U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #94, 00-09-29
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
749
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN
INDONESIA
1 Suharto trial a matter for Indonesians to decide.
CUBA
1 US supports sales of food to non-governmental entities in Cuba.
PERU
2-6 Pres. Fujimori met with Secretary Albright today; discussed
commitment to democracy; Secretary stressed importance of carrying
through OAS process, and President's role.
FRY(SERBIA)
7-9 Government has refused to acknowledge results of first round of
voting, closed off media outlets. Opposition frustration is
understandable. Issue is whether government will recognize facts
of first round. Opposition vote count is credible; official count
is not.
8 US view on Milosveic: Out of power, out of Yugoslavia, and in The
Hague.
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
10-13 US urges restraint right now, avoiding inflaming the tense
situation. A Public Announcement for American citizens will be
issued today for the West Bank and Gaza. Israelis and Palestinians
need to continue actively working together to reach an
agreement. US was concerned that Ariel Sharon's visit to the holy
sites area would increase tension.
12 Meetings between Israelis, Palestinians ended yesterday. Secretary
Albright was telephoning Chairman Arafat at briefing time; she was
expected to call the acting Israeli Foreign Minister next.
RUSSIA
13 US pleased that case against Andrei Babitskiy is nearing
completion. US welcomes dropping of all but one charge against
him, urges commitment to press freedom.
STATE DEPARTMENT
13-15 Implementation of security procedures is not a witch hunt. Security
reviews of personnel are done periodically. It's not the case
(i.e., security violations) that "Everybody does it."
14-15 Secretary's Town Meeting on security was taped, copies sent to all
post. When information about violations of standards come to
Department's attention, they are investigated.
AFGHANISTAN
16-18 Ambassador Pickering, Assistant Secretary Inderfurth met today with
a delegation from the Taleban. They discussed peace, narcotics,
human rights, and Usama bin Laden. The question of recognition was
not raised by the Taleban. The discussion was frank, straightforward.
20,21-22 Under Secretary Pickering will lead US delegation to Moscow
Oct. 17-18 for counter-terrorism talks on Afghanistan.
IRAQ
19-20 UN sanctions are in place, as is UNSCR 1284. Sanctions remain
effective, and support for 1284 remains strong. All but a small
amount of Iraqi oil is controlled by UN.
19 Yemeni flight today was approved by UN Sanctions Committee.
NORTH KOREA
21 Talks in New York continue today, may continue through
weekend. Amb. Sheehan probably will meet with them next week on
terrorism matters.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #94
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2000, 1:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, I'm late. I
don't have any statements so I will be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: I'm sure there are a lot of questions about Peru, but I don't
see the people likely to ask the questions here. Can I dispense with some
other stuff first? The Suharto trial, show trial, has stopped. Does the
State Department have a view of that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think Mr. Reeker gave our view yesterday about that and
that it's a matter in the hands of the Indonesians.
QUESTION: And there's a report that in the Pinochet days, his intelligence
chief was a US Government informant. Have you seen that report? And do you
have anything to say about it?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the report, nothing to say.
QUESTION: Do you think you might have something to say if someone looks
into it?
MR. BOUCHER: I doubt it, but we'll offer to look into and either get back
to you or not on the question.
QUESTION: Now you're a on roll.
MR. BOUCHER: That's not the kind of question we normally answer.
QUESTION: Does the Administration have a policy on easing or increasing
agricultural exports to Cuba, which is on the Hill now -- under consideration?
Trade with Cuba, agriculture-wise?
MR. BOUCHER: No, we're certainly aware of the legislation. You know, our
policy has been to provide support for the Cuban people without strengthening
the Cuban Government. The embargo obviously receives the most attention,
but support for the Cuban people is also a central theme for our policy. We
support cultural exchanges, permit sales of food to independent, non-
governmental entities in Cuba. So there has been a bipartisan consensus
over the decades on Cuba policy. We haven't seen details of exactly what
might have been agreed to up on the Hill, so we will defer comment on the
specifics, but I would say that this is something that we have done. We
have worked together with people in Congress, and there has been a
consensus over time on how we deal with Cuba.
QUESTION: Can we move to the main issue of the day?
MR. BOUCHER: It depends what it is.
QUESTION: So you want to support the Cuban people, but the other day, a
visa was denied a man in Cuba who wanted to visit his dying mother on Long
Island, and by the time the visa was granted, the mother had died. Are you
familiar - will you look --
MR. BOUCHER: I am not familiar with the specific case. I think that is
something we would have to look into, certainly. Well, I will look into
it.
QUESTION: Can you give us a read-out of the meeting with Fujimori?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. The Secretary met with President Fujimori this
morning. The meeting lasted about 45 minutes. She applauded his decision to
call for early elections. She said to him, you have done the right thing.
She urged him to do all he can to keep the OAS dialogue alive, and to move
forward on key democracy reform issues, as outlined in the OAS understandings.
She also urged him to make all the arrangements for the elections, and for
the early inauguration of a new government. And she reiterated the US
support for democracy and democratic reform in Peru, and especially the
need for Peru to be part of the movement for democracy and strengthening
democracy in the hemisphere.
QUESTION: Did Mr. Fujimori renew his commitment to this cause of action,
which he has promised?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, he did. He expressed his commitment to the OAS process,
and to making the reforms that the OAS has recommended.
QUESTION: What - did the subject of Mr. Montesinos come up at all?
