U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #77, 00-08-07
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1031
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
Monday, August 7, 2000
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1, 22 Secretary Albright to Travel to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, New
Mexico August 11-12,Los Angeles, California August 13-14, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile and Ecuador August 15-19
18 Secretary Albright to Deliver Address and Attend Luncheon at the
National Democratic Institute in Los Angeles on Sunday and Monday,
August 13 and 14
STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY
1-13 Terrorist Bombings at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi / Steps Taken to
Improve Security Overseas and Domestically / Continued Effort to
Bring Perpetrators of the Bombings to Justice / U.S. Has Increased
its Counter-Terrorism Consultations with other Governments,
Including Formal Bilateral Consultations with India, Spain, Russia
and Canada / Conference for Central Asian Nations About Terrorism
/ U.S. Continues Pressure Against Taliban Through the United
Nations Resolution / Funding for Embassy
7 Security / Assistance to Victims of East African Bombings
5 Renovation Plans for Security at State Department
AFGHANISTAN
10-12 U.S. Will Continue to Increase Pressure Until Osama bin Laden is
Brought to Justice
EGYPT
13-14 Extended Detention of Dr. Saad Ibrahim
IRAN
14 U.S. Expects Government of Iran to Uphold International Human
Rights Standards, Including the Right to Freedom of Expression
SERBIA (FRY)
15-17 Serbian Renewal Movement Agrees to Participate in Local and
Presidential Elections
CROATIA
15 Croatian President Stipe Mesic and Prime Minister Racan Visit to
Washington, August 9
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
18-20 Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Edward Walker
is Traveling in the Region to Brief Arab Countries on the
Developments at Camp David
VENEZUELA / IRAQ
23-24 U.S. Deeply Concerned that President Chavez Plans to Visit Baghdad
Without UN Sanctions Committee Approval
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 77
MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2000 1:40 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. If I can, I'd like to
follow up a little bit on some of the points that Secretary Albright raised
and talk to you a little more about some of the steps that are being taken
at the Secretary's direction, not only to pursue justice but also to
improve security, both in our buildings overseas and domestically as well.
Before I forget, though, let me also mention that we will be announcing her
next trip. It starts on the 11th in New Mexico, and then Los
Angeles the 13th and 14th, and four countries in
Latin America from the 15th to the 19th. So that
announcement will go up today for Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Ecuador.
That announcement will go up today, along with an explanation of some of
the activities during this trip, so you'll all be able to sign up starting
today.
Now on security, if I can, let me review a couple of the specifics among
the things that the Secretary talked about. First of all, she has
continued our effort to bring the perpetrators of the bombings to justice.
There are six suspects in the United States in custody awaiting trial;
there are three in the United Kingdom in custody, pending extradition to
the United States; and there are eight others, including Usama Bin Laden,
who remain at large.
The United States has increased its counter-terrorism consultations with
other governments, including we've had formal bilateral consultations this
year with India, Spain, Russia and Canada. And in June, I think as you all
know, we've hosted a conference for Central Asian nations here to talk
about terrorism.
We are also continuing the pressure against Taliban through the United
Nations resolution that was passed last year, and we have been exploring
further United Nations measures against the Taliban. These could include a
travel ban on Taliban members, the closing of Taliban representative
offices, and an arms embargo. These kinds of measures are under discussion
with other members of the Security Council.
Finally, we've been increasing our assistance to other governments in terms
of anti-terrorism training. To date, we've trained more than 20,000
representatives from over 100 nations in our anti-terrorism training
programs. We've been, as the Secretary mentioned, trying to get funding,
looking for 30 million to fund the Center for Anti-Terrorism Security
Training, which would be located in the DC area to train foreign security
services and law enforcement personnel in anti-terrorism methods more
effectively. And we want Congress to reconsider its plans to zero out the
funding that we requested for that item.
There will be a fact sheet put out on these measures, as well as the next
two sections, which I'll deal with briefly. Overseas security improvements
have been a major effort since the bombing. We have taken measures to
enhance security at every one of our posts overseas. We've enhanced
physical security at US missions with additional barriers, with reinforced
walls, with bollards, TV cameras, guard booths, vehicle barriers, bomb
detection equipment, window film to prevent windows from shattering, et
cetera.
We have established mandatory inspection of vehicles at all US diplomatic
facilities overseas. We have established in many places surveillance
detection teams so we can watch for those who might be watching us. We've
worked very closely with host governments on enhancing security and done
such things as acquiring property around our missions to enhance the
security, the setback, kind of, that we need for our missions. We've
worked with people to close down roadways, which often results in
inconvenience but doesn't result in major improvements to the security
situations. And we've hired and trained 337 new Diplomatic Security
personnel -- special agents, technicians, couriers, et cetera -- and 140 of
those will go to new security officer positions overseas.
Finally, on the domestic front, as you know, we've carried out a series of
improvements under the Secretary's direction to try to improve security in
this building. The escort policy that was established last year is part of
that. We work to enhance computer security safeguards. We have now done
security awareness briefings for approximately 7,000 employees since May.
This as one of the issues that the Secretary directed and raised because of
her determination to change the awareness and the culture of security
around here. We've done 7,000 employees in security awareness briefings
since May, and we continue to do those until we get everybody who works
here.
We have established new security barriers, state-of-the-art security
equipment. We've increased the presence of uniformed guards, both inside
the Department and outside the building as well, so that anyone who might
be walking around without the appropriate badge will be found in the
hallways, where they might go to. And we've also enhanced the training
around here.
I think you're all aware of the inter-agency panel that produced an experts
report for the Secretary. This was presented to her in mid-May and, since
then, she has directed the implementation of most of those recommendations.
There were 43 recommendations from the report that focused on access
control, physical and technical security, additional security awareness for
employees, restriction of traffic, and additional resources for security.
At the Secretary's direction, we have implemented the recommendations that
don't cost money, or that don't cost additional money that we don't have,
things such as the visitor escort policy, the security awareness briefings,
the additional training, deactivating building passes for people who don't
need them anymore.
Many of the recommendations, however, require additional money. Our
ballpark estimate is that they will require approximately $300 million and
900 new positions, including 500 security special agents over a two- or
three-year period, beginning probably in 2001.
