U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-02-14

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>

Richard Boucher, Spokesman

Washington, DC

February 14, 2001

INDEX:

MEPN
Escalating Violence
1, 5-6    Efforts to Stem
1-4, 5    Responsibility
3-4       US View of Targeted Killings
6-8       Content of Powell Phone Call to Arafat
9         Secretary’s Itinerary/Agenda in Middle East
AFGHANISTAN
9-10,11   Closing of New York Taliban Office
10        Meeting with Vendrell
ANGOLA
11        Reported Meeting with UNITA Representative
JAPAN
11-12     Submarine Accident
ECUADOR
12        Reported Release of American Hostages
CONGO
13        Kagame Attendance at Lusaka Summit
CHINA
13        Human Rights

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't have any statements, so I'd be glad to take your questions.

Mr. Schweid.

Q: The President today said that he would work hard to end the violence. This being the place for diplomacy, can you tell us if any calls have gone out since the bus attack, any efforts, any interventions by American diplomats with leaders or sub-leaders around the world?

MR. BOUCHER: Clearly, our diplomats in the region, and specifically in Israel, are in touch with people out there. In addition, the President this morning talked to Prime Minister Barak. I think the White House has talked about that. The Secretary spoke this morning for about 15 minutes with Chairman Arafat. We are continuing to work with both sides to stop the cycle of action and reaction, to restore calm, to try to create an environment in which they can discuss their differences.

Q: Another quick follow-on. I was going to try to keep it brief because I know you all have got to go someplace. But the Israelis came out of the meeting here saying the onus is on the Palestinians and Mr. Arafat to halt the violence; there can't be negotiations until it stops.

Does the US share that view in any way? Is it anybody's particular responsibility to end this?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we think it's -- how should I say it? We think that everybody has particular responsibilities in this situation. I think, you know, it was quite clear in our discussion and in the Secretary's discussion with them this morning. The Secretary made clear, and I think we've made clear before, there is no moral equivalence, as the Israelis said to you, I think, as they came out, in terms of the actions that are being taken. We're not trying to equate the actions of one side or the killings of one side with the killings of the other.

What we are trying to do is to say that each side has its own responsibilities, and that there are things that the Palestinians should be doing and there are things that the Israelis should be doing.

Q: You mean no moral equivalence in what way?

MR. BOUCHER: There have been some implications, I think, in some of the reportings or the questions that somehow that some of the actions taken by one side had to be balanced with an action that the other side had done, that the killing of eight or nine people at a bus stop was somehow equivalent to an attack on a car, or the use of mortars by one side was equivalent to the use of gunships on the other side. We're not trying to do that. That has, I think, been the tenor of some of the questions.

Q: You think some are less moral than others, then? Would you like to sort of give us your --

MR. BOUCHER: No, what we're saying is we're not out here just to --

Q: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: No, we're not out here just to give a rundown. We're not out here just to say -- just to be even-handed. We're out here to say that there are responsibilities on both sides. They may be different responsibilities.

Q: Can you say exactly what you mean by responsibilities? What is it you would like to see the Palestinians stop doing, or start doing, and what is it you'd like to see the Israelis start or stop doing?

MR. BOUCHER: We have made quite clear on different occasions that we look to the Palestinians to -- well, first of all, we look for both sides to take -- to stop taking actions, to stop contributing to the cycle. But we've said that the Palestinians, for example, should do everything they can to stop the violence. They should maintain calm, create the environment for dialogue and negotiation. We've said, if I can find it, we look to the Palestinians to arrest those suspected of terrorist attacks and bring them to justice through a judicial process.

I think we have made clear on the Israeli side that we oppose the targeted killings. We have made clear at various times other things that the sides have done that we don't want them to do. And we have done this periodically in the past. We are looking for each side to take the steps it can take, because we think everybody has a responsibility to help stop the violence. And the actions are different --

Q: On the equivalence thing just for a second, Johnson's point is well taken, but what the Israelis said -- not that they need someone to speak for them -- they say there is no moral equivalence between acts of terrorism and responses to it. Of course their view is that they are victims of terrorism and their response fits the -- is fitting.

But at least when you say moral equivalence, do you mean between terrorism and reaction to terrorism, without picking sides?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess what I thought your question was going at -- and maybe I over-interpreted --

Q: Not mine. It was someone else's.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, the first one, even. And I saw the remarks they made at the door and some of the questions asked there. What I thought your question was going at was the fact that we often say that both sides need to take steps to stop the violence; and that is not an attempt to say that the terrorist actions or the killings or the attacks, one kind of attack is any better or worse or other than another.

