U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #70, 00-07-06

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

797

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

I N D E X

Thursday, July 6, 2000

Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER_

POLAND
1	AID Mission in Poland to Close / Marks Successful End to US Foreign
	 Aid Programs 
IRAQ
1-4	Reports of Iraq Conducting Missile Tests / Status of UN Inspections
	 / Sanctions Policy 
JAPAN
4-5, 11	Deputy Secretary Talbott to Attend G-8 Meeting / Japanese Reaction
	 to Secretary Albright Not Attending G-8 Meeting 
COLOMBIA
5-6	US Government Funding to UN Drug Control Agency for Field Testing
	 of Fusarium Oxysporum 
12	FARC Use of Child Soliders / UN Protocols
MEXICO
6	President-Elect Fox's Comments on Cooperation to Fight Corruption
6-7	Secretary Albright's Calls to President-Elect Fox, Foreign
	 Secretary Green, and President Zedillo 
IRAN
7	US Reaction to Trial of Iranian Jews
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-11,16-17	Talks at Camp David to Begin Tuesday, July 11
7-10	Pre-Summit Talks Over the Weekend
9	Schedule for Press Briefings / Location of Press Facility
10	Arrival of Delegations
CHINA
10-11	Visit of Senior Advisor John Holum
SERBIA (FRY)
11-12	Parliament Discusses Changing Constitution to Allow Milosevic to
	 Seek Re-election 
MONTENEGRO
12,17	US Position on Independence for Montenegro
ETHIOPIA / ERITREA
12	Proximity Talks Continue
UNITED NATIONS
13	Protocols on Child Soldiers and the Sale of Children, Child
	 Prostitution, and Child Pornography / Convention on the Rights of
	 the Child / Colombian FARC Use of Children 
GERMANY
14	Slave Labor Compensation Fund / Further Claims
CUBA
14	Status of Helms-Burton Chapter III
RUSSIA
14	Situation in Chechnya
CAMBODIA
14-15	Agreement on Khmer Rouge Trials
TERRORISM
15	Foreign Terrorist Organizations
EGYPT
15	Update on Saad Ibrahim Case
CASPIAN
16	Report US Companies Withdrawing From Pipeline Project

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB #70

THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2000, 1:15 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)_

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

If there is just one thing I can mention off the top and that's good news from Poland. We are closing our Agency for International Development mission. The Administrator of the agency, Brady Anderson, will be traveling on July 11 on a five-day trip to Poland and Romania, and he will close the USAID mission in Poland and get a first-hand look at the agency's programs in Romania.

Closing this mission in Warsaw marks a successful end to US foreign aid programs in Poland and we always consider it a success when we can help out and support people in their development needs but then see them reach a stage of development where that kind of mission is no longer necessary. The Prime Minister will join Administrator Anderson at the time in honoring the many governmental and nongovernmental partners who contributed to Poland's accomplishments over the last 11 years. You will all remember that when the Secretary was in Poland, she also spent a lot of time with the nongovernmental organizations and people who work there.

QUESTION: Will there be champagne involved in the closing ceremony?

MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see about that. I'm sure it wouldn't be funded by public funds.

QUESTION: The prime minister's wife will be there as well.

MR. BOUCHER: No ships that I know of.

QUESTION: Do you know how much aid we've given to Poland?

MR. BOUCHER: I can give you fact sheets. Do I have a total? Agency for International Development will have to get you a total. Basically, in '98, it was $35.5 million and in '99 it was $19.1 million. The program closes out in September 2000.

All right, with that, I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Could we pick up on Iraq a little bit? Since yesterday, I wonder if the US has any better idea now whether Iraq conducted the reported missile test of a short-range missile? And the baleful comment by the State Department that without inspection it is hard to know what Iraq is up to, I wonder what positively the US might be doing to try to get those inspections going again? Are you simply back up against the wall?

MR. BOUCHER: Were we baleful?

QUESTION: Well, it's sort of -- what's the word? I don't know what the word would be.