MR. BOUCHER: Hardly at all. I think - there was no specific discussion of
him. I think it came up in the context of the Secretary saying that his
removal was one of the key elements in this change, and then there was
discussion of the need to do the reform of the intelligence services, and
Mr. Fujimori talked about that a bit and how that was being done.
QUESTION: And how would you describe the meeting other than in terms of
being useful and productive or whatever you - frank and cordial - whatever
you usually use?
MR. BOUCHER: I couldn't even do that.
QUESTION: No, but I mean, just the tone and tenor of the meeting between
them. And also how did the president look? I mean, is he chagrined? Is he
scared? What's he - and please don't say ask him because I want the US
impression?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess I would say ask yourselves. You all saw him when he
came out the door, I think.
QUESTION: We didn't see him in the meeting with the Secretary, so --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, all right, let me try to answer both. First, at the
beginning of the meeting, I think they both commented on how different
things are than when they last met in New York. I would describe this
meeting as a discussion - a fairly straightforward discussion - about the
elements underway where, as I said, they both talked about the OAS process
and how that was proceeding and how that needed to continue. So, it was I
guess less confrontational and more conversational than the discussions
they've had in the past. But the Secretary was quite clear on the
importance of carrying through with the OAS process and quite clear on the
important role that President Fujimori can play in making sure that that
does, in fact, take place and go through as planned.
QUESTION: You said they hardly talked about Mr. Montesinos. But can you -
did Mr. Fujimori say what he wanted to happen to Mr. Montesinos? Does he
want Panama to grant him asylum? And did this come up at all?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I remember that was not discussed in any detail.
The Secretary mentioned that we were very strongly supportive of the
Panamanian Government for having received Montesinos, as the OAS and others
in the hemisphere have requested, but he didn't specify exactly what he
thought should happen next.
QUESTION: As you know, Richard, before President Fujimori arrived there
was a lot of speculation why he would come so suddenly. Why did the
Administration think it was necessary for President Fujimori to come here
two weeks after Secretary Albright - or three weeks, whatever - after she
met him to just reaffirm his commitment to democratic process? Is he
worried about his political future in the short term?
MR. BOUCHER: He didn't express any such worries in the meeting. I would
say that he's here to talk to the OAS and to talk to us about the
implementation of the OAS process. Why is it necessary to talk to us again?
I suppose you could ask, and our answer would probably be what I just said:
a lot has changed since we last talked to him, and things are quite
different. And the conversation this time was about how to make sure that
the OAS process is implemented fully, and that next year's - the elections
coming up are free, fair and credible in the hemisphere.
QUESTION: Is that what you describe as the OAS process? Just free and
fair? Do you want the elections to be different than the runoff?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, obviously. But the elements to do that are contained in
the OAS recommendations that specify restructuring of the intelligence
services, more independent judiciary, more open press. So, there are
several baskets in the OAS reports about things that need to be done to
ensure that the upcoming elections are indeed free and fair, and that
democracy is given a sounder foundation. And the Secretary stressed the
importance of doing that, and also the important role that President
Fujimori can play in ensuring that that happens.
QUESTION: There are persistent rumors of the possibility of a military
coup in Peru. Does the US attach any credibility to these reports, and do
you have a message for anybody in Peru who might be inclined to try to
subvert the democratic process?
MR. BOUCHER: I believe that the answer is the same one as Mr. Reeker gave
yesterday. We have seen the statements from the military in Peru, where
they express strong support for the decisions President Fujimori has taken,
and for the process of institutionalizing democracy in the country. I think
that is an important statement that we take note of, and obviously, without-
I didn't come here with some particular message for the military, but the
message to all people in Peru is same, that the important thing is to re-
establish the institutional basis for democracy in Peru, and to get on with
the process of new elections.
QUESTION: Did Fujimori take those rumors seriously? Did he express any
concern about the short-term stability of his government before the
elections can take place?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't describe it that way, but I think you will have
to ask him about the military --
QUESTION: How would you describe it?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary ask him specifically about these reports, and
whether he took them seriously?
MR. BOUCHER: They did discuss the issue of the military, but I really
don't think I can characterize his views.
QUESTION: Richard, why then do you think there was such a sense of
urgency about his visit here? He came after dark; apparently the US aides
and officials did not know that he was coming till hours ahead - was there
any explanation for that?
MR. BOUCHER: The only explanation I can give you is the way the meeting
started off. He said, I am here at an unexpected moment because the
situation has changed. And the Secretary said, yes indeed; a lot has
happened since we last met. So, I took that to be an expression that things
are different, and that he wanted to come up and talk to us and to the
OAS.
QUESTION: But when he says the situation has changed, did you take that
to mean that it has changed because he has called for the new elections, or
it has changed because there is all these reports of coup stirrings?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I think it is the fundamental situation with regard to
democracy in Peru that has changed in the last two weeks.
QUESTION: And so there was really no explanation about why the sudden -
other than the fact that things have changed - but they changed last week,
so I mean, do you buy this?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't - I am not going to try to make assumptions
about somebody else's thoughts on this one. That was the only way he
expressed the fact that he was up here, and why he was here. He wanted to
talk to us and to the OAS. We certainly felt it was a useful opportunity
for both us and the OAS to talk to him, and any further explanation about
his thoughts have to come from him.
