 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Wednesday, 18 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-04-10U.S. State Department: Daily Press Briefings Directory - Previous Article - Next ArticleFrom: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>DAILY BRIEFING Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC April 10, 2001 INDEX: CHINA TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any announcements or statements, so I would be glad to take your questions. Q: Can you tell us exactly what is going on with Jesse Jackson and if he spoke to the Secretary, as he says that he has? Or is he rabbiting on about nothing? MR. BOUCHER: He spoke to the Secretary this morning. The Secretary called him back, I think about 9 o'clock or so, maybe 9:30. The Secretary expressed his thanks for Mr. Jackson's concern, told him about the intensive diplomacy that's going on, and said we would continue to use that channel. We certainly appreciate the interest of Mr. Jackson and other Americans about the welfare of the air crew and their desire to help out if that becomes appropriate at some time, but we are clearly using the diplomatic channels at this point, trying to work this out and see the return home of our air crew. Q: Well, he says he's going no matter what. He's just waiting for a visa from the Chinese. You don't think that it's appropriate for him to go at this time? MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't say that. I guess the only question is sort of, at this point, do we intend to use him as some kind of special envoy or something. And the answer is no, we're going to pursue this in diplomatic channels. Certainly Americans who might decide to go -- you know, private visits -- I mean, we don't really have any issue with that. We do -- people who are interested in knowing what we're saying and what we consider about this -- happy to tell them where things stand and what we're doing. Q: So, Richard, you're not ruling out his intervention at some point if need be? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not ruling it in. Q: Well, you're not saying to him, "Don't go, we discourage this sort of tact"? MR. BOUCHER: I'm saying that we're not expecting -- there is no present plan -- there is no plan to use Mr. Jackson as a mediator or a special envoy on this issue. We are pursuing this through diplomatic channels. That applies to others as well. There is a lot of interest in the United States about this. There is a lot of interest by former officials or people in the private sector about the welfare of our air crew. I am sure all Americans are concerned and interested and are willing to do things should that be necessary. At this point, the path that we are pursuing is intensive diplomatic discussions through our embassy. Q: So, on my taken question yesterday, then, about what the congressional delegations may have heard from the State Department -- MR. BOUCHER: We have had conversations with various congressional delegations that were interested in -- that were planning at some point to go to China. Frankly, most of them have decided -- I think on their own, without our advice -- not to go. We certainly clearly understand their reasons not to go. At this point, I think all that we knew about have decided to postpone their travel, so it doesn't arise again. Q: On your advice or -- MR. BOUCHER: Our advice has generally been to leave it up to them to decide, certainly tell them about the situation and tell them about our serious concerns about the situation. Q: So no one was asked not to go by this building -- MR. BOUCHER: We haven't been making that -- we haven't been telling people not to go. People have been asking us what's our advice and recommendation, and I think in most cases we've said it's up to you. But clearly we understand concerns that people have and the reasons they might have not to go. I think in some cases we may have said we agree with those. Q: Richard, we're hearing the folks in this building have been told it's not really appropriate to engage in sort of -- go to parties at the Chinese Embassy, to engage in other social activities, and we also hear that sort of the same is true in Beijing. Can you shed any light on that? MR. BOUCHER: The issue of social activities, I think, is really -- it comes down to a case-by-case situation. We had the instance yesterday of a large reception at the Chinese Embassy for the outgoing ambassador and the incoming ambassador, and the Secretary made quite clear that he considered it inappropriate for US officials to be attending that reception. Certainly our primary concern, our priority in all our activities, is our concern about the air crew and the need for them to return home. The Secretary made clear he thought it inappropriate for us to attend that reception, and we passed that word to other US Government agencies as well so that other people would know that. Whether there are similar circumstances that arise in Beijing, I don't know, but I think clearly that's our view of these sorts of events. Q: But just on a case-by-case, party-by-party basis? MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it would come up on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure if there were social contacts that we might be able to use to advance the prospect of return of our air crew, that we would probably do that. Q: Can you tell us the latest in these intensive diplomatic efforts? Have there been any new breakthroughs or setbacks? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Ambassador Prueher hasn't had any new meetings in Beijing during the course of the day on Tuesday. We have continued to have discussions with the Chinese. At other levels and in all our discussions, we have made quite clear that the priority for us is the return of our aircrew. As the President said yesterday, it is now time for the people to come home so that we can avoid damage to the bilateral relationship. We are at a sensitive moment in our discussions. We are ready to talk to the Chinese whenever they are ready. In other news, though, General Sealock has met again -- General Sealock and our Consular Section Chief Ted Gong have met again with the aircrew in Hainan Island. They had a meeting of about 40 minutes without Chinese officials present. They report again that our crew are in very good health, very good spirits. They are being treated well, their morale is high, and we have been able to pass to them personal messages, news from home. They have been able to provide us with messages for their families that we are going to send back. They are getting them sports news, local news from Washington State. We don't have another meeting scheduled, but we are pushing to see them again tomorrow as well. Q: When you say that there is no new meeting scheduled, is the Chinese Ambassador perhaps coming back here? And secondly, when you say you meet with the 24 Americans without Chinese present, are you assuming that the room is or is not bugged? MR. BOUCHER: That's not something I could address at this podium, I'm afraid. Q: And what about the Chinese Ambassador question? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any meetings set with him. We have had contacts here at other levels with the Chinese Embassy. We have had contacts at other levels in Beijing. And as I said, in all our meetings on this issue, we make quite clear the importance of the return of our aircrew and what the President said yesterday: It's time for them to come home so as to avoid damage to the relationship. Q: Did Admiral Prueher request any meetings over the past 24 hours? And is the US generally satisfied with the level of contact, the frequency of contact it's had with Chinese officials? MR. BOUCHER: I think generally we have found it a useful and positive way to conduct the negotiations and discussions with the Chinese. As we have said several times during the course of this process, we have been able to move forward in these discussions. But as the President made quite clear yesterday, it is time for our people to come home, and that remains our position. Admiral Prueher has made quite clear that he is ready to see the Chinese again any time, any day, 24 hours a day, whenever they are ready to continue these discussions. Q: Just to pick up from that, is it a case of the US waiting at the moment for some acknowledgement from the Chinese that a meeting is possible, or are they granting meetings as often as the US wants them? MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I think we have made clear that Admiral Prueher is ready to meet with them any time, and whenever they are ready we'll have further discussions. Q: When Sealock met with the crew this past time, was it all 24 members or was he just allowed to see selective members? MR. BOUCHER: No, it was all 24 members. Q: And when you say that there is not a new meeting scheduled, Secretary Powell said the other day that he expects you'll be able to have regular access to the crew for the duration of the standoff. Is this not the case any more? Are you asking for another meeting and the Chinese have not granted it? MR. BOUCHER: I think generally, if you look at the record of the past few days, when we've finished one meeting we happened to have immediately had another one scheduled. Sometimes that's been the case, sometimes it hasn't. But we at least have yesterday and today when we've managed to have two, one meeting each day, with the air crew, with the full air crew in the evening in Hainan. That comes around again in 12, 16 hours from now. So we are continuing to press for regular meetings and for full, free and unfettered access. Certainly we would like to see more than one meeting a day, but these meetings that we do have are important to us to look after the welfare of our crew members. Q: Last week, Secretary Powell said that there was movement and he was encouraged, but we're not really hearing encouragement or encouraged being used any more. Has the momentum shifted at all? There were not meetings on Tuesday in Beijing and there are no meetings scheduled today. MR. BOUCHER: Today is Tuesday. Well, it's now Wednesday, just barely, in China. Q: Are we still encouraged? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that we have moved forward throughout this process. We are at a sensitive moment now. We look to hear from the Chinese when they're ready to continue these discussions. I don't think I can do a daily thermometer on this. We have said on one or two occasions that we were moving forward. I think that's true of the process. But I think it's equally true what the President said yesterday: It's time for them to come home. Q: Richard, these contacts at other levels, both here and in Beijing, could you describe what those levels are? And from the context of the way you mentioned it last, are these meetings specifically devoted to this issue, or are they devoted to regular, more routine issues at which the US side is bringing up the crew members? MR. BOUCHER: I think I would have to put it a little different than either one of those choices; that our priority in all our meetings remains the return of our air crew. Our priority remains to see them return home, to see this issue resolved, to avoid damage to the overall