U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #69, 00-07-05
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
526
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER_
MEXICO
1,7,12 President-elect Fox and Comments on US-Mexico Relationship
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-5 Israeli-Palestinian Meetings at Camp David Next Week
2 Secretary Albright’s Participation in Meetings
2 Secretary Albright Unable to Attend G-8 Ministerial in Japan
2 Press Arrangements for Coverage of Meetings
2,3 Size and Members of Delegations/Arrival of Delegations
2-5 Expectations For and Timing of Summit
3 Chairman Arafat’s on Declaring Palestinian State and Summit
CYPRUS
5-6 UN Secretary General Opens Third Session of Cyprus Talks in Geneva
ETHIOPIA / ERITREA
6-7 Expert Level Talks in Washington
UNITED NATIONS
7 President Clinton’s Signing of Two UN Protocols on Child
Soldiers and The Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child
Pornography
IRAN
7-8 Reported Denial of Visas to US Soccer Team / Fingerprinting of
Iranian Team
IRAQ
8 Reports Iraq Testing Short-Range Missiles
FRANCE / EUROPEAN UNION
8-9 European Parliament’s Decision to Investigate Charges of US
Industrial Espionage
CHINA / SINGAPORE / JAPAN
10 Visit of Senior Adviser John Holum and Delegation to Beijing,
Singapore and Tokyo
INDONESIA
11 Indonesia Defense Minister’s Comments on US Embargo on Sale of
Military Equipment
TURKEY
12 Turkish Appellate Court’s Upholding of Conviction of Former
Prime Minister Erbakan
CENTRAL ASIA
12-13 Counter-Terrorism Summit
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #69
JULY 5, 2000, 1:08 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Thanks for waiting.
I don't have any announcements today so I would be glad to take your
questions. Mr. Gedda?
QUESTION: Vincente Fox had a news conference yesterday and talked quite a
bit about his thoughts on relations with the US. He talked about migration
issues, oil prices. Do you have any thoughts on any of that?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think the first thing to note is that the President
talked to Mr. Fox yesterday – yesterday? -- Monday and certainly
we’ve made quite clear, first of all, our belief that this election was
a triumph for democracy in the democratic process in Mexico and the Mexican
people. We’ve congratulated President Elect Fox. We also think that
President Zedillo has made an enormous contribution to Mexican democracy
and that his leadership, commitment and dedication made all this possible.
The issue of our relationships, obviously we look forward to working very
closely and cooperatively with the new Fox administration especially on all
these important issues that you mention of trade, of migration, of
narcotics. And I think the President just said in his news conference that
he would look forward to meeting with Mr. Fox sometime in the near future
or sometime during the course of this year.
So I think we would have to leave it at that for the moment, other than our
interest in the same issues and our willingness to work together with the
new administration in Mexico.
QUESTION: In Mexico, have you seen anything in the last few days since
the election that would either give you confidence and/or cause for concern
that Mr. Fox will be able to bring about the reforms that he wants to
do?
MR. BOUCHER: I think you have to be clear that he’s not yet nominated. We
continue to work with the Mexican administration on all of these issues
that are of great importance to both our countries. And, certainly, we
recognize the importance of the issues that he’s raised and we look forward
to working with him on that. But at this point, it’s too early to start
making judgments of whether he can or cannot do what he intends.
QUESTION: Can we go to – somewhat related to the Mid East, can you say
how the summit next week is going to affect, if at all, the Secretary’s
travel plans?
MR. BOUCHER: She will not – she will not be able to go the G-8
ministerial. She has placed a phone call to the Japanese host, the foreign
minister there, but I don't think she’s actually connected and spoken to
him yet. And she will be talking to her other G-8 counterparts about
it. The Secretary will be full time at Camp David. She will be actively
engaged in the process throughout. As the President made clear, he is
prepared to devote as much time as necessary but he may be in and out of
the process; the Secretary will be a full-time, active presence there in
various levels of meetings we expect to occur. There will be trilateral
meetings with the leaders, there will be different meetings with the
Secretary, there will be meetings between the Israelis and
Palestinians. There will be negotiators’ meetings and the Secretary will
be working in all of those levels actively during the process.
QUESTION: Two things. One is, who is going to go to the G-8 and, secondly,
does that mean that you are also going to be there and that this whole
operation is going to move to someplace in Maryland?
MR. BOUCHER: It’s funny you should ask. There’s a scheduling meeting
going on right now.
