U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #80, 00-08-10

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

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

985

U.S. Department of State Press Briefing

Thursday, August 10, 2000 Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

LATIN AMERICA
1-2	Secretary Albright Traveling to Bolivia On Upcoming Trip to Latin
	 America 
1	Background Briefing Today on the Secretary’s Travel to Latin America
COLOMBIA
1	Background Briefing Tomorrow on High-Level Consultations with Colombia
19	Alleged US Contacts with Carlos Castano
CHINA/TAIWAN
2-4	Transit Stop in US by President Chen Shui-bian
ARMS CONTROL
4-8	National Missile Defense /Concerns re Nuclear and Ballistic Missile
	 Build-Up 
IRAQ
8	Reaction to Saddam Hussein’s Speech
9	Rumors of Iraq Troop Movements
IRAQ/KUWAIT
8-9,10	Reports Kuwait Put Forces on Alert in Response to Threats from Iraq
VENEZUELA/IRAQ
8,9-12	President Chavez Visit to Iraq
NORTH KOREA
12-13	Ambassador Sheehan’s Visit/Meetings/Outcome
RUSSIA
14-16	Edmund Pope Case/Medical Condition/Consular Access
EGYPT
16	Release of Dr. Saad Ibrahim
IRAN/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
16	Chairman Arafat’s Visit to Iran
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO
16-18	Possible Milosevic Move in Montenegro
BOSNIA
17,18	Criticism by War Crimes Tribunal re Failure to Arrest Indictees in
	 Bosnia 
INDIA/PAKISTAN
19-20	Kashmir Bombing

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

DPB # 80

THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1:05 P.M.

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m sorry I’m late. I’m trying to be better prepared than I usually am. No, trying to be better prepared than I would otherwise be. Let me do a couple things on the top. We’ll have a few other statements this afternoon, so I won’t go through everything.

But, first of all, I want to announce that the Secretary’s trip to Latin America August 15 to 19 that, in addition to her previously announced stops in Brasilia, Buenos Aires, Santiago and Quito, the Secretary will also visit La Paz, Bolivia. This is her ninth trip to the region. During this trip she will underscore US active involvement and engagement with Latin America. She’ll reinforce the excellent bilateral relationships that we have with the five countries that she will visit. Her visit is also intended to strengthen the commitment we share with our hemispheric neighbors to democracy, market economies, rule of law, and environment protection.

There will be a briefing this afternoon on background on this trip. Also, I want to tell you that we’ll have another background briefing tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 p.m. in this room on high-level consultations with Colombia that we’ve been having recently.

And those are the ones I’ll mention off the top. After that, I’ll be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: What does that La Paz stop do to the schedule?

MR. BOUCHER: It adds another stop to the schedule. It’s still the 15th to the 19th.

QUESTION: Are we going to spend three hours in each country now; is that it?

QUESTION: He wants longer in Brazil.

MR. BOUCHER: I’m sorry, I can’t get you to Rio this time but --

QUESTION: It just seems like if you’re -- well, is there some reason that she has to be back on the 19th that you’re adding -- you know, you’ve added two stops since it was --

QUESTION: Yes, why not make it two each?

QUESTION: I mean why not -- no, not two --

MR. BOUCHER: Matt --

QUESTION: What? I don’t think this is an unreasonable question. I’m not asking for myself. I’m asking -- I mean, if she really wants to go to these countries and have serious discussions with these people, I mean, the stop right now in Brazil is envisioned to be less than five hours.

MR. BOUCHER: You’ve been on these trips before.

QUESTION: I know, but I --

MR. BOUCHER: You know she has serious discussions. She packs the schedule. She meets with the people she needs to meet, then she goes on and works elsewhere. She doesn’t have a whole lot of down time.

QUESTION: I know, I just said --

MR. BOUCHER: So she’s going to do this visit in this time frame, and I guarantee there will be serious discussions and time for enough discussion in every stop.

QUESTION: Which leads me back to my question. What does it do to the schedule that had already -- but where does it fit in with the rest of the stops, and how long will she be there? Which is what I was asking, and I don’t think it was unreasonable.

MR. BOUCHER: I don’t have those kinds of details of the schedule yet. You know we go through those schedules more or less day by day as we travel. We’ll give you a general schedule at the start of the trip, but the dates of the trip are still the 15th to the 19th. So it adds another stop within the existing time frame.

QUESTION: On Taiwan, the Taiwanese president is going to have a transit stop, as you know, over the weekend in LA, and Congressmen Rohrabacher and Berman want to meet with him, and apparently they are being discouraged from doing so. What can you tell us about that?

MR. BOUCHER: First, to say I think there’s some reports that we’ve somehow denied a request or otherwise, there’s no procedure or request that we get that we approve or deny. I think in this context I just want to reiterate the basic premise of the visit, that President Chen will make a brief transit of the United States. He’s on his way to the Caribbean. He’s transiting Los Angeles the 13th; stay overnight, and depart next day on the 14th.

