*EUR404 04/05/01
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, Thursday, April 5, 2001
(Russia, Yugoslavia, China, Mideast, Poland, Canada, terrorism) (8740)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Daily Press Briefing Index

April 5, 2001

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

RUSSIA
-- NTV Ownership Dispute
-- Status of US Diplomats Asked to Depart

YUGOSLAVIA
-- UN Team in Belgrade to Deliver Arrest Warrant for Milosevic

CHINA
-- PRC Ambassador's Meeting with Deputy Secretary Armitage
-- US Ambassador Prueher's Meetings with PRC Assistant Foreign Minister
-- Secretary Powell's Letter to Vice Premier Qian Qichen
-- US-PRC Discussions on Aircraft Accident / Access to Air Crew
-- US Access to Air Crew / Condition and Welfare of Crew
-- US View of PRC Call for US Apology
-- US-PRC Relationship
-- Aircraft / Sovereign Immunity / International Law
-- US Contacts with Other Countries on Aircraft Accident
-- Congressional Delegations Planned Travel to China
-- Reported PRC "Interrogation" of Air Crew
-- US Officials on Hainan Island / Efforts
-- China Accession to WTO

MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
-- Israeli Settlement Activity
-- Bilateral Security Cooperation Meeting / US Role
-- Firing at Convoy / Secretary Powell's Call to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat

POLAND
-- Secretary Powell's Meeting with Polish Foreign Minister

CANADA
-- Summit of the Americas in Quebec

TERRORISM
-- Reported Arrest of Usama bin Laden Associates

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001 -- 12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I won't read for you the entire statement but, as you know, we put out a statement on the ownership dispute for NTV in Russia. So if anybody has questions about that, glad to answer them; otherwise, you've seen it already. And I'd be glad to take your questions about that or about anything else.

QUESTION: On the Serb atrocities -- do you have something on that?

Q: Yeah, actually. Did Ted Turner request this statement?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Q: So this was just purely done out of your own -- you decided that you think foreign ownership or -- is a good thing for NTV?

MR. BOUCHER: We have consistently said that we believe in the independence of the media; we believe in the independence of NTV. We've tried to make very clear all along that there should be options, including the option of foreign ownership, that would be valuable to maintaining that independence. And so it's not unusual that in this context we would mention that possibility, particularly when it comes to the lack of transparency and the way some of the share ownership issues are being handled.

Q: So this was done of your own volition?

MR. BOUCHER: Done of our own volition. We believe in free press. We believe this is important to maintain the independence, and that working out a deal with foreign owners would help maintain the independence.

Q: Serb authorities have refused to accept an arrest warrant this morning for Milosevic. They gave technical reasons, but I wonder if you had anything in response to or in reaction to that, please.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that they have refused to accept it. I am told that the delivery of a warrant is just an administrative procedure; it's not a major event. Certainly our fundamental position on this has not changed. We support the tribunal and we will continue to urge Yugoslavia to cooperate fully with the tribunal in this matter, as in others.

Q: So this is practically of no substance, right?

MR. BOUCHER: That's what I'm told. It's a delivery process rather than a major event.

Q: Can you say who the Chinese Ambassador met with this morning and if he brought a response to the letter sent to Qian Qichen last night, and what the Secretary has been doing on this issue?

Q: And everything else?

Q: And everything else?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, that's four things. Let me just answer the last question and dispense with the others.

This morning, the Chinese Ambassador came in. He met with Deputy Secretary Armitage for about 20 or 30 minutes. This is part of our continuing discussions with the Chinese. During the night our time, meaning during Thursday China time, Ambassador Prueher met twice with the Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong.

In all these meetings, we are urging the immediate release of all members of the air crew, full access to the air crew until they are released, and of course the return of our aircraft.

The Ambassador, during his meetings overnight, provided the Assistant Foreign Minister with copies of the Secretary's letter to Vice Premier Qian Qichen, which we had passed to the Chinese, which the Secretary had handed to Ambassador Yang last night at a meeting that he and Deputy Secretary Armitage had.

So that is the process, the meetings that were held. In terms of what we're discussing, I think we continue to make the point that these people, the air crew, need to be released. We continue to, as appropriate, express our regret on behalf of the American people for the loss of the Chinese pilot, or the Chinese pilot who remains missing. I think I shouldn't get ahead of myself on that. Obviously we sympathize with the Chinese family, the pilot's family.

The substance of these meetings we're going to keep to ourselves in some degree. I would describe them, though, as working to resolve the matter; that we have urged the Chinese to act quickly to resolve the matter. We do want to get this matter behind us, and we want the Chinese to work with us toward that end.

