U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #6, 01-01-12
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1112
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
Friday, January 12, 2001
Briefer: Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
SPAIN/FRANCE
1,5-6 Secretary Returns to Washington from Trip to Spain and France
IRAQ
1-2 Demarche to Iraqi Government on Missing-in-Action Status of
Commander Michael Speicher/Iraqi Movements
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
2-5 Dennis Ross Trip/Israeli and Palestinian Discussions/Clinton
Administration Efforts for Negotiations/Security Talks
ISRAEL/LEBANON
3 Maps of Israeli Mines in Southern Lebanon
ETHIOPIA/ERITREA
5 Assistant Secretary Susan Rice Trip/Peace Agreement
PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
6-7 Assistant Secretary Inderfurth Comments on UN Security Council
Resolutions and Sanctions/Usama bin Laden and Taliban
RUSSIA
7 Kidnapping of American Citizen in Chechnya/Secretary Albright
Conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov
DEPARTMENT
8-12 Senator Jesse Helms Comment on Foreign Assistance and International
Criminal Court/Statement by Administrator for U.S. Agency for
International Development J. Brady Anderson/Funding Efforts for
Overseas Operations and Assistance/USIA merger with State
Department/Consolidation of Foreign Agencies
10-11 Secretary-Designate Colin Powell’s Funding Plans/Senate
Confirmation Hearing for Powell
CAMBODIA/WAR CRIMES
12-14 Ambassador Scheffer Trip to Phnom Penh Regarding Khmer Rouge
Leaders
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 6
FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2001 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Glad to have you here, Barry, and the rest of you too on this
Friday before a holiday weekend. Welcome back to the State Department. As
you know, Secretary Albright is on her way back to Washington, having left
Paris this morning our time. We expect her back at Andrews Air Force Base
sometime before 4 o'clock this afternoon.
And with that, I am happy to take your questions. Barry.
QUESTION: Yesterday you hadn’t heard from Iraq about the pilot, now
described as "Missing in Action." Have you heard yet?
MR. REEKER: There has been no response from the Government of Iraq to the
diplomatic note that we delivered day before yesterday as part of our
demarche. As you know, we delivered that note to the Iraqi Interest Section
of the Algerian Embassy here in Washington, and a similar message was
delivered to Iraq in New York and in Geneva, demanding that the Iraqi
Government provide an accounting for Commander Michael Scott Speicher,
which they are obligated to do under international law. But, again, we have
not had a response from them at this time.
QUESTION: Do you expect a response within a matter of a few days?
MR. REEKER: That is obviously up to them. We would like to get a
response. As I said, it was two days ago, so we will be waiting for their
response.
QUESTION: The fact that you have intermediaries, is that possibly the
reason you haven’t heard yet?
MR. REEKER: I’m not sure what intermediaries --
QUESTION: The Interest Sections. I mean, you know --
MR. REEKER: Well, as we discussed, we delivered that to Iraqi diplomats
at their Interest Section here in Washington.
QUESTION: So two days to not hear is not unusual or alarming or
disquieting?
MR. REEKER: I am not going to speculate on it, Barry. We would like to
have them fulfill their obligations and provide the information, which we
believe they have, to provide an accounting as we have requested.
QUESTION: And you don’t know since there has been no communication if
these notes have actually been transmitted, however they do it, back to
Baghdad?
MR. REEKER: I couldn't tell you that, but we have delivered those notes
in the manner I described. That would be Wednesday afternoon in Washington,
and yesterday in New York and Geneva.
QUESTION: While we’re at it, Charles Krauthammer, in a column that was
extremely skeptical of what you folks call a peace process, says that an
Iraqi division has been seen moving westward -- of course he says prepared
possibly to attack Israel. But has there been any ominous Iraqi movements,
and do you factor that into your mediation between -- in these last days
between Israel and the Palestinians?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of that column. I am afraid I haven’t read
that today. I don’t have any information on that. I would be happy to check
into that for you, Barry.