Permission for transits by Taiwan senior leaders are done for the safety, comfort, and convenience of the traveler. They are granted on a case-by- case basis. And we understand that the activities of the traveler will be consistent with the purposes of transit.

QUESTION: So what you mean is if Rohrabacher, Congressman Rohrabacher, wanted to meet or have a private meeting with President Chen, will there be a reaction from the State Department, or just leave that to the --

MR. BOUCHER: I don’t think he needs -- he particularly asks us. Certainly this is a transit. It’s done for the safety, convenience and comfort of the traveler. Any activities would be private. There would be no public or media events; for example, there are no meetings with Administration officials planned. He’ll be greeted as a courtesy by the Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, the private organization that carries out our unofficial relations with Taiwan. But it’s not a visit that would involve formal public events or anything like that; it’s a transit, and we would expect activities to be consistent with the purpose of transiting and for the safety, comfort and convenience of the traveler.

QUESTION: This is a bad idea for these people to meet President Chen in Los Angeles, in your view?

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not going to start giving public advice. I’m going to say that we expect activities during this visit to be consistent with the purpose, which is transit.

QUESTION: Is that a condition of his transit stop, though, that there be no media events, that there be no meetings? Was that conveyed to him that way?

MR. BOUCHER: This has occurred in the past. This transit is like other transits that senior officials have made in the past. A transit is not a visit; it’s not an occasion for these things. I think that’s been quite clear all along that when you transit a place for safety and convenience and comfort, you don’t engage in a public schedule.

QUESTION: I want to ask one more thing about the trip, and forgive me if it was already asked when I was out of the room. But, I mean, he is spending the night in Los Angeles, yes?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: So, presumably, he is leaving the airport to go to a hotel or he’s at least -- I mean, maybe the hotel is in the airport.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I assume he’s staying out at the airport. He arrives on the 13th, stays overnight, and departs on the 14th.

QUESTION: And the idea is that you don’t think that him meeting with someone in a hotel is appropriate for a transit stop?

MR. BOUCHER: I’ll stick with what I’ve said so far.

QUESTION: Is a meeting in a hotel, is that part of what you’d call a public schedule?

MR. BOUCHER: I suppose you can speculate, you know, if they do this, if they do that, if they do this, if they do that. The fact is that the visit is not a visit; it’s a transit. It’s a chance to stop over for the safety, comfort and convenience of the traveler. We would expect activities to be consistent with that.

QUESTION: You mean if the overseas Chinese or Taiwanese want to hold a dinner, you know, a welcome party, is that appropriate?

MR. BOUCHER: See, if I start dealing with a dinner, a welcome party, a lunch, a drink, a cup of coffee after dinner, a meeting in a hotel room, can he go to the lobby to the elevator and greet somebody, I’m not going to be able to do it. So let’s just stick with the fact that this is a transit. We would expect the activities to be consistent with that. We would not expect that -- we don’t believe there would be any public or media events. There are certainly not going to be any meetings with Administration officials.

QUESTION: But you would not object if these two --

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: What? I’m not --

MR. BOUCHER: This is why we don’t ask questions that have a big "if" in them, because there’s just too many of them.

QUESTION: I’m talking about the two Congressmen involved here -- they wanted to go and have dinner with this guy, would you object?

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not trying to deal with various specific situations that might or might not arise. I’m trying to explain --

QUESTION: We’ll just have to find out when they try and do --

MR. BOUCHER: We’re trying to explain what this visit is -- what our understanding of the transit is, and how we have conducted these transits in the past and the way they have occurred in the past.

QUESTION: Can we go to another subject yet?

QUESTION: Can we stay on China?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure, go. China.

QUESTION: As the President gears up to make his decision on National Missile Defense, how concerned are you that such a decision would create an arms race and perhaps China might feel threatened and might feel the need to increase its nuclear arsenal?

MR. BOUCHER: That’s sort of a backhanded way of getting into national intelligence estimate questions. I appreciate the fact that you’re coming at it from the side.

QUESTION: You’re speculating into her motives.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: No, that’s right. I won’t speculate. All right, let me answer the question. Without any reference to any national intelligence estimates, because I can’t talk about those, we have made clear that China has a modernization program underway. I think various Administration people have talked about it in testimony and elsewhere in the past. So we do know that China is in the process of modernizing its missile force.

We have also made quite clear in our public statements as well as our private talks that the idea of a National Missile Defense for the United States is not directed against China and China’s capabilities or China’s projected capabilities. It’s directed on small numbers of ICBMs that might be developed in other places that don’t participate in the current stability regimes that are out there and the current balances that exist.