Q: Have you made any progress?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize the progress or lack thereof in one way or another.

Q: Are these negotiations?

MR. BOUCHER: I described them the way I'm going to describe them. I'm going to not go beyond that. We're having intensive discussions with the Chinese at this point. We are at a sensitive moment. These matters, especially the access to and release of our air crew, are very, very important to us. We want to keep working on this and make sure we do everything we can to find ways to resolve these issues.

Q: We understand that there is no prospect of our access to the crew taking place during the nighttime hours in China right now. Does that slow things down at all?

MR. BOUCHER: It is the middle of the night in China right now. We have been pressing hard, both in Washington and in Beijing, in these meetings for free and unfettered access to our crew members. I can't give you anything specific at this moment, but we are hopeful that that will occur.

Q: Richard, the Secretary remarkably got up at 2:30. He was at work on the subject at 2:30 in the morning, which is a little early to get up on your birthday.

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, that's right, I was -- part three.

Q: Unless he was baking a cake, can you give us some details or make it -- fill out the color image that we are getting here, which is a Secretary very hard at work at a very unusual hour?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me sort of describe the pattern of the last several days has been that we have been working in Washington during the daytime, and then in China during the nighttime. Obviously when you have a situation such as when Ambassador Prueher has a meeting with the Assistant Vice Minister, and then has another one, it is useful for him to talk to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary Armitage in between those.

So I think over the course of the night, maybe starting yesterday evening to this morning, Deputy Secretary Armitage probably talked to Ambassador Prueher twice, maybe more. I'm not certain. I think the Secretary talked to him three times. The Secretary also talked to, I think, the Deputy Chief of Mission there once between the meetings.

So, as I said, we are in a period of intensive diplomacy. The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have been working very closely with our Ambassador, as well as with their colleagues in the White House and other departments of government. So there has been a lot of telephone calls going on, and we are working this issue as hard as we can.

Q: Is there any thought or proposal to bringing military officers from both sides in, either in Beijing or here, to discuss the details of what happened?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I'm not going to be able to talk about thoughts or proposals. Sorry.

Q: Do the Chinese continue to ask for an apology or seek an apology? And do they -- yesterday we went back and forth a little bit about whether an apology would do it, or whether there are other things they want in addition. Can you expand on that at all?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't really expand on that. I think you have seen the Chinese public statements. I don't think I have seen the Ambassador on TV yet today, but certainly yesterday evening he was talking about an apology. But I also saw the foreign ministry statement that expressed some appreciation for our statement yesterday that we do, in fact, regret the situation of the Chinese pilot.

Q: Richard, does the recent nice handling of the situation present a shift of policy from Bush Administration about China? I think a shift in a more positive territory, like it was before elections when China was to be considered more like a competitor? After these hard words, is now the situation handled more mildly as it was by our problems with China during the Clinton Administration? What's the reason?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I would characterize it as a shift in policy. We clearly have a specific and very serious and difficult situation to deal with here: an accident that occurred over international waters and the emergency landing, the consequences thereof, the loss or potential loss of a Chinese pilot. So it's a very complicated and serious situation that occurred.

It is, I think, pure speculation to say that this would have been handled one way or another in some other -- at some other moment. This Administration is quite clear overall that we want to build a productive relationship with China and we want to encourage an integration of China into world affairs, into world rules, world systems. That has been the Secretary's statement, the President's statements and others.

And in this particular situation, we have been stressing again and again -- in public and with the Chinese -- that it is important to resolve this matter quickly, satisfactorily, to see our crew returned, to see our airplane returned, so that we can get on with this broader relationship.

Q: Is the Foreign Minister's statement expressing appreciation enough to give rise to some of these stories that there's a glimmer of hope, a little bit of optimism now? And can you explain what reasoning the Secretary used in bumping this up to Qian Qichen and using a letter as the mechanism he told us he was looking for?

MR. BOUCHER: Based on my reading of stories over the last few days, I don't think it takes much reason at all to write stories, so I'm not going to comment on whether there is sufficient grounds for writing glimmer-of-hope stories. (Laughter.)

What I will do is not characterize it one way or the other, and you can write what you want, but I'm not going to try to characterize it one way or the other.

Q: Wait, and what about the letter?

MR. BOUCHER: Now, why did we write a letter to Qian Qichen, to Vice Premier Qian Qichen? A number of reasons: he is a responsible leading official of the Chinese Government; the Secretary talked to him two weeks ago personally about many, many matters, including the desire to build an overall relationship and to work on the overall relationship. So the Secretary thought it was appropriate to write to the Vice Premier in view of their discussion of the importance of the relationship and discuss how we could resolve these issues and then get on with building that kind of relationship.

