 |
Compact version |
|
 |
        |
|
 |
||
|
Wednesday, 18 December 2024
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-06-07U.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 June 7, 2001 INDEX: NORTH KOREA TRANSCRIPT_: MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements, and I would be glad to take your questions. Q: Can you elaborate on the Secretary's non-answer to one of the questions that was --- MR. BOUCHER: I thought it was a very good answer, and I would be glad to repeat it for you. Q: No, no, he ignored it. He didn't answer it -- about whether there would be -- whether there is consideration of appointing someone to be the - - a special envoy or whatever, a special person to deal with North Korea. When I asked him afterwards if there would be a new Wendy -- if someone was going to be a new Wendy Sherman, he said Wendy Sherman was the State Department Counselor, and I don't have a State Department Counselor. He avoided answering the question. Perhaps you could take a stab at it. MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't -- Q: Or a Chuck Kartman. MR. BOUCHER: What was Chuck Kartman anyway? Did we get that title? It is back in here somewhere? Q: (Inaudible) the man that replaced him. MR. BOUCHER: Because I was going to tell you the name of the new Chuck Kartman, but rather than calling him the new Chuck Kartman, I would like to get his title correct. Q: So there is one? MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Q: I thought you talked about policy hasn't changed. Q: But I'm not so interested in the new Chuck Kartman as the new Wendy Sherman. MR. BOUCHER: All right, let me try to explain this to you. We're doing too much inside baseball here. For the rest of the world, let's try to explain this. The United States intends to take up these discussions with North Korea, as the Secretary said, at the level from our Bureau of East Asian Affairs. We have had regular contact with the North Koreans in New York, and we would expect to make the initial contact with their mission in New York involving people from our Bureau. We have in our Bureau not only the office and the office director, but Jack Pritchard has come in to handle Korean affairs at a more senior level, replacing Mr. Charles Kartmann, who has gone on to the Korean Energy Development Organization. So those would be the people involved in the initial contacts. How future channels might evolve and discussions might evolve will depend in part on coordination with our allies, but also in part on the North Korean response. So I can't tell you, as we take up the issues identified in the President's statement, the precise forum for those discussions yet. Q: Can you give us the title for Mr. Pritchard? Q: No, he didn't. MR. BOUCHER: No, because I didn't find it. Q: Is he just a regular Deputy Assistant Secretary? Q: (Inaudible) take on this? Q: And KEDO? MR. BOUCHER: He has been around for a couple months now. He has been involved in the reviews. So I think he has been around since Chuck Kartman left. Q: Well, now, Richard, when you're talking about regular contact -- these contacts have kind of continued, I mean, even over the last couple of months, right? There have been -- MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we have periodic contacts with them. Q: So I'm a little confused as to what exactly is new here then. I mean, if these talks have been going on anyway, what -- MR. BOUCHER: I mean, what's new is that, you know, the President's policy review has come to completion. The President has announced where he intends to go with the North Korea policy. We will contact the North Koreans. We have already made sure that they have gotten -- they have our statements, and we have made initial contacts. But we will go talk to them and say, okay, these are the things we want to talk about. This is what we are prepared to discuss, this is what we want to discuss. We want to hear from you on your willingness to do so, and then let's agree on the forum and who you might have to discuss it with us. So that is something that will come in the future. The initial contacts, as the Secretary said, would be through the New York channel, but eventually how we end up pursuing these discussions will depend on the North Korean response. Q: Okay, can you just clarify that? So the talks, the contacts you have had through the New York channel over the last three months, have not been on the details of the missile programs or the -- MR. BOUCHER: No, they haven't. They haven't been on that. Q: They're just on -- wel, what would they be about then? MR. BOUCHER: Logistical things, delegations, travel arrangements. Q: Are there delegations? MR. BOUCHER: There are periodic groups that have come to the United States on visits -- think-tanks, stuff like that. Q: But these have been actual meetings? They haven't been kind of like bumping into each other in the hallway at the UN or something? MR. BOUCHER: We have sort of a regular diplomatic discourse with the North Koreans that we maintain through their mission in New York. Sometimes our people go up there, sometimes we will call them on the phone, sometimes we will fax them copies of presidential statements, whatever. We keep in touch with them through that New York channel, so that is the place where we would get in touch and say, all right, we've got some things we want to talk to you about. You know what they are. We can explain them more, but how are we going to do this? When are you ready to do this? Who do you want to talk with? Q: The President mentioned in his statement that he was looking for positive signals from North Koreans. Could you elaborate on that? And in the context of looking for positive signals, how would you rate threats from Pyongyang to abrogate the 1994 Joint Framework Agreement and also to begin or resume testing missiles? MR. BOUCHER: We have stressed again and again the importance of North Korea abiding by the Agreed Framework, continuing its missile moratorium. We