U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #100, 00-10-13
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
717
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2000
Briefer: RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN
SOUTH KOREA
1 Statement From Secretary of State will be Issued Welcoming Nobel
Committee Decision to Award Peace Prize to President Kim Dae Jung
NORTH KOREA
1 Secretary's Albright's Plan to Travel to Pyongyang
MIDDLE EAST
2,6 Summitry / Telephone Contacts Regarding Violence
10 Realistic Target for Peace Talks/Effect of Violence on Peace Process
WORLDWIDE
3-4,9-10 Embassy Closings in Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa & South
Asia
YEMEN
2-6 Ship Explosion / Record on Terrorism / U.S. Assessment of Security
Situation / Reports of Claimed Responsibility for Attack in
Aden/Decision to Fuel Ship at Port of Aden
7-8 What Government of Yemen is Doing to Facilitate Investigation /
French & British Assistance
8-12 Yemeni President's Statements / Secretary Albright Raising Issue of
Yemeni President's Comments
9 Advice to American Citizens in Yemen/ Prior Warnings to American &
British Planes & Ships
IRAN
7 Iran's Influence with Different Factions in Lebanon & Israel
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
12-13 Reports by Israeli Security Officials that the Palestinian
Authority Released Head of Terrorist Group
RUSSIA
13-17 Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement on Arms Sales to Iran in 1995
ECUADOR / COLOMBIA
17-19 American Citizens Kidnapped from Oil Company Camp / Allegations of
FARC Involvement / Hostages Taken by Helicopter / Warning
U.S. Citizens
SERBIA
19-22 Statement by Kostunica's Top Aide Zoran Djindic Regarding UN
Resolution 1244 / Whether Yugoslav Troops Going Back Into Kosovo /
Jim O'Brien's Meeting with Kostunica / Sending Envoy to U.S. /
Role of Legislatures / Reopening Embassy / Possibility of Higher
Level Visit to Belgrade
MONTENEGRO
20 U.S. Concerns about Safety of Montenegro
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #100
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2000, 2:10 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting,
or maybe you went out to lunch instead.
QUESTION: Maybe it will be worth it.
MR. BOUCHER: It will be worth it -- maybe.
We will be putting out a statement on a piece of paper from the Secretary
of State enthusiastically welcoming the Nobel Committee's decision to award
the Peace Prize to President Kim Dae Jung of the Republic of Korea. As you
know, we have strongly supported his engagement policy, the inter-Korean
summit held in June, and the ongoing process of North-South dialogue. It is
clear that his visionary leadership has been instrumental in reducing
tension on the Peninsula and increasing the prospects of lasting peace.
So we will get that piece of paper out after the briefing.
QUESTION: A question on that?
MR. BOUCHER: That's the end of my statement, so I'm glad to take any
questions.
QUESTION: I wondered whether you thought perhaps it would have been wiser
to give one to the other side as well.
MR. BOUCHER: It's up to the Nobel Committee to apply whatever standards
it has. Obviously we have applauded -- we have welcomed -- Kim Jung Il's
positive response to the steps that Kim Dae Jung has taken for dialogue,
but we do think it is entirely appropriate for Kim Dae Jung to receive this
prize.
QUESTION: No one from this building was lobbying for the Secretary to get
the award?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we think this is a wonderful and perfect choice by
the prize committee, frankly.
QUESTION: Do you have maybe a better idea of when she might be going to
Pyongyang?
MR. BOUCHER: By the end of the month. We don't have a date set yet.
QUESTION: All right. Well, it's the Middle East again, but it always is.
This isn't the place, I guess, to ask for summitry, but it is the place to
ask about telephone contacts and whatever else you might be able to tell us
about any suspicions or better idea whodunit to the US destroyer. Whatever
you like.
MR. BOUCHER: Those are two separate tabs. All right. In the issue of
summitry and telephone contacts on the violence in the Middle East, let me
bring you up to date. The effort, the diplomatic effort, has continued.
Obviously you know that there are people in the region, like UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan, who have been working out there. We have been in very
close touch with them and with others in the region. We have been in very
close touch with the players in the region.
And I would say that if you look at the efforts being made, there is a
concerted effort by the international community to work with the parties to
take steps to end the violence and to sort of work towards a point where we
can transition back into the peace process. So there is a concerted
diplomatic effort going on. The President has been making phone calls, and
I think the White House has brought you up to date on those.
The Secretary herself has talked with the Norwegian Foreign Minister
Jagland today. She has talked to President Mubarak of Egypt. She has talked
to Foreign Minister Fischer of Germany. She has talked to Foreign Minister
Ivanov of Russia and the Foreign Minister of Tunisia as well. And I am sure
she will continue to make phone calls throughout the day.
QUESTION: Anything you can give us on the --
MR. BOUCHER: On the ship explosion, there is nothing we can say at this
point about responsibility. We are at an early stage in the investigation.
We will obviously follow the investigation wherever it leads and follow any
leads that appear, but it is too early at this point to draw conclusions
about culpability if it does -- as we have said, if it turns out that this
is a terrorist act, certainly the investigation will -- as it appears to be
-- but certainly the investigation will prove that, and any leads on who
might have done it will be followed wherever they go.
QUESTION: On the second point, senior officials that several of us heard
yesterday said "the next day or so." He said that yesterday we ought to be
able to say with some certainty whether it was a terrorist act; it bears
all the earmarks. But the US Government cannot yet call it a terrorist
act?
MR. BOUCHER: It appears to be -- it very much appears to be a deliberate
act, but I have to leave it to the investigators to give us their judgment.