MR. BOUCHER: All right, let me try to fill you in -

QUESTION: But, you know, gee, without inspections, how could one ever hope to know what's going on? For sure. So what are you doing about it or can you do anything about it.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, Barry, this is a situation we follow closely. And, obviously, having inspectors there is one way of determining the exact status of various Iraqi programs and is one way particularly for Iraq to try to justify their statements that they are no longer developing things.

We also have other ways of knowing what's going on and we follow these developments very, very closely. But, you know, it's not our practice to comment on stories that purportedly relate to intelligence information. What I can say, though, is we are concerned about activity at Iraqi sites that are known to be capable of proscribed activity, including sites that are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles and also by Iraq's practices regarding procurement activity that can include dual-use items that are useful in weapons of mass destruction applications.

In the absence of UN inspectors on the ground who should be carrying out the UN Security Council mandate, uncertainties about the significance of these activities will persist. As time passes, obviously our concerns increase.

In the end, the best means for the international community to know whether Iraq is taking steps to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles is with the United Nations inspectors and monitors on the ground with the right to visit any site they wish at any time.

QUESTION: You referred to long range. Is there a short range? Is there a short-range threat and is it a larger threat now?

MR. BOUCHER: On the short range, I can say that the majority of Iraq's permitted short-range missiles were obtained in pre-Gulf War acquisitions. Since then, Iraq has made its own modifications to the missiles. The US, as a member of the sanctions committee, can and does stop Iraq from importing items that we believe might be used for weapons of mass destruction or prohibited missile systems under cover of the Oil For Food Program. So it is something we do watch and we do try to prevent developments of missiles in Iraq.

QUESTION: Does the US have the capability without on-site inspection to determine, even if the State Department doesn't want to share it with the public, whether Iraq has tested successfully a new short-range missile or new tests of a short-range missile?

MR. BOUCHER: That gets a little too specific into the kind of intelligence capabilities we might have. All I can tell you is we are concerned about activities at places that proscribed activity has occurred in the past.

QUESTION: Richard, am I correct in thinking that the short answer to Barry's first question was, no, you're not in a position to say anything more than what you read which was basically what you had to say yesterday or the Department had to say yesterday?

To the first question, are you now more in a position to say whether Iraq has tested - actually tested --

MR. BOUCHER: I am not in a position to say more. I am in a position to say that we are concerned about activities at proscribed locations.

QUESTION: Richard, are you any closer to getting the inspectors back in than when the resolution was passed creating the new agency?

MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I can go through the whole history of this, but I think you know it, that Hans Blix was asked to provide for approval of the Security Council with a plan for verification and inspection. He has taken a serious approach to organizing this process, he has set up a structure. His plan would provide a UN monitoring and verification committee, the tools it needs to implement the Council's mandate. He is in the process of hiring international staff that would be used for UN monitoring. We think that he needs to get -- he should have the space, he does have the space to get his operation up and running. But in the meantime, if Iraq wants the benefits of sanctions suspension that are outlined in Resolution 1284, they are going to have to avail themselves of this opportunity and let him and his team come in and do their work. That's where we stand. And we are getting prepared to go do it.

QUESTION: But, Richard, it used to be that President Clinton and everybody else would demand that inspectors be allowed back in and use almost every public occasion to say that. You're not demanding it. That's not even in the guidance anymore. Has there been a change and, if so, why aren't you as emphatic about it as you once were?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we're trying to signal some kind of shift here. The fact is that Iraq is under a Security Council obligation and that we think that they need to abide by the Security Council resolutions. I think we've made that quite clear. But I don't want to say that this is the only way we have of constraining Iraqi programs. We obviously have capabilities to monitor, to watch, and to take action as necessary if we need to. So Iraq should, by all means, abide by the UN Security Council resolutions and allow the inspectors in.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting the cutting edge is Iraq being motivated to get out from under sanctions, as if this problem, the best way of resolving this problem is for Iraq to suddenly become aware that it is being deprived economically by not admitting inspectors. That's quite a shift from the original aggressive position. And, secondly, you keep easing the sanctions anyhow. So what would motivate them? They can wait for the next easing.

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I don't think that's true. And what we're trying to make clear here is that if Iraq has any hope for any kind of suspension or easing or any other shift, that they are going to have to cooperate with the UN. They are under a UN Security Council obligation, they should fulfill that obligation. They should let the inspectors in. Our position on that has not changed.