Q: And a letter is more effective than a phone call?

MR. BOUCHER: He is traveling with President Jiang Zemin at this point. I think it was a better way to reach him.

Q: You never answered whether you had had any response to the letter. And secondly, I understand you don't want to go into details, but can you at least tell us whether there are any sort of, you know, compromise proposals or resolution proposals that are floating around out there between you?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize the nature of the discussions or the topics that are being discussed beyond what I've done, so I can't talk about --

Q: And you --

MR. BOUCHER: I can't talk about things floating, I can't talk about responses at this point. We're in discussions. I'll leave it at that .

Q: Richard, is the United States yet prepared to accept China's claim that it is an injured party, or the injured party, in this? And then secondly, can you take another stab at your explanation of why this plane has sovereign immunity?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me do the two things. First of all, I think on the basic issue, our position remains that it is not possible for us to provide a detailed explanation or a detailed understanding of what went on until we have a chance to talk to our air crew in a full and unfettered manner. So many of these questions that you are asking about whether we accept this, whether we understand that, whether we can explain this, really depend on our getting the kind of full and unfettered access to our air crew that we have been asking for, both out of the humanitarian need, but also ourselves to understand more fully what happened.

Now, we can spend 20 minutes reading legal argument, but let me give you the summary, and if you need more later, I'll talk to you about that. An aircraft that is legally present in China is entitled to sovereign immunity under principles of customary international law -- this aircraft.

The aircraft was operating in international air space -- that is, beyond 12 miles from the coastline -- when the collision occurred. Under customary international law, as reflected in the Law of Sea Convention, it was entitled to operate in the location of the collision over international waters, and we were engaging in traditional military activities, which are legally permissible in international air space.

International law requires that in the exclusive economic zone -- that's beyond 12 but within 200 miles of the coastline -- activities are conducted with due regard to China's rights and duties in the zone as a coastal state; for example, rights with respect to marine resources. The activities of our aircraft do not interfere with any such Chinese rights and duties, so we were doing what we were entitled to do in international air space.

On the issue of the right to land, we had an aircraft that was clearly in distress once the collision occurred, and it followed standard international procedures. It broadcast a mayday signal over 121.5 megahertz, the international air distress frequency that is monitored around the world, and then it diverted to the nearest air field to save our crewmen's lives. Our aircraft had a right under international law and under basic humanitarian considerations to make an emergency landing on Chinese territory.

Our aircraft in China is entitled to sovereign immunity under principles of customary international law, and at this point I think I will leave off and we can talk later about the Paris Convention of 1919, especially Article 32. We can talk about the Chicago Convention and how that may or may not have pertained. We can give you legal citations from Law and Public Order in Space, and give you a few other legal citations.

Q: Okay, but all of those -- I won't belabor this now, but we'll do if afterwards -- but all of those would relate to the main question, which is the one that you haven't answered here, because you say we would be getting into too many details, which is why it has sovereign immunity once it is on the ground in China. Those, what you just cited -- Paris, Chicago, Space, whatever -- will provide the explanation for why it is entitled to sovereign immunity on Chinese soil now?

MR. BOUCHER: Both what I said and the additional information pertain to that because the aircraft was legally operating where it was; it was entitled to make the emergency landing; and it is an aircraft that is entitled to sovereign immunity. So the one flows from the other to the other.

Q: Two questions. One, has there been any kind of diplomatic message sent to our embassies or to the governments where the Chinese Premier Jiang Zemin is going to be touring Europe-wide, Chile?

MR. BOUCHER: We are in touch with governments around the world who have been interested in our position in understanding the issue. We have made clear our positions and our interests, particularly our interest in our crew, our regret over the missing Chinese pilot, and our desire to see this resolved expeditiously.

To what extent other governments may be having discussions with the Chinese, where it may come up in their conversations, at this point we don't know.

Q: If Secretary Powell's letter was an attempt to kind of bring it up to a higher level with his personal involvement, have the Chinese responded in kind? And should we expect to see a more personal involvement by Secretary Powell with a commensurate level in China, perhaps Qian Qichen?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that is a variation on the question of, do we have an answer to the letter. I am not able to go into that level of detail of the discussions at this point. We have said there is intensive diplomacy. There has been a lot of meetings. Whether we get a letter back, whether we get it conveyed orally from the foreign ministry, depends on the Chinese.