QUESTION: But you don’t have that?
MR. BOUCHER: But I don't have a final answer on that one yet. But I think
– I would expect it to be something like previous models of this nature,
in that there would be a significant press operation connected with it,
although perhaps not – probably not – almost definitely not at the
site. The –
QUESTION: (Inaudible) – White House –
MR. BOUCHER: The second question you asked about who would go in the
Secretary’s stead to the G-8, we don’t have anything to announce on
that yet.
QUESTION: Can you give us some idea of how large the delegations might be
that will come to the summit, whether there will be any limitation on the
numbers of people that can be brought from each side? And also what
happened between last week, last Wednesday, Thursday and now that has made
it possible for this summit to go forward?
MR. BOUCHER: Two things. On the size of the delegations that would be
there, I can't give you any numbers at this stage. But I guess I would have
to say that Camp David is a fairly small place. How many exactly it
accommodates from each side in configurations, I think that is something
the White House will have to answer for us. But generally it’s a fairly
small place.
On what happened in the last several days, I think what you’ve seen is a
process that’s been taken through the level of negotiators, it’s been
taken through the level of the Secretary’s various visits. And what’s
happened is a realization that if we are to address, and we hope resolve,
all the core issues of the permanent status, that the remaining decisions
have to be made at the leaders’ level.
So the process that we’ve gone through has, you might say, clarified the
issues, laid out the issues that need to be decided but there is a
realization on our part, on the President’s part and I think now shared
among the parties that the time for decisions and the place for decisions
is at a summit of the leaders.
QUESTION: And one other follow to that if I may, just quickly, there has
been some mention in the Palestinian press about having more than one
summit. Is it your expectation that this is it, we will not be talking
about yet another summit later on in the summer?
MR. BOUCHER: The goal is to reach agreement on all the core issues of
permanent status. And that is the intention at this summit and that is what
we would hope to do here and now.
QUESTION: Do you have any details at all about then arrival dates for the
negotiators who, I understand, are coming in advance of the summit? What
areas they will be considering, where they will be meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have any more sort of logistical detail on the
negotiators. They will come a few days in advance, they will have meetings
in the Washington area, not necessarily at the summit site. The goal I
think is to work with them and with the parties in the context of an
upcoming summit to see if there is more that we can do at that level, more
that we can do to lay out, clarify the issues, look for possible areas of
agreement and therefore to have some meetings in advance of the leaders’
arrival with the negotiators. But clearly in the context of the summit,
because that does change the dynamic to some extent.
QUESTION: What has Chairman Arafat told US officials regarding his
determination to declare a Palestinian state? Now that he’s agreed to the
summit, has he told the President or other officials that he’ll hold off on
that declaration until he sees the outcome? What is the current status of
that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't have anything new on that that I can
share.
QUESTION: Then also if I could just follow up on something the Secretary
said I think last week, which was, a lot of people are questioning whether
or not this has more to do with the President’s timing rather than the
timing in the Middle East and the Secretary was quoted as having said that
the timing – one of the dates that we’re looking at for the timing in
the Middle East is January 20th, which would be Inauguration Day
for the new US president. So does she consider this to be something that is
both driven by US presidential timing as well as Mid East issues?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary’s context was to say that she has
until January 20th that she can work on this. The timing is
really based on the substance and the substance has been brought to the
point where we believe that much has been done, but as much as can be done
has been done at the negotiator level and through the Secretary’s trips.
The issues are there. As the President said, we have an idea of what the
deal is, what the options are. And we’ve worked this at every level. And
the only way to get the final agreement is to bring them together at the
higher level, at the summit level, and to make the tough decisions that
relate to the core issues of permanent status. So the timing is based on
the substance and the work that needs to be done and how best to accomplish
it and at this moment it’s the President’s view and the consensus of
the leaders in the region, as the President said he talked to them, that
the work that needs to be done next has to be done at the summit level.
QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about – the President had said
that this was much harder than the original Camp David Summit. Could you
kind of compare how much more difficult the issues are and also what you
think it is about Camp David and the atmospherics of it that might lead to
the leaders feeling comfortable?
MR. BOUCHER: I appreciate the two questions and I would love to give a
long and historical exposition but I really do think the President answered
both of those questions and I don't have anything to add to what he said.
QUESTION: Let me go back to Rebecca’s question for a moment and ask
has – one, has the Secretary of State come completely around to the view
that the President has about having the summit in Camp David, number one?