But they do sometimes make these arguments that somehow that, you know, they deserve to be treated better. What we are saying right here and right now is if they want to be treated better, first and foremost they have to comply with all the UN Security Council resolutions. And not until then would we ever consider it.

QUESTION: New subject. This is somewhat summit-related. The Japanese haven't responded very well to the Secretary's decision not to go to the G- 8 meeting. I'm just wondering how you would phrase it, that Strobe Talbott would be able to represent the US just as adequately as the Secretary, one. And, two, if the Secretary herself has any reaction to this decision by the local town council to no longer name the building after her, Albright Hall, because she's not going to speak there. Is she disappointed?

MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen the local council's statement or decision, so I don't want to talk about that. Certainly, the Secretary very much regrets that she won't be able to present her public speech as planned at the Miyazaki Civic Center and she is expressing her regret directly to the Mayor of Miyazaki. In addition, she had been looking forward very much to the Miyazaki G-8 program that was prepared under Japan's leadership and she regrets that she's unable to travel to Japan at this time.

Yesterday evening, she phoned Foreign Minister Kono to express her regret. They spoke for over half an hour. Foreign Minister Kono expressed his understanding of the critical timing of the Middle East peace talks. As you know, the President has personally requested that the Secretary participate in the Camp David summit. The Middle East peace process is at a critical juncture and the summit offers a real chance for an historic agreement.

The Secretary has asked Deputy Secretary Talbott to attend the G-8 ministerial in her stead. He has the Secretary's full confidence and is extremely well versed in the topics that will be discussed at the G-8 ministerial and, of course, the President plans to go to the leaders' meeting 10 days from now.

QUESTION: Might she go at some future point? Even before this came up, it struck me that going to China and to Korea without stopping in Japan, 20 years ago, that was unheard of. I mean, every trip to China called for a stop in Japan, almost every. Henry Kissinger -

MR. BOUCHER: We can have a debate on the history of this.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is Japan - beginning with - let me just say one more thing. Beginning with George Shultz, Japan was a bedrock of US policy. In fact, he tried to look as much to the Pacific as to Europe. And you bypass Japan all the time. I wonder if Japan isn't considered as important in US policymaking as it used to be. Not going on the trip has nothing to do with naming village squares after Albright.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I'll come back in an hour and answer your question.

The question is, might she go to Japan at some point. And the answer is, absolutely yes. She has visited Japan periodically. There is no shift in US policy towards Japan. They are strong allies and friends. She meets with the Japanese Foreign Minister in a variety of settings at a variety of moments. They had a lot of things to discuss, the issues that we share and concerns that we share with our Japanese allies. And there should be no implication for US-Japanese relations over the fact that she's unable to make this particular trip.

I am certain she will visit and stop in Japan on future occasions. And we certainly look forward to doing that.

QUESTION: Can I ask, you said that Deputy Secretary Talbott was well versed in the subjects which would come up at the summit. Which are the key subjects?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't do the summit pre-brief for you now. But I think we all know that the summit covers a broad range of economic and political issues around the world and I'm sure that the Deputy Secretary is prepared to address all those issues.

QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up on Japan, if I could. Why is it so essential that Secretary Albright be here for the whole of the summit and not take a day -- make one of the whirlwind air cruises over to Japan to be there? What is it that is so essential she be in Thurmont or --

MR. BOUCHER: I think I'll refer you back to the President's briefing yesterday and my briefing yesterday. The President made quite clear that this was a critical moment in time to bring about, if we can, where we see the potential of making peace. And I think it's quite clear that the Secretary has a full-time and active role in that process and it's just not possible for her to pull out and to go off and come back within some short space of time.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the biological herbicide that the Colombians are thinking of using against coca plants and the opium poppy?

MR. BOUCHER: I can give you a little clarification on what's involved there, if I can find it.

We are providing funding to the United Nations Drug Control Agency to work with the government of Colombia on field testing the scientific use of fusarium oxysporum as a coca control agent. That's more Latin than we've used at this podium for a long time.