And I guess we're in the "so" part of that kind of statement, but in the
next day or so.
QUESTION: Richard, the Navy yesterday said they can't imagine it was
anything else. Can you go so far as to say that? I mean, what else can you
imagine it was?
MR. BOUCHER: As I say, it very much appears to be a deliberate act. I'm
not trying to be shy about this; we are not trying to deny what appears to
be very clear. It's just we have to defer a bit to the investigators to let
them get to a stage in their investigation where they feel comfortable
making that assertion. There are some investigators out there, but really
the big team of investigators en route to the scene to go to Aden. We have
teams from Washington that are arriving today, and they will be working to
determine the exact cause.
QUESTION: Richard, I know that yesterday morning, following the attack,
you sent out cables to your various Embassies and Consulates around the
world asking them to assess the situation for their particular region, or
city, and then today you announce the closing of all Embassies and
Consulates in the Mideast region, and then some in Africa and one or two in
South Asia. Is it logical, then, to draw the conclusions that they feel
that there are threats to those particular Embassies?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have seen the potential for demonstrations.
Obviously, in light of the history of attacks, you have to be concerned
about additional attacks. So we have indeed, as I think we briefed you,
closed our embassies in the Near East Bureau to more or less extend their
weekend, really, from Friday until opening of business Monday. We will
review that again on Sunday and see where we are. We have closed a number
of posts in other countries, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. I think it
comes to 37 posts in total.
We have also sent messages to Embassies worldwide to be careful, to be
vigilant, and in all these situations to keep in very close touch with the
American communities people. Our Embassies are sending out the warden
notices -- the travel advisories to their warden networks. They are getting
in touch with local business or non-governmental organization groups, where
there are Americans, and we will exercise vigilance, I think, is what I
would say. There is obviously the potential for demonstrations. In general,
I would say we have found that we are getting very good cooperation
overseas in our various posts from the local police and the local
authorities in terms of managing these situations. So I don't want to try
to hype the threat, but it is very prudent to be careful.
QUESTION: Is it limited to demonstrations? Is that what we're talking
about? I mean, it's not any kind of real --
MR. BOUCHER: I said at the beginning of the answer, clearly concerns
about demonstrations, but one also has to be concerned about acts of
terrorism constantly, and particularly in circumstances like this. So a
higher state of vigilance, good cooperation from local governments, but
really a prudent set of preventative measures so that nothing happens, and
keeping in close touch with the Americans as well.
QUESTION: Richard, yesterday the Secretary said that the United States
was an eagle and would not back down from any of its responsibilities
overseas, and I'm just wondering if the closure of 37 Embassies and
Consulates around the world doesn't make the United States seem more like
the ostrich that she said it wasn't?
MR. BOUCHER: What we're doing is we are closing public activities. We are
maybe not hosting English seminars, or speakers, or parties, or handling
the walk-in visas. We are still in posts, except for the weekends, when
they are not operating. We are still operating internally. We are in touch
with governments. We are representing the United States. We are exercising
US leadership and influence in the world, and we are taking care of
American citizens in consular cases. With many posts, they may be taking
care of visas by other procedures than having a big line of people at the
door.
QUESTION: So enemies of the peace process, or whoever it is that has
conducted these attacks or may conduct these violent demonstrations should
not see the closure of these facilities as any kind of withdrawal by the
United States from its international responsibilities abroad.
MR. BOUCHER: Absolutely not.
QUESTION: Well, why not? I mean, you have basically withdrawn, shut --
people can't -- if you're not a worker, an Embassy worker, you can't go
into the Embassy as you might normally be able to. And in Jerusalem, in
East Jerusalem, the Consulate officials who live in East Jerusalem have
been relocated. Their residences have been relocated temporarily. So why is
that not a pulling back from --
MR. BOUCHER: Because it's not. Because we are out there exercising our
leadership and our responsibilities. You can get in touch with us. We are
still contacting people. We are still working with people, we are making
phone calls, we are going to visit people. It's just we don't have our
doors open to the public temporarily at a moment when it is prudent not to
do that.
QUESTION: In the aftermath of the explosion, some people have criticized
the decision to fuel the ship at the Port of Aden as not the best idea.
Could you go over exactly what the vetting process is -- and I understand
that the State Department is in control of this issue -- for contractors in
Yemen to -- how do we know that there aren't terrorists there? Can you sort
of --
MR. BOUCHER: Look, I know everybody would like to rush out and find a
scapegoat somewhere and make judgments in the press, but really I very much
encourage you to leave this to professional investigators to reach
conclusions about these things. These sort of "isn't it his fault," "isn't
it his fault," that is the kind of thing -- an investigation will look at
every aspect of this.
I do think it is very important to make clear that we work very closely
with the military on these things. But I think Admiral Clark, the Chief of
Naval Operations, said at the Pentagon yesterday the responsibility for
operational decisions such as refueling and security for all US ships in
this region rest with the Commander-in-Chief of Central Command and his
subordinate commanders. Now, those decisions are made very carefully in
conjunction with the best advice from the intelligence community, the best
advice from the Embassy and others, but they have this responsibility to
make these arrangements and to decide on security questions. So you can ask
them how they made these decisions.
QUESTION: So the question of who were the contractors, that's not a State
Department -- my understanding was that that's someone at the Embassy
decided, you know, there was a bidding process who was going to get to
refuel this ship.
MR. BOUCHER: It is all done in very close coordination with the military.
The ultimate authority and decision-making rests with the military in these
cases.
