quite at the point of having it one way or the other at this point. We have the commitment to cooperation. We count on that. We expect Yemeni Government personnel to abide by that pledge from President Salih, and we do think it is critical that we have that kind of cooperation as we all move forward in this investigation, which they are doing and we are doing together.

Q: You mentioned counting on his statement of cooperation three, four, five, six times in three minutes here.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's because Barry was asking about it, but the first two times were on my own.

Q: Would it be wrong to assume that you're not satisfied with the level of cooperation so far?

MR. BOUCHER: No, because I said exactly the contrary. I said at the beginning that we appreciate the cooperation we have gotten so far in what you might call the forensic and collection phase of this investigation. We are now moving to another phase, where further cooperation and a slightly different kind of cooperation is necessary. We have the general pledge of cooperation; it worked to get us to succeed in doing the first phase together, or first phases together, and we count on that general pledge as being the basis for cooperation in these next phases. But it is different. It is additional, and we don't have those specifics set up at this stage yet.

Q: Do you think that there is anti-American sentiment among the general populace in Yemen? And when you say that you have the cooperation of the government and you expect Yemeni personnel to abide by that commitment, do you have concerns that that anti-American sentiment may bleed over into people that you need to work with?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a public opinion poll or a testing of the waters of all the opinions in Yemen. I'm sure there's a variety of opinions, some of which like us and some of which don't. But I think the important thing is that we be able to proceed in a secure way. Obviously, security for our personnel who are out there is paramount; and, second of all, that we be able to proceed working with the government on the basis of the president's commitments, which we do have, which we appreciate, and which we expect to work with.

Q: To go back to the part about interviewing witnesses, you said that you are going to more -- in a more serious way interview some of the witnesses and suspects. In your initial interview -- attempts to interview suspects or witnesses so far, have you had cooperation?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that kind of detail I want to leave to the FBI. I think we do know -- what I was referring to was more the fact we know the Yemenis have interviewed a number of suspects. We need to do that as well. I don't know if the FBI has asked to see those people yet or not.

Q: Is it true that more and more investigation is moving towards Osama bin Laden, that he or his people are behind this attack?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's true that it is still premature to speculate on what the results of the investigation might be. And, in any case, I'll leave that to the FBI.

Q: Also, just to follow that, in New York, one of his person and a former US military official pled guilty, and he is also saying that Osama bin Laden and his kingdom, how they spread anti-US and others, killing all Americans and all that.

MR. BOUCHER: The guilty plea, I think, was in a case involving the bombings in Africa. Obviously we have been quite clear, and you can read in our terrorism report what we think of the Osama bin Laden network and its attempts to kill Americans around the world. We have put out quite a bit of information ourselves on this. I don't think you need to rely on third parties.

Q: He is linking that he might be behind this also.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, speculation at this point. Anybody can say what they want, except for me.

(Laughter.)

Q: I mean, the US is ready or prepared to take action against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you're too far down the road for us. We can't -- we are prepared to pursue this investigation wherever it leads and to take appropriate action based on the conclusions.

Q: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Please.

Q: Several newspapers today, including the Los Angeles Times, say that when former Secretary Cheney said that he didn't profit from the government that, in fact, the State Department worked a great deal on behalf of Halliburton, and a FOIA request by the LA Times produced several cables and documents showing just how strongly the State Department worked on behalf of Halliburton, including the cable that said that, thanks to the State Department, Halliburton now had a foot in the door in Angola.

First of all, are these all accurate? I mean, they are State Department-released cables so we have no reason to assume that they're not. And did the State Department work on behalf of Halliburton, and did Secretary Cheney ask for that assistance?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't even ask if the cables that are quoted are accurate. I assume that they are as well. I don't have any quibbles with those. I just want to give a little context to this, and maybe as a career person I can do that better than others because I really don't think our comments should in any way be construed as trying to stand up for one side or the other.

But we make economic security for the United States as one of our top foreign policy priorities. Promoting US economic and commercial interests around the world has been a top priority for this Secretary of State and for her predecessors, at least for the last 10 to 12 years. And I think you have seen us in action overseas, meeting with business people, working with our business people, going after contracts for American firms.