Testing is expected to take approximately two years to complete, then it will be up to the government of Colombia to evaluate the results and to determine next steps. Only the government of Colombia will be in a position to make the decision on whether to use the fungicide in the future on coca fields.

QUESTION: How does the US address critics of the plan that US money for drug control is a virtual biological weapon and could be a violation of international conventions?

MR. BOUCHER: I will look into the actual status vis-a-vis international conventions. I think what I've described here is a testing program being done under United Nations auspices with the government of Colombia involved. It's a two-year testing program. I don't think one should exaggerate the scope or the impact of this particular program at this moment.

QUESTION: The prohibition on use and testing is the same in the international conventions?

MR. BOUCHER: I will look into the status vis-a-vis conventions, but I would imagine that we, the government of Colombia and the United Nations are all quite aware of the requirements of those conventions.

QUESTION: You seem to be going out of your way to seem to suggest that this is an all-Colombia show here. I think hasn't this been tested in the US for years, this idea?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the Department of Agriculture can tell you about that. But there has been testing going on for some years. You'll have to check with Agriculture.

QUESTION: President-Elect of Mexico Vincente Fox has said that the United States is demanding more cooperation from Mexico in the fight against narco-traffickers. And he says first of all the United States has to put more attention to or money to stop the drug users in the United States. And he promised to combat corruption in that matter in Mexico, since the US Government always says that the Mexican authorities need to put more attention to combat the corruption of narco-traffickers.

What is the response of the United States to these arguments?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've dealt with these issues over yesterday's briefing, and frankly over the weeks. These are subjects that we both work on where we do cooperate very closely with our Mexican allies. We look forward to working with Mr. Fox when he becomes President. The Secretary, as a matter of fact, talked to him yesterday on the phone. She talked to Foreign Secretary Green, she talked to President Zedillo as well, basically to express our view. First, to congratulate them on the democratic process in Mexico and to say that we look forward to working with the new government when Mr. Fox takes over.

So these are things that we will continue to work on together. They have been part of the US-Mexican agenda and I am sure they will remain part of US-Mexican relations.

QUESTION: Would it be better for Mexico, for the cooperation on narco- trafficking, if he combats corruption that the PRI and the government for 71 years do nothing about it?

MR. BOUCHER: We're against corruption. I'm not going to accept any characterizations of what you're saying. Certainly this has been an issue of what we have worked on with Mexican governments in the past, and one where we hope to continue to work and make progress.

QUESTION: Something else. There is a move afoot in Germany, at least among the Social Democrats, to disinvite President Khatami over the Iranian trials, the trials of Jews. Does the State Department have any -- it's an embryonic move but is that something the State Department has an opinion of? And, more directly, is there anything the Administration is contemplating besides woeful statements to somehow act against Iran for the way these trials have been concluded?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm being given pieces of paper. They just say what we thought they would say.

QUESTION: It's a fast-breaking story.

MR. BOUCHER: It's a fast-breaking story.

Barry, I'll have to check on this potential visit. I am not sure this is something we would necessarily be involved in, first of all. Second of all, I think we've expressed our strong concerns from the President to the Vice President to the Secretary about the situation and about the lack of due process. And certainly this is a situation we follow very closely and we hope that the defendants in this case will have the opportunity to have their sentences and the verdicts reviewed and to establish through a fair process of law what the facts are in this situation.

So at this point, it is something we are following very, very closely. It is something that we are deeply concerned about. But I don't have anything new to announce on that score.

QUESTION: Can you just talk about the summit in terms of the reports now that the pre-summit talks will be Saturday and Sunday? Is that set in stone, is that fluid?

MR. BOUCHER: The talks, as you know, at the leaders' level, President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat begin on Tuesday, July 11th, at Camp David. A small group of senior Israeli and Palestinian negotiators will arrive this weekend for discussions in advance of those Camp David talks. At this point, the location is not settled.

QUESTION: What about time, day?

MR. BOUCHER: Over this weekend.

QUESTION: Do you have anything further about the ongoing discussion about whether or not the talks will continue once the President leaves for Japan?