QUESTION: It may not be directed at them, but certainly they are feeling - - certainly there are countries that are feeling threatened and, you know, not just in that region, but Russia per se. I mean, how much of a concern is it that these countries are going to feel the need to build up their own nuclear capability?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said before, China is modernizing its missiles. China has continued to modernize its missiles. We have seen that underway for some time. We expect it to continue, whatever we do, one way or the other. The fact is, though, and we’ve made this quite clear, that the system that we’re talking about is designed to deal with emerging long-range ballistic missile threat from states of concern. It’s not designed to threaten or to undermine Chinese or Russian nuclear deterrents.

QUESTION: On that subject still, how much thought has been given to the idea that, in addition to China building up this capability, missile defense could speed the export of Chinese missiles to Pakistan and elsewhere? How much of that has been factored in to the equation of whether to go ahead with it?

MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we have a very active nonproliferation dialogue with the Chinese. We talked about some of the meetings we’ve had yesterday. We think we’re making progress there. We do think it’s important for China to abide by international norms with regard to nonproliferation. So I don’t think the US National Missile Defense, one way or the other, is a reason to engage in proliferation. It’s dangerous for the world; it’s dangerous for China.

QUESTION: They apparently seem to think it is.

MR. BOUCHER: I hadn’t really seen anything in that regard. Maybe it’s something I missed, but it’s certainly not a reason -- missile defense is not a reason to start selling missiles to people all over the world who might use them not only against us but against others as well.

QUESTION: Back to the question about assuring China and Russia that it’s not directed against them, you may not be able to answer this, but how far is the US prepared to go in reassuring them of that? I mean, is the United States prepared to promise that if there is an incoming Chinese or Russian missile that the US won’t use NMD to take the missile down?

MR. BOUCHER: That’s about as hypothetical a situation as I could see. I think it’s more likely that two congressmen would try to have dinner in LA than we’d have one missile coming in from China or Russia that we could deal with.

QUESTION: But they’re not --

MR. BOUCHER: Matt, I think the --

QUESTION: They haven’t been reassured by your reassurances, and I’m just wondering -- I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: Let’s put it this way. I mean, that kind of scenario -- you know, again, you can design lots of scenarios, but let’s deal with what the reality is that we’ve faced in terms of deterrence and strategic stability for, lo, these many years. The deterrence and strategic stability is based on the fact that there are sizeable missile nuclear capabilities in a number of countries. These countries, through arms control, through understandings of each other’s system, through negotiations, discussions and just mutual observation, have established a certain strategic stability based on deterrence over these years.

What we are concerned with is that there are countries in the world that are developing inter-continental missile capabilities outside of that basic scenario that exists. To start positing that perhaps China or Russia would want to send one missile under some circumstance that we might have to shoot down, I think ignores the fact that that basic foundation of strategic deterrence is going to remain and that that system that has worked for so many years is not going to be disrupted. It’s not our intention to disrupt that.

QUESTION: So your idea would be that the reassurance would be the limited nature of the missile defense?

MR. BOUCHER: The limited nature of the program and the fact that they have capabilities that would --

QUESTION: -- overwhelm it?

MR. BOUCHER: That would overwhelm it. That would be bigger.

QUESTION: Richard, just building the missile defense for the United States, and it’s a limited missile defense, but if countries still feel threatened and still building up their nuclear arsenal, aren’t you talking about an arms race in a region that you still think is in your national interest but isn’t directly affecting the United States? I mean, if India and Pakistan and China all see you building a missile defense and build up their capability, they can still bomb each other or they can still send missiles to each other, and that’s also in your national interest.

So, I mean, are you concerned about the arms race in other areas and how that’s going to affect other countries’ relationships with each other? Doesn't that make -- I mean, I think that makes perfect sense.

MR. BOUCHER: I’m sure if there was a such a concern that it would be analyzed very carefully by the intelligence community and others as they prepare for the President’s decision, and I wouldn't comment on it. But it hadn’t occurred to me personally, frankly, that there would be an arms race between two countries completely separate from the United States with capabilities that couldn't reach the United States because we were doing something here.

QUESTION: No, I know, but you say -- you know, we talked yesterday about nuclear -- we talked yesterday about nuclear -- you know, an arms race over Kashmir. I mean, if these countries are still building up their arsenals, I mean, eventually it can affect --

MR. BOUCHER: But they’re not going to do that because the US does or does not have a National Missile Defense. They may do that anyway. I don’t see how our missile defense would affect what they decide to do in that situation. But, anyway, this is pretty hypothetical at this point.

QUESTION: The Chinese are going to up their stockpile and export --

QUESTION: And overwhelm your NMD.

QUESTION: -- to South Asia and then --

QUESTION: Maybe I just didn’t articulate it well.

MR. BOUCHER: You mean, if the Chinese build more missiles because we have missile defense, they could shoot those missiles at anybody; is that the idea?

QUESTION: They can transfer them to South Asia.