And was that something that was based on – I believe you said it was a
few minutes ago – based on what’s happened since her trip to the
Middle East, since she said that the summit was – there was not a mature
enough negotiation for the summit yet and the time since she’s been
back? Can you explain if that time period has in fact changed
everybody’s mind about this?
MR. BOUCHER: It goes without saying – and I didn’t say it – but
obviously this is a decision that was made by the President with full
concurrence and discussion with the Secretary. He, himself, noted that he
had made this decision based on the report that the Secretary gave him and
his discussions over the past few days with the leaders and the Secretary
obviously was part of those discussions as well. So clearly this is a
decision that the Administration made, that the President makes as the head
of the Administration but in close consultation with the Secretary and his
other senior advisors.
As far as why now, I think the chief consideration is what the President
laid out, and that is that the work that has been done in other levels has
been useful in achieving some progress in laying out the issues. But the
real decisions that have to be made now have to be made at the summit level
and therefore it’s time to go to that level and try to reach those
agreements.
QUESTION: Just to clarify if I might, please, some terminology. I
understand and I think everyone understands that a final agreement is the
desired goal. But is the desired goal for the summit which will start next
week a final agreement or a framework agreement, just to be clear?
MR. BOUCHER: The agreement that we’re seeking at the summit is an
agreement that would deal with all the core issues of permanent status
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think that’s the best way to
describe it. It is really the fundamental agreement on the core issues of
the permanent status.
QUESTION: Richard, as far as the Middle East peace is concerned, how much
do you think the global oil supply is affected from this, not having the
peace in the Middle East? And also how much support the US or the peace
process has from the Asian and the Arab countries, in Asia like India or
China and others?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the first question, if I were to attempt some kind
of answer on that, I would be breaking Rule Number 1, which is don’t say
anything that can move markets. But I think on your second question, how
much support is there, the Secretary has been calling, talking on the
telephone with leaders in the region. She’s talked so far with King
Abdullah in Jordan, with Foreign Minister Saud in Saudi Arabia. She talked
to President Mubarak of Egypt and she’ll be talking to other leaders in
the region.
And I think first of all, we can say that they’ve been very supportive.
These have been extremely positive phone calls and they see very clearly
the importance of moving to the summit level now and trying to reach
agreement on these issues now. So, so far in the phone calls that she’s
made, she’s found a very strong and positive reinforcement to this
decision and support for this decision from leaders in the region.
QUESTION: Do you think this time we will have peace in the Middle East,
once and forever?
MR. BOUCHER: Let us hope so.
QUESTION: What about Syria? Is there any sign that they would be
supportive and, if not, would you be able to make the deal without them?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have anything new on Syria. The President
addressed that briefly in his press conference, I think. I’m getting
fuzzy here in the head. But, no, we don’t have anything new on Syria at
this moment.
QUESTION: What about Cyprus? Today is the indirect talks on Cyprus
starting in Europe. What is the US expectation on this meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: Let’s move to Cyprus then. As has been our practice in
the past with regard to Cyprus when discussions are beginning, we don’t
have a whole lot to say. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan opened the
third session of UN-led Cyprus talks in Geneva today with meetings with
both sides.
Ambassador Bandler and Special Cyprus Coordinator Weston are in Geneva to
provide diplomatic support for these talks. Special Presidential Emissary
Moses will join them in a few days.
We are urging the parties to intensify their efforts during this session.
The UN and the parties have agreed not to engage in public discussion about
the substance of the talks and we support that understanding, so I don't
really have any further comments.
QUESTION: Also, US Assistant Secretary is today left Ankara to Athens.
And press reports that he is carrying some message from Ankara to Athens
about recent Turkish offer on the Aegean Sea.
MR. BOUCHER: I’m sorry, I don't have anything like that. Which assistant
secretary was it?
QUESTION: Robertson? Robinson? I don't remember.
MR. BOUCHER: I’ll have to check on who it was and see if we have anything
but I don't have anything like that for you.
QUESTION: Any comment on the Turkish invasion and occupation force move
the other day to set up a checkpoint in a Greek Cypriot village, blocking
access for UN peacekeeping forces patrolling the buffer zone that split the
island in two?
MR. BOUCHER: No, the UN will have to deal with that issue on the
ground.
QUESTION: Can we go to another set of proximity talks?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: Is there any update on what’s going on downstairs, or I assume
it’s downstairs, between the Ethiopians and the Eritreans?