MR. BOUCHER: I think what we'd say is what the President said yesterday, we would hope to reach agreement as soon as possible. He said that if we really bear down and work on the issues, it can be done in a matter of days. So I don't think it's time yet to start predicting anything beyond that. Certainly, the President is going to be there and is going to devote the time necessary to working on this as soon as he can. These are issues that need to be addressed at the summit level. There also is the potential there to get new agreement on these core issues of permanent status and that will be what we're seeking to do and we will try to do that using every means available that we have.

QUESTION: Back to these pre-summit talks, these presumably are not going to be at Camp David. They will be closer to Washington?

MR. BOUCHER: Location at this point not settled.

QUESTION: I mean, is it possible that they would go directly to Camp David?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not anticipating that. It's not settled yet, so I can't tell you for sure.

QUESTION: Now, these basically are going to be a continuation of the negotiations that were going on at Bolling and Andrews?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't describe them that way, Matt. I think they have to be seen in the context of the summit, the context of your first question, seeing them as pre-summit discussions.

Once the decision is made to go to the summit level and to deal with these very difficult, very basic core issues, then knowing that that is coming changes - I have to say, changes the dynamic of the situation and therefore I think it's better to see these talks with the negotiators as a pre-summit discussion rather than as a mere continuation of efforts in the past that we have already said hadn't been able to resolve these issues yet.

QUESTION: Does that mean they are going to be talking about logistics and, like, table size? I mean, you know, what - issues -

MR. BOUCHER: No, these will be senior negotiators to discuss the issues that will be discussed at the summit. And I would say I would also expect the Secretary to meet with these negotiators before the summit.

QUESTION: With Dennis and Aaron, too? In other words, is it going to be a three-way -

MR. BOUCHER: We will be involved with our Special Middle East Coordinator and his deputy and the team. But I would also at some point expect the Secretary to meet with the negotiators before we get to Camp David.

QUESTION: Can you give a time for Tuesday? Is there a time?

MR. BOUCHER: No, not yet.

QUESTION: And do you know it? It's not set yet, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Not yet.

QUESTION: And where is the press center going to be?

MR. BOUCHER: Not decided yet. It's being worked on. We have some people out today looking at possible sites to accommodate your needs.

QUESTION: Are you going to be briefing the way you did at Wye River and Shepherdstown and where is that likely to take place in the venue near Camp David? Are you going to do it back here?

MR. BOUCHER: There will be briefings for the press. They will be at the press center, once we decide where the press center is. And how can I say? I wouldn't expect to get any complete and full daily readout of the issues under discussion. We will try to make available what information we can but I don't want anybody to anticipate enormous amounts of information.

QUESTION: Was there anyone that was doing that?

MR. BOUCHER: He almost implied we might say something.

QUESTION: I think he is talking about other topics. Basically, he's asking is the regular State Department briefing - will kind of follow whatever you can say -

MR. BOUCHER: We're going to have to shuffle some of these issues depending on where we are and how it works. We may answer some subjects down here and try to answer some subjects out there. It depends where people are and what they're interested in, frankly. We'll try to accommodate your needs.

QUESTION: I think you described these weekend talks as not agenda setting but, you know, negotiations. Is the US, as the host, going to take over the order of the discussion and how you approach things? Can you give us any idea of how much in charge of the flow of conversation the US will be?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't give you that at this point, Barry, exactly. Obviously, we are going to play a role. We're hosting the summit. We're going to play a role with the parties as they come to negotiate, as they come to talk and as they come to the leaders' level. We are going to be very actively involved in this entire process. But I don't think I'm quite prepared yet to use a new adjective or noun for our role.

QUESTION: Richard, can you say now whether the talks, the pre-summit talks, will be three way or will there be the US going to each side or both?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't really do that for you yet. I think we'll have to see that as it unfolds. And, as you know in the past, there have been all kinds of different configurations and, particularly at Camp David, I would expect there would be different meetings between leaders, between negotiators, Israelis and Palestinians together, Israelis, Palestinians and us. And that's been the pattern in these past negotiations; I would expect it to apply throughout the whole process.

QUESTION: Very briefly, do you expect all the teams, the leaders and their negotiators, once the summit begins, to be staying at the Camp David compound, and as well as the Secretary? Or are they going to be staying elsewhere?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I'm not quite prepared to specify. But basically, the negotiating process will take place at Camp David and the people who are working that process, we would expect to be there.