QUESTION: Is that here, or --
MR. BOUCHER: Those are the recommendations for improving domestic
security.
QUESTION: This building?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, this is additional security for this building and maybe
other facilities that we have domestically nearby.
At the Secretary's direction, they are preparing -- the Diplomatic Security
Service and others are preparing a strategic plan to implement those
recommendations, figure out how much exactly it's going to cost. And once
we have that, we will go forward with the Congress.
Among the steps that we're taking already you may have heard about is an
enhanced access control system. We're buying a new system for ID cards
that would require us to run the ID through, but also to put in a PIN
number so that we can identify the person with the badge and not just the
badge. This cost is about $5 million. We've been able to find that in our
existing funding, and we'll begin to install the new system either late
this year or early next year, and the installation process will take about
a year. We're also testing other forms of enhanced access control systems
for more sensitive areas, but that's only in the testing phase.
I'll stop with that. There's a large number of steps being taken, both on
the international and diplomatic front and on the overseas security side,
as well as here domestically. I think the Secretary has made quite clear
that this is going to be a major long-term project that she has directed to
start. We have indeed started. We are indeed underway in terms of
training personnel and making the changes we can. But as we proceed, we
are also going to require funding and I'm sure she'll be looking for that
from the Congress as well.
QUESTION: I don't see your pass from here.
MR. BOUCHER: You can't see my badge? Well, that's because I have it in
my pocket.
QUESTION: Oh, no. We've got to wear ours around our neck.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, you know, you're not on camera.
QUESTION: True. But can I ask you if there is any estimates of the cost
-- estimates of the cost of spending overseas? I know it comes out of so
many different -- it falls into so many different categories it may be
impossible. But knowing how tight money is and how hard it is to get money
from Congress, I wondered if you have an estimate. And I wondered, you
know, what is cut back? Clearly you can't -- you've got to take from one
column to put it in another. What is this costing? Is this costing the
State Department attention to some other important issues?
MR. BOUCHER: Clearly, the amount of effort that needs to go in to
actually getting the funding from Congress is enormous, and we are facing
very severe cutbacks in many of these accounts, and we hope that those can
be fixed, frankly, by going back to Congress before they vote the
appropriation in order to get them to restore the full funding of the
President's request.
In Fiscal Year 2000 we had $554 million for Embassy security. That was the
full funding of the President's Fiscal Year 2000 request. But in 2001 we
felt we needed more money to do this. The full House approved the full
request. It was $1.058 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee,
however, marked up the bill to include only $637 million, so that's a
significant shortfall that we think we're going to have to make up.
This goes for properties that we're buying, rehabilitation projects. There
is a $400 million component for security operations that's included in
that, and then there is money for construction, including $500 million
construct request. As you know, the estimates in the Crowe report were
significantly higher and this is part of the ramp-up to a higher level of
security construction that we'll need in future years. So if we start out
getting cut back, we'll never get to the kind of money we're going to need
on down the line to get the kinds of facilities that we need to have people
be able to work in secure and safe places.
QUESTION: I guess I could ask at the Hill, but what is the process for
these two figures being reconciled in a timely way? Do you know?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I guess we'd say we hope the need is evident and that
they would be reconciled and that we would get the full funding of the
President's request. At this point, I'm not in to making predictions about
how it will come out, but I think the need is very evident to those of us
who need to live and work in these facilities.
QUESTION: As things stand right now, how much money would be appropriated
for overseas, according to --
MR. BOUCHER: The problem is we've got, as things stand right now, the
House, the full House, has approved the request for security funding which
is $1.058 billion. Senate Appropriations, however, marked up the bill to
include only $637 million, so we want the Senate to go back up to the full
funding of the President's request.
QUESTION: Does that include the 1.508 billion, the request, does that
include new construction?
MR. BOUCHER: That's 1.058.
QUESTION: Oh, sorry.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that includes some new construction. That includes
$500 million of new construction.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Why didn't the Administration ask for what Admiral
Crowe had recommended, the 1.3, 1.4 billion that the advisory boards
concluded was necessary in order to make all of the renovations and whatnot
overseas?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's basically the ramp-up. You can't go from 0 to
60 in five seconds, at least in the government. And therefore, in order to
ramp this up properly, we put in the operational component, $400 million
that the Crowe committee recommended, and then we put in $500 million in
terms of the construction, getting the construction started. But this is a
multi-year plan. The second year of this plan -- I guess this is the
second-year plan, and it includes a request of $3.350 billion in advance
appropriations. So you see how the expansion will continue.
QUESTION: In the Crowe report, they were quite disturbed to find out that
-- or to learn that the Inman Report, some 15 years earlier, looked very
similar to what they were saying much later. How do you explain what
happened between 1984 and 1999?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's a long period of time, but I think if you graph
the State Department budgets, including our security budgets for those
years, you would see what happened. We haven't had the money.
QUESTION: Being a long time -- there would have been time to make some of
the renovations that would have prevented, I mean, the setbacks, and issues
like the --
MR. BOUCHER: There were indeed a number of Inman buildings that were
built. I was lucky enough to inhabit one in Cyprus. It was a safe Embassy
with a lot of setback. But I don't think we ever had the money to do the
amount of work that we thought was necessary, and we hope that doesn't
happen this time.
QUESTION: Two quick clarifications, and then a couple questions. First
clarification, you said 20,000 representatives from other nations have been
trained by the US so far?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: Since when?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I knew you'd probably ask that, only I don't have it.
I think that's over a number of years. That's not just in the past year or
two.
QUESTION: Could it be even in total?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, 20,000 representatives from over 100 nations. That's
the total over a long period -- or over a number of years. I'll see if I
can get you how long that's been.
QUESTION: Okay. Then another clarification, and then I'll get to my
questions. Everyone likes the eyeballs, so does the eyeballs come under
the new PIN numbers, or do eyeballs identification wait until you get new
funding?
MR. BOUCHER: See, this one's easy to find, because I drew myself a
picture so I could find it. The eyeballs --
QUESTION: Is it a visual?
MR. BOUCHER: -- is in the testing phase. No, I think one of the networks
would think we were plugging them if we held up a picture. (Laughter.) We
have not -- yes, that goes down as cross-talk in the transcript.