relationship by seeing it resolved early. And so we make that point in every meeting. We have also raised other issues like the human rights situation, the various people that are being held in China. We told you, I think yesterday, we were going to inquire about one of the cases that we had seen press reports about. We have used meetings today at other levels to do that. So we are raising other things, but I would say that the real concentration in meetings that we have, whether they are in Beijing or here, has been on the air crew and stressing the importance of bringing them home. Now, where do those -- what level do those meetings take place? Sort of the deputies, the political counselors. You know, the other diplomats that are involved in working with the Chinese on a regular basis. Q: Richard, I am just a little unclear on your earlier answer to the Jesse Jackson and other kind of non-official people. You don't seem to be discouraging anyone from going over to China, but is there no concern in this building at all that if you get somehow a flood of kind of citizen envoys flying over to Beijing that they are going to hector the Chinese into -- that they might eventually -- it may be unhelpful to the process, the diplomatic process that is under way? MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't -- I guess you guys have seen Jesse Jackson say he was going to China. I don't think that actually came up in the phone call, whether he was going or not. The issue, when discussed with the Secretary, was that he made clear he was available for sort of carrying a message or intervening if we thought that was appropriate at this time. We appreciate the offer, but the Secretary made clear we are pursuing the diplomacy in a different way right now. As far as people traveling to China, it is really a matter for individuals to decide whether they want to do that or not. We would certainly hope that any Americans who were meeting with Chinese would make clear that it is time for our air crew to return home. But I will leave it at that. As far as a negotiating mission, we are negotiating through the diplomatic channel. Q: First it was, "We regret," then it turned into, "We're sorry," plus condolences. Are the events as they are happening conducive to a full- fledged apology? MR. BOUCHER: Our position on that has not changed in any way. We don't think an apology is appropriate or necessary. Q: Richard, yesterday evening, the reports were that we were waiting for the Chinese, kind of like today, waiting for a response to the Chinese in our latest attempts to formulate language that they would accept. Speaking from the road, a spokesman for Jiang Zemin -- for President Jiang -- said it was unacceptable. Is that not a message that has been conveyed back in Beijing to our officials as well, or is that something that is just a public statement and you are not hearing that privately? MR. BOUCHER: There have been no meetings with the Chinese since we heard the reports of that statement. Remember, when we brief here at noon, it's actually the beginning of -- when we briefed here yesterday at noon, it was the beginning of Tuesday in China. We didn't have any meetings with the Chinese during the course of the day Tuesday. So we have not had any further official communication with them. We have certainly seen a variety of statements by the Chinese. We have seen statements today by the Foreign Ministry. There are some more statements in Hainan Island today. So there is a variety of things been said by the Chinese. Certainly our position has been clear and consistent. We have expressed our regret over the Chinese loss. We have made quite clear we are sorry to see the loss of life and the loss of an airplane on the Chinese side, but we have made quite clear that we don't think that an apology is appropriate. Q: But has it been the case that when President Jiang or his spokespeople say things from this trip that they are on, is that always followed up? Has it always been followed up so far with a meeting in which exactly that is conveyed? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think so. Q: Can you say that you are concerned that you did not have meetings there today, given that those were the last -- that Jiang Zemin's words were the last thing you heard from their government? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- first of all, I don't think they are the last thing we have heard from the Chinese Government. There have been statements by Foreign Ministry spokesmen today about working towards a resolution. Certainly the Chinese position has been restated many times in public. It is not new to us. What I would say is that we have made quite clear, as the President made clear yesterday, that it is now time for our people to come home so that we can -- so that our bilateral relationship does not become damaged. That is what we have been saying and consistently saying at this point. Q: There are a number of Americans who are saying that it is now -- that this has not been resolved, that it is now time to get tough, bring home our Ambassador, fiddle with WTO, and just generally get tough. Do you think those are reasonable responses? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that the President has been very consistent, very clear, right from the start in this situation. The Secretary has been very consistent and very clear right from the start about our understanding, our feelings and our willingness to express our concerns and our regrets about the loss on the Chinese side, but equally clear about how far we would go. And they have been quite clear that our priority remains the return of our aircrew. So we have been very, I think, clear in the US viewpoint on this. And I would add that our Ambassador is the primary channel we have been using to negotiate these matters. So what further steps need to be considered and when they need to be considered, I leave to the President and the Secretary and their other cabinet colleagues. But I think the facts of our position and the way we have pursued our position have been very straight and very clear all along. Q: When you say our position is very clear in that Ambassador Prueher is available for more meetings, does that mean that at this moment the ball is in the court of the Chinese; it's in their court to make the next step? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I'm able to do an inning-by-inning account of the diplomacy in this matter. We have tried to keep you updated on the meetings -- Q: Or set-by-set? MR. BOUCHER: Or set-by-set, or whatever sports analogy one would use here. I think we have made clear what our position is. The President was quite clear yesterday, saying it's time for our crew to come home. That remains our position. And whenever the Chinese are ready to talk to us again about that, we are available. Q: Richard, you keep saying -- and the President and the Secretary have said -- that you don't want the relationship to be damaged. Can you not say that the relationship has already been damaged? Would you say that other areas of cooperation that we have with the Chinese in the whole bilateral relationship have gone consistently throughout this -- at a consistent level throughout this crisis? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would be able to say that. This came up to some extent in the Secretary's discussions on television on Sunday where he made clear that there were areas where already saw people canceling trips, already saw concerns being raised in the business community. So we already saw some indicators of damage to the overall relationship, which he said could be reversed if this thing were resolved. And so the President has talked about the potential for real damage and the potential for long-term damage to the relationship that is clearly there in terms of the attitudes in the United States in particular, and we think throughout the world, about the way things are unfolding. And certainly an earlier return of our air crew will go a considerable ways to preventing that kind of serious damage from occurring. In terms of the way we are dealing with issues with the Chinese, this is clearly our priority issue in all our discussions. It is clearly our priority in our diplomacy. Does this mean we don't do anything else? No, we've raised some human rights cases. We've raised some other issues of concern to the United States. But you might think about it as such a priority that maybe we're dealing with priorities one, two and three and not four, five and six these days. It is a broad relationship that has a lot going on at any given moment, and this is clearly the primary issue that we've all been concentrating on and the primary issue because it's just a serious concern to us and to the rest of the United States. Q: Do you see it hampering cooperation from the Chinese side in other areas that you would normally expect more cooperation? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have any particular areas to cite for you right now. Q: Seven hours to wheels up, I guess, for the trip to Paris. At this point, is there any consideration that Secretary Powell would stay, given the fact that this crisis hasn't been resolved? MR. BOUCHER: No. The Secretary is clearly in very close communications with everybody in Washington while he travels, whether it's from the airplane or on the ground. He has secure communications everywhere he goes. He will be able to continue, as he has done over the last few days, to keep in close touch with Dr. Rice, with the President, and especially with Deputy Secretary Armitage, who will be here, who has been here working these issues in great detail for the last few days. So in some ways, yes, we can do the communicating. The Secretary can be plugged in and in touch from the road almost as he is when he is in Washington. So he will continue to keep in touch. Deputy Secretary Armitage will continue to organize our effort, work our effort on this, and will continue to coordinate with the President and with the National Security Council, even while we're on the road. Q: Richard, a week ago yesterday, President Bush called on China for a prompt return for these Americans. Is that still possible -- a prompt return? Are we beyond the point where prompt return applies? I mean, you talk about an early return now. He said prompt. MR. BOUCHER: We wanted them to come home Sunday. We wanted them to come home Monday. We wanted them to come home Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and we will continue to work for their early, immediate and prompt return to the United States. That remains our goal and that's what we're still working on. Q: Richard, in your contacts at either the ambassadorial level or the lower level, have the Chinese brought up ancillary -- well, unrelated -- issues when you have been trying to talk about the plane? For instance, have they mentioned specifically the condemnatory resolution that you guys are sponsoring in Geneva? MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. Q: Or Taiwan, the arms sales? MR. BOUCHER: Again, not that I'm aware of. I can't account for every single conversation. I've said that in some of these other conversations we have raised other issues. I'm not certain whether