QUESTION: Staying over night, in other words? In other words, spending the nights there, not shuttling back and forth?

MR. BOUCHER: Who's going to be there at which moments when the President comes and goes and things like that are still to be specified.

QUESTION: I'm talking about the delegations.

MR. BOUCHER: But the people negotiating, the delegations, we would expect to be at Camp David.

QUESTION: And the talks will start on Tuesday; is that correct?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Are they arriving Monday night or are they coming Tuesday?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have arrivals yet.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to add to what you said yesterday about the trip of John Holum and his colleagues to Asia?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything to add. The talks begin I think tomorrow and Saturday in China.

QUESTION: On that same subject, what's your reaction to the latest Chinese outpouring of anger at plans for NMD which came out of Rome today?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. Let me start that way.

QUESTION: A Chinese official repeated Chinese opposition to NMD and TMD.

MR. BOUCHER: I think there are a couple things worth saying on this. First of all, I think we've been quite up front with our concerns about missile developments. We've been quite up front about the criteria that we need to consider. We have been quite up front about the fact that this consideration is not directed at any existing arsenal like the Chinese or the Russians. And we've made quite clear that we are prepared to continue to discuss and consult with the Chinese Government on these issues and we would expect that Mr. Holum will be doing that during his visit to China, among many other things.

QUESTION: Could I go back to Madame Albright's cancellations of her visit to Japan? Today, the Prime Minister, Japanese Prime Minister Mori's personal representative, made a harsh critical comment on the cancellation. He said, "I wonder how much of the US view will be reflected when everyone else attending is a foreign minister? I think the United States will suffer loss."

Do you think such a comment is unfair?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to try to get into some kind of debate with comments that I personally haven't seen anyone make. I think the point is to go back to what we said before, that the Secretary did talk to Foreign Minister Kono last night and he expressed his understanding of the need for her to stay and work on the Middle East peace process. And, second of all, that Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott will fully and completely represent the Secretary and the United States at the meeting.

QUESTION: The Yugoslav parliament has approved constitutional changes that will allow Milosevic to seek a second term, meaning we could see him in power for another eight years. Do you have any reaction?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there's actually more to it than that. And so let me talk a little bit about it.

First of all, the regime has manipulated the parliamentary rules in order to restrict the expression of views that oppose the regime's. The size of the majority shows that the current parliament is little more than a rubber stamp. There appears to be a grotesque effort underway by Milosevic to stifle prospects for democratic, peaceful change in Yugoslavia. It reveals his own fears. He is changing the rules because he cannot win fairly now. He is stripping away legal formalities behind which he's hidden and the choice, we think, for the people of Serbia and for his coalition is stark; it's either him or democracy in Serbia.

The changes that he's making are unusual in several respects. I mean, we don't know yet the mechanics. He's proposing some kind of elections. But the amendments have been now approved in principle before they're even written. So there are some changes to elections being proposed but they haven't been written yet. They've been approved already, though.

Second of all, I point out, we have supported the opposition's call for fair and free elections at all levels including for the Serbian parliament. Then the Serb voters could reject Milosevic and elect a democratic leader who could lead Yugoslavia out of the disaster that this regime is causing.

QUESTION: Can you also comment, Montenegrin officials, as a result of this, today announced that they will take further steps toward independence.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, this change is undertaken, we understand, without any consultation with Montenegro, Serbia's sister republic in Yugoslavia. It's another of the many examples of the Milosevic regime of Belgrade ignoring Montenegro's rights under their constitution.

QUESTION: But in answer to your actual question, which was what do you think about Montenegro taking more steps towards independence as a result of this, is that something that the US would support? Or are you still imbued with the idea that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should remain both Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo?

MR. BOUCHER: We think that people should be able to freely decide on their own destiny. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

QUESTION: Do you have anything new on the Eritrea-Ethiopia talks?

MR. BOUCHER: They continue in this building as proximity talks and the atmosphere continues to be constructive.