QUESTION: (Inaudible).
MR. BOUCHER: The enhanced access control system, the $5 million system
that we are buying and we're going to expect to put in late this year or
early next year, with a whole installation period of about one year --
that's ID cards and PIN numbers. In addition, we're looking at two other
systems at this point, testing for certain areas that would require a
higher level of security. At this point, we're not looking at eyeballs or
hands -- which are the two that we're looking at now -- we're not looking
at those for general use; we're looking at those for particular areas of
the building which require higher levels of access control. But it's still
in the testing phase, so we don't know how those will work out.
QUESTION: Okay. Now for my questions. Those were just clarifications.
The first question, getting back to what Andrea and Teri have been saying,
you know, it's always a matter of priorities with Congress, and whatever
the White House puts at the top of their list is what they have the best
chance of getting funded. A lot of the members of Congress are saying that
the State Department has not made this -- and the White House has not made
this -- the single greatest priority, in terms of what they're looking for
funding for. They have too many requests, and this isn't the top one.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I guess what I'd have to say is a couple of things.
One is, as you know, the Secretary has said quite clearly, including, I
believe, in front of Congress, that we can't be faced with a choice of
having secure buildings without people inside, or people out doing their
jobs without any kind of decent security. You can't expect us to make that
kind of trade-off. The security funding is part and parcel of the ability
of the United States to represent itself overseas; therefore, it goes in
the request as a major part of the request, but is not -- you know, is one
component of doing our job overseas.
Second of all, the Secretary has made quite clear in her own remarks here,
in the Department and elsewhere, that security is one of her top
priorities; that she wants to change not only the culture and the
environment that we work in, but also to obtain the resources that are
necessary to go forward and to have security at our facilities overseas.
So I don't think there's any question in terms of how the Secretary has
made this clearly one of her priorities.
QUESTION: Just to follow up to that, those families that lost people in
the bombings and others might say that it's an awfully slow-paced that this
is all moving at, for the groundbreaking to happen this week when it's been
two years, and for this to be a multi-year project. You know, when there's
a national security emergency, things can move more quickly than this, and
so a lot of people are saying this is going at too slow of a pace, given
that all Embassies now are deemed at risk, not just a few.
MR. BOUCHER: I think certainly all of us who work in these embassies, all
of us who lost colleagues in these bombings, are very sympathetic with the
families. And the Department has done a lot to try to take care of and
help the families of those were killed or injured, and to help those who
were injured get better.
At the same time, there had been a lot of concern on their part,
justifiably, that this not happen somewhere else. And that's why I think
it's important to remember the things that I did cite: that we have made
physical upgrades to security at every single mission we have overseas;
that we have deployed counter-surveillance teams; that we have added
shatter-resistant film to the glass in many places; we've added bollards
and vehicle barriers and vehicle inspections at all our embassies. So
we've done a great deal to improve security in the meantime.
QUESTION: To follow up, you said the State Department has done a lot to
help those victims, but there is a lawsuit, as I'm sure you're aware, or
more than one lawsuit by the victims who are looking for compensation,
which they say has been given to the government but not to the victims
themselves.
Could you give me some of the examples of what State has done to help them?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd be glad to. On the lawsuit itself, I'm afraid I'm not
in a position to comment on that. Let me go back to the beginning. The US
Government lost 53 employees, contractors and family members in the East
African bombings; 12 Americans, 32 Kenyans and 9 Tanzanians. Their
families continue to grieve and to seek ways to deal with the enormity of
their loss.
In addition, there were 36 members of our Embassy communities who were so
seriously injured that they required medical evacuation first to military
facilities in Germany and then to the United States. Most of those who
were severely injured have been able to return to work in Nairobi, Dar es
Salaam or at other overseas locations.
When they need follow-on treatment for their injures, we bring them back to
the United States to ensure that they get the very best medical care
available. There is one blinded Foreign Service National employee who
remains in this country where he continues to receive extensive
rehabilitation. We are certainly committed to treating all our injured
employees -- the Americans, the Kenyans, the Tanzanians -- with equity and
provide them with excellent medical care.
In addition to that, we've provided over $37 million in assistance to the
Kenyan victims of the terrorist bombing attack on the US Embassy in
Nairobi. This includes assistance for medical and social services, US aid
programs that have helped offset the costs of emergency medical care for
those that were wounded in the bombing, and we've provided long-term
medical care, counseling, rehabilitation, occupational training, and we've
paid the schooling of children of deceased and disabled victims.
I won't go into the rest of that. The similar number is in Tanzania.
We've provided over 9.4 million to the Tanzanian victims of the terrorist
bombing. That includes $1 million for medical and social services, and
then US aid programs have helped with emergency medical care, long-term
medical care, counseling, rehabilitation, occupational training, and there
has been another 5.4 million provided to improve the capacity of the
Tanzanian Government to deal with future disasters.
So that's the kind of thing --
QUESTION: As far as personal compensation, though, they'd have to get it
through the lawsuit? Do you know of any plans to compensate?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that is the subject of the lawsuit so I'm not able
to talk about that. I have to leave that in the hands of Justice that's
handling the lawsuit.
QUESTION: One of the things that was also in the Crowe report was the
possibility of trying to regionalize some embassies, to make them sort of
clusters where a number of countries would be represented out of just one
country. Do you know if that idea has gone anywhere?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me double check on that because that was also the
subject of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel that looked at our
representation overseas. I think they may have ended up in a different
place, but I'll check on that one.
QUESTION: This seems to be the occasion it comes to mind. The building
is the most visible part of the US foreign policy operations, like the
White House is of the Executive. And, you know, it's been five years since
Pennsylvania Avenue was closed. It still looks makeshift despite
suggestions that the park be extended, E Street be open. There's a lack of
permanence about it. It just looks like something they're trying out.
Here, I can't figure out what's going on. Posts arrive. You made some
reference to a vehicle -- there seems to be an arrangement where people sit
in trucks or cars all day and they periodically block exit ways and then
get out of the way to let you get out and then come back again.