think those two things are very important, and we watch those two things very carefully. At this point, those two things do continue. We would expect them to continue into the future, especially as we entered into discussions with them. Q: But in terms of positive signals, would those count as -- keeping those agreements, is that a positive signal? Are you looking for something more? MR. BOUCHER: I would say those are sort of the assumed basis for being able to go forward with some further discussions. In terms of our further discussions, we would expect them to be willing to address these issues seriously and to be willing to enter into things like the IAEA compliance for the reactor as that moment approaches with the completion of the reactor; being willing to enter into the verifiable constraints on missile exports or on their missile development programs; and being willing to seriously discuss the conventional threat on the Peninsula. In turn, the President's statement also indicated areas that we would be prepared to discuss with them in response. Q: Has anything been lost by the five-month hiatus, for which the Administration was roundly criticized -- not the Secretary of State, but the Administration? MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I wouldn't in any way describe it as a five-month hiatus. Q: What would you describe it as? MR. BOUCHER: I would describe it as a policy review. Q: (Inaudible) logistical comings and goings of I don't know what, of ping-pong teams. You weren't talking to them about serious stuff like the Clinton Administration was because the new Administration thought that maybe they ought to take a look at it. It sounded like they didn't think what was going on was to their liking, and now they've come around on that, as they have on so many other things. I just wondered, the issues being so important, was anything lost by that five-month review? Okay? MR. BOUCHER: No. Something was added, and that is a better, firmer, well explained foundation for US policy. Q: Richard, when you said that you made the North Koreans aware of what you're doing, did you literally just fax the statement to them or were there some meetings in New York? MR. BOUCHER: No, we were in touch with them yesterday, and obviously we'll have more discussions in the future. So initially -- Q: Through New York channels? MR. BOUCHER: As I say, initially we'll get in touch through New York. Q: So you wouldn't make this announcement without pretty well knowing, though, that the North Koreans are amenable to starting under these conditions, would you? I mean, it wouldn't make much sense. MR. BOUCHER: I think many of these issues are ones that they have discussed in the past. These are, however, approaches and statements of policy by this Administration on how we wish to deal with these things. Obviously, in the end, we'll see what the North Korean response is -- and not just the rhetorical response, but we'll see if they are willing to deal seriously in these areas that are important to us. Q: Any time frame that you're looking to get these restarted? I mean, I know we don't have a date, but a week or a month? MR. BOUCHER: We'll get in touch with them soon and then after that I can't predict how fast it may or may not proceed. Q: Richard, was the contact with the North Koreans routine, or faxes or whatever, at all a part of the review? In other words, did any of the contact that occurred with the North Koreans over the last three months become an ingredient and was now a result of, whether it be a reassurance of some kind for the North Koreans, some kind of commitment to a dialogue on certain subjects? And I have a follow-up. MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am particularly aware of. I have to admit, not having followed the substance of every contact that we might have had, but they have always been described to me as sort of routine, logistical, involving other areas. The discussions that were very important to our review were the talks that we have had with the South Koreans and with the Japanese and the trilateral discussions that we have had. In fact, those were very important to the process of review and very important to formulating the kind of outcome that we came to. Q: And as a follow-up, does the United States still regard the North Koreans as untrustworthy, and as was indicated a couple of months ago in statements by the President? And if so, what kinds of verification ideas do you have in mind to deal with that? MR. BOUCHER: I would say that the President's, the Secretary's and other senior officials' statements on the nature of the regime and our concerns about the regime in North Korea still stand. They haven't changed. That is why, as they have stressed all along, verification and transparency would be a very, very important part of anything we do. And I think if you look at the statement made by the President yesterday, you would see that quite clearly. It is verifiable constraints we are looking for. It is compliance with international obligations that we are looking for. Q: The Secretary has mentioned several times his concerns about the large North Korean troop presence near the border. Just an hour ago, he mentioned it again. Do you have any details on that? MR. BOUCHER: Do you mean the actual sort of -- the kinds of equipment, the kind of troops, the size of the force? I don't have anything for you right now. I will try to get you something. Q: You will try to get us something? MR. BOUCHER: I will try to get you something. I suspect if you look at all the reports put out by the US Government, it is probably in there somewhere. We will just try to find it. Q: What is the precondition of -- between talks with -- MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said to you outside, there is no precondition. Q: Richard, two things. One is, you still haven't -- is there any contemplation being given to appointing a higher-level official than Mr. Pritchard, someone like a Perry or