U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #97, 00-10-06
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
541
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000
Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN
SERBIA (FRY)
1-4,6-8 Situation/Whereabouts of Milosevic / US Position on Milosevic
1,4-5 Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov's Meetings / Russian Role
3,6 US Position on Lifting of Sanctions
4 Secretary Albright's Contacts with Foreign Ministers
5-6 US Contact with Kostunica
7-8 Comments by Carla del Ponte on Extension of Milosevic Indictments
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7,13 Continuing Violence / Status of Talks / Palestinian Call for
Commission to Investigate Cause of Violence
NORTH KOREA
9-12, 16 Joint US-DPRK Statement on International Terrorism
TURKEY
13 Turkish Government Reaction to Armenia Resolution
SUDAN
15-16 US Opposition to Sudanese UN Security Council Candidacy
15-17 US Position on Lifting Sanctions Against Sudan
CUBA / MEXICO
16 Pedro Riera Escalante Case
COTE D'IVOIRE
17 Ambassador Nancy Powell's Travel / Meetings
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #97 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000, 2:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I'll be glad to follow up and take questions on this or
other topics.
QUESTION: Could you follow up on that, Richard, on where he might be and
the video that came out of there this morning and whether you can tell
anything from that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we've had a lot of different reports of where that
video was taken with Foreign Minister Ivanov. As the Secretary mentioned,
she hasn't yet had a chance to speak with Foreign Minister Ivanov to hear
from him directly yet. So, no, we don't know exactly where he is located at
this moment.
QUESTION: Ivanov, by meeting Milosevic and essentially mediating and
negotiating with him, seems to have given him a new lease of life. And,
also, I see from statements he made after that he is now casting doubt on
whether Russia really recognizes Mr. Kostunica as president.
Do you feel that the Russians are playing -- well, what do you think about -
- what do you feel about the way the Russians are playing this?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's good that they acknowledged, recognized, that
Kostunica won a victory in the presidential election. I know that was the
direct quote today, that they recognized that he did win the victory in the
presidential election. Subsequently, there have been other statements. It's
good that they acknowledged that. It's important that people move forward
from that acknowledgement and determine what the conclusions are and accept
what the reality is. So, you know, we'll continue with the Russians, to
work with the Russians, and continue to see if they can move ahead in this
regard.
And, really, the decisions on who plays a role and who is the president and
things like that are best left to the Serb people, and they seem to have
already made their decisions both at the ballot box and on the streets.
QUESTION: Richard, more about Milosevic and whether he belongs in The
Hague or not. This government has said for many years that he needed to be
out of power -- I can't remember exactly what the phraseology was -- and in
The Hague. But that's not being said right now by this government. And the
Secretary said it's important that he be out of power.
Do you still place the same amount of importance to his being in The
Hague?
MR. BOUCHER: Our policy remains exactly the same. It hasn't changed. The
Secretary talked about accountability. We all know how that should happen.
The policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Richard, a lot of Members of Congress are wondering what steps
you are prepared to take to do that. And even more so than Republicans,
Democrats have been even more vocal when asked, that it really sets a
dangerous precedent for future issues. You can't accuse a head of state of
genocide unless you are prepared to do something about it. So Members of
Congress are saying, what is the Administration prepared to now do?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I am sure the appropriate steps will happen at the
appropriate time. What I am saying at this moment -- the policy has not
changed -- as the Secretary and others have said the first step is to
remove him from power. The Serbian people seem to have done that.
QUESTION: What are those appropriate steps?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, consistent with the policy, to follow up on that, but
at the appropriate time.
QUESTION: Richard, what would it take for you to clearly conclude that he
is out of power? Are you looking for a statement, or something - some sign -
or what explicitly?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think there is two aspects of that. The first is
that the Serbian people have clearly decided who they want for their
president, and what kind of government they want. So the first step is to
see them carry through with the process of installing that new government,
taking over the reins of power and putting people in the positions so that
they can function as a government.
The second is to see that Milosevic has no further role. Now, clearly, the
way the Secretary has explained sanctions-lifting is that what we want to
see is a democratic government in place in Serbia, and then we can proceed
to lift the sanctions.
QUESTION: Richard, I presume you are familiar with the song, "Won't Get
Fooled Again." What are you going to do if the new boss turns out to be the
same as the old boss, particularly in perhaps keeping on members of
Milosevic's circle who were on the US and EU visa ban, if the same people
are in control of the security apparatus under a Kostunica regime?