So it would not be unusual -- in fact, it would be most normal -- for our embassies overseas, our ambassadors overseas, and for this Department to get behind US business and try to help get business and jobs for America.

So the question that should be asked: Is there any special treatments? And we are very careful, I think, in our instructions to American embassies not to provide special treatment that favors one American company over another. We do support all American companies, and we should do that. So in cases where American companies have interests, and particularly in cases where they are in competition with foreign companies, we go to bat for them. And we do that around the world, and we are just expected to provide the same level of assistance to all companies.

Q: That gets to my follow-up, in that did Secretary Cheney -- was his role at Halliburton known by embassy employees? Did the fact that he was former Secretary of Defense have any influence over State Department actions on his behalf?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that there was any special treatment provided in this case. I think we gave them the kind of strong and aggressive assistance that we try to give all US companies who are operating overseas. I mean, let's face it, there are a lot of former Secretaries of State and Defense that are out there in the world in various corporate positions, and I don't think that becomes a factor one way or the other in helping those companies. We help American companies, and that's what we always try to do.

Q: Can I just have one last follow-up?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

Q: So do you think the State Department did help Halliburton, and is it fair to say that the government then helped Halliburton make more money and Secretary Cheney make more money?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, and no.

Q: My question is on Russian military withdrawal from the South Caucasus. From October 20, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia began according to OSCE Istanbul Summit Agreement, but they actually are being redeployed to Armenia. And the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan has already raised its extreme concern on Russian military accumulation. According to them, a significant part of the delivered-to-Armenia arms for this transported to the occupied by Armenia lands of Azerbaijan.

And my question is: Don't you think that taking into account the existing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and the second country being an aggressor, the fact of Russian military accumulation will increase the tension in the region? And is the US Government going to be in touch in any way with Russian authorities? And I know that there is an upcoming visit of Carey Cavanaugh, the US Co-Chair to the OSCE Minsk Group. Is this issue going to be in any way discussed with another co-chair, Russia?

And, in general, how it comes --

MR. BOUCHER: All right --

Q: -- the last full height, how it comes in compliance with -- what do you think -- with conventional forces in Europe flank agreement -- the Russian accumulation forces?

MR. BOUCHER: All right. And what do I predict for the future of the world?

(Laughter.)

Let me try to do this. You do have a complete set of questions. I understand what your concerns are. Let me try to do this. Let me try to tell you, first of all, what we understand the facts to be, and then deal with the issues of compliance. And then whether it comes up in Mr. Cavanaugh's meetings or other contexts with the Russian Government, we'll have to see. But obviously it is one of the subjects that has been raised that has been discussed in the past.

First of all, to our knowledge, there are no Russian troops that have been redeployed from Georgia to Armenia, so there is a basic premise there that we don't know is true. Let's put it that way. I can't say that that premise has been proven.

In early August, Russia did begin the process of withdrawing troops and destroying or withdrawing equipment from the territory of Georgia, as was agreed in Istanbul Summit in November '99. Virtually all the Russian troops and equipment to be withdrawn are going to Russia or being destroyed. US observers have confirmed the return to Russia of some 210 pieces of heavy equipment -- that's tanks, armored vehicles and artillery pieces -- and we're currently in Georgia to confirm that the additional equipment has been destroyed. We do know there is a small number of pieces of equipment that have gone to the Russian base at Gyumri in Armenia. The equipment there remains under Russian control.

We note that this is occurring in the context of an overall reduction in the Russian presence in the region. Our preference would be for all the Russian equipment being withdrawn from Georgia to be returned to Russia, rather than remain in the region. But I think basically we don't know of any troops; most of the equipment is being redeployed to Russia or destroyed; and it's a fairly small number of pieces that have gone to Armenia and remain under Russian control.

So that's the way we know the facts. It is being done in compliance with the agreements at Istanbul that lead to an overall reduction of the Russian presence in this region, and that is certainly something that we have been working toward for a long time. QNew subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Please.