MR. BOUCHER: The talks between the Ethiopians and the Eritreans began on
Monday in Washington here at the building. They are being moderated by
senior members of the Department’s Office of Legal Advisors. They
recessed for a day, July 4th, and they are continuing today.
The talks focus on the procedures on compensation and boundary issues that
will facilitate the Organization for African Unity’s efforts to work on
a comprehensive peace agreement. The talks are proceeding in a constructive
atmosphere but I don't really have any further details at this point.
QUESTION: Have you gotten any idea of how long they might last?
MR. BOUCHER: No, we don’t have a deadline or a time frame for the talks.
But we are obviously following things closely. At this point, they are
proceeding on a proximity basis, so we will see where they get to.
QUESTION: Is it still the hope that they might be able to break out of
proximity and go into direct talks?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, whatever it takes to reach agreement on these
technical issues, we would hope that that would happen. So we’ll see.
QUESTION: New subject? On the Mexican elections, President Elect Fox has
been making some very public comments about what his policy towards the US
would be in terms of migrant workers, the war on drugs, trade. Has there
been any assessment so far by the State Department of what his US policy
seems to be shaping up?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I answered that question 10 minutes ago and I don't
have anything to add to what I said then.
QUESTION: When the President signs the protocol he’s signing today, I
believe, at the United Nations on Children and War, separate from the
treaty. But this is now, in addition to the criminal court, one more issue
where the United States had been the lone holdout and the UN had to go to
great lengths to work with the wording and all of that to come around.
How does the State Department view this issue of the United States once
again being seen as the problem in trying to get an agreement on these
kinds of things?
MR. BOUCHER: I don’t think on the day when the President is signing
these protocols and pledging the United States to adhere to these
standards, that one should call the United States a problem. To the extent
that we can ratify these things, we seek to do so. But I think you have
today a presidential commitment to try to reach these standards.
QUESTION: So since this is the protocol and not the entire treaty, is
State Department going to push Congress to ratify the treaty?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check on that and see where we are.
QUESTION: Iran. Had you seen the story about the Iranians denying visas
to a US soccer team because they objected to Iranians being fingerprinted
recently in New York?
MR. BOUCHER: We’ve seen those reports. Frankly, first of all, let me
say we continue to support people-to-people exchanges, we believe them to
be important. But we also believe it important to enforce our law regarding
the need for fingerprinting. And we have tried to work within that context
of our law and regulation. But we would continue to support people-to-
people exchanges and would hope that they could go forward.
QUESTION: You say "our law," does this apply to terrorism countries?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to look at exactly which the legal framework is.
But the policy is based on national security concerns. And one of the key
requirements for the President is to protect US borders. And that’s why
we do the fingerprinting in some cases.
QUESTION: You don’t have any specific comment on this soccer team not
being allowed to go?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I would just say that we do support people-to-people
exchanges. We would hope that these things would occur and that they
wouldn't be blocked.
QUESTION: In terms of the – (inaudible) – didn’t we apologize?
Didn’t we say that we had made a mistake when we held their team
members? Wasn’t that something we subsequently apologized for?
MR. BOUCHER: There have been different situations that have arisen and I
would have to check to see if we had made a mistake in one of them. But I
think we have had a fairly consistent application of the policy when we
needed to.
QUESTION: Do you have any information that Iraq is testing short-range
missiles? And where do efforts stand to get inspectors back in there? Is
this something that’s a priority or is it a disappointment?
MR. BOUCHER: Those are both things I’ll have to check on. I’m
sorry, I don't have anything new for you today.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask if you had anything to say about the French and
the Europeans have both now started investigating – (inaudible) –
activities.
MR. BOUCHER: Let me say in general what we’ve said before. And
that’s the notion that we collect intelligence in order to promote
American business is simply wrong. Our intelligence agencies are not
authorized to provide information to private firms. It’s not the policy
nor the practice of American intelligence services to conduct economic
espionage.
CIA Director George Tenent explained this in April in testimony before
Congress. He said the mission of American intelligence is to gather
information that’s vital to the national defense and foreign
policy. That’s where we direct our intelligence resources.
QUESTION: As far as – if I may follow up – the French failed to
sign this Warsaw Declaration. Is this starting to look like a bit of an
anti-US campaign?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't provide any broad characterizations. As you know,
we have, in many, many areas a significant and cooperative relationship
with the French and we disagree on other things at times. But I don't think
I would use this particular situation as an example of one or the other.