QUESTION: The Secretary was asked at the news conference about Yemen and
its record on terrorism, and it has been a long time indeed since the
country was on the terrorist list. But if you talk to people who deal with
terrorism, they will recite for you all sorts of groups that operate and
have camps in Yemen. There are all sorts of terrorism groups there. I will
not, I promise, bring up Khobar Towers, which remains unsolved. Well, you
know, had you had a very good cooperation system --
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm sure people do that because it is quite easy. All
you have to do is read from our terrorism report. Our terrorism report is
quite clear on the good and bad things that have happened in Yemen.
QUESTION: I realize that's where some of the information --
MR. BOUCHER: Maybe people read one sentence without reading the ones that
say that they have expanded their cooperation on security things and that
they have taken a number of steps against terrorism. There are always
judgments to be made. We know ships have to refuel, and everywhere in the
Middle East there is a potential threat of terrorism. There may be more in
some places than others. We might have different arrangements in some
places than others. But, ultimately, these decisions and judgments have to
be made based on the need to refuel, the opportunities available, and where
we think the best place is to do it.
QUESTION: I wasn't asking about the judgment to refuel. I was asking, if
it isn't too early to ask, we were told by the same senior official
yesterday you're getting excellent cooperation from Yemen. And with all due
respect, I was hearing about excellent cooperation from Egypt, and Khobar
Towers still hasn't been -- from Saudi Arabia, and Khobar Towers still
hasn't been resolved.
Could you tell us please, if you can, if it isn't premature -- and there is
a report, but the report went out months ago -- what is the US's assessment
these days of the security situation in Yemen? Is it a place where the
government is actively trying to root out terrorists, or are they able to
operate there and, you know, it's sort of maybe a goodwilled government but
can't do much about it? Forget the docking. I'm saying you're looking to
Yemen to help you solve this problem.
MR. BOUCHER: What I would say is this report came out a few months ago
but still the general assessment remains accurate. They have expanded
security cooperation with other Arab countries. They have signed a number
of international anti-terrorist conventions. They have introduced
incremental measures to better control their border territory and travel
documents, initiated specialized training. Nonetheless, lax and inefficient
enforcement of security procedures and the government's inability to
exercise authority over remote areas continue to make this place a safe
haven for some terrorist groups.
So it is a mixed picture, but it is an accurate picture when we described
it; it is an accurate picture that we assess when we decide whether or not
to refuel there; and that decision is made with the full knowledge of the
facts.
QUESTION: The press has carried at least one report of a claimed
responsibility for the attack in Aden. Has the State Department or the
Administration received any others, or any of those? And how do you assess
the credibility of the ones that have been publicized?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it is the one. As far as I know, we have only seen
one reported claim of responsibility. This is the report by the Islamic
Army of Aden. At this point, we really haven't fully assessed its
credibility. I think what I said before, all these leads, all these
possibilities, will be explored and looked at, and the investigators will
determine what is credible and what is not.
QUESTION: In the Secretary's phone calls, has she had any indication from
anybody of not wanting to fully cooperate with her and support the idea of
any of this?
MR. BOUCHER: Any indication from anybody of not wanting to fully
cooperate? I think the answer is pretty much no. I mean, are we thinking
the exact same thoughts at the exact same moment? I'm not sure I can go
that far. But there is a concerted effort under way. There is certainly a
very strong congruence at this point of people's interests, people's
desires to help stop the violence, of the things that we are saying to the
parties. The reason that we make a lot of these phone calls is because we
are all talking to the parties as well, and we are sort of coordinating on
that and comparing notes on what we have heard, looking together at next
steps. And clearly the United States' role in all that continues to be very
important.
QUESTION: My follow-up is the obvious one: Has she cast a wide enough
net? I mean, has she talked, for example, to the Iranians in some way? What
are the Syrians saying?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has talked to the Syrians. She has certainly
worked with a lot of partners in the Arab world. She talked yesterday twice
to King Mohamed of Morocco. She has talked to the Tunisians. Clearly we are
talking every day with the Egyptians, as well as directly to the parties
themselves. We are keeping in touch with a variety of others in the region
about both the violence in the West Bank, but then there is also the issue
of the northern border and the three Israeli soldiers that are missing. She
is keeping in touch with Kofi Annan. She has talked to Syria, has talked
with Lebanon about that situation as well.
QUESTION: What about Iran?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that we have had any direct contact with Iran
on this subject.
QUESTION: Doesn't Iran have a fair amount of influence with different
factions, both in Lebanon and in Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the statements by the French, by Kofi
Annan and others, I think they have said they have been in touch with Iran
on some of these issues.
QUESTION: What is the indication from Iran? Are they eager to have the
violence stopped, or do they have a different view?
MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have any way of characterizing it at this
point. I can't do that for you.
QUESTION: You have said that cooperation has been good on the part of the
Government of Yemen. Can you elaborate on that -- the kinds of things that
they are doing to help facilitate this investigation? And is the US -- does
the US want them to do more?
MR. BOUCHER: There is a lot involved in these situations. There is
medical assistance, there is diplomatic coordination, there is airplane
flight coordination, there is coordination with investigators, there is all
the logistics of getting teams in. I think really in all those respects, we
think the Yemeni Government has been very helpful, that we have been
cooperating very closely with them, and they have pledged to cooperate
fully with our investigations, with the investigations. They are doing one
as well.
I would also mention that we do appreciate the excellent assistance that we
have gotten from the French Government and the British Government in the
region. They have helped us out an awful lot in these situations. And so
that is something else that is going on out there. But as I say, the
investigation is just starting, and we will see where it leads.