QUESTION: Oh, and by the way, where we stand in the Middle East. Ross
is still in town?
MR. REEKER: I was waiting for you to ask that. Yes, Ambassador Ross is
still here. I have nothing further to add today on Dennis’ trip. We
continue to watch the progress of the contacts underway, and we are of
course in touch with both parties. And as I said yesterday, once a decision
has been made on travel I will certainly let you know.
QUESTION: Is it the State Department’s reading that they are making
progress? I understand by the reports they met and they broke up --
MR. REEKER: Yes, I think it appears that talks held last night between
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were of a positive nature. The two
sides have indicated that these talks are going to continue for the next
two days, and we are certainly encouraged by that.
As I said yesterday, we are also encouraged by some of the practical
results from the Palestinian-Israeli security contacts: a general reduction
in the level of violence, as well as the lifting of some Israeli restrictions
on movement by Palestinians. So we will continue to watch this closely,
watch that progress, and I will get back to you if we have any news on
travel.
QUESTION: Why would you describe the talks last night as positive
nature, when my understanding is the Palestinian spokesman after those
talks said that he was still -- that they were still not accepting
Clinton’s offer? They called it a partial agreement? Do you have other
information that you can enlighten us as to why these --
MR. REEKER: No, I think I gave you what I can. They were talking; that,
in and of itself, is something that we think is important and positive. And
they have indicated that they are going to continue those talks for the
next two days, so I think there is something positive in that. And I also
said we were encouraged by some of the practical results that we have
actually seen from the security talks that they have had.
So I don’t think it requires any further parsing. It is just a matter of
watching those talks, and then we will let you know if we have anything
further in mind.
QUESTION: Can you tell us where Susan Rice is? I understand she is
either in East --
MR. REEKER: Was there anything else on the Middle East, and then we can
switch?
QUESTION: Yes, sort of tangential. I wondered if you had any comments
on Israel’s admission that it doesn’t have maps for the thousands of mines
which it or its proxies laid in South Lebanon?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any comment. I saw a report to that effect. I
understood somebody was going to try to get back to you on that. But I
don’t think they were able to review that in the time that I had to come
out here. Obviously our Office of Humanitarian Demining will be looking
into that, but at this point I have only seen that as a report.
QUESTION: With the two more days of talks, are you not at all a little
frustrated that they keep prolonging this? Secretary Albright said the
other day that she was kind of tired of this "kicking the can along the
road" that was being done, because the road was running out. There is not
much pavement left to it. So is it --
MR. REEKER: Well, I think obviously we would be even closer now to the
end of the road --
QUESTION: Exactly. But I mean -- but wouldn’t you prefer to see
something concrete come out of these talks, instead of them just agreeing
to meet again?
MR. REEKER: Well, Matt, I mean, I think we are in the same position that
we have described now for a couple of days. The President said Sunday night,
and the Secretary has echoed that since then, that at the request of the
parties that he will use his remaining time to try to help narrow
differences.
QUESTION: No, what I want to get at is that -- you don’t -- your
comments that you made so far don’t seem to convey a sense of urgency that
perhaps --
MR. REEKER: Matt, this is their peace process, and we have said that many
times before.
QUESTION: So you don’t care?
MR. REEKER: The parties are meeting --
QUESTION: But I mean, I just don’t --
MR. REEKER: That is an amazing extrapolation of what I’ve told you
today.
QUESTION: I didn’t mean to end it with that. I mean, you don’t care if
the only thing they are able to do is to agree to talk for two more days?
That is not a --
MR. REEKER: Look, obviously we would like to see them be able to come to
an agreement. That is the goal of all this.
QUESTION: And sooner rather than later?
MR. REEKER: But I have given you where we stand today. Obviously there
isn’t much to add in terms of what we have been talking about for several
days, beginning with the President’s comments Sunday night. They are
obviously aware of the time-table, and I just really don’t have anything
further to add to what the Secretary and the President have both said on
the subject.