Things like this bus attack this morning, I mean, this is a horrible and terrible action. It has no justification whatsoever. So we're not trying to justify some or equate some with others. But when we come out here and say that both sides need to take steps, we are saying both sides need to take steps that are different steps.

Q: When you say there is no moral equivalence, you presumably mean that one particular type of action is better than another; they're not equivalent?

Q: It's less awful.

Q: They're not equivalent?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying they're not the same. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm not saying one is justified and one's not. They're not the same. We're not out here to establish some kind of equivalence.

Q: The Israelis keep telling us that you agree with them that an end to violence is a prerequisite for even dialogue, let alone negotiations. These are words they're putting in your mouth now, both yesterday and today.

Do you agree with this? Is this something you would endorse?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say two things. I would say, one, as we said yesterday, as we have said before, an end to violence is important to end the violence. We want to see the killings stopped. It's not so much a question of words or timing; it's a question of lives.

But second of all, it is also quite clear to us and others that there can't be progress towards peace as long as you have this kind of violence.

Q: So the answer is yes? No?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is yes, plus.

Q: I don't know if you talked about this before I came in, but the Israelis said outside that there was a clear understanding between the United States and Israel that Israel, in terms of this assassination of a Palestinian official, that Israel needs to do what it has to do to prevent future attacks, insinuating that the United States understood why it needed to assassinate this Palestinian official; That this policy of assassination by the Israelis was understood by the US. Is that --

MR. BOUCHER: I have said today -- we have said before -- we oppose a policy of targeted killings. That has been clear, I think, all along.

Q: Does the Israeli Government have a right to defend itself?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

Q: Against -- well, no by taking --

Q: Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

Q: Richard, by taking offensive action? Are they only supposed to be there to try to prevent acts of aggression or terrorism, whatever you want to call it?

MR. BOUCHER: Andrea, I don't -- I think our point is not to either try to justify one action or another action. Our point is that parties really need to take steps to stop this violence, to try to refrain this violence. So, you know, we are not trying to justify any particular action. We are trying to say that people really should be looking at how they contribute to an end to the violence.

Q: On that point, Dori Gold said today that he delivered the message that these acts of violence were coordinated and were controlled by Arafat. Does the United States share that perspective?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that would require sort of more information on each particular act, and particularly the action today. I don't think we have much information on how this happened and the motivations for it. But what I would say again is that we think that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian side have certain responsibilities, and the responsibilities are to take steps to stop the violence.

When the Secretary talked to him this morning, they talked about the need to end the violence. I think Chairman Arafat has said that he has -- said this morning that he has condemned the violence and the killings. And the Secretary and he talked about steps that could be taken and the need to take further steps to stop the violence.

Q: Well, if I can follow up on that point, do you think that Arafat has in any of these circumstances in the last four months ordered some of these attacks? I mean, this is what the Israelis are saying. They're saying this is the message they delivered to Colin Powell today. I mean, is this something that jives with what the US thinks?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't have any information like that for you.

Q: I know that you don't speak for the EU, but today they issued a statement condemning Israel for the assassination. Do you see that as taking an unhelpful, one-sided view? I mean, they got 15 countries to agree on a statement, but we don't come out with something similar.

MR. BOUCHER: I think they issued several statements, which are very similar to what we have been saying, so I don't really have any comment on it.

Q: I'm sorry to go back to this. I don't understand your answer on whether ending violence is a prerequisite. You said there can’t be progress while there is violence, but we've had talks in the past, often with progress, when there's been violence. So clearly, as a statement of objective reality, that's incorrect.

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: I think I'll fold up and go home now.

Q: I don't understand your position. What is your position?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is what I have just said, that first of all, violence needs to be stopped because violence is bad; It kills people, and people shouldn't die. Okay?

Q: First of all --

MR. BOUCHER: Second of all, that I think --

Q: First of all chronologically? I mean, it makes a difference.

MR. BOUCHER: My turn?

Q: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, violence should stop because it is bad; It kills people, and people shouldn't die. Second of all, it is quite clear, and I think it is realistic, particularly given the violence that we have seen over the past few months, it is a simple statement of reality and a statement of our understanding of the situation, of the dynamics of the situation, that there can't be progress towards peace as long as this kind of violence continues. I think that is an objective statement.