QUESTION: When you just mentioned George Tenet, one of his predecessors,
Mr. Woolsey, has said that, in fact, Echelon was used for commercial
purposes and cited a specific case involving Saudi Arabia and Boeing and
Airbus.
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at what was said, that’s not in any
way contradictory to what I’ve said. We do on occasion uncover instances
in which foreign companies have used bribery and other unscrupulous acts in
order to win contracts. The intelligence agencies then make that available
to the appropriate US Government agencies. I said we don’t make
intelligence available to private entities or use it for commercial
purposes.
It is then up to the appropriate US Government agencies, including the
State Department, to decide how and when to raise those instances with
foreign governments.
QUESTION: Is the Department of the opinion that if the French
investigation goes on and it is above board and thorough, it will come up
with nothing?
MR. BOUCHER: I’ve made quite clear what our policy and our practice
is. I think anything beyond that is very speculative at this point. I don't
know what they think they’re investigating or where they intend to
proceed. We certainly haven’t been asked any subsequent questions.
QUESTION: What about the idea that you just raised in the answer to my
first – earlier question about that specific case? There seems to be an
undercurrent of some kind of resentment here in the US that, of all people,
the Europeans and in particular the French would be mounting an
investigation into something that a lot of Americans and a lot of American
officials, especially businessmen think that they themselves are involved
in. What does the Department think about that? There has been some concern
that the French are actually operating their own system that has been
nicknamed "Frenchelon."
MR. BOUCHER: I find the question very interesting but I don't think
I’m going to speculate on motivations or comparability. I will just tell
you what we do. I think I’ve explained it as clearly as I can.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) – this Department is concerned, the President
last week announced that former congressman Mineta will be the Secretary of
Commerce. How do you see that he will bring a new US relation with the rest
of the world, especially with Asian countries? How much can he – do you
expect from his input?
MR. BOUCHER: I appreciate the question but it’s not something I can
answer for you here. I think the White House in making the nomination
explained those things and I would leave it to the White House to clarify
any further what his intentions are as he assumes the important office.
QUESTION: My question was really based on this Department’s foreign
policy, how he can – or you can relate with him or he can relate with
this department rather than the White House?
MR. BOUCHER: We work very, very closely with Secretaries of Commerce. We
are also involved in the process of pursuing America’s economic and
commercial interests overseas and promoting US trade, so we work very, very
closely with our counterparts in Commerce and the Secretary, I’m sure,
looks forward to working with Congressman Mineta* as he assumes the post,
given the -- once – if and when he receives the advice and consent of
the Senate.
QUESTION: Do you have anything that you can tell us about John Holum and
Bob Einhorn’s visit to Asia?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Did you say "anything" or "anything else"?
QUESTION: Anything. Anything that wasn’t already said last week.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know quite where we stand on what we said before but
let me tell you a little bit about what they are going for and what they
will do.
Our senior advisor to the President and Secretary of State for Arms Control
and International Security, John Holum, is traveling to China July
7th and 8th for two days of talks with the Chinese
Government on a variety of topics. The talks are aimed at improving our
overall relationship with China and deepening our bilateral arms control,
nonproliferation and security dialogue with Beijing.
These topics remain at the top of our bilateral diplomatic agenda with
Beijing and this important dialogue will allow our senior experts to engage
in detailed discussions to explore each side’s respective concern. You
will remember that nonproliferation topics were on the Secretary’s
agenda as well when she was in Beijing two weeks ago.
Mr. Holum will be accompanied by Assistant Secretaries Bohlen for Arms
Control, Einhorn for Nonproliferation and Newsom for Political and Military
Affairs, by White House Senior Director for Nonproliferation Gary Samore,
by the East Asia Bureau’s Deputy Assistant Secretary Darryl Johnson, by
Pentagon representatives and other staff. They will visit Beijing,
Singapore and Tokyo.
In Beijing, in addition to the general plenary meetings hosted by Vice
Foreign Minister Wang Guangya, Holum is scheduled to meet acting Foreign
Minster Yang Jeichi, Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Xiong Guangkai, and
Chinese Communist Party Foreign Affairs Expert Liu Huaqiu.
In Singapore, he’s accepted a long-standing invitation to meet with
senior leaders to discuss bilateral relations and regional security topics.