QUESTION: Is there a terminal point that you're aware of?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: The US Embassy in Ankara announced they decided not to open office in (inaudible). What was the reason in this subject. Is that the Turkish Government opposition to opening this kind of office in the (inaudible) or area security situation?

MR. BOUCHER: I have to assume if the US Embassy announced that they weren't going to open an office, they probably explained why. So I think I would rather leave it to them but I'll see if I can get you anything from them on it.

QUESTION: And also the Government of Turkey last week asked or called Athens (inaudible) talks on the Aegean subject. In the past, the United States has stopped several unwanted events in the Aegean Sea. How do you relate this kind of call?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the specific call so I don't have a particular reaction on that. The situation in the Aegean has been something of concern to us. It's something that we've discussed with the governments out there. It is something we work with them on quite closely. So without knowing anything more specific about what's being proposed, I think I'll just have to leave it at that.

QUESTION: Yesterday, was signed United Nations Protocol on Child. And Colombia was mentioned as the second reason to sign this protocol because of the children working with guerrillas. Do you have any comment on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me do two things. First of all, the White House put out a fact sheet on the protocols and made quite clear the various types of concerns we have, one of which is that in Colombia, the armed forces of Colombia, the FARC, does use children as soldiers. And the protocol would bar any compulsory recruitment under the age of 18, prohibits the recruitment and use of soldiers under 18 by nongovernmental armed forces - which are the principal culprits in fact in the use of child soldiers. So those things are outlined in more detail in the White House fact sheet.

I would also add to what I said yesterday, I was asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child and I think we said no decision had been made on submitting that one to the Senate for its advice and consent. But the Administration does intend to submit both the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography to the Senate for ratification later this month. This was done in such a way that the protocols can be ratified independently of the convention.

QUESTION: So the two protocols, not the convention, not the treaty?

MR. BOUCHER: The two protocols we intend to submit and we intend to seek ratification. They can be ratified without the convention.

QUESTION: I thought I heard you say the armed forces of Colombia, the FARC. You mean the Revolutionary Armed Forces?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Is that the way it reads in the final fact sheet?

QUESTION: Do you have any time line for when they are going to be submitted?

MR. BOUCHER: For when we can submit it? No, I don't. Soon, in parlance.

QUESTION: On Germany. Today, the Bundestag approved the legislation enacting the slave labor compensation fund. Do you have any reaction to that?

MR. BOUCHER: That's good. (Laughter.) No, I don't have any other reaction than that. This is something that we've talked about before and we were quite pleased we were able to work out the arrangements.

QUESTION: And as part of that agreement, though, I believe the US is supposed to make a statement discouraging any further claims against the companies. Can you tell us how and when that statement might come?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've said that in the past. We've talked about the terms that were discussed and particularly with regard to further claims. I will see if there is anything more we can say as of ratification.

QUESTION: I just wonder if you have an idea of if the Secretary has already made a decision about the Helms-Burton Chapter III has to be suspended? There is no announcement and the time is already passed.

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check on that one for you.

QUESTION: Do you have any new comment or reaction on the latest development in Chechnya?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new to say on Chechnya. It's certainly a subject of continuing concern that we've followed. No, I mean, clearly the situation is one, as we've said before, that doesn't have a military solution, that it needs to have a political resolution and that remains our view. We've been following the situation there closely. We've been concerned about many of the developments and we would hope to see a political resolution here.

QUESTION: The Russian president yesterday ordered military officials running the war in Chechnya to improve their performance. So that doesn't seem like an order that would be given to stop the violence and seek a negotiated peace.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, you know, we have expressed our concerns about the situation, we've made quite clear our views at the Secretary's meetings with the Russians, at the President's meetings with the Russians. We don't think there is a military solution there; there needs to be a political solution to the conflict and we've urged the Russians to follow a path that will lead to that.

QUESTION: I don't know if you will have anything on this but Cambodia and the UN today finally came to their agreement on the Khmer Rouge trials. It's an agreement that Senator Kerry and in particular this building as well was particularly instrumental in getting the Cambodians to agree to. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't have anything new on that. The developments there, we've welcomed and we've praised the role that Senator Kerry and others have played.

