U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #76, 00-08-02
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
722
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
Wednesday, August 2, 2000
Briefer: Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Visitors at the Briefing
INDIA/PAKISTAN
1,2-3,13 Terrorist Attacks in Kashmir
3-5 Advice To Americans About Travel in Region
TERRORISM
1 Administration’s Position on the Victims of Terrorism Act
AUSTRIA
5-7 Austrian Interior Minister’s Visit/US Position on Contacts
7 Secretary Albright’s Meetings with Ambassador Hall
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-8 Israeli Prime Minister Barak’s Comments on Location of US Embassy
8-9 Assistant Secretary Walker’s Visit to the Region
9 Prospects for Next Round of Israeli-Palestinian Talks
13 Prospects for Secretary Albright Traveling to the Region
ISRAEL
8 Resignation of Israeli Foreign Minister Levy
CANADA
9-10 Military Cargo Ship Off Canada
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO
10 September 24 Elections/Participation
FIJI
10-11 Update on Situation in Fiji
ENVIRONMENT
11-12 US Proposal on Global Warming/Kyoto Protocols
CHILE
13 Status of Court’s Decision Regarding Immunity for Pinochet
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 76
WEDNEDAY, AUGUST 2, 2000 1:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Welcome back to the State Department on this fine Wednesday.
I’d like to just begin by acknowledging a few visitors to our briefing
room today. We have an intern from our Bureau of Population, Refugees and
Migration, Karen Gallagher, who is working this summer at the Department of
State. Welcome, Karen. We also have a group of eight journalists from
Russia who are here on a Department of State International Visitor Program
on journalism, and we’re very pleased to have them with us. And I’ll
be happy to talk to you a bit after the briefing.
I’d like to begin today with a statement that we will release in hard
copy following the briefing regarding the terrorist attacks in Kashmir. As
you’ve all seen, press reports indicate that attacks at a number of
sites throughout Kashmir have claimed the lives of some 104 people. In the
largest incident, a gun and grenade attack on Hindu pilgrims en route to a
holy site killed over 25 people at a communal kitchen and injured some 40
more.
We have no information about the identity of those responsible for these
attacks, but these wanton acts of inhumanity are clearly aimed at
undermining the cease-fire declared last week by the Hizbul-Mujahideen and
Indian security forces.
We condemn these outrageous and inhuman massacres and extend our deepest
condolences to the families of those who died. The perpetrators of these
evil deeds should certainly be brought to justice.
The continuing tragic loss of life in Kashmir underscores once again the
pressing need for all those involved in the conflict to renounce violence
and resolve their differences by peaceful means. This will take courage,
wisdom and determination. We welcome the statement of Indian Prime
Minister Vajpayee that India will continue to pursue the path of peace. We
urge the governments and organizations involved to carry the process
forward and not to allow the enemies of peace to sabotage this promising
initiative.
And with that, I will turn to your questions. Anything on that?
QUESTION: Do you have a copy of the statement?
MR. REEKER: As I noted, it will be released by the Press Office following
the briefing.
QUESTION: This isn’t necessarily a Kashmir question but a terrorism
question. It’s on the Victims of Terrorism Act passed recently in the
House. It seems that the Administration is opposed to the bill, as it
stands, for justice for victims of terrorism. And could you talk a little
bit about the Administration position on this Act and if there have been
any counter-proposals that the Administration is planning?
MR. REEKER: Let me just start by saying we have demonstrated, I think, as
I just did now as well to the world, our unwavering commitment to combat
international terrorism. We are very sympathetic to the families and
others who have suffered so cruelly at the hands of state-sponsored
terrorism and we believe that they deserve justice, including compensation.
We have been working with Members of Congress and having had serious
discussions with Members of Congress to find a solution that will satisfy
the demands of justice without setting any sort of precedent that could
endanger vital US interests or our international responsibilities that we
must protect abroad. So we’ll continue to have discussions with
sponsors of legislation and with other Members of Congress to find some
sort of solution that can meet the demands of justice but not set any sort
of precedent. And at this point I really can’t comment further on the
details of those discussions while they’re ongoing, or on possible
solutions, but we’re very seized with working with Congress to find
solutions to that.
QUESTION: Can you just expand a little bit on what you don’t like
about the Act as it stands right now, then?
MR. REEKER: At this point, I’m just not in a position to get into
details of any particular legislation while we’re having discussions on
solutions we might find and what legislative possibilities there may be.