QUESTION: Our people, the NBC people in the region, have been told that
they are now confined to their hotel.
MR. BOUCHER: Sorry, the who?
QUESTION: NBC people.
MR. BOUCHER: NBC people?
QUESTION: In --
MR. BOUCHER: Is it particular to your network, or is it --
QUESTION: In particular to my network. But I think there are others that
are involved in this.
MR. BOUCHER: It is something I will check on. I will see what is going on
with that.
QUESTION: I just want to ask specifically about -- you said you wanted to
thank the French and the British. I know the French were helpful in giving
the hospital in Djibouti. What have the Brits done?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me double check on what I can say about that.
QUESTION: Is it secret?
MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not. It is just I didn't have time to check before,
if they have said it, what they are doing, or exactly what the status is. I
don't think it is a big secret, no.
QUESTION: Two questions. Back to Yemen. You said that the government has
been very helpful. Given the statements by the Yemeni president earlier
this week, calling to let in the Mujahadeen and open up all Arab borders
for the freedom fight with the Palestinians, have you asked him to -- has
anybody asked the president to clarify his statements and said that maybe
that type of rhetoric wouldn't be helpful?
And then also, earlier yesterday in the Worldwide Caution, the travel
warnings, you had talked about urging American citizens -- I think it was
in Israel and East Jerusalem - to relocate or, in some instances, to travel
with an armed guard or to travel by air. Is there anything -- I'm fairly
sure that's what you said --
MR. BOUCHER: Did I not read it carefully enough?
QUESTION: Wasn't that in Yemen? I'm sorry. So are all American citizens
in Yemen then being protected by the Embassy right now? Are we making any
plans to evacuate or relocate people?
MR. BOUCHER: What was the first question? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: The president's statements, the president's statements.
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, the president's statements. We are indeed aware of those
statements, and we were going to take them up with the government. I will
have to check and see if that has been done. At this point, certainly we
have concerns about statements like that. I am reporting to you the facts
of cooperation as they exist now, and we appreciate that. I reported to you
earlier on the mixed picture that we have seen on the government's - the
situation with regard to terrorism there.
As far as the advice on Yemen, we have said that American citizens in Yemen
should exercise a very high level of caution, vary routes and times of
daily commute, travel between cities only by air, or within an armed
escort. No, I don't think we are in a position to provide armed escorts to
all the Americans there, but we do give advice to people who can make their
own arrangements.
QUESTION: Richard, if I could just follow up on the president's
statements. Secretary Albright, I thought, was, in her conversation with
the president, clear in her insistence that he make some kind of public
statement condemning the attack. Is the US at all concerned that more than
24 hours later he has as yet to do that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think those are discussions that we need to have with the
Yemeni Government. As I said, I do think we have excellent cooperation on
the ground. At what point they want to say something, we will just have to
see.
QUESTION: Richard, these are conversations we need to have. Why haven't
you had them already?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we have, and we will continue to have them.
QUESTION: This is in reference to a very specific point, but could you
recap at this point whether there was any particular signal in the region
that -- I know that these ships were on high alert, because you sort of
recapped the State Department position on -- in terms of warnings prior to
this incident, and it's in reference to a newspaper article on October 11
in (inaudible) in Jordan
from a group called (inaudible) that apparently issued a statement in this
newspaper threatening American and British planes and ships in the region
on Wednesday, or Tuesday?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure anybody that looked at any moment in the Middle
East could find half a dozen statements like that, either in the press or
in the intelligence. We are obviously aware that there are many people out
there planning to try to get us, or claiming that they are going to try to
get us in this region. There are always threats in the air. It is a region,
as well, where I said we have a high level of security concerns, and we
operate with that in mind. At the same time, I'm not aware that there was
any specific indication of this attack.
QUESTION: So that didn't go into the closing of any of the Embassies the
prior weekend? That was strictly Mideast violence?
MR. BOUCHER: The prior weekend it was concern about demonstrations that
was involved in the closing of Embassies.
QUESTION: So there weren't concerns at that point about any terrorist
attack? No general heightened -- more than usual?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, there are always threats in the Middle East.
There are always concerns about it, and we operate with a very high level
of security. When we do close an Embassy because of a threat, we usually
make a public announcement so that people don't show up at our front door
and get caught in something.
QUESTION: So this is an everyday occurrence? Or not everyday, but it's
fairly regular that --
MR. BOUCHER: Not everyday, but there is always -- there are always
threats in these region. We follow these things closely, both in terms of
public statements like the one you are citing, but also other information
that we can obtain.
QUESTION: There has been a lot of speculation in the analyst community
about what a realistic target might be once peace talks do resume between
the Israelis and Palestinians. Can you tell us what the current thinking is
in the State Department about whether you would, for example, continue to
seek a full comprehensive framework agreement covering all the points or
whether you would revert to some kind of gradualism or whether you have any
other targets? Or is this all premature?
MR. BOUCHER: I think somehow that kind of discussion strikes me as a bit
speculative at this point. First things first. Let's stop the violence,
let's stop the bloodshed. The Secretary has said really how deeply
distressed we are at the escalation of the violence. We are deeply
concerned about the confrontations. The murder yesterday of the soldiers at
Ramallah was a horrible act and we really offer our condolences on that,
too.
Both sides, first and foremost, have to take steps to end these confrontations,
to bring the situation under control, and defuse the flash points. We make
quite clear we think the next step the Palestinian Authority should take is
immediate steps to stop the mob violence, should bring the senseless and
destructive cycle of violence to an end. We have called upon the Israeli
Government to restrain its use of force, to take other steps to end the
violence, not to resume its military operations no matter how outraged they
feel at mob violence.