Q: I have two questions with regards to Taiwan. The first question, do you have anything to say on Taiwan's announcement of its decisions to cancel the fourth nuclear power plant? I know the Department has previously expressed concern about the fulfillment of contractual obligations, but do you have any concern that this might have an adverse impact on the US business confidence in Taiwan?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't think I am prepared to draw the kind of broader conclusions that you want us to draw. The decision on whether to proceed with the construction is a decision for the Taiwan authorities to make. Certainly our major concern is that contract provisions all be fulfilled. I would note that the design, the reactor design, is certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission here in the United States. It is safe for construction in the United States, so we would hope that this would not reflect in any way on the quality of this reactor, which is certified.

But we certainly think it is a decision for them to make and, at the same time, we will advocate on their behalf to see that contract provisions are obeyed.

Q: You have no concern about possible loss of confidence by the US business?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that is maybe better for business people to comment on it than for me.

Q: Another Taiwan question. The former Taiwanese president, Mr. Lee Teng-hui, is contemplating another visit to Cornell University. How would the United States Department of State react to the aspirations of a private citizen?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that is still hypothetical, but let me check and see if we have had any requests and how we're dealing with them.

Q: Staying on Asia, can you say whether the State Department has been in touch with the North Koreans on the incursion incident where two US planes strayed into North Korean territory?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the UN Command has been in touch with them. Let me go through -- okay, for those of you who don't know, there is an exercise that is being conducted for the 39th time in South Korea between the United States and South Korean militaries. Two US aircraft accidentally entered North Korean airspace. The pilots were notified of their error by US and Republic of Korea air force personnel. They immediately returned to South Korean airspace. We notified North Korea of the error, I think, through military authorities at Panmunjom. Further details on this you can get from the Pentagon.

Q: There was a scathing Washington Post editorial today. "We were amazed that the Secretary of State would allow herself to be photographed smiling as 100,000 essentially enslaved laborers performed for her and one of the world's most repressive dictators . . . It's not an argument against engagement; it's an argument about whether you engage without compromising your values." And they concluded by saying, "Her silence on this repression -- they argue she didn't raise human rights enough, and then said, "Her silence diminished US credibility not only on the issue of North Korea but on human rights in general."

What is your response to that?

MR. BOUCHER: For family newspapers?

(Laughter.)

I mean, let me try to do this on a couple of levels. First of all, the Secretary of State has spent her life studying communist systems. She made quite clear in her remarks in North Korea that she was not wearing rose-colored glasses. She understands what is going on. She understands the place in history. She understands what happens to these systems probably better than anybody in this building, and certainly better than I do.

So I don't think one can pretend in any way that she didn't know -- that she doesn't understand the dynamics of this system and doesn't understand as well, I think, the situation of ordinary people. Granted, we were in meeting rooms and banquet halls, but we do in advance -- she did look at quite a lot of material on North Korea. She understands quite clearly, I think, what goes on there, and not only in the specific context but also in the historical context of the kind of change that we have fought for and encouraged, that she has fought for and encouraged, throughout the world.

So I don't think there is anybody that can question her credentials on either understanding communist systems or human rights.

Second of all, for the first time in any discussions in the United States-North Korean relationship, she had the opportunity this time at the highest possible level to place human rights issues on our agenda with the highest North Korean leaders. We have raised human rights issues in every one of our meetings in the past and in every one of our sessions that we have had in the past with them, but this was her first opportunity -- and she took it -- to place human rights on the agenda, the issue of meeting international human rights standards as North Korea seeks to take a place in the world.

There are a great number of nations that are discussing issues and relationships with North Korea, and we hope this is a message that they will get from others as well.

Anyway, she raised it directly with Kim Jong Il, placed it clearly on our agenda as we move forward. And that is the first time that has been done, and I think that was important that she did that.

Finally, I think I would have to note that South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, whose credentials on human rights are certainly unassailable, has encouraged us to proceed, has encouraged us to proceed in this manner, and we work extraordinarily closely with our South Korean allies. The Secretary spent an hour and a half with him yesterday. We coordinated with the South Koreans and the Japanese.

So, really, it is important to the United States to deal with the security issues. The dangers of missiles, the dangers of nuclear developments on the Peninsula, need to be dealt with, and we are dealing with those. But I would make very clear the Secretary, at the same time, placed human rights issues on the agenda at the highest level with North Korea during her trip, and I think that is an important development as well.