MR. BOUCHER: Or that others would then respond? I suppose, you know, if they do this, then somebody will do that, and then when somebody does that, somebody else might do this. That’s the kind of thing that would have to be analyzed. But let me remind you, there’s four criteria that have to be analyzed if we’re dealing with sort of subtexts and follow-ons, possibilities. Fundamentally, there are the four criteria the President laid out and he’s going to have to decide based on those criteria. There is a lot of analysis and reports being done of the facts, of the analysis, of the projections in this regard about the threat, about likely foreign reactions, about technology capabilities, costs -- all the matters.

The President is going to have to talk to his senior advisors. He’s going to have to get their recommendations. The Secretary will be making her recommendation. I’m sure that the other senior advisors will make recommendations as well. And they’ll have to discuss this and move to a decision in several weeks based on the four criteria and the analysis that is done of all the possibilities. I’m sure that analysis will be as complete as possible.

QUESTION: Do you have an official reaction to the speech by Saddam Hussein yet? I mean, it was a pretty strong speech.

MR. BOUCHER: I guess, "What speech by Saddam Hussein?" is not a good enough reaction. Let’s see where we are with these things. No, I really don’t have any reaction to speeches by Saddam Hussein. It’s usually the same-old, same-old rhetoric, so I would imagine this is, too. We’ll take a look and see if there’s anything special about it.

QUESTION: Anything on the visit? On the visit by President Chavez to --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, the visit -- we’ve made quite clear what our position is on the visit by President Chavez. I think our views are quite well known to you, and we see from speeches being made in Venezuela, they’re quite well known to the Venezuelans as well.

I would point out the Iraqi media have seized on this visit as a propaganda tool, and Iraq in its press statements has once again demonstrated that Saddam Hussein is going to use any pretext to maintain his rejection of the requirements established by the United Nations.

Still, I think it raises a lot of questions as to why President Chavez would want to visit. Maybe discussing OPEC business, but why would one would want to give Saddam Hussein such face, particularly when you have a democratically-elected leader meeting with a dictator who has invaded neighboring countries, occupied neighboring countries, persecuted his own people, and violated human rights.

So I think there’s still a lot of questions about why one would do this, why one would want to give Saddam this amount of face, and say finally that we would hope to see somewhere in this mix that he had raised the issues of compliance with UN resolutions. We haven’t seen that yet either.

QUESTION: Do you take these threats seriously that he made, Saddam, against Kuwait and the Saudis?

MR. BOUCHER: You are referring to a speech that I haven’t seen yet. We do watch the situation out there very closely, especially in terms of military activity and capabilities. We haven’t -- I don’t think we’ve seen anything unusual or different at this point.

QUESTION: Saddam did apparently on Tuesday make a speech that the Kuwaitis took as threatening. The Kuwaitis went on military alert. And I just wondered if the US was up on that, had a reaction. What’s your take?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess that’s the point at which we get back into this. We’ve seen the reports. Saddam, as we all know, has consistently been aggressive towards other nations in the region. He persists on blaming other nations for his situation rather than admitting his responsibility. But we will continue to work with the United Nations and other countries for Iraqi compliance with the Security Council resolutions.

Our military watches the Iraqi military extremely closely. We’ve noted the Iraqi regime’s recent statements; it’s trying to intimidate its neighbors, but we have no indications that rumors of troop movements are correct.

QUESTION: Is there any kind of alert that the United States is going on, seeing any signs in the movements of Saddam’s troops? Has there been anything like that?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, we’ve seen no indications that rumors of the troop movements are correct. You can check with the Pentagon as to whether there’s anything going on with US forces out there.

QUESTION: The other day, some of your assistants were suggesting that perhaps even a visit to Iraq by Chavez over land violated some of these resolutions. Have you come to any kind of decision on whether it did or not?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, as many of you have reported, the major issue is air travel. But beyond air travel, there are provisions in the UN resolution about making available funds or financial resources to the Iraqi regime. I suppose you can interpret that in various ways. Some people consider that means you can’t spend money. So the question might arise, well, maybe it was freebies. Maybe he was provided with lodging and food while he was there.

So there are issues, perhaps, existing with regard to things other than air travel. The basic point, though, is the one that I just made. Why would one want to go there? Why does one have to go there to give Saddam face? Why does a democratically-elected leader want to set a precedent for others, and break what others have not done?

QUESTION: Do you intend to follow up these issues, or are you just letting it pass?

MR. BOUCHER: I suppose if there are any issues that clearly arise, they’d be taken up by the Sanctions Committee at the UN but, again, there are details involved here. But the major issue is why would one do this to begin with.

QUESTION: Have you been contacted by either the Kuwaitis or the Saudis about these threats? Saddam Hussein’s threats? Have you been contacted by either government?

MR. BOUCHER: We stay in very close touch with the governments out there. I don’t know if we discussed this specific speech or a specific issue, but certainly we’re quite aware of the fact that the aggressive -- we’re quite aware of the aggressive tone that the Iraqi Government usually takes, and we keep that in mind and we work together with the governments out there to make sure he can’t do anything about it.