We think both sides need to tell their communities clearly and publicly
that the violence must stop, and do everything they can to immediately halt
it. It is a time for leadership. You need to halt the violence, you need
them to take steps to make it last, and you need to then transition in some
way back to the peace process. But exactly how to describe that final stage
and what comes after, I think it is premature.
QUESTION: Put it this way: Do you think that this two weeks of violence
has any effect on the way the peace process can proceed once it resumes? Is
it just a question of ending the violence and then starting again where you
were, or has the picture changed in the meantime?
MR. BOUCHER: Clearly this has been a very difficult situation for both
parties. They need to end the violence. They need to rebuild the sense of
cooperation and confidence with each other, and then move back to the peace
process. Exactly how the peace process might be affected by this, I think
it is a little too early to say, but clearly there is some rebuilding work
that needs to be done between the two sides in order to resume what they
were doing before.
QUESTION: Can we get back to the Yemeni president for a second? I'm
confused. Did the Secretary -- did she or did she not raise the issue of
his comments earlier this week with the president when she spoke to
him?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure she raised those specific comments, but she did,
as was mentioned, make clear the need to condemn acts -- an apparent act of
terrorism.
QUESTION: Does she plan to talk to him again to maybe reinforce that
message?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if there is -- I haven't heard of another
conversation planned. We will just have to see.
QUESTION: I suppose you know President Salih has not, in fact, condemned
this. He was interviewed yesterday, actually --
MR. BOUCHER: I really haven't read all the text of what he might have
said, so it is something we may raise again depending on what he said.
QUESTION: For two weeks now, you and the President and the Secretary have
been saying that we need to stop the violence and condemning it and whatnot,
but it has had little, if any, effect. Don't you have another stick to use
here, or are you just going to keep condemning it as it goes on and on and
on? What else can you do?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, if you haven't noticed, we have been pretty
busy in the last two weeks working on this. We have actually, at various
stages, seen the beginning of steps to end the violence and then we have
seen outbreaks again. What we have said very clearly is you have to calm
the situation and then you have to take steps to actually break the cycle
and get out of this terrible, terrible pattern of innocent lives and
funerals and reaction and counter-reaction.
What we have done over the last few weeks is we have, I think particularly
in Paris, if you go back, say to the beginning framework when the President
made the announcement that we were prepared to host meetings of security
officials, and then we went to Paris and had six hours of trilateral
meetings and more hours of bilateral meetings, we did work out a set of
commitments. We did succeed in getting some instructions issued. Then we
had another Friday, a day of rage, another outbreak of violence.
But some of those things that were agreed to in Paris were indeed carried
out. There were commitments made. There was a framework for doing this work
together. There had been meetings of security officials on the ground. So,
I mean, it is a small consolation to say it could have been worse if we
hadn't intervened; it might be worse now if we hadn't intervened. But it is
something that we will continue working on until the violence stops, until
the parties can take effective measures, and we can make this more
lasting.
QUESTION: Back to Yemen for a second -- the Yemeni president. Did
Secretary Albright speak to him before or after he made the comments that
they had no terrorists there? I mean, what comments are you aware of that
they have made? That's the only thing I've seen.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of that specific comment. I don't know when it
was made. The Secretary spoke to him yesterday morning, our time.
QUESTION: Are those the only comments you've heard from him?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I haven't -- I'm afraid I haven't really read
everything the Yemeni president said in the last 24 hours. I don't know
what he said.
QUESTION: But isn't that a concern if that's what Madeleine Albright is
asking him to do, is condemn terrorism?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have the people who do read every word the Yemeni
president said inform me of exactly what he said. Okay?
QUESTION: Did the Secretary asked him to condemn terrorism or to condemn
the attack? How specific was she in her request?
MR. BOUCHER: I would have to check back on it. As far as I understand, we
think that everyone should condemn this attack because it is an apparent
act of terrorism. It may be that some people think until that is established
by investigation they shouldn't say anything. There could be a back-and-
forth on this issue. But, in fact, we do think it is appropriate to say
that this, as it apparently is, an attack, a deliberate act of terrorism,
should be condemned.
QUESTION: And why do you think it's important that the president of Yemen
issue this statement?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, we think it is important for everyone, but I
think particularly when these things occur in a particular place we want to
know which side the government is on. But I don't want to detract from the
fact that there is excellent cooperation going on on the ground. We are
working with these people, with the government of President Salih, to carry
out the investigations, to find the facts, to determine the causes, and to
do all the things that need to be done. They have helped us in caring for
the injured. They have helped us in getting up and under way with the
investigations. So that is the key thing right now. The facts on the ground
are that we're cooperating very well.
QUESTION: There are reports by Israeli security officials that the
Palestinian Authority has released at least one head of a -- sort of a
biggie in the terrorist group in -- for the Palestinians, a man named
(inaudible) that had been sought for five years and had only been arrested
a couple of weeks ago. And they say that he has now been released
again.
Do you have anything on his arrest and possible --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I don't have confirmation of that.
QUESTION: Is the US aware of any release of people like this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there are any that we are able to confirm. I
will check into it and see if we do have more information than we had
before but, at this stage, I don't think we have confirmation of releases.
QUESTION: Does it appear that there might be a correlation in modus
operandi between the ship bombing the day before yesterday and the bombings
of Khobar and the bombings at Riyadh, in that an opening is found, and
overwhelmingly powerful explosives are used against that opening? And are
we going to keep from opening up ourselves to this in the future?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that is a question the investigators will look
at.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BOUCHER: New subject.