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, all these things have "ifs", so --
QUESTION: I know they are, but --
MR. BOUCHER: If, if, if, if, if. If something happens, we will deal with
it appropriately. What is clear is what the Secretary said --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- laid out kind of a road map of how they can get
rid of the sanctions?
MR. BOUCHER: What is clear is what the Secretary said. What is clear --
yes, the Secretary is - I mean, we haven't had a direct contact. What the
Secretary has clearly said is if a democratic government is in power, if
Kostunica is in place and he is allowed to form a government and control
the reins of power, then we will lift the sanctions.
QUESTION: How are they supposed to know? I mean, you say fine, if a
democratic government is in power, but what are the actual steps that --
MR. BOUCHER: Matt, you have got a thousand different variations on the
theme, I'm sure, that could constitute that happening and not happening. I
don't think I can deal with every single one now. The point is that we look
forward to this. The Serbian people have clearly decided what they want.
They want this democratic government to take over with Kostunica as the
president. And when that happens, we will move to lift sanctions.
QUESTION: But don't you see the problem? Because we don't know, so the
Serbs obviously don't know. Kostunica doesn't know what exactly it is that
they have to do, other than getting Milosevic out of power, to make the US
think that there has been a democratic transition. Do you not --
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have put it in terms of "once a democratic
government is installed." And that is the steps that they need to do. Now,
granted, given that Milosevic has controlled the machinery, given that
Milosevic has controlled security services, given that he has had a great
deal of personal control on the economy, there is going to be a lot for
this government to do. But we believe that having a new government in place
that has democratic credentials is enough for us to take the steps
necessary to lift the sanctions. And as those steps proceed, we would
frankly like to work with a government to make sure that we don't open up
any loopholes for Milosevic or cronies to take profit from the situation.
QUESTION: Can you give us some context in terms of just how extraordinary
the Administration may view this? I mean, a week ago we were even
discussing the likelihood of Milosevic even acknowledging that he may have
been out-polled in the elections, and now so much has changed. Can you
share with us what some of the senior administration officials, and even
the President's views are in terms of how unexpected this was, or was there
some anticipation that this might happen?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, what do you mean "we", Kimosabi?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: A week ago, we were discussing how he might not do this, how
he might not do that. A week ago, we were discussing how the Serbian people
had spoken in an election, how they had decided who they want their leaders
to be, and how we felt their voice should be recognized, not only outside
of Yugoslavia but within Yugoslavia. A week ago, we were saying that they
needed - they decided on democratic government, and they deserved it every
bit as much as anybody else in Europe. So, a week ago, we were saying that
this should happen. And we are glad it did.
QUESTION: So you weren't surprised by this?
MR. BOUCHER: This is one of the many possibilities that we considered,
and we are glad it turned out to be this one.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary speak also to the Greek Foreign Minister,
Yeoryios Papandreou, during this crisis?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, since you asked the question, and rather than getting
23 different questions, let me go through the list of people the Secretary
has spoken to today. This doesn't include the half-dozen or so that she
spoke to - who she talked to from the airplane last night, which also
included Foreign Minister Papandreou at least once last night from the
airplane.
But, today, she has also spoken to the Secretary General of NATO, the
Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, European High Representative Solana, Foreign
Minister Kukan of Slovakia, Foreign Minister Papandreou again of Greece,
Foreign Minister Van Aartsen of the Netherlands, Foreign Minister Fischer
of Germany. She talked to Foreign Minister Dini last night after she got
off the airplane. I think that was about 1:00 a.m. She talked this
afternoon to President Havel of Czechoslovakia. She is talking to European
Union Commissioner Chris Patten, and the Foreign Minister of Romania.
And my guess is that by now the total has started to increase. She has been
keeping in very close touch with people throughout Europe and throughout
the region in order to coordinate our actions, compare notes on the
situation.
QUESTION: Richard, there seems to be a surprising lack of contact with
Russia at this critical time. Why is that? Is it just schedules, or - and
how - what importance does the United States ascribe to the Russian-
Yugoslav role? Does the United States sort of concede that that is sort of
the primary bilateral relationship and that you need to sort of wait for
the Russians to move, or what is going on with that?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I suppose the Russians could have an important role if
they wanted to stand on the side of the Serbian people and work with them
in this situation. Certainly we don't begrudge them any influence or
friendship with the Serbian people; we think everybody should be in there
supporting and supporting the decision they have made.
