 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Wednesday, 18 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-05-11U.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 PRESS BRIEFING Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC May 11, 2001 INDEX: MACEDONIA TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me, if I can at the beginning, tell you about a statement we're putting out on the subject of the Macedonian parties agreeing to a grand coalition. Obviously this is a major step forward that the United States welcomes. They decided today to join together in the formation of a wider government coalition that would include five major ethnic Macedonian and ethnic Albanian government and opposition parties. We have been in touch with the party leaders, who we'll all remember that the Secretary of State when he was in Macedonia met with leaders of the political parties, encouraged their cooperation, encouraged the political resolution, the political openings that were necessary to offer an opportunity to all Albanians to be represented in the political system. So this is a very important step. Secretary Powell has subsequently been in touch with the party leaders, sent them all a letter encouraging them to take this step, and we're glad to see them do it. We've also been in touch obviously with the European Union and the Swedish Government, which is in the presidency of the European Union, who have been working along these lines as well. We think the broadened coalition offers an appropriate vehicle for advancing interethnic reforms. We would urge the coalition parties to accelerate progress on that important agenda. The step I think demonstrates that there is a broad national consensus in Macedonia to support dialogue and to act firmly against the violence. Once again, we have to condemn the extremist violence that extremist Albanian groups have been undertaking. They need to immediately cease their acts of violence and withdraw from the occupied villages. So we have a slightly more formal version of that coming out for you. It will be available as soon as the briefing is over, I am sure. Q: On that, when did the Secretary send this letter? MR. BOUCHER: Sent a letter last night, actually. It had been part of the - - Q: Last night? And of course this was the major turning point in the whole thing, right? The Secretary's letter was what brought this coalition together? Is that what you're -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm just telling you he sent a letter, Matt. You can describe it if you want to. Q: Okay. So you're not taking credit? MR. BOUCHER: We and others have been actively encouraging this step. It's why I pointed out that the Secretary's meetings in Macedonia about a month ago were a consistent part of that strategy, as others like the European Union have been advocating as well, and something that the Macedonian Government itself in the meetings with President Trajkovsky himself has been looking for. Q: Have US diplomats in Macedonia met with moderate Albanians and encouraged them in any way? MR. BOUCHER: Constantly. Q: Constantly? So he met with him -- MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary met with him when he was there. Our diplomats there do it all the time, keep in close touch with all the various parties in the coalition as well as government, including those who just joined. Other subjects? Q: Do you have anything on the possibility of a meeting between North and South Korea and the United States on the sidelines of the ASEAN regional forum in Vietnam next week? MR. BOUCHER: As far as I can tell, and I think even the individual that's -- Q: No, the regional -- the senior official -- MR. BOUCHER: There's a senior officials meeting sometime this month. As far as I can tell, and I think this -- even the individual who started the speculation described it as pure speculation, because that's what it is at this point. There is a meeting of senior officials of ASEAN and friends, and it includes us and various other governments. But at this point, there is no meeting set up between us and the South Koreans and North Koreans, nor is there any active effort to set one up at this stage. Q: Nor is there any effort -- MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point. Q: Would you rule it out completely? MR. BOUCHER: No. I just said it's purely speculative at this point. Q: Your wandering minstrels of NMD seem to be getting some mixed messages in their travels, from somewhat vague support from India, to outright rejection in Moscow, and serious questions from the Germans. I'm just wondering what your initial reaction is to these things. MR. BOUCHER: I don't think you accurately characterize at least what I have seen in the press and what I have seen others saying. The Russians said there was a good discussion, something about more questions and answers at this stage, but that's not surprising either. Remember, the President made clear from the start these were consultations, these were real consultations to talk to friends and allies about these important issues. We were going to share our strategic thinking, and we were going to share as well some of the thinking about the direction we intend to go with. But we are not at a stage of going out to announce decisions and ask for support. And that was not the nature of these consultations. And that is, I think, the importance of the consultations and that that fact is in fact recognized by the governments that we have seen. Our characterization of these talks generally -- and as you know I'll go through where everybody is and add a couple more stops to the itineraries. But I think generally we have found that our allies and friends have welcomed the consultations, they have reacted positively to the Administration's efforts to discuss the issues with them