Granted, you can find an example where there has been some kind of violence in the past and people have made some progress, and we have said even in some of those recent talks there had been progress. But the fact is, fundamentally for people to make peace, they have to stop making violence. I think that is an objective reality.

Q: But the Israelis, who have to be there for there to be negotiations, are saying something more than that. They are saying they cannot negotiate - - not only can't succeed -- they can't negotiate so long as there is violence, number one. That seems to be different from their predecessor, which negotiated through violence and, in some cases, made progress; in some cases, didn't make progress. The previous administration took the view that the way to stop violence is to bring peace to the area, and the way to bring peace to area is to negotiate. You have a different administration and different Israeli government.

I understand your problem here, but the Israeli argument is the violence must stop to talk. The US doesn't agree with that, I don't think. The US says, for progress the violence must stop. Do you agree that there can't be talks or there shouldn’t be talks until the violence stops, or there can't be meaningful talks until the violence stops? There's a difference.

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, there is not an Israeli Government, so there is not an Israeli Government position on the conditions for starting talks, on the strategy and proposals on how to reach peace. We have said that we will be talking to both sides. We had a good exchange of views this morning with some people who advise Prime Minister-Elect Sharon.

We'll have continuing discussions with people in Israel, see what kind of government they put together, and then we'll see what kind of specific position the Israeli Government puts forward in regard to these issues. It may or may not be the way you characterize it, but it's certainly premature for me to start reacting to something which is not yet an Israeli Government position.

Q: Can you tell us something about the phone call with Chairman Arafat and the Secretary? What was the tone, the tenor, of the talks? And did the Secretary come away from the phone call feeling that, in fact, Chairman Arafat did understand the importance to which the US places on ending the violence?

MR. BOUCHER: I think -- the tenor and the feel, huh? Based on what I know of the phone call, and I wasn't there, I would say the tenor of the phone call was a --

Q: Was the connection good?

MR. BOUCHER: The decibels were fine, I think. The phone call was to talk about the violence and how to end it. As I said, Chairman Arafat, for his part, said he had condemned the killings and the violence and the bus attack that took place today, and that they talked about how steps needed to be taken to continue to end the violence.

I don't think I can actually characterize it much more than that. Certainly it's important to the Secretary to have these contacts with Chairman Arafat and to make clear our views.

Q: Did he set out any kind of a step one; this is something we think that you can do; here's step one, step two, step three?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

Q: If he condemned the killings in a public way, your diplomats out there would know it. Has anybody noticed a declaration condemning --

MR. BOUCHER: I just know what I read on other wire services.

Q: No, no --

MR. BOUCHER: That's all I have in terms of reporting.

Q: You're saying that Arafat told Mr. Powell that he condemns the killing. If he condemns the killing in a private conversation with the Secretary --

Q: He didn't publicly declare it.

Q: What?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, all I know on what Chairman Arafat has said publicly is what I've read in competitor wire services.

Q: Can you just -- we heard a lot from the Israelis on, you know, although they weren't quoting from the meeting, they did come out and speak. Is there anything additional you can tell us about the Secretary's meetings with the three --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I think in fact we've done it more than generally. The discussion talked about -- they did talk about the US-Israeli bilateral relationship. The Secretary made quite clear our strong support for Israel and our strong commitment to working with Israel on Israel's security. They talked about the violence in the region quite a bit.

The Secretary asked about the status of forming a government, just for informational purposes, and then they talked about sort of approaches -- what you might say various approaches that might be taken towards peace. But as I said, at this stage without an Israeli Government, no particular plans or projects or proposals in that regard at this stage.

Q: Did Secretary Powell asked Chairman Arafat if, in fact, he knew if the Palestinian Authority had been behind the attack?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that came up.

Q: And also, who called who? Did Secretary Powell place the call?

MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Powell called him, yes.

Q: Was it before or after the meeting with the Israelis?

MR. BOUCHER: It was after.

Q: The Israelis said that they're calling on Yasser Arafat to make a very public statement on television or something condemning not only this attack but violence in general, and call for the end of the violence. Did Secretary Powell appeal to Arafat to make such a public declaration?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, I think Secretary Powell talked about public statements and Arafat said he had made one, and I have seen a public statement by Arafat on the wires. So we'll see.

Q: And that satisfies the US that --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any analysis of it. I'm just saying that's the sequence of things that we've seen. And I don't think we're into -- well, we'll see if we have anything further to say afterwards.