What I'm trying to say -- and I'm taking too long to say it -- is there any
master plan that we could be told about at some point, preferably with
illustration, or is this a case of trying things out? Pillars arise out of
no place. It really looks terribly makeshift. I don't imagine that's the
permanent -- that's the way the State Department is going to look five
years from now. But maybe it is.
Is there a plan, a design plan, for this building? Right now it's not
really very good-looking. I mean, it looks like Berlin, pictures of Berlin
in '45.
MR. BOUCHER: Not that bad.
QUESTION: But then again, we didn't do anything wrong.
MR. BOUCHER: Cross-talk. There is a plan for renovation in this
building, actually, and security concerns are being integrated into that
plan for renovation. And, actually, that will require certain street
closings just in order to do the renovation. At this point, the issue of
closing streets around the building, expanding the perimeter, the
possibility eventually of getting a visitor's center outside so people
would first get looked at our there, these things are being looked at as
part of the strategic plan that the Secretary directed to try to implement
many or all of the 43 recommendations that she got.
We are looking at the possibility of closing streets around the building.
That would provide additional perimeter security, the ability to control
things a little farther out from our doorways, and the setback for the
building that we always look for. That would allow additional screening of
vehicles, for example. At present, we're only able to screen delivery
vehicles.
But the answer to that, the answer to closing off streets and expanding the
perimeter and putting visitors centers out there and doing that kind of
plan, that's going to require some serious discussions with the Government
of the District of Columbia. It is a big issue for them and, at this
point, we have not come up with that kind of -- as we're still working on
the strategic plan, we haven't come up with a package to go to them with
yet. So we're looking at those things, but we're not at the point yet of
approaching the DC Government.
QUESTION: One thing, you're looking at a setback, but there's no
decision. Because when you answered Teri before, the Inman proposition
included lots of -- virtually the entire -- all Embassies set back, I
think, or at least most of them, and it was decided that's nuts; you
couldn't set back the embassy in London, for instance, you'd have to go out
of business.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, in many places, we'd have to move and rebuild
somewhere else.
QUESTION: It would be prohibitive.
MR. BOUCHER: A major funding question.
QUESTION: But the State Department maybe will have this vast protective
belt around it that used to be called D Street, is that it?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, we're looking at the possibility, but we don't have a
plan to present yet to the DC Government, and it would require their
approval. We recognize it's a difficult thing for them to start closing
down streets.
QUESTION: It's been two years since the bombing. What are your feelings
about Usama Bin Laden still being at large? Are you dismayed about this?
I know you're saying that you're going to continue to pursue those wanted,
but how do you feel? It's been two years now, and he's still not been
brought to justice.
MR. BOUCHER: I think first of all, we'd certainly like to have him
brought to justice. We'd like to see him face trial. And he has taken
refuge in a place where the Taliban seem to be harboring him, and we have
brought pressure on the Taliban and increasing pressure. We're looking at
ways of increasing pressure on the Taliban.
At the same time, I would say we have been able to disrupt a number of
terrorist operations over the past few years, and we have put Usama Bin
Laden, you might say, in the situation where he can hide, but he can't run.
He seems to have found a place where, until the Taliban decide it's time to
expel him, he is staying. But we are increasing the pressure on him, and
he can't go anywhere, and it's increasingly difficult for him to carry out
any operations in the last two years.
So we will continue that process. We will continue to increase the
pressure until we see him brought before the bar of justice.
QUESTION: That's the policy you have with the Bosnian Serb leader,
Radovan Karadzic, and it's been five years.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what you want me to say. I mean, does this
happen overnight? No. Do we have total control? Can we send in the FBI
or something everywhere in the world? No. But we have a strategy which at
once isolates him, makes it more difficult for him to carry out any
operations, and continues to increase the pressure on him and those who are
harboring him in the eventuality -- with a view to eventually bringing him
before the bar of justice.
QUESTION: Richard, you said you're considering an arms embargo against
the Taliban. How come this hasn't been considered before? I mean, if the
US has seen that the pressure they're putting so far on the Taliban hasn't
been working, how come there hasn't been such an increased pressure?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't know at what point one has to -- when one has
to ratchet it up. The UN Security Council Resolution 1267 was passed last
October, so it's been, what about nine or ten months that that was passed.
At this stage, we think it's appropriate to start talking to others, to be
talking to others on the Security Council about additional measures.
QUESTION: Are you considering putting Afghanistan on the list of
state-sponsored terrorists?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a different kind of decision, and frankly I don't
know where that one is.
QUESTION: Wouldn't you have to recognize the Taliban as a government
before you can do that?
QUESTION: -- acknowledge that Taliban is --
QUESTION: I was going to ask that --
MR. BOUCHER: That's a question we did deal with, actually, when the
terrorism report was released -- thanks for reminding me -- that you can't
be a state sponsor of terrorism unless you're a state. And at this point,
I'm not sure we recognize the regime in Afghanistan as a state.
QUESTION: Can it be recognized as a terrorist organization?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to look at that. We're looking at reviewing other
groups for designation as a foreign terrorist organization. I'll have to
find out if that includes Taliban or not.
QUESTION: The essential question has got to be: Is there a government in
Afghanistan and, if it is, what is it? No, State has to at some point come
to a decision; even with people you don't like, you acknowledge they're in
charge of a country. Is Taliban in control so that it is the government of
Afghanistan?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've made that decision, Barry, and if we do,
I'll call you right away.
QUESTION: But it's been a while. No, it's not just my personal
curiosity. I can't recall such a long delay in a judgment as to who runs a
country.
MR. BOUCHER: I can.
QUESTION: You can? Could you give me an example?
MR. BOUCHER: Later.
QUESTION: Excuse me, Barry. It has been reported in the press that the
Taliban has taken action to relieve Mr. Bin Laden of some of his
communications capability; also, it has been reported that the Bin Laden
organization has split in two, now in separate camps, and also that Bin
Laden has been quite ill, in fact terminally ill. Can you confirm any of
those reports?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: This talk of the sanctions against the Taliban has been
rumbling on for about three months now, and it seems that you pretty well
agree with the Russians. What's holding this up? Why don't you just go
ahead and do it? Is there any opposition in the Security Council to this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can give you a rundown at some point, but
we've started our discussions. We've had discussions with other members of
the Council, and I'm sure when we feel there is the appropriate consensus
that we'll move forward.