Q: Well, in the letter --

MR. BOUCHER: And so I don't know exactly what will happen. What I do expect to happen is that we will continue to have these sort of intensive meetings and discussions with the Chinese.

Q: Can I follow up? In the letter, did Secretary Powell ask that further communications might be brought to this higher level between himself and Qian Qichen for instance?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to characterize the letter, but I don't think that is a particularly important aspect of the situation. What is important is that we work through all levels and all means to try to resolve this quickly.

Q: On what access to the crew, Richard? How troubling is it that the Chinese imply that the US is not cooperating? That's the word they use, "You can't see them until you cooperate."

Have you been given any amplification on what they mean by cooperate, and why they would have a reason to say --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I've seen them say that, so I don't think I can characterize it. Maybe I missed something, but I think we have said that we don't see any grounds for impeding our access. We think there should be full and unfettered access, and we continue to maintain that that's what we need.

Q: Well, if you haven't heard that, what is their explanation for why they're not letting you?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to try to characterize the Chinese position on this. We don't see any reason for impeding our access.

Q: Richard, you've talked about the need -- you said that you couldn't find out what really happened until you had had access to them. Would the United States consider some kind of joint investigation of this incident so that you can find out from both sides what happened?

MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said yesterday, we'd be willing, interested, in exchanging explanations. I don't think I can go beyond that at this point.

Q: Richard, is it your understanding that Qian Qichen has received -- this is a yes or no answer. Is it your understanding that the Vice Premier has received Secretary Powell's missive?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, it's an I-don't-know answer. That's a question you would have to ask the Chinese. We assume so. I know we've given it to the Chinese government for transmittal.

Q: So the Ambassador did not tell Deputy Secretary Armitage --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether he did or not, frankly. Personally, I don't know, and I don't think it's for us to say what the -- how this works within the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government has the letter. We assume that Vice Premier Qian Qichen has the letter.

Q: Richard, there are a couple of congressional delegations that have been planning trips to China. Have they asked for any help from the State Department in whether they should go? Have they asked whether they should go?

MR. BOUCHER: We do briefings normally for congressional delegations that might be heading out to China, so I'm sure we'll be talking to these delegations. Obviously the decision on travel is a decision for individual Members of Congress, as in all cases. We are giving them full briefings on the accident with the airplane, but you'd have to check with individual Members on their own plans.

I would say at this point we have not suggested that they not go.

Q: Have they asked you whether they should go?

MR. BOUCHER: It probably varies from Member to Member whether people have asked or not, but at this point we have not suggested to members of these delegations that they not go.

Q: Can you give any kind of response at this point to the fact that there have been credible reports the Chinese have begun interrogating the crew? Is this a violation the customary international law that we've just cited?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say that -- let's just go back to what we know, that we saw our crew on Monday, we knew they were in good condition, we found them in good spirits. They told us they had not been mistreated. I think we have heard from the Chinese from the beginning of this that they were interested in interviewing our crew members about the accident, questioning them about the accident.

I would just come back, I think, ourselves to the importance that we attach to full and unfettered access so that we can talk to our crew, so that we can understand what's going on.

Q: But do you have a position on the legitimacy of questioning them? There are quite a few experts who say that it would be quite legitimate. Do you have a position on this?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure there are any particular legal aspects to this. Certainly, as military members, there are certain obligations or there is a code of conduct that they have that I assume that they are following.

Q: One more on the CODELs. Do you think it would be helpful for them to go at this time to show that we want a full relationship; this should not affect other parts of our relationship?

MR. BOUCHER: Since congressional travel is always a question individually for the Members, I have to say that it's not at this point for us to say one way or the other.

Q: Do you perceive the CODELs as another way to enhance this dialogue, that they may be able to get a point across?

MR. BOUCHER: Isn't that kind of the same question I was just asked?

Q: I'm not sure.

MR. BOUCHER: Do I see it as helpful? Do I see it as a way to enhance dialogue? We're not going to take a position at this point one way or the other on that.

Q: And secondly, the letter that Powell sent to Qian Qichen, did that somehow break the ice here, or was this somehow a turning point or did it ease things -- that letter? How much of -- how instrumental was it?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize a particular individual moment or step for you at this stage. We are in intensive discussions. The letter was part of a process that had begun with meetings and discussions back and forth here and in Beijing. It's a very intensive diplomatic process, but we're at a sensitive moment now. So I don't think I can make any particular claims for an individual piece of this process at this point.

The EP-3 crew was seen on Tuesday.

Q: What is the likelihood of a special envoy, perhaps even the President's father being sent to exchange explanations?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to guess or give you odds on anything at this point.