QUESTION: Did President Fujimori ask for a public show of support - a
public statement from anyone in the Administration on his behalf?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I think he knows what we have been saying, and we have
not been reticent about our views on the situation in the past, nor right
now.
QUESTION: But I mean, it seems to change almost every day, the situation.
MR. BOUCHER: Our views? No.
QUESTION: No, not your views, but the situation in Peru.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think we have been remarkably consistent in the way
we have expressed our views, and happily, we can say that the situation is
going in the direction that we wanted it to go.
QUESTION: Richard, can you tell us more about this anti-corruption
measure that is going to be signed later this afternoon at the OAS Mission,
and respond to questions, perhaps, of after the US helped Montesinos to
leave Peru - with impunity - that there might be no small irony - not just
the US, but the OAS as well --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, you said "without impunity," right?
QUESTION: With impunity. Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: No, you said, "without impunity."
QUESTION: But I'm saying - now I'm saying "with." I misspoke.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll say "without," okay. No, it is quite clear, first of
all, that we don't think Mr. Montesinos left Peru with impunity. We think
it is quite clear he left without impunity. That he can be - judicial
action can be taken in the future, wherever he is in the hemisphere.
Second of all, I would love to be able to talk to you about anti-corruption
and the OAS but I'm afraid I'm not prepared on the subject, so we'll have
to get back to you later on that.
QUESTION: Switch subjects?
QUESTION: I've got one more.
QUESTION: I have one more.
QUESTION: Do you have - what do you make of in Lima itself with the
opposition and the government apparently coming to an agreement on
announcing a new date for the election in October - or a new election date
after this long meeting with the OAS mission down there? Do you have
anything to say about that?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything to say. But that was clearly part
of the process was for the opposition, the government and the OAS to work
together to make the arrangements.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary bring that up with the president?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't that specific issue was brought up. But the whole
issue of working within the OAS process with the opposition to carry out
the new elections was stressed by the Secretary, the importance of
following that.
QUESTION: Yes, when Fujimori came out from the State Department, he said
that they have discussed the dis-activation (sic) or the elimination of the
intelligence service, but he said that in the frame of, taking in account
that security in Peru is still very important because there is a past of
guerrilla and of narco-traffic. My question is, what kind of restructuring
then is expected from Fujimori to do, in order to consolidate the
democracy?
MR. BOUCHER: The kind of restructuring that was specified by the OAS. I
don't think we differed at all on that question, which is, I think, pretty
fundamental.
QUESTION: If I could just - one more Fujimori question, did President
Fujimori ask Secretary Albright to make any kind of effort to dissuade the
opposition from calling for President Fujimori to step down before these
new elections?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember him asking anything like that. Again, the
Secretary emphasized the importance of working in the OAS process, which is
the government, the opposition, the OAS working together to restructure
things to re-establish the institutional basis for democracy and to move to
the new elections.
QUESTION: Yugoslavia - the former Yugoslav Prime Minister Milan Panic is
very critical of insisting on Milosevic being brought to the The Hague
saying if the United States and Europe continue to insist this it's going
to lead to bloodshed and that he's writing a letter to President Clinton
and to President Putin asking that Panic -- or Milosevic be given a plane
to leave and that this would save the Serb people a lot of, perhaps,
bloodshed. He fears a civil war. Is there any thinking on your part about
this? If you see if this could lead to a lot of bloodshed or worse in the
Serbia, would you be willing to avert that by taking another exit
route?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen the letter. But the answer is no. No
deal.
QUESTION: You want Milosevic out and people are taking to the streets now
to try to force him out, are you - is there any apprehension that that in
itself could, you know, lead to violence and death? Or are you happy to see
them out in the street and thinking maybe that's the way to get him
out?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, how the opposition presses its case is up to them. But
at the same time, I would say you've got a government that's refused to
recognize the results of the first round. They've closed off media outlets
to the opposition. They've closed off public commentary to a great extent
because of their control of the media. So, people are going to want to
express themselves. And we can understand the outrage.
The opposition has presented a persuasive case that they won on the first
round and that it's time for Mr. Milosevic to step down. The results are
available, credible and available for inspection - the ones the opposition
counted. So really the issue is whether the government is going to
recognize the first round or try to get people to forget it.
QUESTION: But might this get out of hand? Or is there a risk here?
MR. BOUCHER: Nobody is encouraging violence - not we, nor the opposition.
But on the other hand it's quite clear that people need to find a way to
press the issue because the issue is not what the opposition is doing. The
issue is, why doesn't the government recognize the results of the first
round.
QUESTION: Richard, yesterday the Department sounded fairly optimistic - I
think it's fair to say - that the Serbian people would be able to persuade
Milosevic to go before the date comes round for a second round of
elections. Do you take comfort today from the fact that protests do seem to
be spreading, especially outside Belgrade? And do you feel more confident
today that this outcome is a real possibility?
MR. BOUCHER: Were we confident yesterday? Optimistic? I don't remember us
seeing those words in our briefing yesterday and I did read our transcript.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) - is the operative phrase.
MR. BOUCHER: It's clear what has happened. The reports of the vote count
that the opposition has put out are based on verified information from the
polling places. There are 10,000 reports from polling places that are
available for public inspection that have been totaled by the opposition
and that show an outcome that shows that they won in the first round. That
is a very persuasive case for victory. So, the focus is really on verifying
that first round victory.