Q: You said in the phone call with Yasser Arafat the Secretary talked about steps that could be taken to maintain calm or bring calm back to the region. Did he have similar points to make to the Israeli delegation about steps that Israel could take to lead to a better environment for negotiating peace talks?

MR. BOUCHER: In either case, I don't believe it was sort of one-two-three, here's what you ought to do. With the Israeli delegation they talked about a variety of things, I think, that we've talked about here before. We have made clear our view, and the Secretary mentioned it this morning, that the economic situation of the Palestinians needed to be alleviated, for example. So there were things like that that were discussed in terms of the overall environment.

Q: Did the Israelis have any response to this idea that the Administration has had about passing on the tax revenues to the Palestinians?

MR. BOUCHER: They had some thoughts on the subject, but as for what they were I'll leave it to them to share.

Q: Did Secretary Powell say that we oppose these targeted killings? Did he express that in the meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

Q: One additional question. It's not really on violence. But if, when the Secretary is in Israel, if Barak is no longer caretaker Prime Minister, does he still -- I mean, if Sharon has managed to form his government, will the Secretary still meet with Barak? Do you know, or is that just --

MR. BOUCHER: That's three levels of hypothetical, I think.

Q: Well, I know, but I just --

MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see. We'll give you the schedule when we get there, at the time. I'm sure that he will be interested in seeing people who are important to the situation. We'll just see where we are.

Q: That's the price you pay for announcing trips so far in advance.

MR. BOUCHER: Exactly.

Q: So this is just for the record. You can understand, I hope, why I ask. Has the trip, the projected trip, taken on any different character in light of the violence? Yesterday, even before the bus attack, you said it was getting quite serious and could reach the point where it's unstoppable.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we did indeed talk yesterday about the serious deterioration in the situation. No, the trip, I don't think, has taken on any different character. Obviously the issues of violence and peace, as well as US-Israel relationship and security, were very much on our minds. Also the regional approach, issues like Iraq, and a series of very important bilateral relationships to us.

So within those general rubrics, no, nothing has -- it hasn't taken on a different character. Obviously as the violence becomes more acute, as we see this kind of deterioration, it grows in terms of the level of concern and the need to address it, the need for the parties to address it.

Anything else?

Q: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Please.

Q: The Taliban following through on their threat to close the UN office in Kabul. And also if there is anything you can add to what was the limited stuff that we found out yesterday from the meeting that Vendrell had here.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me do offices first, if I can. Why don't we start with the New York office. Once again, I have to say we are committed to enforcing Resolution 1333, which includes closing the Taliban offices. We were told yesterday by one of the Taliban representatives in New York that the office had indeed been closed. And then we'll be following up on this to confirm it and make sure that the office remains closed.

The UN Secretariat has confirmed that they have been told by the Taliban to close their office in Kabul. We think this decision by the Taliban is inappropriate and shortsighted.

The United Nations has a very vital role to play in trying to bring about an end to more than twenty years of fighting in Afghanistan; and with this office to help support the political process that will establish a broad- based government and help contribute to the environment necessary for the humanitarian relief that goes on there as well.

So closing the UN office in Kabul strongly contradicts the Taliban's stated support for the UN's role. The functions of this office in Kabul and the Taliban office in New York are completely different, and there is no reason to take similar actions or to equate them.

Q: And is the US still interested in not having its resolution enforced?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as the meeting with Mr. Vendrell yesterday afternoon, I guess all I'd say is that we listened to his views. We will obviously take his views into account. His role in this overall process remains very, very important. This particular meeting has been scheduled for some time, as part of consultations following a recent trip that he took in the region. Mr. Vendrell plays a very important role vis-à-vis the peace initiatives, including the "6+2" process initiative by private Afghan groups, the humanitarian crisis, narcotics production, operations of terrorist groups in Afghanistan. So all of these subjects are very important to us.

We discussed the implementation of the sanctions under Resolution 1333, discussed the need for the Taliban to expel Usama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice. So we had a broad discussion of all these topics. We told him we would take into account his views on offices, on implementing Resolution 1333, but we are closing the Taliban office in New York.

Q: You're taking his views into consideration, but you rejected them?

MR. BOUCHER: He had a variety of different views. I wouldn't say we've rejected all of them.

Q: As far as the resolution is concerned, without speaking to the status of the two particular Taliban individuals that are here, the resolutions don't call for the expulsion of Taliban members from the country, right? They can still stay here and work if they have an appropriate visa?

MR. BOUCHER: That would be a question to be looked at.