the Chinese have or not, but I don't think -- I'm not aware that this has been linked to other issues. Q: No, no, I'm not suggesting a link. I'm just saying -- MR. BOUCHER: They may have raised other issues in some of these meetings as well. I can't say for certain. But I'm not aware of any linkage, shall we say. Q: Are there any plans for any other lower-level Chinese diplomatic meetings today here? MR. BOUCHER: There have been one or two here today. I am sure they are still having -- that they do have contacts in Beijing that people that have meetings, opportunities for us to raise these issues with other people, that they go ahead and do that. I'm not aware of anything additional that scheduled, but I just don't want to rule it out because we do have other meetings with the Chinese from time to time, and obviously we would use those to press this case as well. Q: A change of subject? MR. BOUCHER: Change of subjects? No, not quite yet. One, two, three more. Q: There is some reporting that the Chinese side might release those air crews before Easter Sunday. Is that something that the US officials asked for? MR. BOUCHER: Again, we asked them for Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. We're looking to have our people home as soon as possible. We don't think that there is any artificial date that should be attached to that. Q: Chinese News Agency Xinhua reportedly reported that Secretary of State said sorry about the entire incident. What would you say to that? Will you make it clear that he didn't -- he simply said sorry about the loss of life? MR. BOUCHER: What the Secretary stated is clear. There are transcripts on the public record. You can look at everything he said Sunday on the TV shows. So rather than reading a report of a report, I would tend to read what the Secretary of State actually said, and leave it at that. Q: Is there any consideration for the two presidents to talk direct to give an end to this problem? MR. BOUCHER: That's a question you would have to ask at the White House. Certainly Admiral Prueher, in his discussions in China, is acting with the authority, with the instructions, with the direction of the President of the United States, and he remains our authoritative channel for this. So that has been the principal focus of our discussions, but if something else happens, I'm sure you can ask the White House. Q: Just one question about Admiral Prueher's status. Was he one of the ambassadors that was asked to stay on kind of indefinitely, not just this three or six months that some others were asked to stay on? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. The ones that weren't asked to stay on have already gone. March -- was it March 1st or March 31st? I can't remember. March 1st, I think it was, when the people who were not asked to continue departed. Q: Moved on. MR. BOUCHER: Moved on, went off to pursue independent careers. Q: You mentioned, I think, that you asked the Chinese about this new scholar who was detained, the reports yesterday. Could you tell us what you found out? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Nothing back yet. No response back yet. We have raised it with them and talked about that and other human rights cases that are of concern right now. Q: Do you have any readout from yesterday's meeting between the Secretary and the Foreign Minister of Cyprus? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I forgot to get one. I'll have to get you something. I'm sorry. I couldn't attend because I was with you. Q: Richard, this is Ershad with The Daily Inqilab. On Bangladesh, the opposition in Bangladesh called 72 hours of strike, putting the country into a stalemate. What is the position of the State Department on the current political situation in Bangladesh? And added to that, your reaction on the release of the former President Ershad from jail? Do you have any comment? MR. BOUCHER: I think I can give you a general comment, maybe not a particular comment on particular events. But we have kept in close touch with our Embassy. Our Embassy in Bangladesh is reporting that pro- government opposition demonstrators have clashed throughout Bangladesh. There have been many injuries and at least one death. We deplore the violence that unfortunately has become a recurrent feature in Bangladeshi politics. We have continued to urge all political parties in Bangladesh to avoid violence while expressing peacefully their political views. Our Consular Information Sheet on Bangladesh addresses the issue of violent demonstrations and strikes for Americans, and notes that visitors to Bangladesh check with the US Embassy in Dhaka for updated information. We have no information that any Americans have been killed or injured in the recent violence. Q: Are there any advisories to the Americans traveling in Bangladesh? MR. BOUCHER: Just that information I read you from the Consular Information Sheet. Q: Thank you. Q: Has the US responded to Rwanda's arrest warrant for the former prime minister of the nation there? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of it. I'll have to check on it. Q: The Middle East. Can you say now whether the Secretary has received a letter of explanation or regret from Prime Minister Sharon for the incident the other day? MR. BOUCHER: I can tell you that the Secretary has received a letter from Prime Minister Sharon last week. It's their letter and for them to describe, I think is simply the way to say it. As far as the status of our discussions overall with the Israelis about that situation, I would stress once again what Prime Minister Sharon said to Secretary Powell at the time, that there was no plan or intent to attack the convoy. Prime Minister Sharon also told the Secretary that his office would look into the incident further. At this stage, we have not yet been provided with any results of any inquiry, but we would continue to hope that there would be a thorough investigation of the incident so that these kinds of incidents can be prevented in the future. Q: Can you just say -- I just want to make sure I'm on the right -- because you said last week -- would that be Friday? I know you don't want to say if the letter -- MR. BOUCHER: I have to double-check and see when we received it. Q: But it -- so okay, according to you, it's not a closed case yet? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. He did get a letter. I'm not going to describe the Israeli letter. It's for them. But as far as the overall situation, we still look for -- we have encouraged them to conduct a full and thorough investigation, and we have not seen -- at this point, we have not seen results of that kind of inquiry. Q: Can I follow up on that? Is that to say that you do not accept on face value Prime Minister Sharon's explanation that this was not intentional? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say that. I just repeated them for the third time, so I'm not trying to cast aspersions on them. But I do say that we think a thorough investigation is very important, and we would like to see the results of that kind of inquiry to make sure this didn't happen in the future. Q: But in the -- I'm sorry, but to follow up -- in the course of that inquiry, I mean, will one of the issues that you hope to be resolved is the intentions of the IDF in this particular incident? MR. BOUCHER: I would -- I think that when we talk about a thorough investigation, we would expect them to look at everything. Q: Just more broadly on the question of the Middle East peace process, can you give me a sense of the level of American engagement at the moment? Are you in daily touch about the broader question of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, and are US officials waiting for further security meetings to take part in? Are they trying to persuade the Israelis and Palestinians to hold further security meetings? MR. BOUCHER: We are in touch with the parties not only on a daily basis, but several times a day, about a variety of issues. The focus right now remains on the bilateral -- Q: Several times today, or a day? MR. BOUCHER: A day, meaning our embassy is in touch with both parties, our consulate general is in touch with both parties, all the time. As you know, the Secretary has spoken frequently with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat, as recently as Sunday morning. He spoke to them again in messages back and forth. So we are in very close touch with the parties. Our focus right now remains primarily especially on these bilateral security discussions. We've made quite clear that we're looking to the parties to take steps to stop the violence. We have encouraged both sides to continue the bilateral security discussions, and they have agreed in principle to continuing that cooperation. We continue to work with them to try to set up these security discussions, to work with them on the details of the security discussions, but frankly, for that process to prove fruitful, they would have to back off the violence. So we would also make quite clear that they need to take reciprocal and parallel steps to halt further deterioration on the ground. We think both sides have to understand there is no military solution to the conflict. In addition, we have made clear to each side that there are steps that it should take. On the Palestinian side, that means taking steps to stop the attacks, to curtail the incitement, to fight terrorism and to arrest those responsible. On the Israeli side, that means taking steps to cease targeted killings, to cease the excessive use of force, to ease the closures, remove the checkpoints, and lower the tone in their public statements on this situation. We think that the exchange that they did have at their security meeting last week was positive and was useful. One way to help restore the trust and confidence on both sides is to continue those discussions and resume regular cooperation. So I think overall we remain very closely engaged with both sides, looking for the steps that are necessary to stop the violence, looking for a resumption of the direct talks, and easing of the economic situation and thereby laying the groundwork for getting back to the path of peace. Q: I missed in that list of steps that Israel has to take that ceasing the targeted killings and excessive use of force have made the list of ending some of the closures and that -- why is -- why are you now sort of mentioning that at this point, whereas a week ago that was not at least in the list that was enumerated publicly? MR. BOUCHER: I guess I'd say these are things that we have mentioned in the past and these are things that are of concern to us now. Q: I mean, but the line "excessive use of force," I mean, has been one that at least the State Department has reluctantly used. I mean, are you at this point saying that -- MR. BOUCHER: We used it in the Human Rights Report. Q: I know. MR. BOUCHER: And that's a pretty public document, a pretty public use of the term. We explained that we fundamentally saw Israel as a democracy but we felt that there had been excessive use of force. And we think it's important that that not occur, and we're making that clear again now. Q: Would you include today's events under that rubric of excessive use of force? MR. BOUCHER: I'm going to try to avoid any particular events at this point, but I do think that we have had a clearly expressed position here that we've made in our discussions with both sides that we think there are steps they should take, and certainly our concern on the Israeli side about excessive use of force, our concern about targeted killings is something we've expressed before and we'll continue to express both in private and in public. Q: Has the Secretary had any contacts with either side today? MR. BOUCHER: Not today. Q: Richard, your comment of this back off the violence thing seems to belie a little bit of -- well, a lot of frustration. How frustrated are you guys right now that they can't seem to get together for even a simple security meeting without there being some incident that sets off a whole other round of action and reaction? MR. BOUCHER: It's one of those questions, you know, 27.6, how frustrated are you. I don't know what the scale is. The point is that we remain intent and engaged. We remain willing to help. We remain solidly involved to encourage them to have the kind of discussions, not to satisfy us so much as to improve the situation on both sides. Israelis and Palestinians both are looking for a normal life. They don't want to live this way. They shouldn't have to live this way. And we think it's important for both sides to back off a bit on the violence, to look at what they can do, and to reestablish the situation for each other. Q: Is that 27.6 on a 28-point scale, a 30-point scale? MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know what the scale is. Q: I'll give you a 30-point scale. Do you have any -- MR. BOUCHER: No, thank you. Q: How about Russia? The Russian Government has practically taken over the previously privately-owned television NTV. Is there any concern in this country about it? Do we have any bad feeling about it? MR. BOUCHER: We have expressed our concern before. I think we put out a statement the other day on -- when was it, Friday? Anyway, very recently, within the space of our short-term memory loss. The situation is of concern to us. The Gazprom Media Most deadlock over control of NTV is, I think, now nearing its one-week mark without visible signs of resolution. Last Friday, our Ambassador met with NTV journalists and senior officials from Gazprom Media. The Ambassador stressed that the United States is strongly in favor of independent media voices. He also stressed US support for good corporate governance practices and respect for shareholders' rights. That has been another of our concerns in the way this situation has unfolded. We remain committed -- convinced that free and independent media are essential to democracy in Russia. Actions that are aimed at the only independent television station, NTV, and its parent company run counter to significant progress towards press freedom, which has been achieved in Russia over the past decade. So we continue to stress that an independent media is very much in Russia's own interest. Without a free press, the market economy that Russia wants to build is going to be struggling to survive. Q: Can I follow up on that? Do you have any reaction to President Putin's comments yesterday that basically it's like GE owning NBC, and there's nothing he can do to stop the market? MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's not GE and it's not NBC, and it's not just the market. The issue -- one of the main issues that we have raised again and again is shareholder rights, how a share is transferred, is there an open and transparent process for corporate decisions like this. And that is clearly not the same as GE and NBC. Q: Richard, can you say what your understanding is that of this incidence in Italy today, the bombs going off at an Italian-US think tank? And another one being -- or at least one other one being found and defused? MR. BOUCHER: There was a bomb that exploded about 4:45 this morning in Rome at the entrance of a building in Rome that houses, among other tenants, the Council on the United States and Italy. I would point out, first of all, this is a private organization, and it is not linked to or funded by the US Embassy. There have been no reports of casualties or injuries. There was some damage to the building. No information on suspects or motives at this time, no claims of responsibility. Italian police are investigating, and so any additional information would really have to come from them. Q: On the presidential election with Japan's ruling party in the LDP*, four people have hinted at candidacy, and they are now -- well, some of them are getting -- are far more active public spending, while the rest are slashing -- they are arguing for public and slashing the public deficit and so on. MR. BOUCHER: No, nothing to say. It's a matter of internal politics. Q: Richard, yesterday Armenia and Azerbaijan leaders, they met at the White House. Are they close to reaching an agreement, any agreement about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, or are you still hopeful on this? MR. BOUCHER: As you know, the Secretary was down in Key West a week ago today. He had some good meetings down there, and after that President Kocharian of Armenia and President Aliyev of Azerbaijan had four days of serious and intensive talks with the US, French and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The presidents, in our view, demonstrated goodwill and a strong commitment to resolve this conflict on the basis of mutual compromise. The co-chairs are preparing a new comprehensive proposal that will address the problems and the needs identified by the presidents, the issues that require a solution in