QUESTION: Can we flip back to Chavez again? You said the same thing for three days now, and Chavez has blithely ignored everything that you said and, in fact, seems to take -- he and other Venezuelan officials seem to take some great amount of pride in the fact that they’re kind of sticking it to the US on this. Beyond exasperation and repeating the same thing over and over again, is the US considering anything to, you know, kind of to punish Chavez for his insolence?

MR. BOUCHER: Exasperation and insolence? I don’t think I’ve used either one of those words.

QUESTION: No, I’m using them.

MR. BOUCHER: I know you are. First of all, we’ve had a consistent view on this. You have asked us questions every day, and I have answered the same way every day, so I’ll continue. If you want to ask me tomorrow, I’ll answer it again tomorrow. Okay?

QUESTION: I’m not accusing you of being inconsistent

MR. BOUCHER: So, I mean, I haven’t gone out here to volunteer a statement on Chavez every day. You guys want to know what we think, and I tell you what we think, and it’s the same thing as we thought yesterday.

Clearly, our main consideration in this regard has to remain on Saddam Hussein. He is the threat and the danger to the region. He’s the one that we have to keep our eyes clearly focused on. We don’t think it’s good to set a precedent of people meeting at this level with Saddam Hussein. We certainly don’t think it’s good for democratically elected leaders to set this kind of precedent, and therefore we don’t think this is a good thing with regard to Saddam Hussein, who remains a threat and a danger to the region and to his own people.

QUESTION: But are you prepared to put anything behind your words of -- behind those words and say, you know, all right, we asked you not to go, we begged you not to go basically, and we told you why we didn’t think it was right for you to go; you went, so now this is going to happen? What’s "this"? Or is there nothing?

QUESTION: Richard, how could this affect US-Venezuelan relations?

MR. BOUCHER: Two variations on the same question. I mean, if there’s no sanctions violation, one could say that you can go meet with who you want. We think it’s a bad idea, as the question was asked on other things before.

QUESTION: But are you prepared at this point to --

MR. BOUCHER: That doesn't necessarily mean that we invoke some kind of punishment, sanctions or retaliation for doing something that we don’t think is a good idea. How does it affect our relationship? Clearly it’s something we’re aware of, something we keep in mind. It affects our view but, ultimately, we want to work with this government and we want to do things that we have in common and need to do together.

QUESTION: Back on Chavez. Considering taking this trip in the context that Chavez has made some statements about Guyana, has made some statements about greater Colombia, Venezuela and his close friendship with Castro, are you concerned that there might be a pattern with this new Venezuelan leader?

MR. BOUCHER: Other than to say that we follow all these things quite closely, I don’t think I’m at a point now shortly after his reelection to offer some new grand assessment of the government in Venezuela. As I said, it’s important to us to be able to work with them on a lot of issues and we’ll continue to do that.

QUESTION: Richard, I believe the United States now gets most of its oil from Venezuela. How much of that is a factor in trying to temper your response to what Chavez may be doing?

MR. BOUCHER: It’s kind of apples and oranges. I’m not aware in any situation we have tried to go after somebody for meetings that they held like this. We have different relationships with different governments around the world, some of which are better and worse, but in many of these cases we buy things or don’t buy things based on a commercial basis. I don’t really think that’s a major factor in how we react to this.

QUESTION: But it’s a consideration?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I’m aware of. I mean, the discussions I’ve heard of all this haven’t involved oil, frankly.

QUESTION: You talked about the visit giving Saddam "face."

MR. BOUCHER: That’s an Asian term, sorry.

QUESTION: You know, I’ve heard of "saving face." I don’t think I’ve heard of "giving face." Are you talking about giving him respectability?

MR. BOUCHER: Prestige, respectability. We think that the visit of a leader at this level bestows an aura of respectability upon Saddam Hussein which he clearly does not deserve based on his behavior in the past -- invading, occupying neighboring countries, and repressing his own people.

QUESTION: Much better sound bite.

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity and the assistance.

QUESTION: And now for something entirely different?

MR. BOUCHER: Please.

QUESTION: A British newspaper published an interview with the daughter of the US Ambassador to Britain. She said some rather derogatory things about young British men, as well as other things. And I wondered if there had been any problems because of this interview generated for the Ambassador.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: That is a Monty Python joke, right?

QUESTION: Unfortunately, not.

MR. BOUCHER: I’m afraid that’s not a subject that I am either in a position to know about or to have any comment on. I don’t see how that’s any of our business here.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on the terrorism talks with the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: Just to say that they’ve had the meetings, that they’ve had two days of talks. Ambassador Sheehan had two days of talks with North Korean officials. The principal counterpart on the other side was Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Gye Gwan. Discussions were productive. They focused on what steps North Korea must take to end its support for terrorism and therefore be considered for removal from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism. We expect that there will be additional meetings on this subject, but no date has been set for the next round.