Q: Can you give us an update on what your presence on the island is right now, the diplomatic presence -- who is there and what exactly they're doing, other than sitting around and waiting?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to think when I last had an update. I didn't get an update this morning. Yesterday I think there were five, maybe a few more people down there. Essentially, people from our Consulate General in Guangzhou, people from our Embassy in Beijing, including the Defense Attach?

From the Consulate General in Guangzhou, the head of our consular section in Guangzhou was down there, and then some of the people that are working with them and helping with them. They have been obviously talking to the foreign affairs officials in Hainan Island to try to gain access to the crew members. I think they were reported out shopping to buy daily use articles and clothing and things like that, which I think they have turned over to the Chinese. Until we see our crew, we won't know what they have gotten.

Q: But there are no --

MR. BOUCHER: But at this point, I don't have a morning update on that.

Q: Okay, but do you know if there are any plans to shift or to change, raise, lower the number of people that are there?

MR. BOUCHER: I think --

Q: In a normal rotation. It would obviously would depend on events, but --

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I remember seeing that they were going to add a few more, but I can't remember if that was from the three to a little more, or from five to a little more. I'm sure that people may be rotated in and out, but certainly we are going to maintain a presence there, we are going to keep working this. When we talked to General Sealock the other night, he said he was going to stay there and work there. Ted Gong, the consular section chief, was going there and work there very moment of every day to do whatever they could to help our people who are being detained.

Q: Richard, are you still calling the crew "detained"?

MR. BOUCHER: I just did.

Q: Are you willing to call them hostages at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: I just called them detained.

Q: When -- is there any --

MR. BOUCHER: Thirteen seconds ago.

Q: -- benchmark that you will be willing to call them hostages at any point? Is the lack of calling them hostages because they haven't asked for anything in return?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into word games with you. I will give you the same answer I gave you yesterday.

Q: Richard, do you expect that the Chinese Ambassador might be back here today, or can you rule that out?

MR. BOUCHER: I certainly can't rule it out. I don't know of any particular meetings scheduled at this point, but I can't rule it out.

Q: With all these conversations and all these exchanges, is there anything that has come from the Chinese you can share with us so far as the personal conditions of this crew? They have been in Chinese hands in one form or another for five days now. We see pictures in the paper of American officials going and buying supplies. We have no way of knowing.

I mean, I think this great human interest in whether they are being treated well, courteously, not so well. Don't the Chinese say anything, like we are getting this stuff to them, they are fine, they are getting fed right? I mean, don't the Chinese tell you anything about how they are treating Americans in captivity? No, I'm serious, it's -- they're the part -- they are as important as the airplane. Or maybe even more.

MR. BOUCHER: My turn?

Q: Sure.

MR. BOUCHER: We have made quite clear all along that our first priority is the welfare of our air crew. The President made that clear in his statements right from the beginning. He has issued several statements, and each of those statements by the President is principally about the welfare of our air crew. So this is the matter that is foremost on our mind.

We met with them on Monday. At that point, the Chinese had told us that they were being well taken care of. We found that to be true. We talked to them directly ourselves; they were in good health, they were in good spirits. They said they had not been mistreated. Their living conditions were quite adequate. They appeared to be sort of in good, clean places where they were staying.

But in the end, for us they are not free to go. And that remains a matter of great concern. And the second matter of great concern is that we don't have unfettered access to them, even while they are being held. And so that is something that we have consistently pressed for.

And there is, as you say, enormous concern in the United States on behalf of their families, certainly on behalf of the government, on behalf of the American people, about their status and their welfare, and we would look for the reassurance of actually seeing them, of actually meeting with them, of actually hearing from them in order to be able to reassure people that they are in good health and they're being well cared for.

Q: But you have no reason at this point to think that --

MR. BOUCHER: I have no reason to think otherwise. The Chinese told us that they were being well treated. That turned out to be true on Monday. I have no reason to doubt it at this point, but there is nothing like seeing them ourselves.

Q: (Inaudible) any members of the first Bush administration who have extensive experience dealing with China in times of crisis, such as President Bush, Sr., --

MR. BOUCHER: Rich Armitage, Dick Cheney --

Q: Outside the administration, such as Scowcroft, Eagleburger.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I am sure he has been in touch with a variety of people, but I don't have a list for you.

Q: You keep talking about unfettered access, but it doesn't seem that there is much access at all. Did you get any indication on when you might be able to see the crew? You know, a couple days ago, the Chinese had given you a few days -- they said in a few days. Have they said you can see them on Saturday, you can see them in a couple of days?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said before, we are hopeful that we will have access soon, and that's about all I can report to you at this moment.