QUESTION: What can you say about The New York Times story today about the
Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement on Russian arms sales to Iran in 1995?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me not say anything about The New York Times
story. Let me tell you what the truth is, what the facts are.
The aide memoire that was signed by Vice President Gore and the Russian
Prime Minister was clearly in American's national security interest. Under
the terms of this understanding, to the best of our knowledge, the Russians
have signed no new contracts for the sale of advanced conventional arms to
Iran for the last five years. This is a critical fact that is completely
omitted in the article.
In addition, the Russians, as part of this understanding, provided us with
information regarding their existing conventional arms contracts with Iran.
We believe that America is more secure today because of this agreement, as
are our friends and allies in the Middle East. The aide memoire is part of
a broader strategy to prevent advanced conventional arms from being sold to
Iran. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union,
Iran had plenty of new opportunities to acquire advanced weapons systems
from the formidable Russian arsenal. This aide memoire has stopped Iran
from doing so in the future.
In no way does the understanding contradict the law. In signing the aide
memoire, we did not pledge to forego imposing sanctions on the Russians
that should have been imposed by law. In fact, none of the contracts in
question that I think are mentioned in the article are sanctionable by law
because they predate the effective date of the various lethal military
equipment sanctions laws, and because they did not meet the threshold for
advanced conventional weapons as defined in the Iran-Iraq Nonproliferation
Act of 1992.
Finally, the aide memoire's existence was made public at the time it was
signed. Congress was briefed on the understanding at that time. None of the
arms contracts in question are threatening to the United States or our
allies. Before the aide memoire was signed, the Pentagon experts provided
their judgment that none of the conventional arms sales in question would
be destabilizing, nor would they threaten the balance of power in the
Persian Gulf.
The Russians are continuing the delivery of weapons covered by the aide
memoire, but they have not expanded the scope of the understanding, nor do
we believe that they have signed new contracts for advanced conventional
weapons. So that's the full rundown.
QUESTION: Would you like to speculate about why this story appeared in
the newspapers?
QUESTION: If it's untrue --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't do that. You guys do that.
QUESTION: But, basically you're saying that the contents of the article
were (a) the aide memoire talked about in the article was not secret, was
made public when it was signed, and it --
MR. BOUCHER: The existence was made public when it was signed. I'm not
sure that the text was.
QUESTION: Well, the existence of it. I mean, the article said that there
was a mention of an arms agreement in the press conference that they held
afterwards, but that there was nothing else said about it. Is that what you
mean by the existence was made known?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to go back to the exact -- the full sets of
briefings. But the existence was made public at the time that it was signed,
and Congress was briefed on the understanding at that time.
QUESTION: You've just done a rather nifty job of just totally savaging
the story, though, and it seems to me that you need to explain -- I mean,
what does that mean?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I need to explain. I'm telling what the facts
are, okay?
QUESTION: Made public. But was it made public in terms of --
MR. BOUCHER: We can go back. We can all do our little Lexis-Nexis and
Internet searches and see everything that was said at the time. I'm telling
you the fact of this aide memoire was made public at the time it was
signed.
QUESTION: Richard, can you not publish the contents of the aide
memoire?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think the full text was divulged at that point, but
the existence was, and I assume that the description of the contents
was.
QUESTION: Can you divulge it at this time?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check. I don't think so.
QUESTION: And can you say why it has not been, since it's now the subject
of debate, and certainly a lot of investigation?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have already described quite extensively what the
facts are here. The fact is that in terms of the law, in terms of the
potential threat, in terms of the potential destabilization, these issues
were looked at quite carefully, and I think explained quite thoroughly.
QUESTION: Well, why was it kept secret anyway? And why is it being kept
secret now? I don't quite understand. If you can explain the contents, what
is the point of having secret agreements with the Russians about this?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the point is that sometimes you can reveal that you
have reached an understanding on certain things, but you can't reveal the
exact nature of those understandings because it would be much more - it is
easier to get the cooperation you are looking for without divulging all the
exact commitments and details.
QUESTION: How does the public or how does anybody else measure whether
the Russians are upholding their side of the agreement if we don't really
have access to the content?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, that we do have laws that we are
required to operate under; that if they were indeed engaging in the kind of
behavior that is sanctionable under our law, we would have to sanction
them. So I think there are strictures on those of us that operate these
kinds of things.
QUESTION: The Secretary's letter that was quoted in the Times suggests,
in fact, that the Russians have not lived up to the letter of the
agreement. So how does that affect now your consideration about sanctions?
Or how they have changed their behavior in the last six months?
MR. BOUCHER: No, as I have said, the activity that we have seen is not
sanctionable. It doesn't involve the standard in the law. That has been
true all along, and that is about as much as I can say at this point.
QUESTION: But didn't the story make reference to demarches by the
Secretary and by Strobe Talbott to the Russians over the past few months
about certain activities going on with the Iranians?
MR. BOUCHER: This is a subject of continuing interest to the United
States. I think we have mentioned in many of our briefings, when we have
done readouts of the President's meetings and the Secretary's meetings with
senior Russian officials, that the issue of arms sales to Iran is one that
does recur; it comes up continuously. Even if you don't have sanctionable
activity under US law, we do have a lot of concerns about how people deal
with Iran, particularly in the areas of nuclear power, conventional weapons,
and a lot of other things. And, you know, around the world with many
countries, including the Russians, we raise these issues.