QUESTION: Phil, I forgot why Ross would be going to the Middle East. He
has been on hold so long. Initially it was security, mostly to try to help
lower the tensions --
MR. REEKER: Well, since, Barry, we don’t have any travel to announce, I
can’t tell you what the travel would be.
QUESTION: No, no, no -- that’s not -- but what is he holding for? What
I’m trying to say is, when the probability of a Ross trip first surfaced,
the main thing was we want to see the conflict -- we want to see violence
curbed. And it seemed that his function was to see what he could do to
contribute to that, right?
But you say there have been some results; now they’re actually into
negotiations. Would Mr. Ross join those negotiations or --
MR. REEKER: As I said, I have nothing for you on Dennis’ travel. He is
here in Washington. There isn’t any decision to announce, and when there is
we can tell you where and when.
One more on the Middle East?
QUESTION: Are there any plans right now to try to iron out a formal
cease-fire written agreemen,t at this point, building on the progress in
the security talks?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of anything further than what I have told you
today. You might want to talk to the parties.
QUESTION: I understand Susan Rice is either in Eritrea or Ethiopia. Can
you tell me where she is, why she’s gone, what her agenda is, and all that
jazz?
MR. REEKER: Sure. Susan Rice has been traveling to Eritrea and Ethiopia
from yesterday, Thursday the 11th, and she will return to the United States
on Monday the 15th, obviously leaving the region probably on Sunday to get
back here on Monday.
She is discussing in both Ethiopia and Eritrea steps to consolidate the
peace agreement signed on December 12th with the leaders of both countries
and with the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General
-- that is Ambassador Legwaila -- and other officials of the UN mission in
Ethiopia and also in Eritrea.
She is also discussing steps to strengthen bilateral relations with both
countries. They have honored the cessation of hostilities agreement which
was signed in June, and the December 12th peace agreement, so she is
obviously following up on those things.
In terms of exactly where she is this moment, I am afraid I can’t tell you
whether she is still in Eritrea or in Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Just to hit both of those countries? She’s not going --
MR. REEKER: Hitting both of those countries and returning to Washington.
QUESTION: And when you say consolidating the peace agreement, what
exactly is she doing? What are the -- is there a particular issue that she
had to go over to --
MR. REEKER: I think she is reviewing that with them since the signing.
You know, we are generally pleased with the progress to date on implementation
of the peace plan and the parties’ commitment to it. We want to discuss
some remaining areas of possible concern, but I just don’t have an explicit
readout of those. We are reassured by both parties’ rapid release of
prisoners of war and civilian detainees. And as we discussed before, both
countries’ leaders have assured us that they will fully implement the
agreement, so she is going to follow up on that.
And I would be happy to try to get you a readout once she is back in
Washington.
QUESTION: Do you know when she left?
MR. REEKER: When she left? She is traveling there since yesterday. She
may have left Wednesday night in order to make the connections to be there
in the region yesterday.
QUESTION: The Secretary’s plane is supposed to come home -- in fact,
she may be --
MR. REEKER: As I announced at the very beginning of the briefing, she is
on the plane and should arrive in Washington by 4 o'clock this afternoon.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Inderfurth today made some comments about
the soon-to-be enacted new UN sanctions against the Taliban, and he made
specific mention that Pakistan would be expected to fulfill these, as all
UN members would be.
Can you expand at all on that?
MR. REEKER: I don’t think there is much need to expand. I mean, these are
UN Security Council resolutions. All UN members are expected to promote the
fulfillment of those resolutions, and that would be whatever any country,
including Pakistan, can do to get the Taliban to live up to their
obligations.
QUESTION: Is there doubt Pakistan would be doing this?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any particular doubt in mind. It is very clear
cut what the resolution says and what is expected of the Taliban, and that
is to see that Usama bin Laden is delivered to a country where he can be
brought to justice.
QUESTION: The Taliban foreign minister today reiterated that they had
no intention of expelling him. Do you think the new UN sanctions are going
to be of much effect?