a Sherman? MR. BOUCHER: I have not heard any discussion of that at this point. Q: Okay. Now, and the second thing is, you talked -- you said this new policy -- the review has resulted in a harder, firmer, more solid -- you used words like that, yes? And yet, the Secretary himself downstairs said that he was being -- it was deliberately vague on a lot of points. So I'm not sure I understand. How do you reconcile -- MR. BOUCHER: I don't think he said "it" was deliberately vague on a lot of points. I think he said he was being deliberately vague on the points that we have just discussed for 10 minutes, and I don't think I have been particularly forthcoming either. Q: Exactly. So -- MR. BOUCHER: And I'm keeping with my boss on this one. Q: Right. So I don't understand then what the point is of this document that was put out by the White House. If it doesn't seem to expand on -- MR. BOUCHER: Matt, let's stop for a second, and let me lay down a new rule that we should never confuse travel and meetings with policy. Policy is the interests that we intend to pursue and the approach that we intend to take. The fact that we are not able to specify for you which color car we are going to drive to the meeting, or what level the meeting is going to take place, shouldn't be confused with a lack of policy. Q: No, no, no, I understand that. But what I'm -- well, I just don't see any difference between what the President -- and maybe there isn't any difference between what the Bush Administration is wanting to do and what the Clinton Administration was doing. MR. BOUCHER: Well, I would -- Q: If it's regarding the review -- Q: Exactly. Q: You still say you don't trust them. You are more -- on firmer ground on that. What have you learned in this review that is different from where you actually stopped? MR. BOUCHER: Let me address this in a couple ways. First of all, we have got a new Administration. We have got a new leadership in Washington, in case you don't remember, January 20th. We have got a new leadership in Washington that needs to define for themselves their approach during their Administration. We are at the beginning of an administration here, where they want to define their approach on major policy issues, this being one of them. If you think back to many years ago when George Bush, Sr. took over, he instituted reviews, even though he was continuing through the same party. So I think it is quite normal that if we have a major policy area that the Administration should take, and deserves to take, the time to decide what their policy is going to be, particularly considering they are at the beginning of the administration and they are going to want to continue through four years or more of that policy. Now, if I were to describe this policy, I would say that, first of all, the approach is comprehensive, the approach is broad; and second of all, it emphasizes throughout the issues of verification and transparency. I think if you have to summarize it in any way, those will be the hallmarks of the policy that this Administration intends to pursue over the coming years with regard to North Korea. Q: Would you call that a new emphasis, as contrasted -- I know you hate contrasts. MR. BOUCHER: I don't do contrasts. I'll just tell you what this policy is about. This policy -- this Administration -- will emphasize the comprehensive approach, a broad approach, and will emphasize verification and transparency in its policy towards North Korea. Q: Was that lacking until now? MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to do comparisons. Q: Hey, listen, I'm sorry, but I can understand why the color of a car isn't important, but you're an experienced diplomat and some of us have been here a while, and when you give a job a certain level or a certain title it does send a signal. When you have a special Mideast mediator, it means you're giving a special emphasis to it, and we'll just call him something less. If you have -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think I want to disabuse you of that notion. I don't think that -- sometimes it does indicate a certain level of priority, but I think you have to understand the Secretary of State has emphasized throughout his dealings in this new Administration, with whatever policy it is, that his tendency -- and not an absolute rule -- is to deal with issues in their regional context through the regional bureaus. And the fact that he likes to work that way and others have liked to work in different ways shouldn't be taken as any change in emphasis of policy. Policy is the fact that the President has put out in his own name a very clear and strong statement of his approach to North Korea. Q: Richard, there is one element which has not reappeared in this, and that is the proposal to foreign assistance to help North Korea launch satellites. What conclusions did the review reach on that? And a broader but related question, what kind of incentives are you thinking of to persuade North Korea to abandon its long-range missile program? MR. BOUCHER: Well, as you remember, that particular proposal was originally called the proposal made to Putin and then discussed by the North Koreans with Secretary Albright when she went. As a matter of US policy, what we are seeking are verifiable constraints on their missile programs and a ban on North Korea's missile exports. How that discussion will evolve in terms of what the North Koreans expect to put on the table in that regard, we'll have to see. So at this point it is premature, I would say, to forecast the ultimate shape of any verifiable agreement on that subject. Q: Well, the Administration went through three months of review and you didn't come up with any proposals for incentives to -- MR. BOUCHER: It is quite clear in the statement by the President that, in response to North Korean willingness to deal seriously on these subjects, that we're wiling to help expand our assistance to the North Korean people, we're willing to ease economic sanctions, and