But the fact is that things are moving forward very quickly. We are trying
to keep up with events. We are trying to see that a new government can get
in place and stabilized and that we do whatever we can to help, both in
terms of lifting sanctions and organizing international support. And we're
working with all parties to try to get them to be part of that effort
because we think the new government does deserve that kind of recognition
and that kind of cooperation. So anybody who wants to be there can be there,
but things are moving ahead pretty quickly.
QUESTION: Why no contact? I mean, why -- I mean, that seems it would be
the first call you'd make.
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, they have explained it. The Secretary did reach out
to Ivanov. They have explained it as being first the visit to India and
coming back from that, and then this immediate visit to Belgrade. As I
think the Secretary mentioned this morning to several -- Foreign Minister
Ivanov did pass a message saying he would get in touch after he left
Belgrade, so maybe this afternoon or evening she might be able to do that.
I guess he would just say he is busy for the moment. But we'll see. When
they call, we'll see what we can do with them. We continue to want to work
with Russia.
QUESTION: You mentioned you hadn't had contact yet with Kostunica. How do
you envision the process of establishing contact with this new government-
in-formation? Will that be through the Europeans primarily and then the US,
or what are the plans?
MR. BOUCHER: Some of the Europeans already have embassies in Belgrade and
have people there. We would expect to establish direct and normal contacts
with the new democratic government of Serbia as soon as we could. It may
take a few days, but we will move in that direction. I think, in the
meantime, they do know from our public statements and the Secretary's
statements that a new democratic government has our full support, and we
will do everything we can to cooperate with them.
QUESTION: Richard, Kostunica has said himself in the last week or so that
all of this talk by the US about their view that Milosevic should
definitely be in The Hague might be a little bit counterproductive to the
stability of their society. And many Yugoslavs also have said that even
while Milosevic did lose the election, he did get a significant number of
votes in the country, and that by insisting that Milosevic be in The Hague,
that could be the divisive and polarizing to the society.
What if he comes to the UN and the US and the European allies and says, I
really don't think this will benefit the healing of this society right now?
Is the US willing to wait on getting him into The Hague?
MR. BOUCHER: That is a "what if" question, but I would say again our
position on this hasn't changed. The Secretary said that just a few moments
ago.
QUESTION: Richard, in terms of the Russians again, it seems like they are
in a difficult position here. In the speech yesterday, Kostunica said the
Serbian people - the Yugoslav people - should be celebrating, not in
Washington and Moscow, lumping Washington and Moscow together. That seems
like a message in itself. Might the Russians have a difficult relationship
with him? This was obviously before Ivanov met with him this morning.
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, that's anybody's guess what the relationship will
turn out to be. As I said, the Serbian people are moving in a certain
direction. We have pledged our full support for them to move in that
direction. We are looking - we expect and know that many others in the
international community are on the same foot. We and the European Union
have both talked about not only seeing - recognizing him as President, but
moving forward on lifting sanctions, moving forward to provide support for
a new democratic government.
So there are many, many countries moving in a certain direction, and I'm
sure anybody that wants to be there can help out. What the eventual
relationships turn out to be -- we have relations with a lot of governments
that we don't always agree with. We wouldn't expect to have 100 percent
agreement with any particular new government, and I suppose that applies to
the Russians as well.
QUESTION: Richard, on the diplomatic rung, or the relations front, are
there any plans being made now for anyone from this building or anywhere
else to go at least to the region to prepare themselves to begin making
contact with Kostunica and his party? And, two, was the protecting power
ever sorted out after Kosovo?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I have to check on that. Phil may know. No. So
we don't have a protective power there.
QUESTION: So you don't have any idea if the embassy is still together, if
it still has a roof on it or anything like that?
MR. BOUCHER: No. We'll have to see. And as far as establishing contact,
I'm sure we'll look to how to do this in the coming days. But, as far as
I'm aware, there has been no decision on how we are going to proceed.
QUESTION: For a year and a half, the mantra has been that Milosevic
should be out of power, out of Yugoslavia, and in The Hague. And when we
ask you about the war crimes issue, you say, well, our policy hasn't
changed and you sort of move on. I don't think you've mentioned the word
"Hague." And you're leaving at least me with the impression that you are
sort of de-emphasizing this war crimes business for the time being.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not changing the policy. I'm telling you again and
again the policy is the same way it has always been. You are very familiar
with it. Leave it at that.