People who voted in that first round we would expect to want to see their
voices heard and not to be allowed to be drowned out by this gambit of the
government of Milosevic to try to hold a second round. So, the issue is
really, what happened to the first round and why isn't it respected? And we
would assume that people who voted in that round would want to say, " I
voted, hear me roar."
QUESTION: Richard, what do you mean when you say the focus is on
verifying the first round? You began your statement by saying that the
opposition has presented a persuasive case. Does the US think that there
should be outside observers who come in to count the ballots or something
along those lines?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the OSCE, I think, offered to do that, as well. We
think the results are quite clear, frankly. I mean, we have looked at all
the different ways the government tried to commit fraud. We have looked at
the basic vote counting procedures where the opposition counts were done
based on the results in each of the polling places that are counted in the
presence of the parties. They are signed off by representatives of all the
parties. The opposition took those results that are given to each of the
parties in each of the polling places and as I said, there are 10,000
protocols from the different polling places that are available for
inspection by the press. And so those results we think are quite clear.
We also know that the official process took place behind closed doors, the
official vote counting process. So it is really a matter of just having the
official process catch up with the opposition count, which we think is much
more credible.
QUESTION: So, you don't feel or think that there's a need for any kind of
external review?
MR. BOUCHER: We think the results are quite clear so far. Obviously, if
outside observers have been let in to begin with, that would be more clear
right now.
QUESTION: Is it the US view that the only option for Milosevic is to
leave Yugoslavia and end up in The Hague? Or is there some middle ground
that would be acceptable? And if so - or in either case, what options does
the US have to get that done?
MR. BOUCHER: I repeated it 10 seconds ago and I'll repeat it again now.
No deals. The position is out of power, out of Yugoslavia and in The
Hague.
QUESTION: Are there any plans for people in this building to go to the
Balkans in the next couple days to --
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: -- to continue the anti-Milosevic drive - not that you're - Jim
O'Brien is not - he's not - there's no one going to --
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of, no.
QUESTION: One more. Have you seen any sign that he wants to find a way
out of this? I know you don't want to make a deal. But do you see any
indications that he's trying to climb down or finesse this?
MR. BOUCHER: We haven't discussed this with him.
QUESTION: I know you haven't, but there are reports out there that he has
been having contacts with the opposition to try to find a face-saving way
to call this whole thing off and find a solution. Do you see any of that
going on?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I think there were reports a couple of days ago
from the opposition to say that they had been approached by Milosevic or
his people in kind of, let's negotiate the results, let's forget about all
this voting that just took place and try to pretend the first round didn't
happen and negotiate some outcome. The opposition has rejected that, as far
as I can tell.
QUESTION: Can we try the situation in the Middle East, the West Bank,
Jerusalem? There was turmoil yesterday. There was more -- much more of it --
today. Palestinian policemen killed an Israeli policeman. Israeli troops
fired and killed three Palestinians. I'm trying to decode yesterday's
aphorism - or at least maybe you can be more specific - when you call on
all sides, the State Department does, to be careful, it is a sensitive area
- meaning the holy sites, what are you saying? You want to try to elaborate
on that? Are you saying that people should stay away, that Israeli Jews
should avoid going to an area that is sacred to them? Are you saying Ariel
Sharon should avoid going - that particular Israeli Jew shouldn't go there?
Are you saying that the Palestinians are depressed on not being able to get
their demands met in negotiations, so naturally enough they're taking to
the streets? It sort of sounds like, in a sense, a parallel to Yugoslavia
where you understand why people are in the streets. Are you understanding -
the State Department understanding of the Palestinian rock throwers?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I don't --
QUESTION: The frustration there that has to be expressed?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what would make you think we see any parallels
between this and Yugoslavia.
QUESTION: In the streets - people disappointed, not getting what are in
the streets.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that is what you might call fairly simplistic. I don't
think we make that analogy.
QUESTION: They are throwing rocks -- approach to life. But in any event,
forget the parallel. It's just - it's a transition from your discourse
before where the State Department understands why the people who want
Milosevic would take to the streets. So, what are you --
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let's forget that. Now, what's the question?
QUESTION: What is today's prescription for what is going on and going on
and in a much worse way than yesterday in that area?
MR. BOUCHER: All right, let me tell you a couple of things about that.
First, we do urge the Israelis and Palestinians to maintain calm and
exercise restraint and above all to avoid any action that provokes tension
in this area. Clearly, this is a sensitive place for Palestinians, Muslims
and Jews and the needs and interests of both sides there need to be
respected. Provocations that lead to tension need to be avoided.
Events of the last few days only underscore the obvious, Israelis and
Palestinians need to focus their efforts intensively on reaching an
agreement and to cooperate with one another in practical fashion until a
permanent status accord is reached. The United States extends its
condolences to the families of all those killed or wounded in the recent
violence. And we do call on both sides to take steps to restore calm and to
avoid any actions and words that could further inflame the situation.
As far as advice, we have advice for Americans. We are issuing a public
announcement today for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza advising American
citizens to exercise caution in the vicinity of the Al Aqsa Mosque and
throughout the Old City of Jerusalem, the commercial areas of East
Jerusalem and the West Bank.
QUESTION: Isn't that generally SOP? I mean, aren't you always asking
Americans to be cautious in those areas?
MR. BOUCHER: We've had sort of general advice for the entire area. This
is a bit more specific about some of the places where this violence and
disruption has occurred.