The point is we have to find a solution that satisfies the need for justice
in these cases, including compensation, but we also have to be careful of
setting any sort of precedent that could endanger US interests abroad,
including our international responsibilities. So we’ll continue to work
with Congress on that.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Kashmir for a minute? Do you take a position
on the various accusations that the Pakistanis are behind these attacks?
And do you intend to contact the Pakistanis on the latest developments?
MR. REEKER: I think it would be very inappropriate for us to cast any
sort of blame at this point without the presence of evidence. We condemn
all who are responsible for these attacks, as I indicated in the statement,
and we urge that the perpetrators swiftly be brought to justice and that,
as I noted, we urge governments and organizations involved in the process
to carry a process forward to find a peaceful solution to that problem.
QUESTION: At what stage might there be a case for internationalization of
this dispute?
MR. REEKER: I don’t think I have anything to add on that other than
what I said in the statement right now. We’ve talked very clearly about
out position on Kashmir. Yesterday we went through that. Our policy has
remained the same. But this type of terrorist attack is reprehensible and
outrageous, and we want to condemn that in the strongest possible terms.
QUESTION: On Kashmir. Without actually casting any blame, would you call
on Pakistan to take any extra security measures on its side of the border?
MR. REEKER: Again, we don’t have any particular evidence or
information about those responsible for the attacks. Obviously, as I
noted, we’re urging everyone involved, the governments and organizations
involved, to carry a peace process forward and not to allow the enemies of
peace to sabotage what is a promising initiative in dealing with the
problem.
QUESTION: Most of the violence really occurs against Hindus. When there
is one Muslim is killed there, the world is talking, but hundreds and
thousands of Hindus are in different camps around India, all over India, in
Delhi and Srinagar and other places. Now, this is a time where you’re
going to pray and, you know, worship and all that, but this is a time
always happens but nobody talks about, not even this Administration.
So what I’m asking really, are you in touch with any high official,
Indian officials from this Department, high-level talks about this recent
attacks in Kashmir?
MR. REEKER: I’m not quite sure if I followed the first part of your
statement, but in terms of your question --
QUESTION: The first part is that mostly Hindus are victims of this violence in the valley.
MR. REEKER: I think, if you’ll note, what I condemned was this attack,
attacks in fact, that have resulted in the loss of life of some 104 people.
I noted that we welcome Prime Minister Vajpayee’s statement that India
wants to continue and will continue on the path of peace. And I believe
President Clinton spoke with Prime Minister Vajpayee today to pass along
our feelings in terms of our condolences and our condemnation of the
outrageous and inhuman massacres that took place and the hopes that the
perpetrators of these evil deeds will be brought to justice.
QUESTION: Is anybody from the high level in touch with the Indian
authorities?
MR. REEKER: President Clinton is as high level as you get.
QUESTION: No, from here. Secretary of State?
MR. REEKER: The Secretary of State has just arrived back at Andrews Air
Force Base a few moments ago, and I am not aware of calls or her activities
up to this time.
QUESTION: Is this Department issuing any new warning for Americans not to
travel?
MR. REEKER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Is this Department issuing any new travel warning?
MR. REEKER: We did, as you may have seen, issue a public announcement
yesterday for India following the recent kidnapping of a popular Indian
actor near the border between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka where
the capital, Bangalore, has been the scene of sporadic protests that have
closed government offices. And American citizens residing in that area or
planning to travel to Bangalore are advised to exercise extreme caution and
travel only if necessary. Otherwise, our other consular information and
public advisories, public announcements, remain in place and you can
certainly consult our website for those.
QUESTION: But I fear that warning is in connection with the kidnapping of
an actor.
MR. REEKER: That’s exactly what I just said.
QUESTION: Right. How about any new warning in connection with --
MR. REEKER: I would refer you to our website that keeps a continuous
update on travel advisories for all parts of the world, and you’ll be
able to find all the information there. Okay?
QUESTION: And you are not -- you can not say yes or not?
MR. REEKER: I guess I just don’t even understand your question.
QUESTION: Are you saying that you are issuing new warning for Americans
not to travel to India in Kashmir area because of the new violence in
Kashmir?
MR. REEKER: I think if you check the website, the Consular Information
Sheet reflects the violence that takes place there extremely thoroughly. I
don’t have anything new because the language is already there, so I
would refer you once again to the consular information website.