QUESTION: Can I ask a protocol question related to today's ceremony? Was
there a reason that the flag outside here was lowered to half-staff and
then raised back up to full height again after like a minute? It was my
understanding it was going to stay down the whole day.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll double check on what the plan was. I'm not really sure.
QUESTION: But, I mean, is it symbolic or anything, like we're remembering
these people but as the stars and stripes fly free?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, frankly. I'd have to check on the exact
nature of how that was done and why it was done that way.
QUESTION: I want to change subjects, but I have a quick question on the
internal Main State security. When the information leaked out about the
300 million on Friday, members of Congress said that State Department has
not done enough to change the culture of indifference to security. Any
response to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I have to say when you have the Secretary of State making
security one of her top priorities, when you have the Secretary of State
directing that it be a part of every member's performance file, every
employee's performance file, of every employee's record as they get
nominated for senior positions for example, those arrangements have been
worked out and explained to Congress. Some of them have to be formalized
in terms of changing the regulations.
You have a Secretary of State who is pushing for security enhancements
within the building, who has made decisions on things we can do here, who
has over the past two years made a number of decisions and directed more
resources to support improvements to our Embassies overseas.
I think the Secretary has really done a lot, frankly, to not only change
the culture but change the resources, change the status of security issues.
As far as I know, she is the only Secretary that I can remember who has had
a daily meeting with her chief of security, with her Assistant Secretary
for Diplomatic Security every morning to discuss the state of affairs and
how well protected we are. So I think she's gone a long way. We've had
7,000 people already go through the retraining program that she directed,
and I think we are indeed changing the culture and changing the way we do
things with regard to security.
QUESTION: Can we move on to Egypt, where Mr. Saab Ibrahim has already
spent a month in prison without charges against him, but he's accused of
spying for the United States as the academic, the human rights leader?
State may have expressed concern already, I'm not sure, but do you have
anything to say about this situation?
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about this situation repeatedly, I think,
over the last several months. I remember making a statement while we were
up at Camp David about the issue, and we've talked about it before that
from here, and we've had a subsequent statement, I believe as well. Right,
Phil? Yes.
But just to bring you up to date on where we are right now, there were
media reports that Dr. Ibrahim was being charged with some very serious
crimes. Following these reports, our Embassy in Cairo met immediately with
senior Egyptian officials and they informed us that the Government of Egypt
has not filed charges against Dr. Ibrahim. So we are pleased to find that
those reports are inaccurate, but we do remain deeply concerned about his
continued detention without charges.
The Egyptian Government is fully aware of our concern and of that of the
international community regarding the extended detention of Dr. Saad
Ibrahim. We don't understand the decision to prolong his detention and we
call upon the Egyptian Government to make clear the formal charges against
him or, better yet, to release him.
We're also concerned about the continuing detentions of some other members
of the Ibn Khaldoun Center who have not yet been charged with any crime.
We share the concern of many others who question the detention of an
internationally recognized advocate of civil society and democratic reform
in the region. Egypt, as we point out, recently endorsed the Warsaw
Declaration at the Community of Democracies meeting in June. It commits
governments to uphold democratic principles and practices like freedom of
expression and freedom from arbitrary arrest. The United States takes
these commitments seriously and expects those countries which endorsed them
to live up to the principles to which they have committed themselves.
QUESTION: Do you happen to know how many other members of the group --
you said others. If you know.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have a number. I'll see if we do, but I don't think I have an exact number.
QUESTION: I mean, there's an implication or an inference that it's his
advocacy of human rights that has caused him his difficulties, instead of
some civil matter that we don't know about.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's the conclusion that many observers have drawn,
and given the fact that he has not been charged with any particular crime
and he has been extended detention, I think that's a fair assumption for
people to make.
QUESTION: Richard, was his lawyer, then, who was the one who was saying
that he's been charged? This guy was just misinformed?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what he had been told. At this point, the
Government of Egypt tells us they have not filed additional charges.
QUESTION: Additional charges? Does that mean --
MR. BOUCHER: Charges.
QUESTION: Any charges? Well, are they hiding behind semantics here? I
mean, has this guy been accused, but they haven't actually been stamped or
whatever by a clerk?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I'm not aware of what they might have told his
lawyer, whether they might have predicted something to his lawyer that
hasn't happened. But, in fact, we just checked on this, and at this point
they're telling us they haven't filed charges against him.
QUESTION: As of what, 8:37 in the morning, so whatever --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, as of -- I think it would have been this morning, maybe
yesterday, that we checked.
QUESTION: In Iran yesterday, the spiritual leader there, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, cut off all debate of a press freedom bill in the parliament,
resulting in, I understand, a fracas on the floor there. Has the State
Department considered, or started reconsidering, its recent policies with
regards to sanctions in Iran? And, at this point, do you have any reaction
to that?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think our reaction is to reiterate what we've made
clear on many occasions, that we do have very serious concerns about
freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Iran. We would expect
the Government of Iran to uphold international human rights standards,
including the right to freedom of expression.
In terms of the limited measures that we have taken to improve our
relationship with the Iranian people, to allow a few avenues of
people-to-people expression to occur, no, I don't think this affects that.
We have a number of issues that we wish to raise, though, in a direct
dialogue with the Government of Iran, and that has not begun at this point.
QUESTION: If the reformers who are elected can't pass the laws that
they'd like to pass, I mean, what does that election end up ultimately
meaning?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a question one could write a Master's thesis
about. I think we have noted the process of change. There certainly has
been some change, some tremendous domestic change, in Iran. As we all have
seen, the process is not smooth, has not been smooth, and probably won't be
smooth. So we'll watch this closely as we go forward. And as I said, we
look to have an opportunity to address some of the issues that we have
concerns about, to address those directly with the Government of Iran.
QUESTION: Maybe I missed this in your answer to the initial question, but
are you concerned at all that the debate was cut off, and then was followed
today by the arrest of another opposition editor?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've been concerned about a lot of these events, and
I think what I made clear is we have serious concerns about freedom of
expression --
QUESTION: Yes, but do you have a serious concern about people cutting off
parliamentary debate?