QUESTION: Have you been in contact with the Hill at all on this question?

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not sure if we’ve been in contact during this visit. Ambassador Sheehan has had consultations and testimony on the Hill on a variety of topics very frequently. I assume he would be in touch with interested people when he gets back.

QUESTION: Did the North Koreans agree to extradite these Japanese Red Army people?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, we don’t have any new steps. You can always ask them if they have decided to take actions, yes.

QUESTION: They’re so forthcoming. Does that mean that --

MR. BOUCHER: More than me, maybe.

QUESTION: In some cases. Well, you say you expect that there was progress, but you expect that there will be some additional meetings, but no date has been set. Does that mean that we shouldn’t expect any kind of - - there’s no way they’re coming off the list before there is a -- the next round of meetings? Would that be a logical assumption?

MR. BOUCHER: I’m certainly not hinting at that kind of prospect, but we don’t like to say categorically this, that or the other. I mean, I suppose, again, it’s conceivable that they might take the actions that are necessary before the next round of meetings. But the important thing is that we focus on the steps that they need to take. And we’ll continue our discussions until we see those steps taken.

QUESTION: But it was my understanding that when Ambassador Sheehan met with Kim Gye Gwan in New York, that he had already outlined these steps. I mean, the North Koreans just didn’t get them? Why was it necessary to go? Will that be pounded into their heads over and over again? What exactly do they have to do?

MR. BOUCHER: We find it useful to continue these discussions in order to make clear, in order to continue the kind of progress we’d like to see.

QUESTION: The steps that they have to take that were first discussed in March in New York -- there are not any additional steps that they have to take, right? I mean, basically he went over the same ground that he had gone over in March in New York?

MR. BOUCHER: We value consistency. We’ve been consistent in telling them what they need to do.

QUESTION: It hasn’t changed?

QUESTION: Are they any closer to coming off the list than they were before?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, hard to judge day to day. We felt the discussions were productive. We’ll have more discussions but, in the end, what matters is that they take the steps that are necessary to get them off the list; they end their support for terrorism.

QUESTION: And is extradition absolutely essential to that? Would these alleged --

MR. BOUCHER: I’ll stick with the description of the steps that I’ve used in the past.

QUESTION: You’ve included that -- I think you have included that in the past.

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not sure what exactly the word was that I used, frankly. I’ll go find it, if I need to. But certainly the fact that there are these people in safe haven in North Korea is one of our major concerns.

QUESTION: Another subject. You said yesterday you were going to continue to try to get doctors in to see Ed Pope. Has that come along very well?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we haven’t. And it’s proven very difficult. We had our ninth consular visit with Mr. Pope today. We are very concerned about his health, which appears to have deteriorated sharply during his incarceration.

The Russian Government today refused our request to have our embassy physician see Mr. Pope in the prison. We have raised this issue repeatedly with senior Russian officials, most recently this morning in Moscow prior to the consular visit.

We have made clear to the Russian government that they bear responsibility for protecting the welfare of American citizens detained in Russia. We’ve also made clear that we believe it’s our right to ensure that protection. It’s entirely appropriate for our consular officer to be accompanied by another diplomat of our choosing who is a medical expert when there is an issue of medical concern. We explicitly permit diplomats as well as consular officers to conduct prison visits in the United States, and we expect no less for an American in Russia.

This refusal may call into question our ability to protect the health and welfare of American citizens traveling or living in Russia. We’re examining the implications of the Russian action very closely.

QUESTION: You are saying that the doctor you propose to take was in fact an accredited diplomat?

MR. BOUCHER: We intended to take our embassy physicians. Our embassy physicians are accredited diplomats, yes.

QUESTION: Did they say why they wouldn’t want them?

MR. BOUCHER: That’s for them to explain -- some issue of consular officials versus other diplomats not being able to go.

QUESTION: Another way of saying, do you have a reason? You just don’t think it was good enough.

MR. BOUCHER: We think that consular officers can be accompanied by other diplomats when they go on their visits.

QUESTION: The law only requires them to treat him as well as they would treat any Russian prisoner. Which -- it’s true.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that may be Russian law, but there are also diplomatic conventions and treaties that apply. And consular access is based on the Vienna Convention and other diplomatic conventions.

QUESTION: Has he had access to a doctor chosen by the prison authorities?

MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding is that he has not had good medical care. I’m not sure if there’s been a local prison doctor or not, but we have felt very strongly that he needed to see an independent doctor, and that we needed to have our embassy physician or someone who can give us a medical assessment and medical advice about the issues that are there, and because we do feel his condition has deteriorated during the incarceration.

QUESTION: Do other prisoners get a chance to see a doctor there?