QUESTION: All right. Your statement raises at least two questions.
Provocation: has anybody been provocative? Please identify who has been
provocative. Or do you want to avoid - nobody has been in - but you want to
make sure nobody is in the future? What are you saying about provocation?
Again, it needs decoding.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't want to try to list everybody who has been
provocative, but --
QUESTION: I just wanted to --
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, you asked about Ariel Sharon's visit. We, I think,
are quite concerned that the visit by Sharon to this site risked creating
tensions, and in fact it did. So, you know, we think it is incumbent upon
people on both sides to avoid actions that inflame the situation and create
tension.
QUESTION: All right, and the other point - let me just try the other
point. You made a connection between the negotiations, which so far have
not succeeded, and what is going on in the streets. Right? So, is your
point that this is - the rock-throwing is an expression of frustration, or
a caution to the two sides to try a little harder, or do you see it as
simply another way of making the case - of the Palestinians making the case
on the table, and trying to make a case on the street? What is the
connection between the two events?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I will choose "D", none of the above.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: All right.
MR. BOUCHER: The connection is that it is a reminder that - the violence
there is a reminder that the only solution is peace. And the only way to
resolve these situations is to intensify efforts to reach an agreement. And
in the meantime, as I said, it takes practical steps together to cooperate
in ensuring that violence does not occur and does not break out. But
certainly, we don't approve of any violence; we don't condone it. We think
the sides should be actively working to stop the violence. But also, in the
meantime, we need to remember how important it is to actively work to reach
an agreement.
QUESTION: Richard - communicated your displeasure about the visit of Mr.
Sharon to Mr. Sharon?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure. I will have to check on that.
QUESTION: Are you, in fact, displeased with the fact that he went?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I expressed our view on that, our observations on
it. I will see if we have communicated those directly --
QUESTION: Well, you said that you were quite concerned by the fact that
his going to visit "might' create tension, and then in fact, it did create
tension. Are you unhappy with the fact that he went?
MR. BOUCHER: I am going to stick with what I said.
QUESTION: Well, I don't understand why you can't say you are unhappy.
MR. BOUCHER: Because I used my words and not yours.
QUESTION: You talked about the need to intensify efforts. What is the
next step, as far as your efforts are concerned? Is there a next step, or --
MR. BOUCHER: In terms of the peace process?
QUESTION: Yes. What is the next step?
MR. BOUCHER: The Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and US officials, as
you know, met this week in the D.C. area. Meetings ended yesterday. They
also met directly with each other, the Israelis and Palestinians. We were
present in that. They will continue their contacts, and we will continue
our efforts to facilitate their work and advance the negotiations. The
Secretary, just about the time I was coming out here, was talking to
Chairman Arafat, and I think she was about to talk to Israeli acting
Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami. So, we had some intense discussions for a
couple days, and we will remain in contact with the parties, and we expect
that they will remain in contact with each other.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- is he back in Israel, or did he stay on in the
United States?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not exactly sure. I would have to double-check.
QUESTION: Was she planning on pressing the point that you made about the
violence of Jerusalem to Arafat and to Ben-Ami?
MR. BOUCHER: I am assuming it came up, but I can't say for sure.
QUESTION: Can I check you on intense discussions? I mean, your interest -
I mean, your zeal to get an agreement, it certainly is intense. But when
Arafat met with Barak, both sides said they never touched the issues. And
yesterday, after the meeting - while the spokesman said he didn't know if
they got to the issues - the Palestinians said, no, it was a good meeting,
but they didn't get into the issues. So what was intense about it?
MR. BOUCHER: After which meetings?
QUESTION: Yesterday.
MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday -- their meeting with each other, or our meetings
with them? I mean --
QUESTION: Collectively.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think in our meetings with them, we discussed the
issues. That is as much as I can speak for.
QUESTION: Was there any progress that you can report, or does that got to
remain confidential?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't do progress day by day, or lack thereof.
QUESTION: Can we change the subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
QUESTION: Radio Liberty correspondent, Andrei Babitsky, goes on trial
Monday in Dagestan. Does the US have any comment in advance of that
trial?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think first of all, we are pleased to learn that the
case against Andrei Babitsky is nearing resolution. The trial date, as far
as we understand, is October 2nd in Dagestan. We have certainly noted our
concerns about his prior detention; we have called attention to the
appearance of manipulation of the legal system in order to harass him. We
have welcomed the dropping of all but one of the charges against him, and
the lifting of some travel restrictions. We would certainly urge final
resolution of the case, consistent with support for press freedom.
QUESTION: Can I try you on whether the end of the Indyk investigation
appears to be in sight? Do you have anything new to - because, again, you
know, the business of him not being part of these negotiations keeps coming
up. People on the Hill are saying it is a shame, and old colleagues of his
are saying it is a shame. Might it come to an end soon, or is it - or can't
you foresee it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have an update on when we might be able to conclude
it. I think we made clear right from the beginning that we wanted to
conclude this as quickly as possible, and certainly the Secretary has made
clear on the Hill the value that she attaches to his participation in the
peace process, but also the value - the importance she attaches to
everybody following security rules.
QUESTION: On that point - has the Department begun or done any kind of
review of other ambassadors around the world, and their security procedures?
Have they been talking to their staffs, et cetera, to see if perhaps Mr.
Indyk's situation was not isolated?