before we make major decisions. We obviously appreciate the willingness of the allies to discuss this issue and to engage with us in a constructive and cooperative approach. The fact that we are out there on real consultations, we're discussing issues of great importance, issues of new thinking that change some of the approaches, or at least add to some of the approaches traditionally taken on these issues. These are very weighty and important subjects for all of us, and I think we have a lot of appreciation out there for the fact that we are talking to them at this particular stage. Let me go through, if I can, just to update you on where people are, and one or two other stops that we might not have talked about before. Yesterday, Under Secretary Grossman continued his productive consultations in Rome. Under Secretary Grossman and his team briefed on our ongoing strategic review and the current US thinking on missile defense and solicited the views of the Italian Government there. Following Rome, Under Secretary Grossman stopped in Bratislava to participate in a conference with prime ministers from the countries that are aspiring to NATO membership. So that was not a missile defense discussion, but they may have discussed missile defense, but it was to go to talk to these countries that are interested in NATO membership and that are going through the process of preparing themselves for NATO membership. That was yesterday. So, today he is continuing his talks on missile defense in Ankara. While in Ankara, Under Secretary Grossman also presented Prime Minister Ecevit with a letter from President Bush that expresses our strong support for Turkey's efforts to manage the economic crisis and that encourages the Prime Minister to keep on the path of economic reform and economic growth. The other team -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley -- concluded talks in Berlin and Warsaw yesterday. Today they were in Moscow for discussions with the Russians. There will also be Department officials -- not these particular ones -- who will go to Kiev on Saturday for missile defense consultations. And as you know, the various members have been discussing their individual stops as they go around. So I think -- again, getting back to your original question -- if you go through what we have said after the various stops, I think you'll see this kind of welcome appreciation for the consultations coming out of that. Under Secretary Grossman said in Ankara, for example, that our allies recognize there is a new world out there today and that we need to take account of it. Finally, I'll just mention the fact that we will be sending a similar high- level team to Ottawa on Tuesday, May 15th, and we'll provide details on that later. Q: Who is going to Kiev, exactly? MR. BOUCHER: Don't have the names yet. It's not the Wolfowitz-Hadley- Grossman types. It's other experts. I don't know exactly, frankly. Tried to get that, couldn't get it. Q: Who's going to Ottawa? MR. BOUCHER: To where? Q: Ottawa. MR. BOUCHER: Not defined yet. That's something we'll have for you later. Q: What about Armitage? MR. BOUCHER: Armitage. He's in India and should be on his way back, right? Tomorrow, yes. Armitage is in India, should be on his way back tomorrow. Oh, that's right, he's -- no, he's listed under a different bureau. That's why. He's over here in the purples. He had a full day of consultation in India today, had a working lunch with the Minister for External Affairs and Defense, Jaswant Singh; met with Prime Minister Vajpayee, Cabinet Secretary and National Security Advisor Mishra, Special Advisor to the External Affairs and Defense Minister Arun Singh; and he met with Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the opposition party. So he has been very active in India, having a broad set of discussions on US global strategic concerns and missile defense, and again solicited their views. The Indian Government told us they appreciated Mr. Armitage's presentation and they look forward to further exchanges. Q: Can I -- I don't want to hog this, but did you -- when the -- who was in Rome, Grossman? Did he meet with any of the Italian opposition concerning the fact they're having an election on Sunday? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have a list who they met with, so I'll have to double-check on that one. Q: And Mr. Grossman, when he was in Ankara, did he talk about Iraqi sanctions as well as all these other things? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what other subjects might have been discussed. I think the principal focus obviously is missile defense. He also delivered the letter from the President that expressed his support for economic reforms. As you know, Under Secretary Grossman was previously Ambassador to Turkey, and therefore I would assume that he had a lot of different meetings on a variety of subjects, but the principal focus was missile defense. Q: Any consideration of a delegation going to Pakistan, which is after all a nuclear state? MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard of discussion of that. Q: On the issue of the consultations, can you get any more specific at this point about what aspects of the decision haven't been made and what impact, I guess, these consultations would have on steering that decision? MR. BOUCHER: I think, first, much of the discussion is about strategic thinking, concepts that you've heard the Secretary speak about, concepts that you heard the President speak about in his speech where he announced these consultations, that in this new age we need concepts of strategic thinking that involve not only offensive weapons and reductions of offensive weapons, but also strong nonproliferation efforts and defense. And so discussing with friends and allies who have been -- particularly those who have been immersed in