Q: In regard to missiles specifically, will there be next week a meeting? Do you have any details as to whom -- which Secretary is going to do that, I've forgotten -- but anyway, do you have any details yet as to the meeting between the North Koreans and the United States on missiles?

And, secondly, what was your eyewitness experience with regard to the raising of the topic of missiles? Was this something that came from the North Koreans first, or did it -- was it spontaneous, or how do you remember it coming about?

MR. BOUCHER: All right. The missile talks will take place next week. We don't have the where and the exact when yet. But Assistant Secretary Einhorn will lead them on our side.

To then work back into your second question, this is part of a process that really stems from the visit when Vice Marshall Jo came to Washington, when we heard some ideas and possible ways of dealing with the missile issue that we thought were interesting. And the Secretary went to North Korea in order to clarify those ideas. And she reached, I think, a stage in her discussions which was quite positive, which we've heard more about those ideas from the North Koreans. We've been able to flesh out some of the details and make sure we understand clearly what they might be prepared to do in these areas.

But there is more detail, still. I think we're not just taking the generalities, or even the first or second level of detail that we were able to achieve in Pyongyang, but we're looking for what you might call the third and fourth levels of details to really understand these concepts and how they might work in practice. And that is what the Einhorn talks will try to do.

Q: Will the President's visit, to some extent, be dependent on the outcome of these talks?

MR. BOUCHER: As long as I get "to some extent," yes. I mean, I can't tell you exactly to what extent. That will be for the President to decide. But I'm sure they will get together soon with the President and discuss these issues and the kinds of proposals that we are dealing with, the decisions that he may have to make down the road. Whether -- how exactly he decides to do this will depend on a number of factors, but I'm sure the prospects or reality of what happens at the Einhorn level will affect the outcome.

Q: Has the Secretary spoken to the President and briefed him at all about her trip? Are there plans for her to visit the White House for a more --

MR. BOUCHER: She spoke to the President -- I don't even know what day -- the night before last. No, on the way out of -- after she left North Korea. She left -- she spoke to him, I think, from Seoul. And she has also kept in touch with National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and spoken to him a number of times. I think she has spoken or will speak with Secretary Cohen, and Berger as well. They are putting together a meeting with the President, but it is not put together yet.

Q: So at the time when she -- when she was leaving North Korea, she said she would make a report to the President. Is that the meeting you're talking about as being set up now?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. That is the meeting that is being set up.

Q: And no date has been set for that yet?

MR. BOUCHER: No, not that I'm aware of. I'm not sure we announce those anyway, but no date set at this point.

Q: Can you say whether there was movement on the US opening some sort of diplomatic presence in North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't really say much more than we've said, than the Secretary said in her press conferences in North Korea, that this was discussed. Having liaison officers, in fact, is something that was agreed some time ago with the North Koreans, but the timing and the details remain to be settled, and they're not settled at this point.

Q: Can I just have one quick follow-up on North Korea? This issue of the aircraft that accidentally entered the space -- do you think it's a non-issue at this point, or do you expect there to be diplomatic -- now, with this new warming of relations between the US, do you think there will be any kind of talk through this building with the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: There may be contacts with them. I don't know for sure at this point, but we have gone through the Panmunjom Channel. Our military people have explained this was accidental, it was an error, and we have notified North Korea of the error. So, I mean, these things happen.

Q: Were they aware of it before we notified them, or was there a notification how they became aware of it? Was the plane ever in danger?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't think so. I mean, "in danger," I don't think so. But whether they knew or not, I don't know.

Q: To go back to the subject of the human rights discussion, if I may, you said that the Secretary put it on the agenda at the highest level. Can you tell us something about the character of his response? I mean, he has made jokes about the missiles, which people have taken -- nonetheless taken his comments seriously. What kind of response did she get on that subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't -- I mean, the jokes about the missiles comment I'll let pass because I don't think that actually plays out when you look at the facts. But, on the other hand, on human rights, I'd say it was an initial exchange of views that we heard. We heard their view. We placed it clearly on our agenda, made clear that we thought international standards had to be -- should be accepted, and we started to hear back from them on their views. I think it's -- but it was really, at this stage, I would describe it as an initial conversation rather than a detailed one.