QUESTION: I mean, maybe our colleague wasn’t clear enough. I just
guess there have been other instances in other countries where new
eruptions of violence have led to a new consular warning. Is the State
Department or is the State Department not issuing as a result of this
latest attack a new consular sheet?
MR. REEKER: I think we have consular information in terms of the public
announcement and the system that already covers the entire region and the
situation there. I don’t --
QUESTION: So the answer is no?
QUESTION: So the answer is no, not a new one issued in the last few days?
MR. REEKER: No, because it already warns people about the prospect for
violence there. I thought that was the point that we’ve made.
QUESTION: So there’s nothing added on in terms of when -- okay.
MR. REEKER: No.
QUESTION: So the answer is no. Okay.
MR. REEKER: Anything further on consular information for the
subcontinent, Southern Asian region?
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Austria. The Interior Minister is here and he says that his
meetings were not initially at cabinet level but he was upgraded in some
way to a meeting with Janet Reno.
MR. REEKER: Upgraded on the flight?
QUESTION: No, I’m not sure where it happened, but he also said that he
saw this as a deliberate signal by the US to show that it was not so
displeased with Austria as it was in February. Has there been a deliberate
backing-off of the initial condemnation of Joerg Haider’s party’s
inclusion in the government, or are we just slowly slipping?
MR. REEKER: No, our policy has not changed at all with regard to Austria.
I haven’t seen any particular remarks. I think you’re referring to
Austrian Interior Minister Ernst
Strasser --
QUESTION: That’s correct.
MR. REEKER: -- who has come to discuss issues of mutual interest in
international crime and terrorism. As you know, all along we have met with
Austrian officials when it’s in the US interest to do so, and so the
meetings that Minister Strasser has had are very much ones that are
beneficial to overall international efforts, obviously, to combat
international crime and terrorism.
QUESTION: You don’t have any explanation for why he says it was
initially only at working level, but then upgraded? He apparently also met
with David Carpenter here?
MR. REEKER: I don’t even have a full readout of whom he met with.
Certainly that would seem appropriate if he was discussing about
international crime and terrorism. He is a member of Austria’s Peoples
Party, and I would note that we remain concerned about the participation in
the government coalition there of their partner, the Freedom Party.
We’re going to --
QUESTION: But we spoke against the entire government, not --
MR. REEKER: That’s right. And we continue to hold the new government
in Austria to the spirit and letter of the coalition agreement, the
preamble of which held them to certain standards, and it was signed by both
parties in that governing coalition.
So the frank discussions that have taken place with the Minister on
international crime and terrorism actually reinforced that preamble, I
think, in terms of committing the Austrian Government to supporting
pluralism and tolerance and democratic principles, and standing against
terrorism and international crime.
QUESTION: Still on Austria, because when you were asked about it, you
said in May our position has been one of meeting members of the Austrian
government when it’s in our mutual interest to do so, but to meet at a
reduced diplomatic level. But the Minister’s trip to Washington,
he’s meeting -- he had a long meeting with Janet Reno. He met with
Barry McCaffrey, Doris Meiser. On his schedule he was supposed to meet
with Ambassador Scheffer, Ambassador Sheehan, Under Secretary Loy.
MR. REEKER: And I think those were determined to be the appropriate
meetings that were in US interest to do so.
QUESTION: Those are the reduced -- (inaudible) -- ?
MR. REEKER: I think if you’re looking at those comments, we were also
discussing about our diplomatic representation in Vienna and the types of
meetings that we were having there. Minister Strasser coming here was
considered to be something that was important to US interests, and we have
said that discussions of issues of mutual interest, including such things
as international crime and terrorism, will continue to be important to us.
It doesn’t reflect any change in our policy and our position vis-a-vis
Austria and our relations with the government there and our expectation and
our continuing to hold the government to the spirit and letter of the
preamble which both parties signed.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, on keeping to the coalition agreement, how
would you assess the behavior so far?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any particular reflection on that. I’d be
happy to look into it to find out where we feel things stand on that. What
I can report to you today is that our policy hasn’t changed at all.
We’ve long considered Austria a good friend and ally, and that’s why
we reflected the concerns that we did last year, earlier in the year, in
terms of the Freedom Party and its participation in the new coalition
government there.
And I think we will continue to watch and monitor the situation very
closely. It’s something we take quite seriously. Both parties, as I
indicated, signed a preamble which holds them to certain standards, and
we’ll expect them to remain very true to that in both the spirit and the
letter.