the strategic issues for the entire period of the Cold War -- the need to update this thinking, to understand how these things work together and can work together in the new age. We have, I think, had comments to make about the ABM Treaty before, final decisions on that still pending. We have had comments about the work under way at the Defense Department to determine what kind of systems we need. That is still not decided yet. So there are a number of aspects of this that we'll proceed from the thinking to the actual execution and carrying out, where having the views of allies and partners at this stage is very important to us. Q: You said the final thinking on the ABM Treaty. Can you -- I mean, what do you mean by that? That maybe in fact we will support in the end continuing that treaty, or -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have raised that possibility. Q: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: We have said that it is outdated in its present form. There's the theoretical possibilities of modification or abandonment of some kind. So exactly how we proceed in that regard is not finally decided. Q: Would it be fair to say that one of the goals of the consultation is to try and find an alternative to the ABM Treaty? Or is it more that you are trying to convince everyone that they don't need it? MR. BOUCHER: We have come to the conclusion that this treaty is outdated and not important or relevant to the current strategic situation. I think -- so part of our discussion will be to discuss the overall strategic thinking and how various elements fit in that context, and whether this one fits or not. But as I said, there's obviously -- the stage that we are at is discussing the thinking and the possibilities, and looking for different people's views on how we might proceed as we decide how we might proceed. Q: If I may follow up, is it also partly a process of trying to convince people of the threat that the United States perceives? MR. BOUCHER: I think threat is certainly part of the discussion, yes. Q: As I'm sure you recall, when Mr. Fischer was here, he said that it shouldn't be abandoned unless we have a better mechanism, better mechanism for arms control. Are you drafting any kind of proposals, replacement agreements, that would somehow, I don't know, control ABM systems or -- MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard any particular discussion of anything like that. I'm not sure we're even at the stage where that would be considered. Q: So it's going to be just a free brawl, then, just the rule of the jungle? (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Is that what I said? (Laughter.) Q: Let's go to the videotape. MR. BOUCHER: Somebody else has control of my microphone, or at least did a little listening device in Jonathan's head. (Laughter.) No, it's not the law of the jungle; it's not nasty, brutish and short. It's a sincere and real consultation with friends and allies as we go through some very serous and important discussions of strategic thinking with them, and as we go forward into deciding together and determining together what is the best strategy to maintain peace and stability in a new age. Q: New subject? Any reaction to yesterday's vote by the House that they do want to hold up this third tranche of payments to the UN? And there were some sort of implications from Henry Hyde and others that if the Administration were truly against this, they would have at least placed a phone call to him as head of the committee asking him to back off or saying this may not be the wisest way to go about getting back on the Commission. MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary was quite clear in his testimony yesterday. He was quite clear in his discussions with you -- some of you -- who accosted him afterwards -- I'm sorry, who spoke with him afterwards. That's right. Well, he was testifying while the vote was going on, and then right as he finished testifying, people came up to him and said they voted this amendment; what do you think? And I think he said it is a vote; we will keep working on it as it goes to the Senate. We don't think this should be linked, and we don't think that the payment of our arrears should be linked. We have made quite clear our disappointment with the outcome of the vote in the Commission and made quite clear the importance that we attach and that we will continue to attach to human rights. The Secretary has made quite clear that we will continue to be forceful advocates of human rights in the United Nations system, as well as elsewhere. But we don't think that adding conditions to the release of our UN arrears would help. We think it would be damaging to our effort to secure and to maintain the reliability of the United States as a partner for multilateral organizations. So we will continue to maintain that view. We have been active expressing that view on the Hill with various staff people, and we will continue to do that. The Secretary himself has spoken as well, as you know -- Q: You don't think there was any lack of communication that this was really important? He lobbies those guys all the time for things, for budget items and other things. MR. BOUCHER: I think our views were quite well known. I'll just leave it at that. Q: Richard, some of the opponents of this vote yesterday had quite hard words, saying that basically this was a violation of the agreement that you reached with the -- a breach of trust with the United Nations after the agreement that you reached late last year. Do you kind of endorse that kind of view of this? Do you think that it's being kind of petty and childish? These were words that were thrown around yesterday. Do you second those? MR. BOUCHER: No. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Not while we're still trying to get our money. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Our view of this, I think has been expressed before. This not really about the United Nations so much as it is about the countries who are members of the Economic and Social Council, and how they voted. The United States will continue to play an active role in the United Nations in support of human rights. We've said we will be there to lobby, we'll be there to report, we'll be there to work with others, to co-sponsor resolutions, to raise issues. Not having a seat, we won't be able to vote, we won't be able to introduce resolutions. We will look to others on the committee who uphold the cause of human rights and democracy to play roles. I am sure that they will want to, given the absence of the United States. But it should be quite clear that we will continue to be forceful advocates for human rights even within the UN system. The reflection, then, on the vote and what happened has more to do with the members and how, whether in our group of Western European and Others, or in terms of the membership of the Economic and Social Council, how individual countries vote and how we work that process and how we work with others in that process. So I guess go back to what I said yesterday. It's about the country members, not about the UN. And that is why we don't think it's an issue of UN support for the United Nations as a whole. Q: Richard, I don't know if you all are hearing this privately, but some of us who have been speaking to European diplomats tell a different story. In fact, they say that this should have been a message to the United States not to focus solely on bilateral issues but also to look at multilateral treaties and whatnot, whether it's the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty -- things of that nature -- the landmines. And so they felt that it really was supposed to be a message to the Bush Administration. MR. BOUCHER: Tell me their names and we'll talk to them. I don't know. There is a variety of views being expressed. I think some of these views are probably being expressed after the fact and to pile things on rather than explain the thinking at the time. But I haven't heard those statements. There is obviously different people out there who have different views of why this happened. We tend to focus primarily on the work that we can do and could do to try to make sure it doesn't turn out this way again, and that means focusing on the Western European and Others Group and how we, in that group, organize our candidacy, how we work with Europeans and others in that group; and second of all, looking at how we can lock in some of the voting better. Q: If I could just follow up, do you think that that's an erroneous characterization of the Bush Administration's outlook on the international community and its role in that community? And if so, could you give us an example or two of why it's not an accurate portrayal? MR. BOUCHER: I can think of dozens of examples. Our cooperation with the European Union and NATO in Macedonia, Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans is a fine example where we've been working very actively with them. Our cooperation with our allies in terms of our approach to the Far East, our consultations with Japan and Korea in terms of how we approach the issue of North Korea as our review is going on. The present consultations on missile defense with allies, friends and partners at a point where we have not yet decided what to do, but rather we're thinking and we're telling them what we're thinking about and inviting them to tell us what they're thinking at the same time. So I think for as many examples as someone can cite where the United States has taken a position that's different from the international community, we can cite just as many examples where the United States is working very closely with other countries to formulate policy and to work together. You just had a meeting of the democracies of the Western Hemisphere which brought us all together on a very clear and common agenda for the hemisphere. So multiple examples of where the United States is working with other governments together in a way that I think is qualitatively different from the way we have sometimes in the past to bring about change in the international scene. Q: Yesterday, the French Government released an official statement saying that France voted for the United States for the seat the Human Rights Commission and expressing regret that the US did not retain this seat. Do you have any comment on that? I mean, it's quite unusual that a country says publicly how it voted. MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it is unusual for countries, and we certainly welcome the French confirmation that they voted for us. We have never called into question French support. There is solidarity among countries on this issue, and we have never questioned it. We have worked closely with the French at the United Nations and other international bodies. As you know, we have an excellent relationship with France. As I said before, the questions this raises are not so much about -- we don't question why some democracies are on the Human Rights Commission. We question why some non-democracies, some blatant violators of human rights, are on the Commission. And the questions that are raised are about how we work together in Western European and others groups in the Economic and Social Council with other governments to secure an outcome that we all support. We know, as the Secretary has said, that it's not only harmful to our interests, we think, not to be on the UN Human Rights Commission, but many other governments believe, as the French has expressed, that it is a loss to the system not to have the United States as a forceful advocate in this committee. Q: Richard, a follow-up on that? Could you say who you voted for at the UN as well? Did you vote for -- which countries you voted for? You had three votes. MR. BOUCHER: Were I to do that, I would be breaking a longstanding policy, so I don't think I'm in a position to do that. Q: Could you list some of the countries whose support you have called into question? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: I haven't done that. I've said it was a secret ballot, and except for a few cases where the French or -- I'm not aware of anybody else, frankly, having stood up and said which way they voted. Q: Venezuela. MR. BOUCHER: Venezuela? They voted for us? Q: Yes. MR. BOUCHER: Good, there's 2 of our 29. (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Obviously we're all a little more interested in the 14 that we thought we had that we didn't get. But, no, it's a secret ballot. We may not know who voted for us and who didn't. Q: I'm sorry, just to follow up. I mean, could you say if you've assigned anyone to look into it? I mean, I know you won't tell us -- MR. BOUCHER: As I have said before, it's a topic we are interested in. We are interested in knowing what happened and understanding what happened, but I don't think -- I think the Secretary has made quite clear that we are not embarking on an inquisition. Q: Richard -- Q: Are you asking about the UN vote? Q: No. Q: Okay, on the spirit of -- I'm asking about multilateralism and cooperation and consultation. There was a report in the press today that the United States was no longer interested in cooperation on the crackdown on tax havens. I don't know whether you've studied this. It's perhaps not something for the State Department, really. MR. BOUCHER: I haven't gotten anything new on this. This is something where we do work with the other governments in the OECD to work on the best way of eliminating harmful tax practices. As you know, it is an issue that we hear frequently from the Caribbean nations when we meet with them, when the Secretary met with them here, or when he and the President met with them in Quebec they obviously raised this issue that is of great concern to them. We are certainly interested in eliminating harmful tax practices and are in discussion with other governments in the OECD about how best to do that. Q: And continuing on that theme of your great cooperation with Europe, it obviously doesn't extend to echelon, and you seem to have gotten the Europeans all hot under the collar yet again by refusing to meet with their commission that came over here. Why did you refuse to meet with them? And two, if this isn't the right place to talk about it, who does one speak to if one has a problem with echelon? MR. BOUCHER: I'm glad you characterized it correctly. There were some reports that said we canceled the meeting. The fact is we never agreed to one to begin with, and we sent them a letter -- I think it was May 3rd -- to tell them that we wouldn't be meeting with them here at the State Department. The State Department is not an intelligence agency. They wanted to raise intelligence issues, and we are not in a position to discuss those. I understand that they had some meetings on the Hill. They discussed legal matters with the Justice Department. But I think we were not the proper address for them to address any questions they might have. We have made quite clear in the past that the notion that we are collecting commercial information and passing it on to companies is wrong. We don't do that. We collect national security and defense information for the use of our government. So I don't think there is anything more to talk about from our point of view. Q: But this building is a consumer of intelligence gathered by the echelon system, so why is it not appropriate for that -- and obviously that information is then disseminated from here out to the embassies, and who knows. I mean, why is it not appropriate for these people to meet with you? MR. BOUCHER: As I made quite clear, from a consumer's point of view, information collected goes to people like us in the government, government agencies. It doesn't go out to commercial use. But if anybody wants to talk about collection, don't talk to us. Q: Are you confirming the existence of the echelon system? MR. BOUCHER: No. Q: So you're not? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I am. I would have to check and see if I am, but I don't think I am. (Laughter.) Q: I think your predecessor actually did. MR. BOUCHER: I think we may have. I would have to double-check the record on that. But I think it is important. You know, this is a general policy matter that I have addressed here, and I am not in a position to discuss any specific programs. Q: Do you have anything on the Taiwanese President transit, New York over Houston? MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new on that at this point. We were aware of his interest. We are aware of the request. We are still considering it. I don't have anything new to say at this point. Q: Okay, let me put it this way. If we have to go to New York and Houston to cover the transit, when should we start the travel arrangement -- (laughter) -- because we do not want to sleep on the street? MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's up to you. Q: A follow-up, please? (Laughter.) MR. BOUCHER: Do you want a hotel recommendation? (Laughter.) Q: Did Secretary Powell write any memo to President Bush regarding this issue? Or was there any memo within the State Department regarding this issue? MR. BOUCHER: That is such a broad question. I am sure the answer is yes, but we never talk any particular memo that might be going from the Secretary to the President. His advice to the President, whether it is oral or in writing, is something between them. Q: Did you receive any opposition from the Chinese Embassy? MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I don't think we have anything new to say on the subject. So I just don't have anything new to say on the subject. Q: Any reaction to the explosions at Jaffa Gate? MR. BOUCHER: Sorry, to the -- Q: The recent explosions. I think they took place -- it was just reported about an hour ago? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I have any particular reaction to the specific events. We are continuing to be very seriously concerned about the intensification of the violence. We know the lives of too many innocent people, especially children, have been jeopardized by this violence. And we have been clearly in touch with the parties and very active and engaged in trying to end the violence. We think that people know what they have to do, and it is time for leaders to make the decisions necessary to stop it. Q: Can I follow up? There's been some recent calls from the Hill to begin listing suspects or reward programs for suspects who have killed American citizens in the Palestinian areas. Can you just go through the State Department's position on that? I mean, traditionally the State Department hasn't posted those rewards? MR. BOUCHER: There is a general rewards program that provides rewards for anyone who can provide information about terrorist activities that resulted in the death of an American. I think the rewards available are up to $5 million. So there is a general program involved, were anybody to have such information and be able to provide it to us. At the same time, whether they publicize a reward in an individual case has to be determined based on the status of the investigation and our overall interest in bringing that to a conclusion. So that is a determination that is made based on a number of factors, including whether it is really necessary or helpful to the cause of the investigation. But the general program does exist already and is available. Q: Richard, could you bring us up to date on any phone calls the Secretary has had with Mr. Sharon, Mr. Arafat or other leaders in the region? MR. BOUCHER: Not as of yesterday evening, and I didn't check on anything today. But I haven't heard of any. Q: Do you have anything more that you can say just on the subject of settlements? I understand that Israel has told the United States that a Ha'aretz report saying 1.5 billion shekels was going to be spent on -- added to spending on settlements was incorrect, but nobody seems to know what the new number is. Do you have anything? MR. BOUCHER: Subsequent to our statements and to the reports, they informed us that the report was inaccurate, and we note their explanation. As far as what the new number is, I think that is a question you have to ask -- or what the number is, that's a question you have to ask the Israeli Government. Q: But they haven't told you? MR. BOUCHER: Again, that is a question you will have to ask the Israeli Government. Q: You told us they denied the report, but you haven't -- you can't tell us any more than that? MR. BOUCHER: I have told you that they have told us that that report was inaccurate and that we have noted their explanation. But as far as what the accurate number is, that is for them to put out, not for us. Q: Richard, was the Secretary intending to give an unqualified endorsement of the preliminary draft of the Mitchell Commission report yesterday in his testimony? MR. BOUCHER: I think he called it a very fine report. Q: Right. You don't think -- that doesn't -- to your mind, or to his mind, doesn't constitute a US endorsement of the findings? MR. BOUCHER: You know what that means? That means we think it's a very fine report and that any more detailed discussion would probably come when we were in a position to have the answers from the people and go forward. Q: In other words, have lines in various newspapers saying, "US endorses Mitchell Commission Report," would not be reflective of what the Secretary intended to say yesterday? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to play with words. He said it was a very fine report. He commended the report. But in terms of endorsing the report, yes; endorsing every one of the report's specifics and recommendations, we haven't gone into that much detail at this point, have we? Q: No. That's what I'm asking. MR. BOUCHER: Nor did he. Q: Which is why I'm asking you today. I don't think it's really a difficult question. MR. BOUCHER: Well, the question is "endorse." Yes, we endorse the report, we commend the report, we think it's a good report. We think it's a very fine report. But that's not intended, nor did he yesterday put -- go through each of the specific recommendations or discussions or observations in the report and say that we endorse this, that, that, that, in those specific terms. Q: So it leaves open the possibility that there may be some recommendations from that report that you end up not endorsing? MR. BOUCHER: It leaves open the possibility that we will get into more detail when we have the observations and views of the parties and are prepared to provide our commentary on it. Q: Governor Inamine of Okinawa in Japan will come to Washington, DC, and he is going to stay for a week. And can you tell us whether or not he could meet with Secretary Powell or Deputy Secretary Armitage, or other high officers of the State Department? MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid I will have to check and see what meetings we might have with him. Q: Okay. Q: Richard, are you in a position to fill in some information about the Global AIDS Initiative and the rollout this morning? MR. BOUCHER: Some of it. Q: Okay. MR. BOUCHER: What do you need to know? Q: Specifically, the President said it placed a great emphasis on AIDS prevention. I was wondering if the US has contemplated or would be willing to say that it would support any initiatives that the global fund would come up