Q: Changing the subject to Russia, a group of GOP senators is threatening to subpoena documents related to the Gore-Chernomyrdin deals if they're not submitted by, I believe, noon on Monday. Do you know if the State Department plans to give those documents? I guess they didn't do it this week when asked, and I wonder how it will play out.

MR. BOUCHER: At this stage, we've dealt, I think, with the facts of the matter. But as far as the documents involved, we do take these requests seriously. We have a request under active consideration at very senior levels in the State Department, but we don't have a decision, an outcome, or an understanding yet.

Q: Back to Korea for just a moment. It occurred to me to ask: What has happened? What evidence is there to support a real d��ente between North Korea and South Korea, and especially between the United States and North Korea, as far as incidents are concerned, how seriously they are being taken, such as the two planes that we have talked about? Is there evidence to say that d��ente is on?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not a word we're using. It's kind of old. What is happening is that we have seen, you might say, a change in intention and change in atmosphere that's been expressed between the North Koreans and the South Koreans, and then between the United States and North Korea.

What we're involved in is trying to translate that into the kind of concrete steps that would deal with threats like the missile program, threats to security in the region, threats to security on the Peninsula, and actually achieve, for the benefit of the people who live there, for the benefit of the people in the region, and for the benefit of the whole world, the kind of security -- a stable outcome on security issues that can lead us into the rest of the issues that would have to be dealt with as North Korea seeks to emerge into the world.

Q: New subject? I put a request in about these El Salvadoran generals that are on trial in civil court in Florida. And I was just wondering -- there was apparently a lot of evidence that they murdered these four nuns, or sanctioned the execution of these four nuns, and I was wondering, what was it that allowed them to get a visa into the United States, given the fact that there was this compelling evidence against them?

MR. BOUCHER: They got their visas in 1984 and 1989. They were issued B-2 Non-Immigrant Tourist Visas to General Jose Guillermo Garcia Merino. On November 30, 1984, our Embassy in Salvador issued an immigrant visa to Carlos Eugenio Vidas Casanova on May 18th , 1989. At the time of the applications, the US Embassy had no information that either of these individuals was ineligible for the categories of visa for which they applied.

But then for questions as far as asylum applications or the status as permanent residents, I'll have to refer you to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, since once these people arrived, it's the Immigration Service that is in charge of their status here.

Q: If there was -- so basically, you say that there was no evidence that they didn't meet the visas, then that means that there was no evidence floating around that they were potentially murder suspects? Would that make them ineligible for visas?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you would have to look at specifically the visa law for that.

Q: Richard, this is still a big issue in Bangladesh and she, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, was in Washington to discuss with President Clinton and with Attorney General Janet Reno. The three Bangladeshi fugitives, the killers of the founder of -- the Father of the Nation of Bangladesh, or whatever -- they are in the US. And can the US send them back without an extradition treaty with Bangladesh, which is under way? Or what is the status of the treaty, and also these fugitives who are in this country for the last ten years or so?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. On some of the legal aspects of this, I think I really do need to refer you to the Department of Justice. We are aware that this is very important to her and very important to the Government of Bangladesh, and certainly it's something we are trying to deal with the Government of Bangladesh on. We do have discussions of the extradition treaty -- is that the right word? I forget if we call them discussions, talks, or negotiations.

But the subject of an extradition treaty has been discussed between the United States and Bangladesh, but I don't really have any news for you at this point. And that eventually would constitute a basis for extradition if that was what to occur. But I think there is also the question of entry and deportation.

Q: Just to follow that, because this may be a big issue also in the next year or so in the Bangladesh election, that she came with two issues in mind to Washington: one, to bring these people back to stand trial; and, number two, that illegal Bangladeshis in this country should be given permanent status or something like that. And she failed in both.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not going to make that kind of judgment. These are issues that she raised with us that we know are important to the Bangladeshi Government, and we are trying to deal with them as best we can in the context of our laws and our relationship.

Q: If I can come back to the Middle East. Since the White House is playing down the possibility of a visit by Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat, are there any plans for activity by people in this building in this regard in the coming days?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there are plans for activity.

(Laughter.)

Q: Okay. Meetings? Is anybody going to travel to the region? Is anybody going to come here and meet them? What about the meetings that were planned for other negotiators to come to Washington within two or three weeks of the Sharm el Sheikh discussions?