MR. BOUCHER: This is not a witch hunt. The investigators investigate
allegations and information that comes to their attention, and when the
information comes to them, no matter who it is, they pursue it. And they
take their actions in accordance with proper investigatory procedures, and
in some cases, that reaches a point where they feel it is necessary to
suspend somebody's security clearance until the investigation is over.
As you know, when we found the laptops missing - the classified laptop
missing, and then we did the inventory of unclassified laptops - we also
started checking unclassified laptops in our possession to see whether any
classified information had been on them. So, to the extent that we have
been searching for instances of confidential or classified documents being
done on unclassified machines, yes, that was done. We did an inventory of
our laptops, and started checking the information on them.
But we don't - there are periodic reviews of everybody's security; that is
a regular part of being employed here. Every five years, I think, you fill
out the forms again, and they do a background investigation. But other than
that, I don't think we have started checking over everybody.
I do want to say one thing quite clearly, that somehow there is a notion
out there that everybody does it. And from my experience in the Foreign
Service, I would say that is not the case. We manage to do our jobs and to
follow security procedures. And the Secretary made quite clear in her
statement to the employees that she expected that of everybody. So, whether
or not, in Mr. Indyk's case, there is anything particular, we will have to
see.
But I do know that where - if Diplomatic Security has information that
somebody is violating security procedures, they do pursue it. In some cases,
they might find a single instance, and take action; in some instances, they
may find a need to put somebody on security probation for a time. But they
do pursue these cases with regard to people of any level in this Department,
because we are all expected to do our jobs and to follow security. And I
think, by and large, that is what we do.
QUESTION: Okay. The reason that I raise the question - and I wasn't
thinking that you all were going to be going out and looking for ghosts and
gremlins - but the fact of the matter is, an ambassador is, ostensibly, the
most important person in an embassy, and I know from having spoken with
former ambassadors, they say that it is a good thing that they are no
longer posted overseas, because it happens all the time - and it happened
all the time. So, I was just wondering, is it not reasonable to think that
the Department would want to make sure that the people who are in the most
senior and sensitive positions representing the United States Government
overseas would in fact be living up to these security standards?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary has made that quite clear. Her town
meeting with the employees was videotaped, was sent to all our posts
overseas. Every employee is getting security refresher training. We have
taken a whole series of steps to remind everyone of their personal
responsibility for this.
QUESTION: I'm not talking about reminding them; I'm talking about
checking them.
MR. BOUCHER: I think that is quite different. We do trust our employees.
We do expect them to live up to these standards. You remind people of their
responsibilities; you remind them of their standards that they are supposed
to be following. That is different than conducting an investigation of
every ambassador, which I don't think is what we intend to do. What we have
done - in this case and other cases in the past - is when information comes
to our attention that someone may have violated the standards, then that is
investigated. And to have a few people running around saying, well, I
wasn't caught, is not an excuse for saying whether or not you have to
follow security procedures. You do, and the Secretary has made quite clear
that you do.
QUESTION: Richard, can you shed some light on Under Secretary Pickering's
meeting this morning with the -- Good Lord, okay.
QUESTION: But - I think she has a good point, and I wanted to ask you,
indeed - I know you can't get into the investigation, but this might
clarify your position and why you are being asked these questions - wasn't
the Indyk investigation sparked by an anonymous tip? And if it was, does
that mean any anonymous caller who might - of course - have also some
personal reasons for trying to put somebody in a bad light - set off an
investigation that would automatically strip somebody of his security
clearance at a critical time? Or is that too large a leap?
MR. BOUCHER: That is wrong on every count.
QUESTION: All right, so it wasn't an anonymous tip, right?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't talk about the details of the investigation.
QUESTION: Wasn't that one of the counts of what I said?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I have to maintain that position, even if I tell you
it is wrong.
QUESTION: I didn't expect this to get into the investigation itself, but
her point is --
MR. BOUCHER: All right. I can't get into the details of the investigation,
but all the assumptions in your question are wrong.
QUESTION: So - all right - then let's leave Indyk out of it, because I
think Andrea raises a substantive point. The question is whether - what it
takes to launch an investigation and to put an ambassador out of business -
for at least a while - and also because, quite frankly, it tarnishes a
reputation -- however it comes out. It takes more than a tip? Then how does
it get started?
How does an investigation get under way?
MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, any serious allegations are looked into. But I
think in the investigation - in this particular case - it is quite clear
that the investigation proceeds for some time before this kind of action is
felt necessary. And you don't strip somebody's security clearance at the
first - at the outset of an investigation. You may suspend it at some point
if their continued holding of a clearance becomes questionable. But again,
that is not dis-positive. In the end, there will be an outcome that we
certainly all hope is satisfactory for everybody.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Taliban?
QUESTION: Taliban, Taliban.
QUESTION: Okay, go for it.
QUESTION: Just, very briefly, Richard, there is an article by Bill Gertz
that is out today on this Indyk matter that says that information regarding
violations of Mr. Indyk was received by the government sources on
background. Can you respond in any way to this article? That is pretty
condemning.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't read one by him that is not pretty condemning. No,
we - I would love to be able to explain it all to you, but those are the
kind of details about the investigation I'm afraid I just can't get
into.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
QUESTION: Can we move to the Taliban?
QUESTION: Yes. When are they going to expel Mr. bin Laden? We don't
know?
MR. BOUCHER: Didn't you have a chance to ask that?