QUESTION: Richard, what will Kostunica have to do in order for the US to
lift the sanctions, seeing as Britain is talking about lifting the
sanctions almost immediately? Will there have to be some performance on the
part of his government to - in order to have there be some kind of
action?
MR. BOUCHER: Didn't we kind of do ten minutes of that ten minutes ago? I
think I'll leave it at that, what we said before.
QUESTION: What do you make of the Army's continued silence on the course
of events in Yugoslavia? Is this cause for concern? Or the US sees it as
simply a matter of time?
MR. BOUCHER: Don't frankly know exactly know what to make of that. We
certainly do believe the situation remains delicate, that we do look to see
it sort of consolidated and stabilized as soon as possible, and we would
hope that all elements of society would support the duly elected people to
take over the government. So we will just have to see how that evolves. But
we are certainly following the situation very closely.
QUESTION: On that, what is your - what are the reports from the region in
terms of just how much his support from political allies and the media has
crumbled? Is the media now completely taken over? Are all local and radio,
television - are they all now no longer loyal to Milosevic? And how many
political allies is there a sense that he may still have?
MR. BOUCHER: The political side of it seems to change moment to moment,
and we do follow that closely. There are some recent reports, I think, of
various Socialist parties reconsidering their positions.
The media - I don't know if I can say 100 percent - but to a very, very
great extent is almost completely in the hands of independent people,
independents who will report the news as opposed to the propaganda.
QUESTION: Richard, I'm going to get back to the Hague issue. This morning,
in Pristina, Carla del Ponte said that she expected very soon to extend the
indictments of Milosevic to include atrocities committed during the Bosnian-
Croatian wars. Do you think that Milosevic should be held accountable for
those as well as for the things that happened in Kosovo?
MR. BOUCHER: That is a decision for the tribunal to make. We have made
clear our support for the tribunal.
QUESTION: But do you think that he should be held accountable for alleged
- for crimes that he may have ordered - atrocities that he may have ordered
or committed in Bosnia and Croatia as well as in Kosovo?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, that is a decision for the tribunal to make, and
we have said repeatedly we expect --
QUESTION: No, it's not a decision - it's a decision by the tribunal to
indict him, but it's a --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, how else does a tribunal hold somebody accountable? I
mean, let's not play with words here.
QUESTION: But do you think that he should be held accountable for any
crimes that he may have ordered in Croatia, in Bosnia, as well as the ones
that he has already been indicted for in Kosovo?
MR. BOUCHER: We have said - the Secretary has repeatedly said we believe
in accountability; we support the tribunal. And I don't think those were
qualified geographically or in any other way.
QUESTION: Did the $5 million --
QUESTION: Can we switch to the Middle East, please, and can you address
this --
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question - Charlie, I'm sorry, I want to do
Middle East too - but does the $5 million reward still apply for Milosevic?
MR. BOUCHER: It is part of our policy; it hasn't changed.
QUESTION: Let's go, Jonathan.
(Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: All right, Charlie. Where do you want to go?
QUESTION: I'd like to go to the Middle East. You have spent some time in
Paris and in Sharm el Sheikh talking about peace, and getting back to calm
and separating the forces. And today, there are still problems; people are
still being killed. What is your reaction to what is going on, and is there
any movement on security team meetings, et cetera?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we made clear throughout that we felt that this was
a very difficult situation. It was a very sensitive situation. The
Secretary yesterday called it an "extremely volatile and tragic period." We
knew that Friday with Friday prayers was going to be a difficult day, and
we have seen, indeed, some new violence today.
Certainly, any of the loss of life in the fighting is regrettable. At the
same time, they did make commitments with the Secretary. They did issue
instructions. Those largely had to do with disengagements, taking steps to
reduce the friction, and starting to work together to make sure security
was maintained. And we do see those kind of things occurring.
So as we and they continue to work to try to calm the situation, we remain
in touch with them. And yes, indeed, we are working with their security
officials in the region to try to make sure that an effective calm can be
maintained.
QUESTION: There was talk during the Paris meetings that an American
invitation to the political negotiations to come to Washington next week to
resume the talks. Has anyone taken that up, and do you expect those talks
to go ahead at this stage? Or is it premature?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what the Secretary said this morning, which I am
glad to repeat here, is we would expect to invite negotiators to Washington
when the situation calms down.