with, including perhaps needle exchanges. MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we're in a position at this point to speculate on what projects the initiative will fund. There will be a donors committee that will decide on some of these details that are still being worked out, but the idea is that there will be a donors committee that would decide on the specific projects that might be funded for this. As you know, we're looking not just for the US contribution but for other contributions. We'll be discussing this with our G-8 allies, discussing it with other governments around the world, as well as private sector people who are interested in this cause to support them. So there would be a donors committee of the people contributing that would get together and decide how to -- what to fund. Q: Richard, on the same thing, did I understand the Secretary yesterday -- I haven't seen the transcript -- but did he say that all of the 200 million that you're pledging towards the trust fund comes from other accounts which is already -- in other words, it's money that's already been allocated so it's just -- MR. BOUCHER: It's money that had been planned for other purposes. It's not coming from other disease or development accounts, or disease or -- what do you call it -- AIDS-type accounts. We'll be consulting with Congress on the specifics of the reprogramming, but it's not money that was allocated to fighting disease, and so it's new money for the programs. We are already the leading bilateral donor of HIV-AIDS assistance. We provide nearly 50 percent of all the international HIV-AIDS funding. The year 2001, the AIDS budget was almost double the previous year's budget, working in 50 of the hardest hit countries. So the numbers work out like this. We've got an increase in support in the 2002 budget beyond that doubling in 2001 that would bring HIV-AIDS assistance in our international programs to 480 million annually. That's 113 percent above fiscal year 2000. The President's budget also increased money for AIDS research. The 200 million identified today as seed money for this global fund will be in addition to that bilateral 480 million, and that money -- 200 million -- doesn't come from existing HIV-AIDS funding. So the total funding for HIV- AIDS international programs has effectively tripled in the space of less than two years through the increases in the bilateral program and now the addition of this multilateral program. So this is part of our -- Q: I'm not casting doubt on your generosity. I'm just wondering -- MR. BOUCHER: No, what you're asking is the money coming from previously funded accounts. No, that's self-exists and this is in addition to it. Q: When you go taking it from other programs, that means these other programs will not have as much funding as they did before, right? MR. BOUCHER: And the specific details of which programs will be refunded - - will be reprogrammed -- we'll be consulting with Congress about. Half the money is coming out of State Department funding and half the money is coming out of Health and Human Services accounts. Q: But you don't know where it's coming from? MR. BOUCHER: We have some ideas that we have to talk to the Congress about. Q: Well, someone's ox is going to get gored here, and they're not going to like it very much, right? MR. BOUCHER: No. There's various ways of reprogramming. Reprogramming is a fairly routine function as we go through the budget year. We may have priorities shift, we may have accounts that aren't using as much money as we thought they originally might need, and we shift funds around between accounts in order to meet important priorities like this. Q: Do you have any ideas at this stage which funds, which accounts, might have extra amounts which you could -- MR. BOUCHER: I will stick to saying that the money will come equally from the Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services, and it doesn't come from the existing programs to fight disease. But exactly how we do this is something we have to discuss with the Congress. Q: Just also in his testimony yesterday, the Secretary made what I thought was a cryptic comment about the Nagorno-Karabakh peace -- the meeting in Geneva, saying something about how it's not yet agreed that they're ready for -- that the presidents may be ready for this. And I noticed that before the Secretary testified also yesterday, President Aliyev made some rather provocative comments comparing the Armenians to Nazi aggressors in Nagorno-Karabakh. Is that the kind of the thing that the Secretary was talking about, saying that these two sides may not be ready for another round of talks? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure he had seen that specific comment. I think we have been working very hard on this, we continue to work with the other co- chairs, and we'll continue to work towards the meeting in Geneva. The Secretary's comments were a reflection of the state of play, and we'll see how that turns out. But it's something that we continue to work on. Q: Why did he say that the time might not be ripe for -- that the two sides might not be ready for the next step? MR. BOUCHER: Because it was true. Q: Why? MR. BOUCHER: Because that's the state of play. That's where we are right now, and we'll continue to work on trying to work things out and get them there. I don't know that I can cite and say that because of this statement or because of that thing. He was reflecting on the status of the negotiations at this moment. Q: North Korea is complaining because South Korea is asking you for missile launches. I don't see that you have confirmed that they have done that. Do you have anything to say about that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't. I'll have to check on that. [End] Released on May 11, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.