QUESTION: Richard, put him right.
QUESTION: No, we had to come here. And they still had not come out.
MR. BOUCHER: All right. Okay. Ambassador Pickering, right? Ambassador
Pickering and Assistant Secretary Inderfurth met midday today with a group
from the Taliban. They discussed four issues. The first was peace; the
second was narcotics control; the third was human rights, especially the
rights of women and girls; and the fourth was Usama bin Laden. The
discussion was frank; it was straightforward. Each side explained clearly
its position. They have had discussions in the past, and they look forward
to further discussions in the future.
QUESTION: Progress?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't characterize anything as being progress, no.
QUESTION: I would be curious as to how they explain their position on the
way they treat women and giving sanctuary to Usama bin Laden. They gave you
an explanation for that?
MR. BOUCHER: Hey, they explained their position. I wouldn't say whether
we accepted it or not. I think it is quite clear we don't agree on those
subjects.
QUESTION: In other words, what you are saying, Richard, is basically
Pickering and Inderfurth brought up the US concerns, and the Taliban said,
yes, great, and that was pretty much about it. Did they, at any point,
bring up their desire to --
MR. BOUCHER: That is not what I said.
QUESTION: I want to - what I am trying to get at - I'm sorry if you
didn't understand they way I was going into the question - but what I am
trying to get at is, did they bring anything up, because they have been on
a lobbying campaign to get recognized at the UN. So was this a completely
one-sided conversation? I can't believe that these guys just showed up here
in order to get yelled at about the same four issues that you have always
been yelling at them at?
MR. BOUCHER: Well --
QUESTION: Didn't they have anything on their agenda, or are you not
allowed to talk about that?
MR. BOUCHER: All right. I said they discussed four issues. We discussed
them; they discussed them. They had something to say on these issues as
well. They explained their positions on these issues. No, they did not
raise the question of recognition of the Taliban.
QUESTION: They had nothing on their agenda when they showed up here?
MR. BOUCHER: They did not raise the question of recognition of the
Taliban. They discussed these four issues that we wanted to discuss.
QUESTION: And anyway, they came here wanting to talk about Usama bin
Laden, human rights concerns with women, narcotics and peace? I just --
MR. BOUCHER: They might not have wanted to discuss all these issues. I
don't exactly know. But in the end, they discussed all four of these
issues.
QUESTION: In other words, they didn't want anything out of this
meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: All I can tell you is this is what was discussed; they
didn't raise questions of recognition with us.
QUESTION: Okay, and - getting back to the progress - but was there any -
did you see any change or any nuance of change in their --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have progress; I don't have nuanced change; I don't
have anything like that for you.
QUESTION: Did the US again raise the possibility of having the Taliban
expel bin Laden to a third country for trial, and if so, what was the
Taliban's response?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid that is the kind of detail I can't go into.
Obviously, our position is that they should follow the UN resolutions.
QUESTION: Recognition at the UN, as well as by the US, right?
MR. BOUCHER: Right.
QUESTION: That UN seat didn't come up either?
MR. BOUCHER: No. I think that is the question inherently.
QUESTION: A couple of questions on Iraq, please.
QUESTION: You don't know if this stuff came up in the meeting, or it
definitely did not?
MR. BOUCHER: I know that the issue of recognition was not raised by the
Taliban.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: On Iraq, yesterday the Senate - I'm sorry - Andrea?
QUESTION: I'm sorry - no, I was just going to say - I mean, you said that
that wasn't raised. Can you tell me if the issue that I just brought up -
the whole point of sending bin Laden to a third country - was raised?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the issue of Usama bin Laden was discussed. We raised
it in terms of the United Nations resolutions, which call for his expulsion
for trial. So, yes.
QUESTION: Can you say whether they came up with any new creative formulas
for how they might deal with him inside Afghanistan? I mean --
MR. BOUCHER: That's --
QUESTION: Are they still harping on that one?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I don't have that level of detail.
QUESTION: -- how to get him out?
QUESTION: Sorry to belabor the point, but now that you say that it was
raised, did you sense any change in the Taliban - or more receptivity on
their part to this suggestion?
MR. BOUCHER: I was in a different set of meetings at this time. Nothing
in the briefing that I got from people involved indicates any way to
characterize notions or nuances of progress at this point. They had a frank
and straightforward discussion, and that is where I have to leave
it.
MR. BOUCHER: Iraq, back there.
QUESTION: Yes, Richard Butler yesterday gave Senator Warner's hearing an
update on sanctions in Iraq, and he said 22 months after the last
inspectors left, Saddam is back in business on all three fronts: chemical,
biological and nuclear. Does the State Department plan any overtures toward
Russia or France, who were sited as getting far more cozy than we would
prefer with Iraq to fortify what sanctions might be left, or to reorganize
those sanctions some other way?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it is an issue of fortifying or reorganizing.
The sanctions are in place. Resolution 1284 is in place; that is the
resolution that we worked on with France, Russia, and other members of the
Security Council. And I have to say that we all know that there are some
disagreements on the private flights in and out of Baghdad. But sanctions
remain effective. The support for Resolution 1284 is still strong. The UN
controls all but a small amount of Iraq's oil revenues. We are getting good
cooperation from all of the Security Council members on enforcing the
sanctions.