QUESTION: Do you really want to call them an ally?
MR. REEKER: I think I want to refer to the fact that we’ve had a very
close relationship with Austria for many years.
QUESTION: Well, I mean ally has a special meaning.
MR. REEKER: It depends how you want to define it, George. I’m not
trying to make any particular statements of policy here. I’m just
referring to the relationship we’ve had with Austria as a close friend,
as a participant in a number of organizations where we all participate, and
we will continue along that path.
Anything else on this?
QUESTION: And part of the original response to this was to say that the
Ambassador, Ms. Hall, would come back at regular intervals. She did do
that for a while.
MR. REEKER: She has done that. That’s right.
QUESTION: Do you know how -- is she still coming back --
MR. REEKER: I’d have to check in to get you a full readout. She’s
seen the Secretary here when she’s come back. She’s seen the
Secretary in Europe when the Secretary has been in Europe. There has been
a regular contact and a regular travel, and if you’d like us to get you
a full travel schedule I’m sure the European bureau can do that.
QUESTION: On the Middle East, what do you have on the location of the US
Embassy in Israel? Barak made another statement about that.
MR. REEKER: Well, I think as you know, on Friday the President said he is
taking under review before the end of the year the decision on moving the
Embassy, and I am not going to add anything further to that. I don’t
have anything else to say beyond what the President said on Friday.
QUESTION: Well, Barak seemed to imply that there was a decision that it
would be done; there was some kind of an agreement or some kind of a signal
to him that there would be a movement, it would be moved to Jerusalem at
the end of the Administration.
MR. REEKER: Well, again, if you look at what the President said, I think
he said only that he would review the issue and make a decision by the end
of the year. He said nothing more than that, and that’s all I’m
saying.
QUESTION: So you’re saying there’s no decision?
MR. REEKER: I’m saying exactly that; that the President said he has
taken under review before the end of the year the decision on moving the
Embassy, and I have nothing additional to add.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the resignation of Mr. Levy? I
expect you don’t, but I’ll try anyway.
MR. REEKER: We can just sort of leave it at that. Actually, you’re
probably very correct on it. I’m not going to, as we never do, comment
on developments in domestic Israeli politics. I think in response to what
the next questions are likely to be regarding developments in Israel,
it’s just important to keep in mind that Prime Minister Barak remains
committed to achieving an agreement with the Palestinians and he recognizes
that there is an historic opportunity here that must not be lost.
As President Clinton has said, Prime Minister Barak has taken many bold and
courageous steps in this area and we’re going to continue to support him
as he tackles the very difficult issues before him. And we’ve said many
times before these decisions are extremely difficult; they’re for the
parties and only for the parties to make the decisions. We stand ready to
help them in any way we can, but obviously those are decisions that the
parties themselves are going to have to make.
QUESTION: Does it complicate in any way your efforts to reach an
agreement on Jerusalem?
MR. REEKER: I think we remain very much committed to supporting the
parties in their efforts however we can. I don’t really have anything
further to add.
QUESTION: A related question? How is Ned Walker’s mission going?
MR. REEKER: Ned Walker is --
QUESTION: He’s in Saudi Arabia today. He saw somebody.
MR. REEKER: He was in Saudi Arabia today. He has departed. I believe he
is now in Jordan. Let me see if I can find that. Yes, as you know,
he’s traveling in the region to brief Arab countries on the developments
at Camp David. He was in Saudi Arabia yesterday, traveled to Jordan today,
and is expected to arrive in Syria either this evening or early tomorrow.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you tell us what the Saudis told him? Did they say
--
MR. REEKER: I don’t have readouts of his meetings. He’s been doing
some press along the way and we’ll leave it for him for that. But as
with the earlier stops, I’m not going to have detailed readouts of his
conversations. He’s briefing our friends in the region and telling them
about the developments at Camp David.
QUESTION: When is he back here?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have an exact time for his return. It’s a
lengthy trip that includes travel beyond Jordan and Syria, to Lebanon,
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Yemen, Oman, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.
Not to leave anybody out.
QUESTION: Are you done with the Middle East?
MR. REEKER: Any more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: The Knesset is in recess until October. Does it mean that the
US will be pushing for a new round of negotiations until in the next --
within the next three months as a kind of a window of opportunity?