And the purpose of the Tokyo stop will be to debrief the Japanese foreign
affairs officials on the talks in Beijing and to continue with our ongoing
consultations with Japan on nonproliferation and arms control issues.
QUESTION: Somewhat related to that, unless someone has a follow-up? You
said political and military affairs was going. Is there any thought of that
person going down to Jakarta to discuss with the Indonesians their rather
loud objections to the continuation of the arms embargo, which they say is
hurting their efforts to combat the –
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything here. I will double check and see if
Mr. Newsom is not going in that direction.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the objections raised by the Indonesians?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, let me cite our Ambassador to
Indonesia, Ambassador Gelbard, who said that the real issue in Maluku has
been the failure of the Indonesian Government and military to take early
action to stop the violence and to prevent outsiders from inflaming the
situation.
We do support the Indonesian Government’s recent action to address the
Maluku situation by imposing a state of civil emergency, by removing the
troops who have taken sides in the violence, and by replacing officers who
have been unable to enforce discipline within the ranks. We hope the
government will implement those measures promptly while adhering to
international standards for the protection of human rights.
We continue to be deeply concerned about the cycle of violence and the
potential for retaliation between the Christian and Muslim communities.
The United States has suspended military-to-military relations with
Indonesia last September in the wake of militia violence in East Timor that
was supported by members of the Indonesian military. We have initiated
consultations with our Congress on a partial lifting of the ban on
military- to-military contacts, but Indonesia has not clearly complied yet
with the conditions that were set forth in Section 589 of the fiscal year
2000 Foreign Assistance, Foreign Operations and Appropriations Act. So at
this point, there is no plan to resume defense item sales or transfers.
QUESTION: I am the new correspondent in Washington of RCN Colombia.
MR. BOUCHER: Welcome.
QUESTION: I would like to know if you have some information about a
President Clinton possible visit to Colombia after signing the military
construction bill?
MR. BOUCHER: That is not something that I would have information on here.
That is a question you would have to ask at the White House, regarding the
President’s travel.
QUESTION: From a human, religious and political rights point of view, how
do you comment on the Turkish court decision today to place into prison a
former prime minister, namely Erbakon -- (inaudible) – in the year of
2000 and not in Dark Ages, of course.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, without accepting all the commentary in your question,
let me clarify what we understand of the situation. First of all, we
understand that the former Prime Minister Erbakon remains free pending
further legal process. It is a serious matter when individuals are
convicted by courts for statements that they made as political figures. We
think that all Turkey’s citizens should be able to exercise fully their
right to peaceful freedom of expression as recognized by international
human rights instruments.
We have long urged Turkey to take further steps to lift restrictions on
freedom of speech. And that’s where I’ll stop for the moment.
QUESTION: In other words, do you agree with this decision?
MR. BOUCHER: As I’ve said, we do believe it’s a very serious
matter, that individuals should not be convicted for statements that were
made as political figures. So we’ll leave it at that for the moment.
QUESTION: An issue of human rights, political and religious violations of
your own rules and standards?
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you’ll look at what I said, that’s
approximately what I said. So I’ll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Vincente Fox, I would ask in light of the fact that Mr. Fox is
talking about coming against corruption in Mexico, especially official
corruption, establishing more greatly the rule of law and coming against
the cartels, specifically, he has stated these things since his election,
would the United States Government view his position, perhaps the position
of his security, as being let’s say not too good at the present time?
Would he be in any security danger at present?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that’s something we would like to speculate
on.
QUESTION: Do you have anything you want to say about the Yugoslav
Parliament preparing to allow President Milosevic to have a second term in
office?
MR. BOUCHER: No, but I think I could find something. No. No, I don't.
It’s not here either. Okay.
QUESTION: How about a comment on the rather anti-US stance that was taken
at the Central Asia Summit with Russia and China having to do with
terrorism, considering the fact that the Secretary was just there,
promising all sorts of US assistance in counter-terrorism and now at least
two of the stands that she visited are seeming to throw their lot in with
the Russians and the Chinese on this issue?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the statements. I would be glad to look into
it. I do want to point out that, as the Secretary made clear during her
visit to the region, we don’t think that cooperation against terrorism
is a tradeoff or a choice. We all want to see cooperation against terrorism
in the region, we all want to see these countries better able to protect
themselves against the danger of terrorism. That’s why we’re
cooperating with them and we don’t have any problem if others do as
well.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 1:42 p.m.)
|