QUESTION: That basically is my question. Do other prisoners get access to medical care there -- Russian prisoners -- if it looks like they’re having problems like this?

MR. BOUCHER: You can ask the Russians about access to medical care within their system. I point out again, though, consular access is not based on local law; it’s based on international conventions. And we understand those international conventions to allow visits not only by our consular officers, but to allow them to be accompanied by another diplomat of our choosing who is a medical officer.

QUESTION: You mentioned examining implications. Among those implications, you’re not considering somehow restricting access that Russian consular and diplomatic officials might have with Russians incarcerated in the States, are you?

MR. BOUCHER: I hesitate to start saying, are you considering this, are you considering that, but that’s not the implication of what I said. It has implications on our ability to protect the health and welfare of American citizens traveling or living in Russia. That is the issue that we’re looking at.

QUESTION: Right. But would those implications demand a response?

MR. BOUCHER: I don’t see how Americans’ traveling in Russia would be helped by restricting access to sick Russians in the United States. It doesn’t flow from what I said.

QUESTION: What do you know of Mr. Pope’s health condition from the visits you’ve had, even though they’ve not been by doctors, and do you think his life is at risk?

MR. BOUCHER: I’m not in a position to give you some kind of full medical report or detailed observations. I would just go back to what I said before: We are very concerned about his health, and his health appears to have deteriorated sharply during his incarceration.

QUESTION: Has he been charged yet?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that we’re aware of. Let me double check on that, whether they’ve been charged. The case is still in the pre-trial investigative phase. No trial date has been set. I don’t actually know if that means there’s a charge or not. I’m sorry. I guess I don’t have specifics on whether he’s been charged or not, but he hasn’t gone to trial yet.

QUESTION: Speaking of charges and Americans imprisoned, Egyptians have released on bail your man Mr. Ibrahim who you have been very concerned about. Do you have any -- is this a good move, or is this kind of, we welcome it, but we want to see the charges dropped, or we want to see the investigation dropped?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, it is a good move, and we’re glad to see it. It certainly makes life easier for him. And it’s very welcome to see Dr. Ibrahim released and returned to his family.

QUESTION: Are you still concerned about the investigation going on against him, and does it still fall under question, Egypt’s commitment to their accession, or whatever you want to call it, to the Community of Democracies statement?

MR. BOUCHER: We have stated our views on a number of occasions. We still have our concerns about the general situation but, in the instant case, we welcome the release; it’s a step in the right direction.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on Arafat’s visit to Iran today? Apparently he made some comments telling President Khatami that the peace process is dead. Do you think those kinds of comments are helpful to the peace process?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn’t see all the remarks that he might have made. I just think it’s the occasion to remind you that both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have stated their commitment to achieving peace through negotiations, which would include Jerusalem. We’re prepared to do whatever we can to help them, as we’ve said before. We continue to support the resolution of Jerusalem and all permanent status issues through direct negotiations between the parties. And that remains the focus.

QUESTION: Can you comment on a Palestinian who says that -- has claimed that the United States offered to set up a $30 billion refugee fund, compensation fund at Camp David, and that Mr. Arafat rejected it?

MR. BOUCHER: No. That’s the kinds of details of discussions that I don’t think we’ve commented on, even afterwards.

QUESTION: Did you see the story on Montenegro in the <I>Post</I> suggesting that the Administration is lowering its voice on Montenegro because this is an election season?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess I’ll avoid commenting on the story itself and just tell you what the facts are. I think we and our allies have made abundantly clear our strong interest in the security of Southeastern Europe, including Montenegro. Milosevic is well aware of the West’s capabilities to respond, should he again threaten regional security. He’s already on notice.

Over the last year, Secretary Albright and other US officials have reiterated many times our strong interest in the security of the region, including Montenegro. And, in addition, NATO ministers and officials have also made clear that NATO is concerned about the situation in Montenegro.

So I think we’ve been quite clear about the situation. We remain vigilant. NATO is watching. We are watching the situation very closely, and we’re working to support democratic forces in the region, which we believe is the best way for the region as a whole to find stability.

QUESTION: So the premise of that story is wrong?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Why didn’t you want to comment on the story itself?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I try not to complain about every story out there that’s weird or wrong or that we don’t like.

QUESTION: Same general area. Carla del Ponte complained the other day quite vigorously about the failure to arrest indictees in Bosnia. She also says that American officials have been avoiding her. Can you explain why so few indictees have been arrested, and why the United States forces on the ground have been so reluctant to stick their necks out?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn’t see her comments, and certainly we have met with her frequently. The Secretary met with her not too long ago, if I can remember, when we were in London, about a month and a half ago, maybe.

But -- was it longer than that?

QUESTION: More.

MR. BOUCHER: It was after the London School of Economics speech. So we have kept in touch with her and, as I said, the Secretary met with her a month or six weeks ago. So we’ve actually worked quite closely with the tribunal.