MR. BOUCHER: This is part of the whole picture. The law to protect
freedom of the press, and the debate being cut off, and the arrests --
these things lead to serious concerns on our part.
QUESTION: Change of subject? Yugoslavia. We have another opposition
candidate for the presidency. Do you have any comment on that, and would
you like to appeal to them yet again to unite around a single candidate?
MR. BOUCHER: First, we think it is an important step forward that the
Serbian Renewal Movement has reversed its position and agreed to
participate in local and presidential elections. With this decision, the
Renewal Movement joins the bulk of Serbian democratic forces committed to
participating in those elections in an effort to speed up the process of
bringing democracy to Serbia.
Second, more needs to be done to bring about unity of the democratic forces
in Yugoslavia. The Renewal Movement should decide to participate also in
federal parliamentary elections. Even more importantly, all democratic
forces should come together around a common strategy for all these
elections at local, federal and presidential levels. This would maximize
the possibility of bringing about peaceful democratic change in Serbia.
We understand that the leaders of the opposition parties do intend to sit
down and discuss a common strategy for these elections. We wished they
would not first open up their discussions in the press, but we do think
that this process of their getting together and discussing a common
strategy is very important, and we hope that they can reach a common
strategy to pursue.
QUESTION: What kinds of things will the US be doing to help the
opposition in these elections?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not a subject that I can go into too much detail
about. I think generally our support for democracy in Serbia, and the
support of many in the region for democracy in Serbia, is quite clear.
We've had a series of discussions with people. You've seen in our meetings
and in the Secretary's meetings, whether it's the meetings with opposition
and regional people in Berlin she had not too long ago, the keeping in
touch with opposition figures or with the President of Montenegro, we have
continued to encourage and support a democratic alternative in Serbia.
QUESTION: Talking of democratic alternatives, the Croatian president is
coming to town, and I believe he is going to have meetings here at the
State Department. Could you give us an idea of what you have to get from
these meetings, and also some idea of just how pleased you are, or
otherwise, with his performance since Mr. Tudjman disappeared from the
scene?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I, I think, remind you first of all, in Florence at
the NATO meetings when we welcomed Croatia into the Partnership for Peace
at that time, and the meetings and remarks that were made at the time that
welcomed the democratic course that Croatia was following. President
Stjepan Mesic and Prime Minister Racan of the Republic of Croatia will in
fact travel to Washington for a working visit on August 9th, two
days from now. They will meet with the President, other senior
Administration officials, to discuss a broad range of bilateral and
regional issues.
We see this as an important step in strengthening the growing cooperation
between the United States and the Republic of Croatia in the wake of that
country's democratic transition.
QUESTION: Do you see a difference, though, between the leadership styles
of the two presidents?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't necessarily do leadership styles; we do do
democracy, and we're certainly happy to see the democratic path that
they've embarked upon.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the Serbs for a second? I don't think you --
are you disappointed that the Serb opposition hasn't come up with a single
candidate, or are you still hopeful that they might do so?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I do think they are sitting down to adopt and to try
to work out a common strategy. As we said, we would have preferred they do
that, start out in private and then go public, but not start out first in
public. But the fact is, they're sitting down to work on a common
strategy. There's still time to do that and we're hopeful. To adopt your
phrase, we're hopeful that they will be able to arrive at that and to
present a united opposition to Milosevic.
QUESTION: So when you say -- "common strategy" is a US code word for
single candidate? What does that mean?
MR. BOUCHER: We've said along we thing it's important for them to unify
and to support a single candidate. There's different levels of election
here, not just the presidential level. And there are different factors
involved in how they operate in these elections. So a common strategy
encompasses the whole thing. But at the presidential level, we have made
clear we think it's important to unify and to support a single candidate.
QUESTION: Richard, there's a prominent Romanian politician here, and
caused me to look back on some recent stories. And there's seems to be a
lot of -- disarray may be the wrong word, but there's a real splintering in
Romania. Does the State Department happen to have a position on the huge
spectrum of candidates and parties -- there seems to be a whole political
turmoil in Romania. But it's a different country. It's not coming out of
a --
MR. BOUCHER: It is a different country --
QUESTION: It's coming out of a different situation; it's not coming out
of a Tudjman situation.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to look at it for you.
QUESTION: Your guide book might have something.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't had the occasion to look at Romania for a while,
and don't have anything for you today.
QUESTION: Two trips. One, President Chen is apparently coming to the
United States, coming to Los Angeles on his way to Latin America. And
China today has objected to that visit, and said that they do not
appreciate the United States allowing him to come through here. Any
reaction to that?
MR. BOUCHER: This is the normal kind of transit that's being done for the
safety and convenience of the traveler. We have explained it to the
Chinese. I think we've answered this question several times in public over
the last week, and I'd be glad to get you copies of what we've said.
QUESTION: Well, have you assured him -- is he going to be making these
stops -- and it occurred to me that the date as listed is August
13th. President Clinton and Secretary Albright will both be in
Los Angeles when he goes through there. Will there be any contact?
MR. BOUCHER: There will be no meetings with Administration officials.
QUESTION: When you've dealt with this recently, you've dealt with this
recently, I mean, so far as this is travel --
MR. BOUCHER: I answered it here. I think I remember answering it in
Bangkok as well.
QUESTION: He's got to move swiftly out of the country and continue on his
way; is that the general --
MR. BOUCHER: It's done for the safety and convenience to the traveler.
There is no -- there are no meetings expected with any Administrative
officials.
QUESTION: Okay. And then on the Secretary's trip to Los Angeles, will
she have occasion to be in any public or private meetings, since it's
coinciding with the Democratic Convention, where she may meet with any
donors to the Democratic Party?
MR. BOUCHER: NDI is not donors, right? It's National Democratic Institute.
QUESTION: Right. But will she go to any private --
MR. BOUCHER: She'll be delivering an address to the National Democratic
Institute in Los Angeles. She'll attend an NDI luncheon on the
14th, Monday. Address on Sunday in Los Angeles, and a luncheon.
QUESTION: Where?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know yet. We'll get you that -- on Monday the
14th.
QUESTION: Those are her only things?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any other events on her schedule for there,
but we'll get you a more precise schedule as we get closer.