MR. BOUCHER: All right. There are no plans for travel at this point by US officials. Acting Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami has asked to come to Washington to meet with the Secretary and others. We have agreed. We expect him here next week about mid-week.

We continue to discuss with both parties the efficacy of meetings at various levels, both here and in the region. But I think I need, at the same time, to say that we are also continuing to work with the parties to encourage the implementation of their commitments at Sharm el Sheikh, and we really think that that's very important to do. We will continue to work on that, and we think that the imperative is to carry out their obligations and to meet their commitments from Sharm el Sheikh.

Q: How about any plans for visits by Palestinian officials?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of anything at this point.

Q: Have there been any requests?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. I'd have to --

Q: Richard, what about the comments by Barak's Chief of Staff and the Palestinians as well that the Oslo process of having the US be the primary mediator is dead, and that the US can no longer be the sole mediator?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm happy not to have seen those comments, and therefore I won't say anything in response. But I think, in general, the United States continues to play a central role. Obviously it's up to the parties to reach agreement. And if they want to reach agreement in some other way, then we'd have to see that. But obviously our role has been to facilitate because the parties have asked us to, and they continue to look to us for many aspects of this process.

Q: Is it clear to you that Ben-Ami is coming as Barak's person, or is he coming to try and save what he sees might be left of the peace process, or --

MR. BOUCHER: He is coming as the Acting Foreign Minister of Israel.

Q: Richard, what about the continued use of equipment such as the Apache helicopters against civilian targets? Has there been any discussion with Israel about the violations, pure violations of the agreements between the United States and Israel on this point? And not only the Apaches, but other things --

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to say, once again, that it is not really a question I can give you an answer to because it makes a lot of assumptions that I'm not sure we've made. But the important thing is for both sides to move quickly to implement these commitments from Sharm el Sheikh. We continue to work with them. We think that's the most expeditious means to reducing tensions, ending the violence, restoring the calm, and finding their way back to the negotiating table. So that is the agenda that we are working with, both sides right now. We do know that their security people have had meetings, and we continue to work with them to try to encourage implementation of those commitments.

Q: The areas of the Sharm el Sheikh agreement that call on both leaders to do what they can to try to contain the violence, have you seen either or both leaders fulfill that part of the agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: I think early on we were quite clear about people who had made statements, the meetings that had started, and some of the things that had happened. But clearly they need to do more, and the President was quite clear in saying that he thought Chairman Arafat can still do more to dramatically reduce the level of violence. So I think we have been fairly clear about where that stands, but I'm not going to try to do a daily judgment or daily update.

Q: You have said that the United States is -- or the general consensus seems to be that the United States has to still play the central role in peacemaking in the Middle East. But are there any steps by other actors that you would like to see at this point or that you would consider helpful -- specific steps? I mean, by European officials or UN officials?

MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look back to the Sharm el Sheikh meetings, there were a number of people involved that were helpful in one way or the other in helping calm the violence, keep in touch with the parties, organize the fact-finding commission, which we are -- get an agreement on that, which we are again in the role of having to try to put together in consultation with others, including the UN Secretary General. We're working actively on that.

But the centrality of the US role was quite clear there. I think it remains quite clear afterwards because that is what the parties want. And one of the things the parties did make clear at Sharm el Sheikh, given whatever the emotion of the moment, whatever the hostility and the degree of conflict that had broken out, that they did want to get back to the peace process and they did want to get back to a peace process involving the United States as the honest broker and the facilitator. And I don't see anything that has really changed in that since then. Clearly there are a lot of international parties that can help, that have a role, but they wanted us in the past to be at a central focus of the peace process, and they appear to want us to be there in the future.

Q: Can I follow up by asking about the 100,000 Americans, including 60,000 Jewish-Americans, and 30,000 Palestinian-Americans, who are resident in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The Department issued a warning about travel there. Are they issuing any warning to some of these Americans to perhaps leave?

MR. BOUCHER: What we have issued is the cautions that we have issued so far. We stand by those. Those apply to all Americans. We don't, frankly, differentiate between different ones. Americans are Americans are Americans. And I don't -- if we have different advice, we'll give it to everybody.

Q: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:55 P.M.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN