U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #8, 01-01-19
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
852
U.S. Department of State
Press Briefing
Friday, January 19, 2001
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
REFUGEES
1 US Contribution to UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian
Refugees
COLOMBIA
1,10 Counter-Narcotics Cooperation with Colombia
3-4 Voluntary Report to Congress on Human Rights Issues
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
1-2 Executive Order Lifting Sanctions Against Serbia
RUSSIA
2-3 INS Detention of Pavel Borodin
CUBA
4 Cuba blaming US for Death of Two Stowaways
PHILIPPINES
4-5 Reported Request for US Visa by President Estrada
GERMANY
5-6 Depleted Uranium Issue
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
6-8,9 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding US Assistance to Israel
8-9 Status of Peace Negotiations
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
11 Update on Situation
AFGHANISTAN
11-12 UN Sanctions/Taliban Reaction
IRAQ
12-13 Iraq's Offer to Assist Destitute Americans
DEPARTMENT
13-14 Transition and New Administration
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB # 8
FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 2001 1:05 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be
here today. I have two statements which I think we will just give you the
pieces of paper after the briefing, but if you are interested in the topics
I can go through them.
The first is an $80 million contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency
for Palestinian Refugees. As I think you all know, we have been a major
contributor to this agency over time. We typically contribute 20 to 25
percent of the budget. We did an $8.8 million contribution in December for
emergency needs, and now this is a more ongoing contribution of $80
million. We will have that for you.
The second is we will have a statement about the counter-narcotics
cooperation with Colombia. There was recently a conclusion of an investigation
with the arrest of more than 50 individuals in something called Operation
White Horse, and we talked a little bit about the extent of cooperation
that led to that and how we are working with Colombia on counter-narcotics.
So we'll have those for you in writing, and I would be happy to take your
questions on these or another other subjects.
QUESTION: Richard, are you prepared to talk about the lifting of
sanctions against Yugoslavia, and with particular reference to the 81
Yugoslavs who will not be exempted or affected by this? And what restrictions
continue to apply to them?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me explain as much of that as I can. I think the actual
Executive Order, including the annex that lists 81 individuals, is
available from the White House and on the Internet from Treasury, the
Office of Foreign Assets Control. The President signed this Executive
Order. It lifts trade and financial sanctions on Serbia, except those that
target Milosevic, his cronies and the war criminals. The action is the
final step in fulfilling the October 12th announcement of lifting sanctions
on Yugoslavia.
In the October 12th announcement, the President immediately lifted the air
ban, the oil embargo against Serbia, and he instructed relevant agencies to
take necessary steps to lift the remaining trade and economic sanctions,
except with regard to Milosevic and his cronies.
As an interim step, the new Executive Order carrying out the President's
instruction as it was being prepared on October 26th, the statement of
licensing policy allowed many financial transactions to go ahead.
The actual issuance of the final Executive Order that has been done now
required some very careful review to make sure that persons who were deemed
to be connected with the Milosevic regime and on whom sanctions would be
maintained, that list was prepared. That is the annex of 81 individuals who
met the criteria.
On these individuals, the continuing sanctions prevent them from carrying
out any trade or financial transactions with the United States. Banks are
not allowed to process paperwork that might have one of these names
associated with a transaction. Certainly if they desire to travel to the
United States, the fact that they were on this list would be a matter of
consideration in the visa review, and it's fairly safe to say they won't
get any visas.
So the sort of sanctions that were previously on Yugoslav Government
officials as a whole and broader on Yugoslavia have been lifted for
everybody, but they remain on these 81 individuals.
QUESTION: Are the Europeans continuing to have these people on a list, or
are we the only people now that have one of these lists?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, is the answer to that. I would have to check.
I'm sure we can check with -- both check with the Europeans. But I will
have to check. Certainly the Europeans, when it comes to specific war
criminals, they're quite aware, as we are, of who is under indictment and
who belongs in The Hague and who doesn't.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
QUESTION: The Russians, Richard, continue to insist that the arrest of
Mr. Borodin was some kind of a diplomatic incident, a violation of
diplomatic courtesy. And as far as I can tell, this building does not
believe that that is the case. And I'm wondering if you can just elaborate
on this, especially because of all these weird conspiracy theories that
keep coming out of Moscow about who might have been behind this potential
trap for him.
MR. BOUCHER: I think we are quite aware of the phrases being used, some
of the theories that are floating around and things like that. We have had
a number of meetings with the Russians over the course of the last few
days.
Right from the beginning, they had consular officials at the airport, and I
think I mentioned they had consular access at the airport. Our Ambassador
in Moscow met with the Foreign Minister and was asked to come over, called
in by the Foreign Minister, who expressed their serious concerns, how upset
they were at the arrest.
But in that conversation, in subsequent -- or in similar conversations that
we have had here where Ambassador Sestanovich talked to the Russian
Ambassador in Washington on Wednesday evening, we have made clear all along
this is not some diplomatic signal, this is not some diplomatic incident
between the two governments, this is not some trap. This is a matter of us
carrying out our international legal obligations. And as far as we are
concerned, that is all it is.
So that is the point that we have made. We have made that quite clear, I
think, in all these conversations. We will continue to afford the Russian
Government consular access, as is appropriate, and we will continue to work
with them. But in our view, this is a matter of law enforcement, and that's
it.
QUESTION: Yesterday you referred to the report on human rights in
Colombia. Could you tell us whether that is ready yet, and how we can get
access to it?
MR. BOUCHER: When it is finally signed, it will be transmitted from the
White House. So that when that happens, I'm sure they will make it
available in public. My understanding as of this moment is that it may not
have been signed yet. The decision, as I talked about yesterday, to submit
a voluntary report has been made, but the actual transmittal of the report
itself has not happened yet.
QUESTION: Richard, yesterday -- and I'm not sure if any of -- I know I
certainly wasn't very aware of what exactly you were talking about when you
-- having looked into it a little bit further yesterday afternoon, it seems
that there is quite a bit of opposition to this decision.
First, the determination that you do not have to certify or grant a waiver
to the Colombians for the second tranche of aid to be released. The
argument is is that just because this money and the second tranche is an
emergency supplemental and not part of the so-called regular money that was
already approved, the argument against your determination is that all this
money, once it gets to Colombia, is put into the same pot, and it is
basically the same money being used for the same kinds of things as the
other money, and therefore it should not be treated -- it shouldn't have
different conditions, or rather no conditions on it.
Two Senators, Wellstone and Harkin, have written to the President, or wrote
to him last week, telling him that they thought not only should the
certification be required, but also that the waiver should be denied, and
that in fact the earlier waivers granted be revoked.
What do you say to those arguments?
MR. BOUCHER: I think all I can say is that the White House -- I assume
the White House lawyers -- no, that they have made the determination. They
have determined that this certification is not a requirement. I suppose one
can argue, you say some people argue it is where the money is going; others
might argue it is where the money comes from in terms of the conditions
that are attached to specific legislation that the money comes from.
So I am not the lawyer to try to sort this out. But the legal staff at the
White House has decided that it is not required. But nonetheless, we feel
it is important to maintain contact, keep talking to Congress, and
therefore we want to report to Congress on where things stand vis-a-vis
human rights. And we will be sending that report forward.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on Cuba? Apparently these kids -- I don't
know if they are kids or teenagers -- left Cuba for the United States, and
now Castro is accusing the US system for encouraging this, that they
welcome Cuban exiles with open arms.
MR. BOUCHER: This is the two stowaways that -- well, first of all, this
is a tragedy. These two young men lost their lives attempting to get to the
United Kingdom. How it could somehow be the fault of the United States,
frankly, is not clear to us. Rather than blaming the United States, we
think the Government of Cuba needs to examine its own policies, needs to
figure out why two teenage military cadets would feel compelled to resort
to such a desperate measure to leave the island.
One explanation is that today's demonstration in Havana against US
immigration policies was intended to divert the attention of ordinary
Cubans from the problems that they face in Cuba itself. The most serious
problem is political repression, and today's demonstration fits a pattern
of tough and disturbing measures which highlight the true nature of the
Cuban regime.
Recently we've had a number of events like this. We've had the arrest of
two prominent Czechs, including a member of parliament, for meeting with
dissidents. There is an ongoing campaign against foreign journalists, and
the threat to close foreign press bureaus in Cuba. There have been
detentions and arrests of over 200 dissidents in the past two months.
So I think if the Cuban Government wants to find the reason that people
would resort to such desperate steps to leave the island, they should
perhaps look at their own policies and their own repression.
QUESTION: When is the next round of US-Cuba migration talks, do you know?
Is that scheduled yet?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have a date for that. I can't remember if
it's every three or six months -- six months. And they were recently so it
would be sometime in the first half of this year.
QUESTION: Has there been any request for a visa for Philippine President
Estrada? There is speculation he would like to come to San Francisco, I
believe.
MR. BOUCHER: I know there is all kinds of speculation. I will tell you
that there has been no contact with us. There have been no requests of us.
We have had no indication from him of any desire on his part to come to the
United States. We don't have any US aircraft waiting somewhere to whisk him
away.
In the interests of full disclosure, I will say that there are some US
aircraft at Clark Air Force Base. They are there for a military exercise
that starts next Monday. This is a normal, pre-planned, many months in
advance, exercise. It has no connection with the current political
situation in the Philippines.
So in terms of your question, are we doing anything to help Estrada out,
move him or otherwise have him come to the United States? No, we've got
nothing underway, no indication of any desire on his part to come
here.
On the general situation, I would say we are following the political
situation in the Philippines very closely. It's a matter of some interest
to us, but in the end the future of the Philippine president, President
Estrada, is a domestic issue for the Philippine people to decide according
to their own peaceful means and constitutional system.
We certainly stress once again the need to maintain peace and order. There
are democratic processes, a constitutional framework and a rule of law in
the Philippines that need to be respected.
QUESTION: So would he be welcome here if he wanted to come?
MR. BOUCHER: That is so speculative I don't think I can get into
it.
QUESTION: With your emphasis on constitutional matters, how do you view
the Vice President's claim today that she is the commander-in-chief?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I think they are going to have to sort out the
various claims according to their own laws and constitution. It's not for
us to interpret those for them.
QUESTION: In past political crises in the Philippines, the United States
has come out with opinions about what they think, notably --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, in cases where --
QUESTION: So I'm wondering if -- is this another kind of manifestation of
people power which the United States applauded so vigorously back ten, 15
years ago?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, we're not doing comparisons with
previous times. Certainly the United States has been involved in opposing
the overthrow of democratic order in the Philippines when that was the case
ten years ago or so. But I think the most important thing is that it's all
based on the same principle that the Philippine people have a democratic
system, they have a constitution, they have rule of law now, and that those
things need to be respected.
QUESTION: There seems to be a bit of a radioactive dustup in US relations
with Germany. I think Defense Minister Scharping called the Charge on the
carpet the other day, claiming that the US was not forthright with the
German Government about the depleted uranium, and has been crowing about it
in the Bundestag ever since.
Do you have any reaction to it, or perspective?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any reaction specifically to that statement.
What I would say is we have been quite open, quite clear, on the issue. The
Secretary has always maintained that our position needs to be open,
transparent, responsible on the subject. We have had numerous discussions
within NATO. We have had experts in NATO discuss the issue, and some of
those experts, I think, have even visited Germany to discuss the issue with
the German leadership as well.
So the extensive discussions that we've had with our allies I'm sure will
continue. NATO has pledged its cooperation with anyone -- various people
investigating this. There are certainly international experts on the
subject who are talking about it as well. And so this is going to be
handled, we hope, in an open, responsible and transparent manner. That's
our intention and that's, I think, what we're trying to do.
QUESTION: Part of his original charge, though, was that the US didn't
give Germany the same information that it gave the other allies. Is that
true?
MR. BOUCHER: You mean in terms of sort of military-to-military cooperation?
I don't think that's something that I could comment on. I'm sure in terms
of military-to-military cooperation and information that would be something
the Pentagon would deal with.
QUESTION: Do you feel that maybe Scharping is sort of scapegoating the US
for his own political troubles?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to take on a political question like
that.
QUESTION: He also charged, or said, that the Embassy handed over new
information yesterday to the Germans, I believe, and amongst that was the
revelation or acknowledgement that some depleted uranium rounds were fired
in Germany during training exercises during the ‘80s. Is that actually --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, specifics like that you're going to have to check
with the Pentagon on.
QUESTION: Could you discuss the changes in military and economic aid to
Israel, two announcements coming out today?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me fill you in. This morning, our Assistant
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Ned Walker and Israel's Ambassador to
the United States David Ivry signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
the US assistance to Israel. Discussions with Israel regarding our
assistance programs have been going on for more than a year, and it was our
desire to bring together and capture these understandings before this
Administration leaves office.
The Memorandum states the views of the Clinton Administration that the
economic support funds that we provide to Israel should be decreased by
about $120 million per year so that the economic support fund aspect, the
economic support to Israel, would be phased out entirely by Fiscal Year
2008.
Under the same understanding, the levels of foreign military financing
would be increased by $60 million per year, so that it would reach $2.4
billion per year by the year 2008.
These levels are consistent with proposals that have been made previously
by the Government of Israel. They are supported by the Administration and
Congress, and have been supported in the annual appropriations process
since Fiscal Year 1999.
The understandings will strengthen the security relationship between the
United States and Israel. It reflects the unshakeable commitment of the
United States to Israel's security while recognizing the strong economic
progress that Israel has achieved over the past two decades.
That was done this morning. Now, there is another issue, which is the issue
of the sale of F-22 aircraft. I think the President spoke about this in his
letters to Israel, to the Israeli people that were published out there and
which the White House, I'm sure, will release, or maybe probably has
released already.
This is not an issue -- the F-22 is not an issue specifically covered by
the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed this morning. But it is a
commitment, it is a recommendation from the President consistent with the
US commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge in the military
area. The President is recommending that once the F-22 aircraft become
available for sale, that Israel should be among the first foreign
customers.
So those are two aspects of our security relationship with Israel that we
are dealing with today.
QUESTION: Why did these wait till the last day to be signed? Is there any
reason for that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think on the first, the Memorandum of Understanding and
the intention with regard to aid, it is really a matter of bringing
together some discussions that have been taking place for a long time. And
since it is a commitment of the Administration, a statement of intention
that kind of brings these things together, it puts on record the discussions
that we have been having with the Government of Israel, and shows that
there is agreement at least on some of these points.
QUESTION: Was this done in concert with the incoming Administration?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how they were informed. I assume they were. But
as we have always said, there is an Administration in place until mid-day
tomorrow; and for its part, that Administration, this Administration,
wanted to put on record the understandings that they had reached with
Israel with regard to this future financing.
QUESTION: But it is fair to say that this is non-binding, and if the Bush
Administration wants to change it, it can?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, certainly. Whoever presents the budgets in future years,
whoever deals and discusses with the Government of Israel in future years
could proceed along this path, or could decide to do it differently. But
since these are understandings that we have had that we have reached with
the Government of Israel, and that are public at this point, since these
are consistent with discussions that we have had with Israel and that these
kinds of financing proposals have been supported by the Administration and
Congress in the appropriations for the last several years, this is sort of
recording a direction where we have been going. If somebody wants to change
it, that's fine.
QUESTION: But have you gotten any -- do you have any reason to believe
that the new Administration might seek to change this, or do you just not
know?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have anything one way or the other.
Certainly this is kind of thing we would keep them informed of, but I'm not
here yet to express any commitment on their part.
QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking if you -- what they are saying. I'm just
asking if they have said anything.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen anything in public, that's for sure.
QUESTION: Well, how about in private?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm not here to say what they might have said in
private. I don't know if they have or haven't.
QUESTION: Richard, on the wider Middle East question, Arab-Israeli
question --
QUESTION: Is Dennis Ross going to the region? (Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: I think it is physically impossible for him to get there at
this point.
QUESTION: Has there been any attempt at all to put down in writing
anything which expresses the state of the negotiations at the end of this
Administration? Or are you just leaving it up to history to work out what
was offered and what --
MR. BOUCHER: I am sure history will work it out, and you guys might try
to work it out even sooner than history.
But what is the state of play? The President, I think in his speech about
two weeks ago, summarized the ideas and proposals and parameters that he
had put forward. So that is a clear matter of record where he thought not
only the process had been brought, but where he thought it had to go in
terms of the kinds of arrangements that had to be made to reach agreement.
But as the Secretary has often said, history doesn't move in four-year
cycles, and the fact that our Administration changes tomorrow at noon
doesn't mean that the parties themselves have somehow changed or cycled or
whatever. So, I mean, what is going -- in fact it's not for us to bring
termination to this process. They in fact have continued to meet. They are
continuing to try to narrow their differences. We think these continuing
political contacts are indeed important, as are the efforts that both sides
need to make to stop the violence.
We have said before we remain in close contact with the parties, we will
keep working with them, and we will do all we can to support the parties'
efforts. But in the end, the parties themselves have to take the steps
required to reach an agreement for peace. So we will stay in close touch
with them as they move forward and see how this goes, and then I'm sure our
new Administration will decide how it wants to be involved. But there is an
ongoing involvement of the United States that will continue.
QUESTION: I'd like to go back to the MOU with Israel for a moment,
please. Is there any part of that which is not public that has to do with
security and information sharing?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything like that for you. I don't know.
QUESTION: You don't know whether there is, or it doesn't exist?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not heard of any such thing, is all I can say.
QUESTION: That's not very clear.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't know if the question is speculative or based
on some kind of information, frankly, and it is not something -- it is
something I will look into just to check. But if you are going to ask me,
is there anything in here that deals with whaling, I would have to say the
same thing: I don't know. I am not aware of any aspect that does.
QUESTION: But these aspects were parts of agreements that were -- that
seemed to be formulated as this process was going along that was discussed
by our two governments. So it is a legitimate question of whether that --
MR. BOUCHER: No. It is a legitimate question. We have had ongoing
discussions with the Government of Israel, I think for some time, about
security cooperation, about how we can help in various ways. You know we
submitted a supplemental last fall in order to provide some enhanced money
for that kind of cooperation. But is something included or not included? I
can tell you what is included. If you want to ask me about something else,
I will have to check on it.
QUESTION: But you will check on it?
MR. BOUCHER: I will check on it.
QUESTION: I wasn't even going to ask this, but speaking of whaling, do
you have anything to say about the Norwegians?
MR. BOUCHER: Who spoke about whaling?
QUESTION: Well, it sounded like you were trying to get -- you had
something.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I wasn't dangling a whale in front of you.
QUESTION: I'm just curious, because this Norwegian decision has the --
MR. BOUCHER: We put out a statement yesterday on the Norwegian whaling
effort.
QUESTION: Well, that's amazing. Did anyone get it?
QUESTION: No.
QUESTION: Well, here we have yet again another breakdown in this
communication system. It's very nice to find out that we're getting
statements a day late all the time. It has happened now with South Korean
missiles, it happened yesterday with the Secretary's speech, and now it's
happening with the whaling. Anyway.
QUESTION: Two questions. First of all, how much of an achievement is the
Operation White Horse in terms of the quantity that -- the amounts of
heroin that gets to United States from Colombia?
And the second one is, on Sunday, the FARC and the Colombian Government are
finally going to get together and try to end gridlock for the peace talks.
But after two years of doing nothing, are you still supporting a DMZ, not
only for that, but for the ELN? And what is going to happen next?
MR. BOUCHER: Without trying to accept your characterizations of some of
the past history of this, I think our basic attitude towards the Colombian
Government's efforts to bring peace, to talk to rebel groups, is still the
same; that we basically support their efforts to bring peace to the country,
and we support their effort for development and against narcotics.
In terms of the Operation White Horse, it is pretty significant because it
is moving against a major organization that was trafficking heroin between
Colombia and the United States. Colombia is the source for most of the
heroin, the overwhelming majority of the heroin that ends up in the East
Coast in the United States. And this group, of which 50 individuals were
arrested, had distribution in New York and Philadelphia, so it is a very
significant step forward in terms of the counter-narcotics effort. That
said, there are still others who traffic and others who will have to be
pursued and dealt with.
I think you will see in the statement as well other information about the
counter-narcotics strategy and some of the other things that we have
accomplished with Colombia.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- just a month of starting to eradications area --
eradications -- is my understanding, right?
MR. BOUCHER: After?
QUESTION: A month ago, the area of eradication started on the Plan
Colombia program, right?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, they have been aerial spraying for something
like ten years. We have talked before about the Government of Colombia's
program for aerial spraying and how they have -- what they are doing and
what they are not doing. But this has been part of the program for a long
time.
QUESTION: Now that the situation in the Congo appears to be clarified, do
you have anything to say with respect to the new leadership there?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what we would say -- and I may have a statement on
this later for you that goes through it sort of just completely -- is that
the new leadership, like the old leadership, should implement the Lusaka
Accords, the international obligations that will help bring peace to the
area.
What has changed is the head of -- the chief of state. We have an interim
president who has been named. Our Charge was part of a group of diplomats
who were at a meeting basically to meet him, and I think they just shook
hands and said hello yesterday. So we haven't had a serious substantive
discussion with him personally as well, but the rest of the government is
the same, and we continue to work with the government there and continue to
meet with the people and have discussions with them. And as we have said
all along, our interest has been in seeing the Lusaka Accords carried
out.
Certainly we don't think that violence is the way to effect the situation,
and we do think that the government should implement the Lusaka Accords.
Just all along, that is what we have been pushing for.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the Taliban's reaction to new sanctions
being imposed today by the UN in which they called bin Laden a guest and
say we don't have to expel people just because the US doesn't like them,
and warning that there will be consequences?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think it is very simple to answer that. I hadn't
seen the statement, but some inference that somehow that Usama bin Laden is
just a person we don't like, I mean, that is ridiculous. It is frankly
insulting. This is a man who is charged with blowing up American diplomats,
Kenyans, many, many others; who is subject to arrest; who has been deemed a
source of international terror. And it is not just the United States. These
are UN sanctions. It is the international community that is frankly
frustrated and outraged that they continue to harbor someone who has
perpetuated international terror.
QUESTION: Two really quick things. One is, do you know what the
Secretary's plans are for tomorrow? Is she going to come into the office at
all, or will she just -- does she go to the Inauguration? Does she do
anything official?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I will have to check. I haven't checked. I
have not heard of any plan to come into the office.
QUESTION: And the second thing is, if you could comment at all on the
significance of today for your Deputy?
QUESTION: Any reaction on the second offer by Iraq to announce the $94
million -- nobody even cares -- talk about Saddam first, and then Phil --
$94 million this time to help destitute Americans?
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen these kinds of offers before.
QUESTION: This is the second one.
MR. BOUCHER: Are they reiterating it, or have they found some more
destitute Americans they want to help out?
I mean, let's look at this situation as a whole. There is little difference
today in that there is more information. The idea of Iraq taking money to
donate to poor American citizens is ridiculous. It is nonsense. It shows
that what they are doing is just playing political games in the world. And,
frankly, that is underscored by the news that is out today about the United
Nations.
Benon Sevan, the UN official charged with carrying through this program,
the Executive Director of the UN Office for the Iraq Program, sent a letter
to the UN Sanctions Committee expressing his concern that Iraq is
unacceptably slow in taking the money that they do have and spending it on
Iraqis. They are withholding food from Iraqi babies.
In the six-month phase of the program that ended on December 2000, the
Iraqi Government submitted contracts for far less than it was authorized to
spend in key sectors where we hear continuing complaints from the Iraqi
regime about hardship. They are only using 33 percent, one-third of the
funds available for water and sanitation projects. They are only using 13
percent of the funds available in the health sector, meaning they have
requested only $83 million against $624 million that's available in the
program to spend on health for the Iraqi people. They are only using 6
percent of the money available for education, only using 4 percent of the
money to upkeep the oil production capability.
So they have really failed in their obligations to their own people, and
the idea that they should go running around spending money on others when
they're not willing to spend the money on their own people is a ridiculous
proposal and it just shows what a sham most of their claims are.
QUESTION: Another question is where does the money come from?
MR. BOUCHER: It comes from -- which money? The Iraqi money comes from the
Oil-for-Food program. It comes from oil that they pump and money that gets
deposited in escrow. I mean, where would their money --
QUESTION: So they're offering back Oil-for-Food money?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'm talking about the money that is or is not
being spent. You're asking is where would they get this money that they
would be donating to the poor Americans?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. That is another question. Probably the same
place they get their money to build palaces and buy -- what is it -- 1,200
cases of whiskey a month.
QUESTION: Richard, is there anything you can say about next week? It
seems that, you know, a lot of Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries
(inaudible). So who is in charge of the bureaus that are acting?
MR. BOUCHER: It varies from bureau to bureau. Many of the people who --
the career officials certainly in the bureaus have been asked to stay on
and run the bureaus for the new Administration for differing or perhaps
indefinite periods of time.
Certainly every office or bureau where a political appointee has left there
is an acting person who is appointed, usually the senior career person in
the bureau. So, really, while we will miss many of our colleagues that have
been here working with us, we look forward to working with the new
Administration. I think there is an ongoing commitment to maintaining the
interests of the United States, and we'll keep doing it.
Many people have asked me about the actual mechanism this weekend. My
understanding is that as of noon when Secretary Albright becomes former
Secretary Albright, then the Acting Secretary will be Under Secretary Al
Larson, our Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, and he would be Acting
Secretary until the time when Colin Powell is sworn in with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
QUESTION: Do you know what the swearing-in plans are?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I have no idea. That would be a White House -- a new
White House thing. The Senate has to vote and then he has to be sworn in by
the President, or whoever is appropriate -- I forget, or somebody
designated. But he has to be voted on by the full Senate and then he has to
be sworn in and he has to sign some papers. But when exactly that will take
place, I don't know, but in the interim we'll have an Acting Secretary of
State.
QUESTION: Whereupon, he will disavow everything you've said today.
MR. BOUCHER: He may. Or I may come down and disavow it myself on Monday.
(Laughter.) But my job is not to tell you what I think; it's to tell you
what the Secretary thinks.
And to answer the previous question, Happy Birthday to Phil from all of
us.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 P.M.)
|