QUESTION: Do you have any response to one of the Palestinians who was at
Camp David, Hassan Asfour, who says that the United States still commits a
lot of stupidities and that Ned Walker is going around misrepresenting the
Palestinian position?
MR. BOUCHER: Did he say that?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen those remarks, so I don't have any response.
And I think to try to explain whether or not Ned Walker is misrepresenting
things would require us to go into detail on what he's saying. Suffice it
to say that he is giving an objective and accurate rundown on the peace
process and what happened at Camp David to the parties. He's had good
meetings at all his stops. He's had serious discussions, I think, which
demonstrates a deep interest and the constructive attitudes among Arab
leaders with whom he's met.
The Arab states with whom he's met, in fact, have expressed appreciation
for the United States role in the process. We believe, and all our Arab
interlocutors continue to believe, that Jerusalem should be addressed in
permanent status negotiations between the parties.
So as we go through this period of reassessment and reflection on the
results of Camp David, I think we may see a variety of views expressed, but
certainly the trip of Assistant Secretary Walker is an accurate and
objective chance to convey to the people what went on at Camp David and the
peace process.
QUESTION: When you say he's been giving an objective rundown on what
happened at Camp David, you seem to imply that he's not actually asking any
of his interlocutors to do anything. Can you confirm that? Is that what
he's -- he's just going around briefing them, and that's it? Or is he
actually, you know, trying to promote compromises or --
MR. BOUCHER: To go into more detail than I have would require me to go
into more detail than I have, and we're not prepared to do that. So, at
this point, I just have to describe the trip the way we've described it in
the past, and not try to elaborate on that.
QUESTION: But it gives it a coloration of everything being kind of nice
and constructive. The two quotes that I remember from Friday that came out
of his visit was, in Egypt, the Foreign Minister said, if you think our job
is to force concessions out of Yasser Arafat, it's badly mistaken. And the
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia said there can't be peace until Israel gives
up East Jerusalem.
Does that represent the kind of helpful -- and those are two of your more
moderate -- those are your two lynchpins of Arab moderation. Does that
typify what Mr. Walker's running into, or do you think that's just for the
street?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm afraid I'm just not in the position to
characterize these meetings any more than we have. We found them serious,
we found them constructive, and we found them useful in terms of increasing
the understanding and contributing to this period of reassessment and
reflection on the results of Camp David. But in terms of sort of the
specifics about they support this or they support that, I'm just not able
to do it.
QUESTION: Well, that doesn't sound -- those statements don't sound as if
he's getting a constructive reading, but I think Jonathan's question --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I said he found constructive attitudes among the Arab
leaders he's met, so I wouldn't directly contradict that.
QUESTION: People say what they say, and I'm happy to believe what they
say, because people generally say what they mean in the Middle East.
MR. BOUCHER: People say what they mean here, too.
QUESTION: What is this 14 -- is this 14-nation trip about over? And
Jonathan's question, I think, is a good one. Is Mr. Walker a briefer,
which often happens after major diplomatic events -- you send someone out
to inform the parties who weren't there -- or is he trying to move this
process forward? And to move the process forward, it would stand to
reason, because the President and the Secretary of State have both said it
many, many times, neither side can get exactly what it wants; there has to
be compromise.
Is he out there -- as Dennis will go out in about two weeks -- is he out
there to try to get some mood of compromise going, by going to major Arab
countries and suggesting to them that they try to create an atmosphere of
compromise? Or is he just briefing?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I've got a shorter answer than the question, but
here are several answers to things that you raised. First of all, we have
described the trip from the beginning; the principle purpose is to brief
Arab countries on developments at Camp David. Now, naturally, the
discussions that he has in so doing contribute to others' understanding of
the process, contribute to our understanding of the process, and we would
certainly hope would encourage the process to continue and to reach a
successful conclusion. So this is part of the process of, we think,
enhancing the prospects in the future, but we're still, as I described, in
this period of reassessment and reflection.
Second of all, we recognize, and I think all the people we're talking to
recognize, that the parties themselves have to come to the deal. The
parties themselves have to reach the agreement. So, naturally, we think
that everybody who can support that should support that, but these are not
meetings where he's going to negotiate with somebody else about the future
status of Jerusalem. That is something that the parties have to do.
Third of all, yes, indeed, Ambassador Ross does plan on being in the region
later this month, but he's going on vacation, and I think that's an
important distinction to remember.
Where are we? We're about fourth --
QUESTION: No, wait a minute -- not so fast. Is he going to be -- I
understand he's vacationing?
MR. BOUCHER: What can I say?
QUESTION: You opened a can there. (Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: I know. Let me -- let's get back --
QUESTION: Either a guy goes on vacation and he goes on government expense
to do government business, so --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's go back -- let me just tell you where Ambassador
Walker is -- okay? He is in -- he was in Tunisia and Syria over the
weekend. He is now in Kuwait. He continues on to the rest of the Gulf
States tomorrow. And by my counting, he's got Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE,
Yemen, Oman, Algeria and Morocco still to go. So he's out for a little
while longer.
Okay, now back to Ambassador Ross. Ambassador Ross does intend to travel
to the region later this month for vacation, and beyond that I don't have
anything.
QUESTION: Well, if he bumps into the Prime Minister of Israel on the
beach, will he talk to him? I mean, come on. No, I don't mean you come
on. He's going to be in the area and --
MR. BOUCHER: He's going to be in the area --
QUESTION: -- and I don't suppose he's going to put stoppers in his ears
--
MR. BOUCHER: -- and he obviously knows people in the area. He's going to
see people he knows. I wouldn't be surprised if he did see people involved
in the peace process, but the principle purpose of this trip is vacation.
QUESTION: Will he go in a government way? With government support, on a
government airplane, with the usual -- or at least some version of the
usual -- support? You know, his deputy, et cetera?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: Will he be hosted by anyone? Will he be staying in anyone's
home as a guest?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of, but I'll double check.
QUESTION: Could you be more precise?
QUESTION: Will he stay in the Middle East, and continue with his work?
MR. BOUCHER: If he changes to an official status at some point, we'll
have to report that to you. He gets leave.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. BOUCHER: You know, he gets to take vacation, just like you.