MR. REEKER: I think we have covered that before. That is what they need
to do, and we will continue to work on that to that effect. They need to
realize that there are international obligations to which they need to live
up, and that is what we will be expecting from them.
QUESTION: Can I stay on that subject? The last month, I think, or the
last year, at the UN there was another 30-day limit, time limit, for the
Taliban to hand over bin Laden. Is that deadline coming up?
MR. REEKER: I’m not exactly sure what you are --
QUESTION: I’ll go back and check and see.
QUESTION: The resolution contains a 30-day grace period.
QUESTION: January 19th is the deadline.
MR. REEKER: Thank you, Terri.
QUESTION: You’re welcome.
MR. REEKER: That’s what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.)
MR. REEKER: Betsy.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the American who was kidnapped in
Chechnya?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any further details or any particular news
there. We continue to be in close contact with Russian authorities about
Mr. Gluck. In fact, Secretary Albright discussed this case with Foreign
Minister Ivanov last night in Paris. Our Embassy in Moscow continues to
engage with the Russian Government in an effort to establish Mr. Gluck’s
welfare and whereabouts and to secure his release.
As I indicated yesterday, we continue to stay in contact with Medecins Sans
Frontières Holland, which is the organization Mr. Gluck is
affiliated with, also with Action Against Hunger, another organization, and
also with Mr. Gluck’s family, and obviously repeat our call for his
immediate release.
QUESTION: On the same subject? Ivanov? Did the little matter of
Kaliningrad come up?
MR. REEKER: As I understand it, in the Secretary’s talk last night with
Foreign Minister Ivanov, who was in Paris also for the dinner hosted by
Foreign Minister Vedrine of France, the Secretary and Foreign Minister
Ivanov talked about a number of issues, including Kaliningrad, the
Gusinskiy case and Media Most, and overall the state of US-Russian
relations. The Secretary encouraged openness and transparency in our
continuing talks.
This obviously was the last time before she leaves office January 20th
where the two foreign ministers are meeting, and I am just told that they
covered a lot of ground in their talks. Obviously they have covered a lot
of ground in their relationship over the past four years, and last night’s
meeting was really a chance to reflect on their shared history and the
state of relations, and some of these current concerns.
But in terms of any specific responses, I just don’t have anything
further.
QUESTION: So no explanation on what’s going on?
MR. REEKER: I don’t have any more detailed readout on that.
QUESTION: Do you know -- was that dinner conversation, or did they have
a separate meeting before or after the dinner?
MR. REEKER: As I understand it, they did have a separate meeting. I
believe they actually rode together to the dinner, which was, as I said,
hosted by the French.
QUESTION: Was there a State Department reaction to Senator Helms’
proposal that Catholic Charities and other humanitarian groups take over
the foreign aid distribution function of the State Department?
MR. REEKER: I think you probably all saw yesterday a statement put out by
the Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, Brady
Anderson. We could help you get a copy of that, Barry, if you want. It was
released yesterday morning, I believe.
Mr. Anderson noted the important role of faith-based organizations, what
they can and do play in our foreign assistance program, and I would just
echo what he said and the fact that those types of organizations have
played a very important role. We share Senator Helms’ views on the
contributions faith-based organizations can make in promoting our
fundamental values, values shared by the American people generally.
I think, as Brady Anderson indicated, a lot of progress has been made in
the last four years, and certainly the last eight years, in expanding our
partnership with such organizations. Their work is indeed critical to
meeting the basic needs of millions around the world who are less fortunate
than we are. I think US AID has shown considerable leadership and talent in
their programming, in the evaluation, the oversight and the efficiency of
programs which help developing countries to create strategies for growth,
which is obviously important for our own security, our own prosperity, and
obviously a reflection of our values, the things on which our foreign
policy is built.
So we think that in terms of creating economic and political freedom for
people around the world, these programs are very important. And Mr.