QUESTION: On a completely different subject, the Russians are saying that they are expecting some senior or some State Department official to come and brief them about North Korea. Do you have any idea who that is that is going there?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on that for you.

QUESTION: I've got one more. This has to do with this Iranian woman who some have called a human rights advocate who the INS is trying to deport. And her case comes up on Monday. And I don't really want to talk about her case, because I know it's an INS decision. But she is - the INS is trying to deport her because of her one-time involvement with the People's Mujaheddin.

She was given political asylum in the States in '95, two years before these groups were placed on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. And I'm just wondering was it the State Department's intent, specifically in this case, to have FTO sanctions apply ex post facto, after - to apply to things and events that happened before these groups became identified as terrorists?

MR. BOUCHER: Matt, there is no way I could answer a question like that without having an impact on a legal situation. I really have to refer you to the Department of Justice for that.

QUESTION: It was a foreign policy decision. And I'm not asking about the specific case. I just want to know, when you designate a group a terrorist organization -

MR. BOUCHER: Matt, you wouldn't be asking the question except in the context of the specific case and there's no way I can answer a question like that except in the context of this specific case.

QUESTION: It's a pretty general foreign policy question, isn't it?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have to leave it to the Department of Justice to handle any matters involved here.

QUESTION: Does the Department have any position on the arrest of Mr. Ibrahim in Egypt?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've expressed some views on that in recent days so I will leave you with the Press Office on that one.

QUESTION: Yes, sir. Does the State Department believe that there is some kind of coordinated conspiratorial type of -

MR. BOUCHER: Can I just say "no" and we'll have done with it? (Laughter).

QUESTION: I'll say, it's South Korea, is a headline in one of our papers here. Are there attacks against US service people and other US citizens that are going on there by anti-American groups? Or do you know?

MR. BOUCHER: South Korea is well known for its demonstrations. It is also well known that they are a very close ally of ours. We recently addressed with the South Korean leadership the question of US troops. They made quite clear their view. The democratically elected leaders of South Korea made quite clear their view that our troops needed to be there for both deterrence and stability. We made clear that was our view and that we will coordinate very closely with the democratic government of South Korea on these issues.

QUESTION: Last week, several US companies announced that they are withdrawing from the Caspian-based pipeline project. And the reason is they said that is because of the Turkmen's behavior or the Turkmen leader's behavior on this subject. In the past, you were very supportive of this project and do you have any reaction on this issue?

MR. BOUCHER: Still very supportive of the project. I don't have any reaction specific to whatever commercial decisions might have been made. I'll check and see if we have anything. But we're still very supportive of the project.

QUESTION: You're starting a new chapter in Middle East peace by going to the core issues instead of a framework agreement, which you've been talking about for six months now. And I noticed that there was no reference, either Presidential or otherwise, about the framework agreements. The Palestinians are very unhappy in that Wye River has not been implemented. Does this summit mean that you are dropping the third redeployment and all the other things and going direct to the core issues?

MR. BOUCHER: The focus at this point on the core issues of permanent status means we're trying to resolve the very fundamental issues that the parties have between them. And one of the reasons we're doing that is because we think that we need to go to the summit level to resolve those issues. And, second of all, we think there is the potential to resolve them and to work out the arrangements on these very fundamental issues.

Certainly the redeployment interim issues remain important to the parties and they still have obligations in that regard. But our hope now is if we can focus on the core issues, to really resolve these very fundamental permanent status issues that are very important to all the parties.

QUESTION: What about the framework?

MR. BOUCHER: This process has been described in various ways at various times. The summit is different. Not that the issues are different, but the summit is different in the attempt to really deal seriously with these core issues of permanent status, the issues that are most fundamental to reaching a resolution, a fundamental resolution between the parties. That's what we're trying to do at this summit.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I want to go back to Montenegro. I just wanted to make sure I understand your answer. Has the US refined its position on independence for Montenegro and the territorial integrity of the Yugoslav -

MR. BOUCHER: I will get you the full and complete and total description of our view of the independence of Montenegro or suggestions in that direction. I think the summary I gave to Matt is a fairly accurate reflection of it, but I will give you the absolute complete mantra on that one. No, we haven't changed.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 2:03 p.m.)

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article