QUESTION: Well, perhaps I wasn't listening very carefully, but did you
say whether you considered the Russians to have lived up to this agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I have said that they have signed no new contracts,
that they provided us with information regarding their existing conventional
arms contracts, and some of the other things that they have in fact done
pursuant to the --
QUESTION: So is there any way -- have they have fallen short of meeting
this agreement? I mean, they have done certain aspects of it, but you
haven't really said whether they have met it in full.
MR. BOUCHER: The one aspect that is under discussion with the Russians
that we have in fact raised is that they asked us for an extension on the
termination of old contracts. They say because of logistical problems they
would not be able to complete their deliveries on old contracts on time. We
have made clear in no uncertain terms in our discussions that we don't
approve of that extension. That is the one issue where it is under -- that
is involved here.
QUESTION: Yes, but if they unilaterally extend them and deliver these
articles, this equipment, after the expiry date, would you consider that a
breach of the agreement, and how would you handle that kind of --
MR. BOUCHER: This is something we have made quite clear to them, that we
don't approve of this, and that we - well, that we don't approve of it.
That's the position that we've taken on this.
QUESTION: Have they, in fact, made any deliveries after the expiry date,
that you're aware of?
MR. BOUCHER: I would have to assume so, but I'm not certain.
QUESTION: You said something -- the Russians are continuing the shipment
of weapons covered under this?
MR. BOUCHER: They're continuing the delivery of the weapons covered under
the aide memoire. So they have, in fact, done that.
QUESTION: So they have - so they are in violation of it, yes?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: How is that?
MR. BOUCHER: The aide memoire accepted that certain things would be
delivered by a certain timetable. I'm saying they have done those
deliveries, but they haven't completed them by the timetable. It also
provided that other things would not be provided, and I went through that
first. It said they wouldn't sign new contracts; they haven't done
that.
QUESTION: Okay, so the operative thing, then, is that they are continuing
past the deadline; they have asked for an extension, and you don't want to
give it to them.
MR. BOUCHER: We don't think that's justified. We don't approve of that.
But the operative thing is that, by and large, the facts are that they
haven't signed new contracts and they haven't sold weapons that might be
sanctionable. They might invoke sanctions on our law, and that they -- that
we're all safer because we've done this aide memoire and because we've
managed to curb the sales of weapons to Iran.
QUESTION: How long of an extension did they ask for?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
QUESTION: Do you have any guidance there on the submarine mentioned in
the story, and about which the Pentagon supposedly is concerned?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: A diesel submarine.
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Yes, this is on Columbia. Do you have any additional information
on the kidnappings of the Americans and the helicopter in Ecuador? And do
you know, up till this point, who might be responsible for the kidnappings,
or what are the investigations leading to?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, let me tell you what we know about the kidnapping. This
is from our Embassy in Quito, actually. It was approximately 4:00 a.m.
local time on Thursday that 15 heavily armed men abducted approximately ten
people from an oil company camp in Ecuador. The hostages were taken from
one of the sites by helicopter. Among the kidnapped victims are five known
American citizens. We are not in a position to release names or home towns
at this time. The Americans were employed by two separate US oil services
companies. We are in contact with both companies. Embassy Bogota is in
contact with all of their families, as well.
Our Embassies in Quito and Bogota are working with their host governments
to try to bring a quick resolution to this situation. Obviously we condemn
this act and we would urge -- believe the abductors should release everyone
immediately and unconditionally.
QUESTION: But if you --
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen reports that allege FARC involvement, but we
have no confirmation at this time and can't really speculate on who might
have done it.
QUESTION: But if you said that the Embassy in Bogota is in contact with
the families, it means that it might be a group from Colombia?
MR. BOUCHER: No, it means their families live in Colombia*.
QUESTION: But why that their families --
MR. BOUCHER: It doesn't indicate where the group was from. We're not in
contact with the families of the group.
QUESTION: No, no, no. The --
MR. BOUCHER: The families of our American citizens live in Colombia*. Our
Embassy in Bogota is in touch with them.
QUESTION: The families are in Colombia?
MR. BOUCHER: Apparently so.
QUESTION: Although they were in Ecuador?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know. I don't know how exactly this operation
works. Sometimes they stage out of a neighboring country in order to reach
places, but apparently the families are in Colombia*. That's where we're in
touch with them.
But I don't think that indicates one way or another who might have done
this.
QUESTION: Is the State Department going to study any decision to warn US
citizens in Colombia or in Ecuador because of this kidnapping?
*The kidnap victims' families live in the United States.
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at our travel advisories for both
countries, or our Consular Information Sheets, you'll probably find
information already on this sort of situation. I don't happen to have them
with me, but I'm pretty sure that I read them not too long ago, and they
covered these things.
QUESTION: And one more. The preliminary information or the preliminary
investigation after the kidnapping, they were saying that it probably was
the FARC from Colombia, then they back up -- the Government of Ecuador back
up on that statement. But does it mean that -- because there is a fear,
regional fear, that the Plan Colombia is getting out of hand and the
guerillas getting across the borders, it's probably the beginning of many
kidnappings?
MR. BOUCHER: It's speculative. I said to you earlier, we've seen that
there are reports alleging FARC involvement. We have no confirmation of
that. We can't really speculate on who might have done it at this stage. So
to start drawing conclusions from that kind of speculation would be way
premature.
QUESTION: It was my understanding that the kidnappers came with a
specific list of people; they knew exactly who they wanted at these oil
services companies. Has there been any determination why these specific
people were picked?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I have available to you at this point. I'm sure
that's something the investigators will want to look at.