MR. REEKER: Well, obviously, as I just said, there is sort of an historic
opportunity at hand. These are difficult issues that have to be pursued and
for the parties to solve. I don’t have anything to add in terms of our
actions other than to say that we stand ready to help in every way that we
can in terms of moving the process ahead.
QUESTION: I don’t know that you’ll have anything on this but --
MR. REEKER: Oh, I bet I will.
QUESTION: There is a cargo ship that’s been circling in the Atlantic
for the last couple of weeks. Do you know what I’m talking about?
MR. REEKER: I don’t know if you want to give any more detail, but I am
aware of --
QUESTION: The Canadian, though -- if you know about it, it’s carrying
Canadian military gear. It’s owned by a US company and the US company
won’t let it go any further. Is the State Department involved in any
way trying to resolve this?
MR. REEKER: The State Department has been in contact with the Government
of Canada and with the owners of the ship in question, the GTS Katie and
urged them to negotiate to solve this commercial dispute. Just a few
points to remind some of you. I spoke about this a bit yesterday with a
few people. A commercial ship in international waters ordinarily falls
under the jurisdiction of the country of its registry or where it’s
flagged, and in this case that ship is flagged in Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines. So international law provides for ships in international
waters to be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state on the
high seas.
We understand that the Government of St. Vincent has given consent to the
Government of Canada to board the ship, but I would have to refer you to
Canada or to Saint Vincent, really, for any specific details on that.
QUESTION: When you say you’re urging them to negotiate, aren’t they
already negotiating?
MR. REEKER: Right. And we continue to do that.
QUESTION: On Montenegro, do you have any reaction to the announcement
that the Montenegrins plan still to boycott the September 24 election even
after yesterday’s meeting with the Secretary?
MR. REEKER: I think the Secretary spoke to this, and I don’t really
have a lot to add to what she said yesterday in Rome before her return to
Washington today. The Secretary and President Djukanovic agreed certainly
on the need to support democratic forces in a united opposition to
Milosevic, and we expect Montenegro will do so. As you know, the Serbian
opposition has said it will participate in elections and will be united,
and these elections really need the participation of the Serb opposition.
So I don’t have anything particular to add to what the Secretary said
about it yesterday.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have anything further to what she said yesterday,
and those elections are several weeks away.
QUESTION: I understand that the meeting with the human rights
organizations interested in Colombia took place today, rapidly rescheduled,
and can you tell us what the arrangements were for it, because they were
making such demands, or requests?
MR. REEKER: Yes. We discussed this at great length yesterday about a
meeting that had been scheduled for yesterday, which was canceled when the
groups said they wouldn’t be coming. But I do understand that Acting
Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Peter Romero met with
representatives of a number of human rights organizations to discuss
Colombia sometime this morning. And I was going to try to get a readout of
that, but I don’t have any details on the meeting. But certainly we
should be able to find -- I don’t have any details, as you know --
QUESTION: Do you know how long the meeting lasted --
MR. REEKER: I don’t.
QUESTION: You just have any details that they were --
MR. REEKER: I have no details. They were trying to get those because
they knew you were interested, and perhaps others as well. So if you want
to check back later, we can work on that.
Fiji?
QUESTION: Fiji. One, any update on Fiji? Number two, Speight’s trial
now is going on and they are expecting nationwide violence, and also
Fijians in Fiji and around the US are planning a big demonstration asking
the US Administration to help and arrange -- (inaudible) -- the Prime
Minister’s government. What do you have on that?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have anything particular new to add. We’ve
been watching the events there. We’ve talked about Fiji at great length
over many weeks, months now, since that crisis began to unfold. We
applauded the arrest and detention of the hostage-taker, the failed
businessman, Mr. Speight, and a number of his cronies. We certainly
condemned in the strongest language the taking of hostages and the
destruction of the constitutional order in Fiji, and called for a return to
constitutional order there.
I don’t have anything specific or any reaction because I think the
situation remains somewhat in flux, but I have noted that officials there
have seemed to want to try to get Fiji back on the right track, back in a
constitutional order. They had a fine constitution from 1997 that provided
for representation and democracy and civil society in Fiji, and that’s
what we would like to see.
QUESTION: Wouldn't you call Speight a terrorist like Australia and New
Zealand did?
MR. REEKER: I don’t if any specific determination has been made of
Mr. Speights’s -- or categorized him. Certainly his actions were ones
that we condemned in the strongest terms. He continued to hold hostages
for a long period in the parliament and completely disrupted the
constitutional order. Under the constitution and in a civil society, there
were opportunities for people to raise their grievances or problems on
issues, and that’s the way those things should be pursued, not through
actions like his.