Q: And if --

MR. BOUCHER: I mean, we have discussions with a variety of people who claim to represent or know the views of Taliban, so there are a variety of different channels that we use. This is only one of them. Whether this particular gentleman is allowed to stay in the United States under whatever visa or immigration status he has, that is something that remains to be looked at. But the resolution requires us to close the office, and we will do that.

Q: Will need to be looked at by whom? By the US Government or by the UN?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it would be the Immigration Service. It's not a UN- accredited office and he is not a representative to the UN.

Q: Right. I'm just asking if the resolutions don't -- they only call for the closure of the offices; they don't call for the expulsion of any particular Taliban member that might be in any country? It's not like everybody has to banish the Taliban from their country, right?

MR. BOUCHER: I would have to look at the exact resolution.

Q: On a similar office closing type thing, so this story you were asked about yesterday about the Pentagon official meeting with a UNITA representative, did that meeting violate the US policy on its no-contact rule with --

MR. BOUCHER: I think what I found out subsequently is the Pentagon has talked about the meeting. As I said, we don't have any official contact with UNITA and we haven't --

Q: So you just -- so that doesn't --

MR. BOUCHER: They'll explain whatever this was, but I would not put this in that category.

Q: When you say "we," you mean the State Department or the US Government?

MR. BOUCHER: US Government.

Q: So this was not an official contact even though the meeting was held in the Pentagon and --

MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not what they've said. I'd refer you to them for an explanation of whatever this contact was.

Q: There has been some information that has come out from the Defense Department now that a civilian or two was at the controls of the Greeneville on Friday. Do you have any comment on this, or do you think that the idea that a civilian was at the helm when it rammed the ship is a new source of tension? I don't want to say "strain."

MR. BOUCHER: The Navy is conducting an investigation. It will be complete. I am sure it will be thorough. I am sure there will be all these sorts of facts and details will be looked at. They will determine -- help determine -- what is material, what is not, to the accident. So I think we leave it in their hands to look at these things and to examine these things.

Lest there be any doubt, the US-Japan relationship remains solid again today.

Q: The way, I mean, this thing was reported and then confirmed wasn't very -- I don't think it would be comfortable for Japanese -- the people in Japan. So can you make any comment that first it was leaked and then it was reported and then it was confirmed? Anything on this?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Q: Also, I am very curious because it's been five days and Cabinet members like Secretary Powell or Secretary Rumsfeld, or the President, President Bush, has conveyed to the Japanese leaders in private, but they haven't said anything in public except that President Bush prayed twice.

MR. BOUCHER: You can't say we haven't said anything public when the President of the United States speaks in public twice. I'm sorry, that doesn't wash. And Secretary Powell talked about it on TV three times, twice on Sunday. So I think if you look, everywhere you look, you will see us making quite clear not only in private but in public our views.

Q: On that same one, though, has there been any, since this latest revelation, are you aware of any contact between this building and Japan on this specific subject? Has there been an additional apology?

MR. BOUCHER: Of who was at the controls? I'm not. There is constant contact so I just don't have anything particular to cite for you. I know that Ambassador Foley has been in very, very close touch with the government in Tokyo. The Secretary has not had any conversations.

Q: Do you have any comment on reports from Ecuador that these remaining four hostages may be ransomed successfully, today I guess? There is apparently a threat to kill yet another one tomorrow if the ransom isn't paid.

MR. BOUCHER: My only comment is that it would be inappropriate for us to comment while the efforts continue. We have been working with the government, with the oil companies, the families, governments of other foreign hostages, to try to resolve this matter, but don't have anything to say at this moment.

Q: Although the US stands in opposition to paying any ransom, would you still be happy to see them free if they were paid -- if it was paid by their companies?

MR. BOUCHER: Our policies are well known, but I have nothing to say at this moment.

Q: What is your understanding of whether -- well, I have two questions. What is your understanding of whether, after your appeal for President Kagame to change his mind and to attend the Lusaka -- or a summit on DR Congo, what is your understanding about whether he intends to go? There seems to be conflicting reports about it.

MR. BOUCHER: We don't know for sure.

Q: You don’t know? Okay. And the last one I have is that there is a movement up on the Hill that began today to push the Administration to sponsor the annual resolution, human rights resolution, against China in Geneva. Has there been any decision made on that?

MR. BOUCHER: No, the matter is still under discussion.

Q: Thank you.

[end]

Released on February 14, 2001

U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next Article