Q: In the question about regarding the interrogations -- or, as you put it, the interviews -- you said that the crew members as military personnel would have certain protocols that they would follow. Could you describe those a little bit? Is that like name, rank and serial number, and no more?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't do that. I'm not the Pentagon. I wouldn't have all the rules on that and what they teach their servicemen.

Q: Following up on that question, has it come up --

MR. BOUCHER: And I'll follow up on my answer. (Laughter.)

Q: Anyway, has that come up in the many discussions that we've had with their foreign ministry? And at this point, I mean, what is the US position on this? Do we think it's appropriate that they even have these interviews at all, considering that they won't let us look at the plane or get any kind of access to the information that we want? So, I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: What we think is appropriate, what we think is important, is for us to have the access that we need to our people, to see to their welfare and to understand the circumstances.

Q: So does that mean that you don't have a particular opinion whether or not, now that we don't have access to our people, that they are being interviewed by Chinese officials at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I don't think I have anything to express on that.

Q: In considerations about the interrogation, the protocols that you cite, that type of thing, are you referring to the Geneva Convention?

MR. BOUCHER: Not particularly.

Q: Too bad. (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Too bad. You guys -- trick questions. I caught it. (Laughter.)

Q: Can I go back to this cooperation issue? In fact, the foreign ministry spokesman in Beijing did actually say that another visit would be considered with the crew, but only if the United States showed a cooperative approach. I know you said you weren't aware he had said that, but do you regard as an unhelpful statement?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we don't think there should be any bar to our having the access. We have not in any way accepted that there needs to be some criteria for our access. We believe that in these circumstances, an air crew that's landing in an emergency, should be in contact with our government and with our government officials. We have made very clear from the start that that was our position, and that full and unfettered access remains our requirement, without any qualification.

Q: Gao Zhan. Today, George Allen is introducing legislation to make her a citizen. Do we have any more feedback from China on this issue, and have you been able to ascertain whether we're bringing this up in parallel with our discussions on the plane incident?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I guess I don't have anything new on that today. I'm sorry.

Q: Do you have any remarks on Israeli plans to auction off more West Bank land to build more houses? And also, any comment on the latest political assassination, which was particularly ingenious -- this exploding phone one.

MR. BOUCHER: The stories of exploding phones, we don't know anything beyond what's in the press reports.

As far as the new permits that have been issued for construction activity, I would say that continuing settlement activity by Israel does risk further inflaming an already volatile situation in the region. This is provocative, and we have consistently encouraged both sides to refrain from provocative acts.

Q: And can you tell us any readout on the security meeting yesterday -- who attended from the US side, what part did he play in it and --

Q: And the convoy that was fired on as it left the talks --

Q: Interesting negotiating tactic.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me do the meeting first and then we'll talk about the situation at the crossing point and the Secretary's phone calls with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat during the course of the late evening.

The Israelis and Palestinians did meet last night for high-level security discussions in Israel. A US representative attended those meetings to facilitate, to monitor, and to report back any developments to the Secretary. We think they had a positive and useful exchange, but I'm not in a position to go into detail on that particular meeting.

We have encouraged the parties, as you know, to resume their bilateral security cooperation as a means of halting the violence. We are pleased to see that the parties agreed to attend the meeting. As the President said last week, we remain fully engaged with all the parties and our agreement to host this security meeting is part of that engagement.

As far as the crossing point, the firing at the convoy last night we see as a very serious incident. When he heard about it, the Secretary immediately telephoned Prime Minister Sharon. He also spoke with Chairman Arafat to discuss what happened. We wanted to ensure that escalation would not ensue. We understand that Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat were also in contact directly during last night as well.

Israel does have a responsibility to provide for the safety and security of Palestinian officials traveling to and from the security meetings. Prior to these meetings, we had been assured by Israeli officials that this would be the case.

At this point, the details and the circumstances of the incident are not entirely clear, but I would point out the Secretary did receive assurances from Prime Minister Sharon that there was no plan and no intent to attack this convoy.

Prime Minister Sharon also told the Secretary that his office would be looking into the incident further. We hope there will be a thorough investigation of the incident so that these kinds of incidents can be prevented in the future.

We note that it is a sensitive and a volatile time in the Middle East. Public statements from both sides should highlight the need for utmost restraint to prevent deterioration of the serious situation on the ground.