QUESTION: But again, US is not ready to call him a terrorist like
Australia and New Zealand, other countries have already declared?
MR. REEKER: I would have to check because I don’t want to make some
legal determination that will be used in some other context other than what
we do. I think we’ve been very strong in our condemnation of
Mr. Speight and applauded his being taken into custody, and we would expect
him to face justice for his crimes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. REEKER: Other issues. Yes, Jonathan.
QUESTION: Yes. Can you confirm that the United States is proposing to
amend the Kyoto Agreement to give credits for planting plants which absorb
carbon dioxide?
MR. REEKER: I think what you’re discussing, or to what you’re
referring are some newspaper reports about that. And I will admit that
I’m not an expert on the subject, but I did check into it because of the
press reports.
Yesterday, the United States submitted some detailed views concerning the
role of forests and agricultural land under the Kyoto Protocols. This was
really nothing new; this was a reaffirmation of the long-standing position
of the United States that it’s very important to include so-called
carbon sinks on a comprehensive basis as part of any long-term solution to
the challenge of climate change, which of course is what the Kyoto Protocol
is dealing with.
The approach proposed by the United States would give strong incentives to
remove carbon from the atmosphere through certain sound land management
practices, and would protect existing reservoirs of carbon, such as mature
forests, for instance. I think those of you that follow the issue of
global warming and environmental challenges know that these carbon sinks
and their role is among the most important issues under negotiation as the
parties to the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, work to establish
the rules and procedures under which the Kyoto Protocol will move forward.
There’s a tremendous potential in these carbon sinks to help countries
meet the challenges of climate change at a very reasonable cost, and
promote other environmental values like biodiversity.
So we believe that a comprehensive approach will best account for the full
range of natural and human activities that could affect the global climate
system, and we want to see decisions based on sound science. So certainly
there’s nothing new here, but we’ve submitted yesterday our positions
on these.
QUESTION: Who do you submit these proposals to?
MR. REEKER: To the UN. I can tell you what it’s called. The
Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. And we
submitted formally our position on land use, land use change in forests.
QUESTION: Have you released those proposals? Can we see them?
MR. REEKER: I’ll check into that. I don’t -- actually, let me
check into that right now. The full text of the US submissions are
available at the State Department website under the spotlight on global
climate change section. So that would be www.state.gov/www/global/oes.
QUESTION: Well, is it linked in -- I mean, can we find it?
MR. REEKER: If you go to the State Department web page, you’ll find it.
QUESTION: Okay, great.
QUESTION: Can we have one more, please? About Kashmir, please?
QUESTION: No.
MR. REEKER: Please, go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: The question is that if you have noticed that this violence or
attacks take place only when the two countries, India and Pakistan, or the
parties are ready for peace, or lasting peace in the region. The biggest
event took place when the elected government of Nawaz Sharif was overturned
by the military dictator. So have you or anybody from this Department or
the US government analyzed that why this happens always?
MR. REEKER: I think if you look at our statements, including the
statement that I made today, and what we could get you a paper copy of
after, you’ll see that we welcome statements like that of Prime Minister
Vajpayee in terms of continuing to pursue the path of peace. And we urge
governments and organizations involved to carry the process forward and not
allow the enemies of peace -- and these are the people responsible for
these atrocious attacks, certainly for the ones that took place yesterday,
claiming the lives of so many people.
So there are enemies of peace out there, and our message is that we cannot
allow the enemies of peace to sabotage the promising initiatives and the
path of peace that so many people do want to take to find solutions to
these problems.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. REEKER: One last thing, over here. Sorry.
QUESTION: In view of Secretary Albright’s concern with holding human
rights violators accountable, is there any comment on the decision that is
now being made in the Chilean courts as to whether or not to remove the
immunity of General Pinochet?
MR. REEKER: All I’ve seen are reports on that. I don’t believe a
decision has actually been released.
QUESTION: Not yet.
MR. REEKER: So until such time, I don’t have anything for you.
QUESTION: The Secretary has just come back, so obviously -- and she’s
had a hard trip -- but is there any thought being given to her going to the
Middle East to talk to allies after Ned Walker goes?
MR. REEKER: I’m not aware of any plans for the Secretary to travel to
the Middle East.
Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:20 P.M.)
|