Anderson also reflected appreciation to Senator Helms’ laying out his
priorities and the contribution he continues to make to the debate on these
issues.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Is there a "but" there? I mean, that’s his
proposition --
MR. REEKER: What kind of "but" are you looking for?
QUESTION: Well, the "but" is whether the US State Department thinks it
is a good idea that this Government office dissolve, be dissolved, and the
function --
MR. REEKER: No, I think our position has been very much one not; that we
work very closely with AID. In fact, Barry, as you know very well, working
with the Congress, in fact, and working with Senator Helms, Secretary
Albright took great strides to increase our coordination with the US Agency
for International Development, and particularly given the important role
they play, as I said, in helping developing countries to create their own
strategies for growth.
And I think it is important that they help us to identify common ground
that can unite, even in this country, on a bipartisan basis, our leaders
behind international development policy that will advance American
interests and be true to our values at the same time. And as I said, we
believe very strongly that the success of our neighbors and others in the
world brings opportunities for us, and of course their own problems pose
threats for us.
So once again, as I said, AID I think has been shown considerable
leadership in the area of international development, in terms of developing
programs to fit the needs of developing countries, evaluating those
programs, oversight of those programs, and ensuring efficiency of those
programs, many of which -- most of which -- are carried out by organizations,
including the faith-based organizations which Senator Helms refers
to.
QUESTION: So in his prepared remarks, Senator Helms has proposed
sending someone down to the UN and asking them to look at the International
Criminal Court Treaty, and then having them cross Ambassador Scheffer’s
name off of it. Is that a responsible thing to suggest?
MR. REEKER: I don’t think I have anything to add to what the President
has said, and the Secretary as well, in terms of the ICC. The President
directed that we sign that treaty in order that we may have a voice. He
outlined the problems, what we saw as the flaws, and did not recommend that
it be sent to the Senate for ratification until those things are addressed.
And obviously that is something we will continue to work on.
QUESTION: But those comments, though, were all made before Senator
Helms’ speech yesterday. And you don’t have any -- you don’t want to
comment on that proposition? I mean, is it --
MR. REEKER: I don’t think it serves any use for me to offer anything
else. I mean, Senator Helms is free to make his own reflections on these
things. We are all aware of that. We have made our reflections in terms of
what the President and Secretary have said, and I just don’t have anything
to add.
QUESTION: Having watched the Secretary for four years, and Mr.
Christopher for four years, try to coax some money for the State Department
on foreign aid operations out of the Congress, and particularly out of
Senator Helms, do you find it interesting that he now says at this juncture
that if his plan goes through, faith-based -- I’m not sure I understand
faith-based -- but certainly that private humanitarian groups dispense aid,
that he would find it reasonable to increase appropriations, increase money
for the State Department for foreign operations?
Doesn’t that show that all along he may have harbored a view that you all
were making a good argument?
MR. REEKER: Well, in fact, Barry, I think you are absolutely right that
this has been a top priority of Secretary Albright over the past four years
in her tenure, and of the Administration in the last eight years. She has
focused heavily, as you know, on trying to get the resources for America’s
first line of defense; having the State Department and our diplomatic
resources at maximum readiness to implement foreign policy, which is
crucial to our interests, as I said, in terms of security, in terms of
prosperity, in terms of reflecting our values around the world.
And in fact, in this four years the Secretary has led the effort which has
resulted in a real increase of 17 percent in the State Department’s budget.
As the Secretary said in a number of her recent remarks as she prepares to
leave office, she thinks it is vitally important that we continue on that
pace and increase funding for what are important needs that serve to
protect all Americans.
So obviously that will be up to a new Administration. We will continue here
at the State Department under new leadership to work with Congress, which
is vitally necessary to do that, but to explain to the Congress and to the
American people more broadly why our foreign affairs agencies need to be
fully funded to meet the needs of an ever more challenging world.