Q: Richard, does this incident increase your sense that the US should perhaps step up its involvement in security cooperation right now?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure what we're stepping up from. Last night, we were able to help them have direct talks. We've said we want to facilitate their discussions, we want to encourage them to talk directly. And we would note that in this incident, not only did we talk to Prime Minister Sharon and we talked to Chairman Arafat, but also apparently Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat talked to each other about it, and we would encourage that kind of cooperation.

Q: Okay, but beyond facilitating and phone calls, you don't have any plans right now for involvement in negotiations, mediation, in security issues right now?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I would continue to describe our role the way I described it today. That is what we see as the useful role that we can play by our engagement, is to facilitate their direct bilateral discussions.

Q: You mentioned that the people in attendance at the meeting were high-level Palestinian and Israeli security officials. In the report released this week to Congress on PLO compliance, you targeted or said that there were some Palestinian security officials, such as in Tanzim, and Palestinian police officers who were involved directly in anti-Israeli violence.

Can you be a little bit more specific on who these officials are, and are you making it a point not to work with folks that we know or we suspect to be involved directly in terrorist activities?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can draw -- I wouldn't want to draw a conclusion or a link or a parallel between the meeting and the report that we submit to Congress. We do this report on a regular basis. The report we submitted on March 30th covered a period from June 16th to December 15th of the year 2000. It is a congressionally mandated report. It assesses the status of PLO's compliance with its commitments. It fulfills the congressional mandate, provides the information necessary to our Congress. So I will just leave it at that.

Q: Richard, was Ambassador Indyk in the room during the meeting, and did he in any way speak during the meeting? Was he asked --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think he was personally present, actually.

Q: Who was it that was in the room, then?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

Q: Was the State Department --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. We had -- there were people from our Embassy who were there, as I said, to facilitate, to monitor and to report.

Q: What does "facilitate" mean?

MR. BOUCHER: To help them get together and talk to each other. That is what we are doing. That is, we think, the most useful thing for us to do right now.

Q: And so -- but just on the discussion part, do you know if these people who were facilitating themselves spoke during the meeting, or were they just sitting there silently?

MR. BOUCHER: I doubt if they sat there completely silently. We obviously have an engagement. We have a role in this to play. The Secretary talks to people, the President talks to people, our Ambassador talks to people, and our Embassy officers talk to people. And I am sure they know all the participants in these things and participate to some extent, but the forum is primarily a venue for them to talk to each other.

We all know that we have a role to play. Our engagement can be helpful. We are quite willing to try to facilitate direct discussions, willing to try to help things happen. But ultimately, as we have said many, many times, the parties themselves make the decisions, the parties themselves have to deal with each other, and the parties themselves have to be able to speak to each other and resolve issues for us to bring calm and make some progress here.

Q: I want to go back to China for a minute. Do you have Middle East?

Q: Did the officials in any way have any US proposals, frameworks, any piece of paper at this point? I mean, you said it was not like previous types of engagement yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: I would violate my rule of not going into any further details about the meeting, but from what I have described as our role, and what we did, I would not anticipate that to have been the case.

Q: Richard, can you confirm these reports in Russia that the four American diplomats who the Russians had told to leave have now actually left?

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to double-check on that. I think we both said that they were given 10 days.

Q: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: So I am sure that --

Q: They said that -- these reports say that they left last -- they left Moscow last night.

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to double-check on that one. It seems to be about 10 days, if I remember correctly.

Q: And the other thing is, the Secretary met this morning with the Foreign Minister of Poland, and in light of that, I'm wondering if you can say whether the grand US-Polish cooperation on last year's Community of Democracies thing is going to continue. Is this Administration as committed to that financially and on moral support terms as the last one?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary, I think, has expressed our support for the Community of Democracies, and certainly his commitment and the President's commitment to freedom and democracy around the world is very, very strong. And you have seen it in the meetings he has said and the discussions he has had and the way he has spoken in public about freedom and democracy.

In terms of the particular meeting this morning, it didn't come up because I think the Community of Democracy is really shifting towards the next set of hosts, which I believe is South Korea. And I do remember when the Secretary met with the South Korean Foreign Minister a month, six weeks ago, it was discussed there.

Q: Did they talk about sales of F-16 fighter jets to Poland at all, or would that not be something that would come up with them?

MR. BOUCHER: That would be something that might come up.

Q: And it did?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us more?

MR. BOUCHER: We had a very sensitive discussion, first of all, on a number of issues at the end of the meeting. The Secretary supported a fine American aircraft.

Q: The Secretary did what?

MR. BOUCHER: Supported the sale of fine American aircraft.

Q: And did he urge the Polish Foreign Minister not to buy any not-so-fine European aircraft?