And as far as US forces in the region, I think we’ve explained many times their role, their duties, and the way they do take advantage of opportunities. The overall numbers on people indicted and people arrested I think demonstrate that there is a commitment to deliver people to justice whenever possible, and I’d be glad to get you the updated numbers.

QUESTION: Richard, can I go back to Montenegro for just two seconds? Did this subject come up in the meetings in Rome with -- the meeting in Rome with the whole threat to --

MR. BOUCHER: Sort of the overall threat to Montenegro and the region?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: Certainly that’s been a subject of discussion in multiple occasions. Certainly when she meets with President Djukanovic, they discuss the activities of Serbia -- of Milosevic and the regime, and it’s discussed also in terms of the broader meetings that we have with Southeastern Europeans. We had one in Florence, we had one in Berlin. And we’ve continued to have meetings where clearly the threat that Milosevic might pose to Montenegro is discussed and of concern.

QUESTION: What I was trying to get at was that it seemed that at least with the main -- what people who were covering it thought that the main news was basically based -- was basically the Serbian election and the participation of the Serbian opposition, and what Montenegro might do in that. But was there an equal amount of discussion on security for Montenegro and physical threats to Montenegro from Belgrade?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn’t time portions of the meeting, so equal I can’t do. But in every meeting and discussion we have of these issues of the situation in the region, certainly all of us discuss and keep our eyes on possible Serbian threats and violence against Montenegro.

QUESTION: So just to bring it back around full circle to the story, the Secretary isn’t conducting US foreign policy on the -- to avoid an "October surprise"?

MR. BOUCHER: She’s conducting US foreign policy to advance our national interests, including our strong interest of stability in the Balkans, and you can quote me on that.

All right, if you want some numbers on the war criminal situation, there have been 94 publicly indicted war criminals by the International Criminal Tribunal. The total number taken in custody at this point is 49. There are 19 where the indictments have been dropped or people have passed way. So I’ll let you do the math on how many extant there are. That would make 75 current public indictments; 49 of those people are in custody.

QUESTION: Richard, the Secretary has a speech tomorrow in New Mexico. Will copies be made available here in a timely manner? Or is that a hypothetical?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. And we’ll define "timely" tomorrow.

QUESTION: Has the Administration taken a position on this legislation that would put sanctions on Zimbabwe? It’s passed the House. I don’t it’s cleared or passed the Senate.

MR. BOUCHER: I think we talked about that yesterday or the day before.

QUESTION: Sorry?

MR. BOUCHER: Two days ago I think I talked about that.

QUESTION: I wasn’t here. Sorry.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we’ll get you the transcript. Basically, we share the same concerns; we believe land reform has to proceed on the basis of willing buyer/willing seller; and so we basically support the thrust of the legislation.

QUESTION: Richard, from Colombia, I wonder if you have any kind of a reaction to this. Carlos Castano, the head of the AUC, which is a right- wing paramilitary organization, says that the United States or agents of the United States Government sought the aid of this particular group to end the narco-trafficking of, I expect, the FARC and the ELN.

Is there any validity to any US officials being involved in recruiting this right-wing organization?

MR. BOUCHER: We’ve had no contact with Mr. Castano. We’ve got no intention of talking to him. We’ve got no intention of soliciting his help in operating against the drug militias or of any other illegal group. It’s against our policy for government officials to meet with these paramilitary leaders or their representatives.

QUESTION: Does that hold true for the FARC?

MR. BOUCHER: We’ve had -- I’ll go back on that and get you exactly what we’ve done with the FARC and what we haven’t.

QUESTION: I wanted to go back to East Asia for a second. The US military has announced that it will partially ease the restrictions that were put into effect on US troops in Okinawa just prior to the G-8 summit. I wonder if you have anything on the reaction to this from the Japanese Government.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I think that’s really something the military is taking care of. I don’t have anything on reaction.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more about Kashmir, the fire bomb and the Indians accusing the Pakistanis of being behind it. I realize the Pakistanis have condemned it, but do you see any -- how deep are your concerns that this is going to escalate --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we don’t have full information yet about the incident. We understand that several policemen and at least one journalist were killed. We’ve seen reports that the Hizbul Mujahideen, the group that just ended its cease-fire in Kashmir, has claimed responsibility for the attack. Clearly, we condemn this attack. It’s a brutal attack. It does nothing to advance a settlement in the Kashmir dispute. It adds to our disappointment over the ending of the cease-fire and we continue to believe that all sides should resume this dialogue in the interests of pursuing peace in Kashmir and between India and Pakistan. We believe the Hizbul Mujahideen-Indian dialogue was simply not given enough time.

QUESTION: You don’t have anything on the Indian accusation that Islamabad was somehow behind it?

MR. BOUCHER: I don’t have anything on responsibility other than we’ve seen the report that the Hizbul Mujahideen claimed responsibility.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 P.M.)

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