QUESTION: Are both sides keeping the commitments that they made to
Madeleine Albright? Is everybody moving back away from this conflict?
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen both sides, first of all, in the Secretary's
presence when she was working with them through many, many hours of very
serious and detailed discussions in Paris, including five or six hours of
trilateral discussions, on the spot, they issued -- in front of each other
and in front of us -- the instructions to their people to try to take some
specific steps to calm the situation, and indeed many of those steps appear
to have taken hold. In addition, we have seen both sides take other steps.
We have also seen the two sides cooperate with each other, which is
important.
Now, that said, there is always more they can do. There is always more they
can do because the tragic violence does continue. And we think they need to
continue to work on this, continue to cooperate. And we are, indeed,
working with them on that.
QUESTION: Richard, where is the status of the Palestinians' request for
an international commission or body to investigate what prompted the
violence? And what is the US position?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position is the same that the Secretary enunciated
yesterday at Sharm el Sheik and that was in the presidential statement the
other day, that we do believe that there needs to be fact-finding. It has
to be fact-finding that's done in a way that's both effective in addressing
the situation and helping the situation, but also acceptable to the
parties.
QUESTION: This morning, United States and North Korea released a joint
statement on international terrorism. How meaningful this step is? It can
be a step you needed for North Korea to take?
MR. BOUCHER: We think that this is an important statement because it puts
us and North Korea together in the same mode of trying to address the
terrorism issue seriously, of having similar understandings of opposition
to terrorism and the kind of steps that need to be taken, and that pledging
to work together with the aim of removing the North Koreans from the list
of state sponsors of terrorism. So it puts us in the process of working
together on terrorism issues, having similar understandings of the
situation. It doesn't resolve the issues in and of itself.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Ambassador Sherman stated that there is no
precondition for Mr. Jo's visit. And yesterday it was a big briefing and
today there is an announcement. Why wasn't the announcement included
yesterday? Was there any significant development between yesterday and
today? And isn't this precondition, or is it kind of red carpeting for Mr.
Jo's visit here?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, before you wind this up into a big theory,
what Ambassador Sherman said yesterday remains true today. Second of all,
this statement --
QUESTION: She said at one point during the briefing that it was Thursday,
Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: It was Thursday. That remains true. When she talked, it was
Thursday. Come on, let's not -- what she said yesterday remains true today.
There is no preconditions.
Second of all, this particular statement results from the most recent
discussions that we've had. You know, frankly, all these things get put
together and get put out according to their own time table. I wouldn't
ascribe any importance at all to the fact that she briefed yesterday and we
have the statement today, other than that we have a lot of things going on
in terms of our relations with North Korea and we're working on it every
single day of the week.
QUESTION: Richard, Churches for Middle East Peace and several other
international organizations have mentioned now -- have charged Israel with
use of excessive force, particularly the use of helicopters. And the
Churches are now calling for the United States to review its decision to
send additional helicopters out there since they are being used in
violation of the military assistance agreement between Israel and the
United States.
Did this subject come up, and are you considering cautioning Israel
concerning her use of both excessive force and US materiel?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of the charges, and I'm not aware the subject
has come up.
Okay, now we're back on North Korea.
QUESTION: A cynic looking at this statement, this joint statement, might
say, well, that's all very well, but do you and the North Koreans in fact
agree on what groups are terrorists and what aren't? I mean, for example,
do they accept that the Japanese Red Army is a terrorist group, and do they
agree to withhold safe haven from these people, as the statement suggests?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, they do agree that one doesn't provide safe
haven to terrorists. Then you get into the question of definition of
particular people.
QUESTION: I mean, unless you agree on who fits in this --
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to say that we have ongoing discussions of this
issue. This statement marks a certain stage in our discussions. We will
continue our discussions. We said we will continue our work to work
together in order to address the issues that are necessary to take them off
the terrorism list. I think you are all quite aware of what we have said in
the past is needed to do that. Certainly the North Koreans are quite aware.
So whether that kind of understanding has been reached at this stage or not,
we do know what is necessary for them to get off the terrorism list.