QUESTION: I guess that answers the next QUESTION: . Donald Rumsfeld
is off and running even before the new Administration, you know, saying
more guns, more guns. I mean, you know, here’s a man that’s going to head
the Pentagon, and not surprisingly he wants them to have more money, more
weapons. Well, it is surprising. Not every Secretary of Defense has taken
that position.
Would you like General Powell to go off and running and say more help, more
resources for foreign policy, on the notion that stopping wars through
diplomacy is maybe cheaper than fighting it?
MR. REEKER: I am certainly not going to begin at this point trying to
speak for Secretary-designate Powell because the Secretary-designate and
his team have been very explicit, very forthcoming, that they do not wish
to comment or get involved in these arguments until the Secretary-
designate’s confirmation hearing, which I am sure you will all be in
attendance next Wednesday, the 17th of January.
QUESTION: Is it Wednesday or Tuesday?
MR. REEKER: It is Wednesday.
QUESTION: That’s what I thought.
MR. REEKER: Anyway, let’s take a moment to do a little sidebar that his
hearing is scheduled for Wednesday the 17th of January, I believe 10:30
a.m., at the Hart Senate Office Building. And just to clarify for those of
you that were confused, I believe there had been a schedule for the 16th.
My understanding is that there is a memorial service for the late Senator
Alan Cranston that will be held in California on the 16th, and obviously a
number of senators would expect to attend that memorial service.
So the 17th, Wednesday at 10:30 at the Hart Senate Office Building.
Obviously they can give you the details for attending that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER: I believe there is a single day scheduled for this.
QUESTION: Phil, you didn’t really answer Barry’s QUESTION: .
MR. REEKER: I didn’t get to because we were doing our sort of side --
QUESTION: No, but you said you didn’t want to speak for General Powell,
but that wasn’t what Barry’s QUESTION: was. Barry was asking you whether
you, as speaking for the current State Department Administration, would
like to see General Powell, when he comes into office, pursue Secretary
Albright’s --
MR. REEKER: That is exactly the subject I was getting to when I stopped
to hyphenate.
QUESTION: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were -- okay, go ahead.
MR. REEKER: So obviously, as Secretary Albright has said, this is
something that needs to be pursued in terms of getting for the State
Department the resources that we think are necessary for the foreign
affairs community to provide the first line of defense in American foreign
policy and to help us articulate to the world and to our own public the
importance of doing that.
Secretary-designate Powell and the entire new Administration obviously will
formulate how they intend to go about doing that. And at this point, on the
12th of January, it is premature to say that. But I think Secretary
Albright has certainly expressed her view that that needs to continue to be
a priority in getting resources and making sure that our foreign policy
needs are met.
QUESTION: When Senator Helms talks about getting rid of AID, the State
Department wasn’t crazy about folding USIA into the Department either. Has
there been any assessment made since that’s happened, since it was
done?
MR. REEKER: That, to my recollection, is not at all an accurate
description of the State Department’s view of that.
QUESTION: Oh, okay. So you did want to?
MR. REEKER: I think that was clearly the view, and Secretary Albright
worked very closely with Senator Helms, in fact, on the consolidation of
both the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the US Information Agency
into the Department of State, the feeling being that in a post-Cold War
world our needs were better served to unite these functions. Public
diplomacy, as well as arms control, are absolutely vital components of our
foreign policy and what the State Department does.
That is just over a year since the USIA integration became effective. I can
speak from my own experience that it can be a very positive thing, and our
posts in the field were already -- they worked extremely closely as part of
the embassy, are doing that here in Washington. We do that all the time. We
in Public Affairs obviously are under the Under Secretary for Public
Affairs and Public Diplomacy, and that has been very effective and an
example of where Secretary Albright and the State Department work very
closely with Senator Helms and the Congress.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the AID suggestion as well that you would be
in favor of it?
MR. REEKER: I don’t even want to suggest that because that’s obviously
not where we are at this point. Different things are done for different
reasons.