The fact that the Iraqi regime is making an effort to undercut sanctions is
probably just an indication of their effectiveness. But I think we are
confident that the international community will reject those efforts, and
we are confident that even those who disagree with us on some matters
regarding flights, tell us that they have told the Iraqis point-blank that
Iraq needs to comply with Resolution 1284, which as the Secretary says is
the way for Iraq to get some suspension of the sanctions.
QUESTION: What is the Administration doing to support the opposition
against Saddam within the country?
MR. BOUCHER: We have briefed quite extensively on that when the Secretary
met with Iraqi National Congress people in New York, and I would just have
to refer you to that.
QUESTION: Do they expect the latest wrinkle in the Saudis reversing
themselves and permitting their airspace used by Yemen? The second Arab
country, now, to have a flight into Iraq. According to the report, though,
it was approved - the flight was not a sanctioned flight. Right?
MR. BOUCHER: The Yemen flight was approved by the UN Sanctions Committee
and ,therefore, it is entirely appropriate for people allowed through their
airspace.
QUESTION: But no problem; this doesn't reflect any buckling of support?
MR. BOUCHER: Yemen submitted the notification in accordance with the
procedures. The Sanctions Committee has approved similar flights on a case-
by-case basis in the past. That is entirely normal
QUESTION: Richard, what is the current language that is being used to
respond to all of these flights? Is the US concerned? Is the US - do you
see them as minor infractions? How do you characterize them?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, first of all, there is a number of these
flights that take place with the approval of the UN Sanctions Committee. We
think that is the appropriate procedure for flights. We continue to
disagree with French and Russian assertions that approval is not required
for these flights - for these private passenger flights. They contend that
simply notification is required. So we continue to disagree with their
assertions on that point. But I think it is quite clear that overall many
countries - most countries continue to apply and receive the approval of
the Sanctions Committee. And second - in a much broader sense on sanctions,
people are still sticking with 1284 and making quite clear that that's what
Iraq has to do is comply with Resolution 1284.
QUESTION: Isn't more than just France and Russia? It's Jordan, as well,
that has ignored these --
MR. BOUCHER: There have been a few others that have taken that interpretation
--
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: But I think there have been quite a few that have complied.
QUESTION: But I mean, these are our Arab allies. Does the US - has the US
expressed any concern that these countries, who after all receive millions
of dollars in US aid, are flouting this regulation?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, clearly, we've discussed this with friends and allies
and we have made quite clear to them that we don't accept the view and that
we think they should respect the UN Sanctions Committee's authority on
these matters.
QUESTION: What?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've made quite clear they should respect the UN
Sanctions Committee's authority on these matters. I'll have to stop with
that.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about - going back to Pickering - not on
the Taliban, though, about him going to Russia on an anti-terrorism
mission?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: You do?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure. Let me find it back here. Under Secretary Thomas
Pickering will lead a high-level delegation to Moscow for the second
meeting of the US-Russia Working Group on Afghanistan. Talks are scheduled
October 17th and 18th. The first Working Group meeting was held in August
in Washington. These meetings are a continuation of our bilateral
consultations with the Russians on counter-terrorism matters related to
Afghanistan.
QUESTION: And can you also update us on the New York talks with the North
Koreans? Are they winding down? Are they going on through the weekend?
What's going to happen?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, let me get the update for you on that. The talks are
continuing in New York. The tone remains positive. It's possible the talks
will continue over the weekend. But as of this morning, weekend sessions
had not yet been scheduled. There is no fixed date for ending these talks.
The talks have not yet turned to focus on terrorism. They're currently
focusing on other areas of concern. So we anticipate that Ambassador
Sheehan will lead a segment of the talks next week to talk about terrorism.
QUESTION: Just to go back one stop to the Working Group meeting on
Afghanistan. Have you pretty - I'm not sure this has come up recently -
have you pretty well abandoned the idea of adding new sanctions against the
Taliban? There was talk of this - the Russians seemed very keen in the
summer on doing this. And you seemed to be --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, much more recently than that I would refer you to the
statements made after the 6+2 Meeting in New York, where I believe that was
discussed and certainly --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) and having him report back. That wasn't anything --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, that was talking to - there were a number of participants
in that meeting that felt that we should go forward with additional
measures. So it is still a subject under active discussion?
QUESTION: Vendrell are you?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll want to talk to Vendrell, but it's still a subject
under active discussion.
QUESTION: Are these discussions restricted to the terrorism issue as it
relates to Afghanistan?
MR. BOUCHER: No, as a matter of fact, there were four topics.
QUESTION: No, I'm taking about the Pickering meeting - the Pickering
meeting.
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, the Pickering meeting - Pickering and the Russians.
That's the subject of discussion - consultations on counter-terrorism
matters related to Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Well, there are about seven countries on the terrorism list.
Why not talk about those others, as well.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, this is a Working Group on Afghanistan. I'm sure they -
I don't want to say they don't discuss peace process or other issues that
are all related to the issue of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. But
clearly terrorism and instability from there are concerns to both of
us.
QUESTION: In Central Asia, specifically or everywhere?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, Afghanistan, specifically.
QUESTION: Yes, but the concern that Russia has --
MR. BOUCHER: This is a Working Group on Afghanistan with the Russians --
QUESTION: Yes, I know, but are they talking about the export of this
terrorism into Central Asia, into --
MR. BOUCHER: That has got to be one of the issues that is discussed, but
the issue is counter-terrorism matters related to Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 P.M.)
|