MR. BOUCHER: If I remember correctly, what he said is he encouraged him to buy the best airplane. He said that was ours.

Q: The Polish were among those most concerned about these reports of nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Did they discuss that, and did the Polish Foreign Minister bring any more reports?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, that didn't come up in specifics. Let me give you a sense of what did come up, since I have said several things that didn't and only one that did.

They talked first about the importance of our relationship, the excellent state of our relationship. There was a bit of discussion of bilateral issues towards the end. They talked about NATO and NATO enlargement, how NATO should work on that with countries that might meet the standards, how the decision is one to be made by NATO countries, not others.

They talked about the situation in Russia, the situation in the Ukraine. They talked about the Balkans a bit and, as I said, some of the bilateral and economic issues as well.

Q: Can I go back to China?

Q: Richard, on the economic situation, the US is hoping that China will join the WTO. Have there been discussions that were to take place on their accession to WTO that are not taking place because of this current crisis?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any. The nexus of discussions on WTO issues is a discussion between the Chinese and the WTO itself. So those are not necessarily bilateral discussions with the United States, although obviously we talked to them bilaterally as that process proceeds in Geneva. So I wouldn't know exactly whether they are having discussions at this moment in Geneva or not. But it wouldn't -- I'm not aware of any US discussions that would be held at this moment that might be postponed.

Q: There is talk on the Hill of congressmen yanking their permanent trade status, their altering their trade status with this country, their ability to trade. And I was wondering if talk like that is helpful at this time.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to characterize congressional comments one way or the other. Individual Members are free to say anything they wish. I think we have made quite clear the importance -- we have made quite clear to the Chinese the importance of resolving these issues so that it does not become an impediment in our broader relationship that we want to build, which includes very importantly the economic component.

So I think I will just leave it at that at the moment. That is our view, and we have stated it before.

Q: Richard, the Chinese press has reported the expressions of regret that Secretary Powell gave yesterday. Does the State Department find that encouraging that the other side of the story is being reflected by the Chinese media?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize it one way or the other. I would say that we always think it is important that the full extent of the comments that we make, the full extent of the truth be reported widely. That is why we stand up here and answer all these questions.

Q: Right, but I mean, you know that if they didn't feel that they -- perhaps that the situation was beginning to improve a little bit, they wouldn't have included the -- I mean, for four days, they didn't say that there was --

MR. BOUCHER: That would be very speculative on my part to start interpreting those things.

Q: New subject?

Q: Can I move to Russia, the one that we started on? You mentioned in your statement that you were concerned about media freedoms, and you didn't want NTV to have its independence disturbed.

Do you think then that Gazprom's imposition of a new management is a threat to its independence, or do they need to start selling share to Ted Turner to make it independent?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there are two issues in play right now at this moment. The first is that the questions of ownership and voting rights, these very complex questions, need to be resolved through a transparent legal process. So we are, first of all, concerned that that is not happening.

But as important, and perhaps more important for the issue of freedom of press, is our belief that the editorial staff need to continue to exercise full control over news and information programming at NTV, and we would note that many inside Russia share that view.

Q: New subject?

Q: Some time ago you said we would be hearing a lot more about the Quebec summit from you. We haven't heard anything, and it is two weeks away now. Who is going? What does the United States want to get out of it? There are all kinds of reports that there is going to be trouble up there like there was in Seattle. And what's up?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we don't -- there have been other things going on, so we haven't tried to preoccupy you of the issues.

Q: I know.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that as the summit gets even closer that we will have much more to say. Obviously the President is going, the Secretary of State is going. I believe some of the Cabinet members are going as well. The United States is going to be there to work with our partners in the hemisphere on very, very important issues. I think the main topics will be democracy in the hemisphere, progress on education in the Hemisphere, and progress on free trade in the hemisphere. And we will do more detail as we go on.

Q: Well, could I just follow up on that? President Chavez of Venezuela has been down talking with Cardoso in Brazil, and has stated that the two of them are going to do a lot to determine the future strategy of the hemisphere. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR. BOUCHER: No. We have been talking to President Cardoso of Brazil up here.

Q: Any reaction to arrests today in Italy and in Germany of reputed members of Usama bin Laden's gang, who apparently were targeting the US Embassy in Rome in January?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me see what I can say about that. We have been in touch with the Italian authorities concerning the arrest of five men yesterday in Lombardi. We have been in regular and close contact with the Government of Italy on matters relating to the security of American citizens and to US interests in Italy.

I can't comment to particular reports that the individuals might have had a connection to the events that led to the Embassy closing in January because it is an ongoing investigation.

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 P.M.)

(end transcript)

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