The point I tried to make in response to Barry’s original QUESTION: ,
some time ago, was our feeling about the importance of AID and the fact
that we work extremely closely with them. That is another thing that
happened as part of the broader discussion of consolidation in the foreign
affairs agencies was having a much closer link between AID and the
Department of State. And I think that has been something we have seen very
much in the field.
QUESTION: Similar to the USIA situation, that if you’re working closer
together it’s not such a far leap that it would be absorbed here?
MR. REEKER: I just don’t think you can make those decisions based on
that. They are very separate issues. It really is apples and oranges.
QUESTION: Can we switch to Ambassador Scheffer for a minute? Is he in
Cambodia or is --
MR. REEKER: He is in Cambodia, yes.
QUESTION: What is he doing there?
MR. REEKER: Ambassador Scheffer is in Cambodia. Let me tell you what he
is doing there. In fact, I saw on one of the competing wire services that
he had made some remarks to them just recently from Phnom Penh.
He is visiting Phnom Penh to consult with relevant government officials,
Cambodian Government officials, on the final steps needed to establish
extraordinary chambers to bring senior Khmer Rouge leaders from the 1975-79
period, to bring them to justice. He is returning to Washington, I believe,
tomorrow night. He departed Washington traveling to Cambodia Monday
night.
As you will see from some of the remarks he has made himself in Phnom Penh,
he has commended Prime Minister Hun Sen for his effort to date and
encouraged the Government of Cambodia to work with the United Nations to
reach final agreement on the particulars of the chambers. And we certainly
welcome the action that has been taken by the Cambodian National Assembly
to approve the draft law, and we look forward to seeing the Cambodian
Senate complete its work and then have final consideration by King Sihanouk,
and finally the consultations necessary between the Cambodians and the
United Nations to implement the agreement expeditiously.
QUESTION: Did he bring with him any specific suggestions or reservations
as to the tribunal?
MR. REEKER: I’m not aware of the specifics that he had in terms of his
talking points with senior officials there. Obviously we can’t speak for
the United Nations or for the Government of Cambodia. We do feel that they
still need to come together and finalize the outstanding issues as I just
outlined because these extraordinary chambers are going to include
international participation, the goal of course being to bring these former
Khmer Rouge leaders to justice.
QUESTION: So now that you’ve had a closer look at the legislation, are
you satisfied with the provisions for international participation? When you
last spoke about this, you gave it kind of qualified preliminary approval.
Any update?
MR. REEKER: That would be the statement that we released on the 2nd of
January?
QUESTION: That’s right, yes.
MR. REEKER: I don’t think I really have much to add to that since
Ambassador Scheffer is there having these discussions with the Cambodian
senior officials literally as we speak. The process obviously that is going
on is designed to elicit agreement on such issues as indictment and
judgment between international personnel and Cambodian officials, and I
think I outlined --
QUESTION: The process? Which process is this? The consultations with
the United Nations or with -- ?
MR. REEKER: Right. Obviously I discussed a process that needs to take
place in the Cambodian Government in terms of the Senate, and then a final
review by King Sihanouk. And then we look forward to consultations between
the UN and the Cambodian Government, and the conclusion of a Memorandum of
Understanding, which is obviously necessary. And we will continue to play
an appropriate role in terms of our working with the UN. And I will try to
see if we can get you more after Ambassador Scheffer returns, if you are
still interested.
QUESTION: And the other thing is that this small country seems to be a
big destination this week for senior US officials. I noticed that Admiral
Blair is there as well, with some other people, with some folks from
Washington. Do you know anything about why they --
MR. REEKER: I would direct you to the Pentagon.
QUESTION: What country is that? Cambodia?
QUESTION: Yes. My understanding is that he is with someone from the
State Department, but I’m not sure.
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of that. I’ll be happy to check with our --
QUESTION: Maybe it’s not State. Maybe it’s a -- (inaudible) -- or
something.
MR. REEKER: Anything else on this Friday?
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. REEKER: Have a good weekend.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 P.M.)
|