QUESTION: So, in other words, you're still working towards an agreement
on who falls within the category which --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that. I said whether we -- I spilled my
water, though. I said whether we have reached an understanding on the issue
of who falls as a terrorist group or not, we certainly know what is
necessary as we work forward towards this goal of working in cooperation to
remove them from the terrorism list. So whether we have it now or later,
we're going to have to get there in order if we're going to take them off
the list.
QUESTION: So is there anything very new in the statement?
MR. BOUCHER: The fact that we have lined ourselves up in the same
direction with a common understanding of how to address the issue, I think
is a good -- is a positive development.
QUESTION: Richard, one of the requirements for them to get off the list
was to make a public statement affirming their opposition to terrorism. And
they did that -- not today. They've done that before. Is this, the release
of this statement, yet another step on the road to being removed? Does this
put them any closer to being removed than they were, say, before, or if
this statement had not come out?
And the second thing is that, you know, it's a joint statement. Who did you
write this with, and where was it written? Or was it not done -- was this
done in New York?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it was done in New York. Yeah, we worked on it
together and it resulted from our most recent -- I mean, from our series of
discussions, including our most recent discussions in New York.
QUESTION: Do you know --
MR. BOUCHER: When? Just the other day.
QUESTION: Right. You mentioned that Matt asked about whether you are any
closer as a result of this statement.
QUESTION: You just talked of the conditions that they have to meet.
MR. BOUCHER: This statement in and of itself does not resolve the issues
of terrorism, does not resolve the issues for which they are on the list.
It marks a step forward in regard of a way of looking at the issue, a
common understanding of the issues involved, and a basis for which we can
go forward and try to work out the specifics and get to the stage where
they can be taken off the list.
QUESTION: It sounds like you are saying there is too much work to be done
for an agreement to be reached during the visit.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that at all. It's quite clear. They know
what they have to do. They have always known. They still know. And we'll
see how quickly that can happen.
QUESTION: So it's within the realm of possibility that this could be
resolved this coming week?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to start predicting that any more than was
done yesterday at the briefing. These are issues that we continue to work
on, and we pledged to address them together. That's all we're announcing
today.
QUESTION: We were promised (inaudible) of Vice Marhsall Jo. Is that
coming through the works? Do you know about that?
MR. BOUCHER: Not by me. Let's schedule afterwards, do scheduling
afterwards.
QUESTION: Another subject?
QUESTION: I want to go back to the Middle East for one second.
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just in terms of what did happen today, I wondered
if you could comment. Reports are that, while there were fewer killings
than there have been other days of the week, that there were some actions
taken by the Palestinians that some observers say were seen as more
provocative -- the raising of the flag over the mosque -- and, on the other
side, Israeli politicians, even allies of Barak, criticizing the Israeli
police for not using more force to disperse the crowds in the Old City
because they resisted using rubber bullets. So do those two developments
indicate to you either that Arafat and Barak don't have the support they
need to carry out promises made, or that they are not really enforcing
these promises?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think there's two things to say about that. First of
all is it is important that the sides cooperate and that both sides take
steps to reduce the tensions. That has been the key thing for us; that has
been the most important step, is to see what happens on the ground. Do they
take effective measures to reduce tensions, or do they act in provocative
or other ways? And so that is what we watch, and that is what we want to
work with, and why we think it is important that they work together to try
to calm the situation and reduce the tensions. And that was one of the
thrusts of the understandings or the discussions, the commitments -
whatever - that we reached in Paris.
The fact is that the measure of any discussion or any piece of paper has
got to be what happens on the ground, and so that is what we are watching.
As far as sort of commenting on each particular step that one or the other
group may be taking, or groups within groups may be taking, I don't think
that is quite for us to do. But I do think it is important that the sides
deal effectively with the situation and take all possible steps to exercise
restraint and calm things down.
QUESTION: Do you have concerns that the factions that burned the police
station today, that raised the flag, are not loyal and not listening to
Arafat, and do you have concerns that there are Israelis who are not
listening to Barak, and so therefore it is out of the control of either
man?
MR. BOUCHER: We always have concerns when the violence continues and when
the loss of life continues. That has been our primary focus in this. And
the fact that it does continue and maybe it takes on new forms is an
indication that there is more that can and should be done by the sides
together and separately to try to restrain things. So we will be - it is an
issue that we have said we need to continue to work on because ultimately
the goal is to calm the situation and stop the violence, and that is what
we will continue until we get there.