QUESTION: Is it just Israel or --
MR. BOUCHER: The region.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: There are at least 14 countries in the region, I understand.
QUESTION: Well, 14 Arab countries, 14 countries to which he will not be
going.
MR. BOUCHER: There's a lot of countries, and there's an authority, too.
QUESTION: There were a lot of members of Congress that were called and
consulted during the Camp David talks. Was Senator Lieberman called, and
did he offer any input during that process? Was he called?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me go back to this. First of all, I think the phone
calls that the President made before Camp David were all reported on by the
White House, so you'd have to check their listing of who was called. I'm
not aware that the Secretary made any phone calls to Senator Lieberman, and
I'd have to double check on that.
QUESTION: Do you know if he independently offered any input, or was in
any way involved that you were aware of?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of, but you could ask him whether he
did.
QUESTION: Could you tell us the purpose of the Secretary's trip to
Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Ecuador? Is there some kind of theme in
this, or is it just the fact that Latin America -- is there any particular
occasion, or does she just feel that it's time she went there. What's it
all about?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't even find my piece of paper anymore. I slipped it
somewhere in this book, because I didn't need it again. She'll hold a
series of meetings to discuss the important issues and interests we share
in common with these countries.
(Laughter.) Is that helpful?
QUESTION: I'll write that down now.
MR. BOUCHER: All right. Let me just describe -- she'll be traveling to
Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Ecuador.
QUESTION: In that order?
MR. BOUCHER: Envisaged in that order, but don't hold us to it if we have
to rearrange the schedule to make everything fit properly.
Obviously, the issues in this region, democracy and support for democracy
in the region is important; economic progress and economic reform are very
important in the region; and regional cooperation is also very important in
the region. Unlike any other region in the world. No, regional
cooperation, particularly with regard to narcotics, and regional
cooperation more generally on economic issues is very important.
So there are a lot of things to discuss in this part of the world. I'm not
sure when the last time was that she had the opportunity to go down there,
but I know that these are countries that she's wanted to visit for quite
some time, at least since I've been around.
QUESTION: Is she planning a stop to Venezuela, to see why President
Chavez is going to be taking a trip to Iraq in the near future?
MR. BOUCHER: To ask him why he wants the dubious distinction of being the
first democratic elected chiefs of state to go meet with a dictator who
invades neighboring countries?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think she'll be doing that on this trip, but it is a
question that inquiring minds would like to see an answer to.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that, by the way?
QUESTION: Wasn't that enough there? Wasn't that sarcasm you lob in the
direction of President Chavez?
MR. BOUCHER: Wasn't that a comment? No, it was a question.
QUESTION: Now that he's elected, and she -- and he's been sworn in to
office, how is she going to deal with him at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I mean, at this point -- well, certainly we have our
embassy there, and we do recognize the democratic election and the
accomplishment of Venezuelan democracy, so I don't want to denigrate that.
But, frankly, we do have questions about this particular trip that
President Chavez intends to undertake. We do think it's a rather dubious
distinction to be the first democratically-elected head of state to go meet
with the dictator of Iraq, and we're quite concerned. We're deeply
concerned about the reports that they're planning this visit to Baghdad.
It's very hard for us to understand these reports, given that Iraq
continues to flout its international obligations. Iraq remains unwilling
to accept UN Security Council Resolution 1284.
We're also concerned about reports that President Chavez would plan to fly
to Baghdad without UN Sanctions Committee approval. It's Venezuela's
obligation as a UN member state to observe all the Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq and the sanctions regime. We will be discussing
President Chavez's plans to visit Baghdad with relevant officials in
Venezuela, in an effort to find some other means to accomplish his goal of
coordination with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
We'd also like to make clear that in any way contact with Iraqi officials,
we would expect Venezuelan officials to make clear that the roots of the
current confrontation with Iraq are Baghdad's nine-year long refusal to
meet its international obligations and, more recently, its continuing
challenges to the no-fly zone.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- said why she's not going to Venezuela.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't say that's why she's not going to Venezuela.
QUESTION: I mean, it's next door.
MR. BOUCHER: She's just not going to Venezuela.
QUESTION: All right. Because it's next door, and she's --
MR. BOUCHER: She has a limited amount of time for certain countries that
she wanted to visit on this trip. She's not able to really -- to just add
others. She's just not going to Venezuela on this trip.
QUESTION: If Iraq -- can I --
QUESTION: If she's not going -- I'm sorry --
QUESTION: Can we just follow up on this?
QUESTION: -- she's not going --
MR. BOUCHER: There are at least 175 countries in the world she's not
going on this trip.
QUESTION: I want to talk about Colombia, but go back to Elise.
QUESTION: We'll follow up on this. If the president takes this trip
without UN Sanctions Committee approval, will there be any punitive
measures, whether it be in the United Nations or through any kind of US --
MR. BOUCHER: That's an if at this point. We would hope that that would
not occur, but we'd deal with that situation as appropriate if it happened.
QUESTION: Is this something that you'd follow up with with the OAS, or
it's not though that channel?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we're following up directly with the Venezuelan
Government. We're in touch with them, and we'll be talking to them more
about it.
Okay, among other countries --
QUESTION: Was the decision for her not to accompany the President to
Colombia -- did it have anything to do with security concerns? Because
they even took the kind of unusual step of noting security concerns in the
White House statement of his trip.
MR. BOUCHER: No. At various times, she and the President travel
together, and sometimes they have separate business to do in different
places at different times. But I don't think either one of them considers
the other a security risk, and I'm not aware that any decision on travel to
Colombia was made with regard to security. This is just one of those times
when the President is going down to Colombia. Obviously, she supports --
we all support -- Plan Colombia and the steps the Government of Colombia is
taking. But at this point, she didn't feel it necessary to go with him.*
Hold on. We've got one more down here. The last one.
QUESTION: As predicted earlier this year, during -- well, even before the
Secretary's trip to the region, there's been another outbreak incursion by
Islamic rebels in Uzbekistan. Do you have anything to -- (inaudible) --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'll be glad to look into it for you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 P.M.)
*Footnote: A decision as to whether Secretary Albright will accompany the
President to Colombia has not yet been decided.
|