QUESTION: A question about Serbia. One of Kostunica's top aides, Zoran
Djindic, said - I think it was yesterday - that, under the UN Resolution
1244, Yugoslavia is supposed to have its forces at the borders of Kosovo
and other places, and he wants to carry that out. Do you think it is a good
idea?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the statement. That's the kind of detailed
discussion that I don't think I can have here at this stage.
QUESTION: In principle, do you think that Yugoslav troops should be
stationed at the borders of Kosovo? Because Bernard Kouchner said it was a
formula for a war.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, these things have to be worked out. The new government
needs to establish itself, get itself in place. Obviously we all want to
support the UN resolutions and make them work as best we can, but I'm not
going to start commenting on very particular points raised by somebody who
may or may not have a position in the Administration.
The government is not set up, the foreign minister is not appointed yet.
These are all issues that we will have to take up with the government when
it gets itself established. The first issue is to get the government
established.
QUESTION: Richard, can you bring us up to date on Jim O'Brien's travels,
and perhaps his discussion today with President Djukanovic, and tell us
whether the United States still has some concerns about the safety of
Montenegro, even now that Milosevic is out? Or are you still worried that
the residuals from him in the army and the security forces still pose a
threat?
MR. BOUCHER: That would be pretty speculative at this point. I think we
think there has been a fundamental shift in the situation; that there is a
lot of work to do for the new government to get installed, consolidated,
get total control over the security apparatus and other places that were
permeated by Milosevic and his cronies. But I don't think we have any new
fears, and I would say our old fears may have subsided somewhat -- maybe to
a great extent, but I don't have a thermometer reading on how much.
Jim O'Brien and the delegation had a very warm, very positive and far-
reaching discussion yesterday with President Kostunica and his senior
political team. The discussion lasted an hour and a half. They touched on a
variety of topics, including regional and Yugoslav issues. They discussed
Bosnia, Kosovo, Kostunica's consolidation of democracy in Yugoslavia, and
Mr. Milosevic.
O'Brien delivered a letter from President Clinton congratulating President
Kostunica and looking forward to the reestablishment of normal relations.
They each agreed to consult their legislatures and to resolve the technical
issues with respect to the rapid reestablishment of formal diplomatic
relations.
Kostunica said he was confident that his team will make continued progress
in the democratic transition that is now ongoing. He also said he intends
to honor UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the Dayton Accords.
Today, Friday, Mr. O'Brien has gone to Montenegro. He has met with -- or he
is meeting with President Djukanovic, and we don't have a readout of that
meeting yet.
QUESTION: In the meeting yesterday, did Kos -- I don't know, you seem to
have changed the -- however his name is pronounced now, did he give any
indication of when he might send some kind of envoy to the United States to
kind of do the same thing that Jim O'Brien is doing now, or was doing there
yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't, frankly, know that. That wasn't part of the report
I got. I didn't hear anything like that.
QUESTION: Could you expand a little bit on the role -- you mentioned
they'd consult their legislatures on relations. What is the role of the
legislatures in this process? Is this something --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's different in each of our places. First of all,
that is the process of resuming a formal diplomatic relationship. Obviously
we have a relationship now. We've been out to talk to them. We will have a
small presence of individuals that rotate in and out of Belgrade to work
there. Ambassador Montgomery will head up that team, reopening our Embassy
with a larger staff, and it will take some time, due to security and other
considerations.
On our side, what we need to do with our legislature is get money. We need
funding from the Congress to reopen the Embassy. On their side, President
Kostunica needs to form a government, he needs to name a foreign minister,
and then he needs to get parliamentary approval for the step of establishing
a relationship. So it's a different process on each side, but each of us
has something we have to do with our legislatures in order to get formal
diplomatic relations. But as I said, we're beginning a relationship
already.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- of setting up the US Embassy in a hotel? Did
that come from the Yugoslav side or from the American side?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't describe it as setting up a US Embassy in a hotel.
We're going to maintain a team in Belgrade at a location that I am not
going to talk about. But as I said the other day, our Embassy at this point,
because of security and other considerations, our Embassy is just not
usable. So we're not in a position to use the old Embassy at this stage.
Once we get funding, we'll see what we can do about our building.
QUESTION: The trial balloon floated yesterday about Yugoslav troops going
back into Kosovo. I take it this did not come up in the Kostunica meeting
with Jim O'Brien?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that it did. I did say that during the meeting
President Kostunica talked about support for the Dayton Accords, support
for Resolution 1244, and obviously one of the things we discussed with him
was Bosnia as well as Kosovo. So whether something specific like this came
up or not, I don't know.
QUESTION: Did Jim O'Brien ask - what did he ask specifically with regard
to Bosnia?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I think we've gone about as far as I can go in
reporting on these meetings. Some of these discussions are in the nature of
planning and talking about future steps, and I don't think I can go into
much more detail than I have.
QUESTION: For example, did he ask for recognition of Bosnia within its
current borders?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check for you, Roy, if I can get you the play-by-play
on everything said in the meeting, but at this point I don't have
it.
QUESTION: Richard, you said the Embassy was not usable. Is that because
of action taken by the Yugoslavs? And, if so, do you expect them to
contribute financially in any way to the restoration of it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether it's degradation or actions that
somebody took, or whether there is any sense of government responsibility
on his part. I think those are obviously things we would look at, but I
wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
QUESTION: Richard, is there anything that could take place between now or
-- what needs to take place between now and the end of the Administration
before there could be a higher level visit to Belgrade, such as by the
Secretary?
MR. BOUCHER: That's purely speculative at this point. I can't start
mapping out things like that.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 P.M.)
|