QUESTION: Yes. Government of Turkey has a reaction against a so-called
Armenian Genocide Resolution. They are taking to some measures, for example,
the Turkish Chief of Generals Staff canceled the US visit, and the
Government appointed a new ambassador to Baghdad, also sent a plane to
Iraq. And, also, the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister there are
talking about closing the Incirlik Air Base.
Do you have any reaction, or do you have any concern on this subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, first to say that we know the Government of Turkey is
clearly concerned about this situation, about the resolution itself, and we
share the concerns. We have made very clear what our position is, and
President Clinton, I think, made that quite clear to Turkish President
Sezer as well. We have seen these various reports claiming the Turkish
Government may be considering measures affecting the use of Incirlik Air
Base -- statements by politicians and other Turks along the same lines. We
have no indication at this point that that is official Turkish Government
policy.
I would say as well that the United States and Turkey share very strong
interests in containing the threat to the region that is posed by Saddam
Hussein. We have deeply appreciated Turkey's vital contribution on this
issue, including the use of the base of Incirlik. The foundation of this
partnership, we think, remains very strong, and we think it remains in our
mutual interest that our important and long-standing ties withstand this
resolution. I would note once again that the resolution is non-binding, and
it is intended only to give a Sense of the House of Representatives.
QUESTION: Because this is the - we are almost hitting a three-day weekend,
there is every - well, not every - there is a possibility that when we next
see you again, Ambassador Holbrooke may be forced to be sitting next to, at
the Security Council table, the ambassador from a country that you believe
is a state sponsor of terrorism, that being the Sudan. The vote is supposed
to be on Tuesday morning. I'm wondering if you - we had been told in New
York that the US had made some progress on getting the African countries to
back away from their alleged consensus on Sudan in favor of, perhaps,
Mauritius, and I'm wondering - it seems as though, however, the Sudanese
are still in there pushing.
What is your take on this?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as you remember, when we went to New York, it was the
common view that somehow Sudan was the African consensus candidate and
therefore was a shoo-in for this seat. We have worked on this; the
Secretary worked on this in New York; Ambassador Holbrooke and our mission
at the United Nations have been working; and certainly our African Bureau
and our posts in Africa have been working on this.
We don't normally take a position on a regional candidate, but in this case
we really do believe that Sudan is totally unsuitable for this position and
would in fact undermine and weaken Africa's representation on the Council.
Sudan is under United Nations sanctions for supporting terrorism. They have
shown no concern for human rights and the humanitarian welfare of their own
citizens, nor have they shown any economic or political leadership in
Africa. They have carried out military actions against UN efforts, bombing
US relief airplanes on the ground. So we do have a very strong dialogue in
cooperation with Africa, including at the United Nations, and we really
don't think that Sudan is the best way for them to represent their
interests.
At the same time, what has also become clear in recent weeks, in addition
to the fact that Sudan does not enjoy an African consensus, is that in the -
- there are other candidates, and the absence of consensus should be
obvious in the fact that Mauritius, which has declared its candidacy before
the Security Council, is very much in the race as well. We know that there
are at least 15 African countries who have made clear that they support
Mauritius. Uganda, in fact, has circulated a detailed letter in New York
that refutes Sudan's claims to being a consensus candidate. We believe that
Mauritius would make an excellent addition to the Security Council. It is a
vibrant democracy. It shown it has a strong market economy. It has a
history of constructive engagement in regional multilateral fora.
So, with all that in mind, we do approach a vote on Tuesday. We continue to
work this issue. I don't know how the vote will turn out, but we have
continued to work very hard on this and to make quite clear, as I have
today, that we believe that, first of all, there is no African consensus -
that has become quite clear through our efforts; second of all, that Sudan
is an unsuitable candidate, and we believe many countries agree with us on
that; and third of all, that Mauritius would be an excellent candidate to
represent African interests, and we know that some countries agree with us
on that too. So we will see if we have enough progress and momentum to
actually see the vote go in favor of a viable candidate.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? I understand they need a - the vote
has to - it's in the General Assembly - it has to be a two-thirds vote in
order for Mauritius or any country to get it, and that there is some
concern that they may not get that two-thirds necessary, in which case it
would have to go back to the Africans to try and make another round of
consensus building. There is talk up in New York that, if that happens,
that Uganda -- who is now supporting Mauritius -- and Tanzania, have kind
of pushed their - put their names in the hat as perhaps another consensus
candidate.