order to achieve peace. The presidents and the co-chairs now expect to hold the next round of peace talks in June in Switzerland, and Ambassador Cavanaugh spoke yesterday with Swiss Foreign Minister Deiss about this. In the meantime, the co-chairs will be working together and with the parties to lay the groundwork for those further talks. President Bush yesterday discussed Nagorno-Karabakh in his separate meetings with Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian at the White House, so you can get a readout from the White House on those meetings. Q: This peace process is quite a gravy train to be on. Meetings in Paris, then you go to Key West, then Switzerland in June. Was there any -- other than you say that the co-hosts -- MR. BOUCHER: Can I reject that comment before we go on to a real question? (Laughter.) Q: -- preparing a new comprehensive plan? Was there any -- is that the only -- there wasn't any actual progress made between the two presidents? It was mainly the progress was made between the three co-chairs, who are now going to submit -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I described it that way. I wouldn't describe it that way. We think both parties came prepared to discuss with us and with each other their needs, their concerns, their issues. I think I would have to say that one of the factors in allowing us to make progress in these discussions has been their continued confidentiality of the discussions, and our ability to hold these discussions at locations that offered a certain amount of privacy -- Q: And comfort. MR. BOUCHER: -- and privacy. And therefore, I think it is appropriate that we continue in that mode if we are to continue to make progress. Q: With the Secretary's trip imminent to Europe and the Balkans, can you just give his latest thoughts about the situation in Macedonia and your hopes for this trip over the next few days? MR. BOUCHER: We have seen some positive developments in Macedonia. We saw the European Union agreement with Macedonia. We welcome that as a positive step towards a more stable Macedonia that would be integrated into Europe. Macedonia is the first Balkan state to sign a stabilization and association agreement with the European Union. We think the signing of the agreement is also an opportunity to advance the political dialogue in Macedonia, and representatives of most of the major political parties traveled together to Luxembourg. We strongly support political talks, and we urge political leaders in Macedonia to participate fully in that process. During his visit to Macedonia this Thursday, Secretary Powell will encourage further efforts to move from process to progress. We have clearly supported the overall goal of these discussions in Macedonia to provide for full political participation by the ethnic Albanian minority. We do think that is very important, that that can take place within the democratic context, and we will continue to encourage that. Furthermore, we have always supported the goal of a Europe whole and free, and the goal of moving the countries of the Balkans, including Macedonia, closer to Europe is an important and positive step. Q: A question on Vietnam. Two, actually, on Vietnam. The Vietnamese have protested loudly the US decision to accept these -- I believe it's 23 or 24 refugees. I'm wondering if you have any response. They are calling it interference in their internal affairs. Do you have any response to that? Or can you say -- well, I'll let you answer that one. MR. BOUCHER: I can't talk about particular cases of refugees or asylum seekers, as you know, so I can't really go into any particular debate on this subject. I would just say that in keeping -- in our policy on accepting refugees, we work with the United Nations. We accept cases for consideration that they have first looked at, they refer the cases to us, and then we take action as appropriate and as we can. So we process cases that are referred to us by the United Nations based on a standard that is used around the world. It's an international standard, and that is what applies. Q: So any complaint about that should be directed to the UN, and not to the US; is that what you're saying? MR. BOUCHER: No, I think any complaint about that is really a complaint about the standard that is used throughout the world -- Q: Which is a UN standard? MR. BOUCHER: -- for determining -- it is a common international standard. I don't know exactly where it is encoded, but it is a common international standard that we use if we have people come here. It is a standard that is used by the United Nations when they interview overseas. It is a standard used by people in other governments about a well-founded fear of persecution, and that is if they are complaining about something. It seems to me that is what they are taking issue with. Q: Okay. And then the second thing is, has the Secretary received a letter from the Office on Freedom of Religion -- International -- I can't -- OFIC, or something like that. It was sent last week, and then again, it has upset the Vietnamese a lot because they are -- this group in this letter that is made public, I guess today or yesterday, to the Secretary, and also to Secretary O'Neill, is asking both State and Treasury to take steps against Vietnam for their alleged persecution of a Catholic priest who testified on the Hill? MR. BOUCHER: You're giving me a whole lot more information than I have on the subject. I'm going to have to look into it and I'll find out. Q: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: Thank you. [end] [End] Released on April 10, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.