Would the US be willing to support either Uganda or Tanzania on the
Security Council?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me put it this way. Our normal practice in most of
these votes for who gets on the Security Council is to support a regional
consensus if a regional consensus exists. What was peculiar about this case
is there was, during the course of the summer, claims that there was a
regional consensus for what we thought was an unsuitable candidate, but
then those - it turned out there was no consensus anyway. So that pushes us
into a vote where all the members usually vote, and then you have to decide
who you support. We have done that in this case.
I don't know how this exactly works out in New York. Should the Africans
come up with a suitable consensus candidate, I suppose the normal practice
would apply. But we do make very clear we think Mauritius is an excellent
candidate and would be a fine representative for Africa.
QUESTION: But are Uganda and Tanzania? Would they also be suitable?
MR. BOUCHER: You have to ask the Africans and you would have to ask those
individual countries whether they are putting themselves forward. At this
point, what we see is Sudan has put itself forward and Mauritius has put
itself forward for Africa. And we certainly believe in that choice it is
quite clear which one is the better.
QUESTION: On a related question, what do you think should be the future
of the UN sanctions against Sudan, and there is some momentum towards
having these revoked or repealed? What is the US position on this?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that, first of all, the issue of terrorism
sanctions needs to be considered on its own merits. It's not a form of quid
pro quo in this situation. As for the sanctions themselves, we told the
Security Council that we would be willing to consider the issue of lifting
the sanctions, but only on the merits and in the context of substantial
progress by Sudan in complying with the benchmarks of relevant resolutions.
We will not support lifting sanctions until the Government of Sudan takes
concrete and verifiable steps to end its support for terrorist groups.
QUESTION: Well, how far have they got along that road?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, I'm not in a position to judge that. At this point,
as you know, we do have counter-terrorism experts and security experts who
have been sent to Khartoum to discuss issues of terrorism and our concerns
with the Government of Sudan. We did undertake that in response to offers
from Sudan to address these issues. That dialogue continues, but I don't
have a sort of reading on how far down the road we are.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, the sanctions were imposed for a
very specific case of alleged terrorism. You seem to be now broadening it
to include the whole terrorist picture.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't broaden it beyond the resolutions, because I said
quite clearly that we need concrete and verifiable progress to meet the
benchmarks of the relevant resolutions. It's the provisions of the
resolutions that govern in this case, and until we are satisfied that they
have met those provisions, we would see no cause to --
QUESTION: So you are not satisfied --
MR. BOUCHER: We are not satisfied yet that they have met those.
QUESTION: One more question on - has Jordan been involved at all in the
last week or so in trying to cap the violence? I mean, Egypt has been there,
but we have heard very little about Jordan. And Jordan has the only
agreement on the use of authority over the Haram as-Sharif, or Temple
Mount. Why isn't she more deeply involved in this?
MR. BOUCHER: I would suggest you call the Jordanian Embassy. I don't know
the answers to Jordanian policy. We have been in touch with the Jordanians,
at least through our Ambassador. I, frankly, haven't checked to see if the
Secretary called them at some point during this process. But certainly we
have kept in touch with the Jordanians, and anybody who can play a positive
role, we would hope they would do that.
QUESTION: From the joint statement this morning, it is my impression that
both countries are agreed about the Japanese Red Army issues; there is a
full agreement about that. But I don't have any indication that you had
agreed about the kidnapping issues of Japanese women and wives. It is still
an obstacle to resolve?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I refer you to our terrorism report for the
kinds of problems that we see in regard to North Korea's support for
terrorism and the kind of issues that need to be overcome in order to get
to the lifting.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about the strange case of the Cuban who
tried to seek political asylum in Mexico and wound up being hustled back to
Cuba with the help of the Mexican Government?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let's see. I have what's called an update, and since I
don't exactly know what happened last, I'm going to read you the whole
thing.
Our Embassy in Mexico has raised the issue with the Mexican Ministry of
Foreign Affairs yesterday, October 5th. We told the Mexicans that we are
very concerned about the human rights implications of this case, and we
sought a full explanation. We believe that the Government of Mexico does
have a special responsibility to ensure the safety of Mr. Riera in
Cuba.
That's as much as I think I know at this point.
QUESTION: Have you heard anything from your special envoy, who is now in
Cote d'Ivoire, after her meeting with General Guei this morning?
MR. BOUCHER: No readout yet.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)
|