we're willing to take other political steps. Q: That was a consideration of the previous administration too, wasn't it? I mean, there was always the whole -- the prospect of increased assistance and end of sanctions if a deal was struck. MR. BOUCHER: And what's the point? Q: So what's new? MR. BOUCHER: The point is, the goal is not to make news; the goal is to decide what the Korea policy needs to be. I have described to you what I think are the hallmarks of this policy from this Administration to emphasize the comprehensive approach, to emphasize a broad agenda, and to emphasize verification and transparency in any actions. Q: Did the review specifically rule out that proposal? MR. BOUCHER: I think it's that we have not ruled in or ruled out any particular response from the North Koreans because we haven't heard it yet. And we will just have to see how this evolves. It's premature to try to forecast the ultimate shape of any deal. Q: Is it your understanding that that alleged offer, or whatever it was that was taken seriously by the last administration, is still on the table by the North Koreans, or do you know? MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to ask the North Koreans. Q: They haven't said anything to you about it that you're aware of? MR. BOUCHER: We haven't talked to them about this subject yet. I think we spent -- remember ten minutes ago when we said -- Q: Well, John asked a question about whether they were -- whether these, you know, logistical talks in New York were at all an ingredient, and you kind of waffled on it and said -- MR. BOUCHER: I said, not that I've heard of. Q: Right, not that you've heard of. But they could have been. And, you know, it's just -- one presumes that when one goes through a policy review - - MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to answer questions for the North Korean response yet. That's the bottom line. Q: Two things. Can you say yes or no whether or not the United States has ruled out the possibility of helping launching satellites for the North Koreans in exchange for something? MR. BOUCHER: We have not ruled anything in or out because we have not heard the North Korean response, and it's premature to say what the ultimate outcome would be. Q: And second, as a follow-up, under the Clinton Administration there was progress in terms of removing North Korea from the terrorism list or the state sponsors of terrorism. Can you say how that fits into the policy at this point? They have signed this declaration of intent to -- MR. BOUCHER: Terrorism remains an issue on our agenda. They are quite -- they have been made aware in the past, as you know, what they need to do to get off the list, and at this point they haven't done those things. That's where we stand. Q: Well, we were working with them before, though. We had them sign a statement saying things. And they have these geriatric Red Army guys. I mean, is that pretty much it? I mean, aren't they going to -- I don't know. MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we have never specified any particular set of geriatric people or steps that they need to take. We have made clear to them, however, what they need to do, and at this point they have not yet met those. Yes, we did have an understanding that they were going to end their support for terrorism, but we still look to them to take the steps necessary to get off the list. Q: Did the South Koreans and the Japanese make it clear that they could accept no change in the basic elements of the Agreed Framework, and was that a key reason for the Administration essentially going downstream with the Agreed Framework as it stands? MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can speak for the South Koreans and the Japanese. As the Secretary said, as we have said, we believe it is important to keep the Agreed Framework. We intend to do so. We expect North Korea to do so. Q: Okay, can we talk about their neighbor, China? Q: Wait, wait, wait, I've got one more. MR. BOUCHER: We'll come back. Q: The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday that the plane thing was basically solved and China is willing to go back to the normal track with the US. Is the US ready for that? MR. BOUCHER: Actually, I said yesterday too that the airplane thing is solved, but nobody noticed. But that's okay. We've reached understandings with the Chinese about the return of our aircraft. Our people -- our advance team, you might call them -- I think it's about six people -- the people who are in Beijing, maybe one or two more -- have gone down to Hainan Island to make the arrangements down there for the process. I can't predict how long it will take. I think as far as the overall relationship goes, it's important that we resolve this issue, put this matter behind us. I think we have also said that we do intend to look for a constructive relationship with China, but I would say that we are, at this point, looking for the return of the aircraft. We look for signs of other progress in the relationship. Q: Condoleezza Rice yesterday said the US doesn't look at China as a threat. But meanwhile, the Pentagon is setting the military exchange with China under reexamination. Can you explain that? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, you can ask the Pentagon exactly what's going on. I think we have made clear for a number of weeks now that certain contacts and exchanges with the Chinese, certain meetings with the Chinese, social events, would be looked at carefully. They would be decided individually as to whether we wanted to do them or not. And I think the Pentagon has made quite clear that that is what they are doing, and that has been done around here as well. Q: One more on North Korea, and that is the consultation with the Japanese and also with the Chinese. First, is there -- how do you guys plan to consult -- now that you have already consulted with the South Koreans, what is the mode in which the consultation with the Japanese is going to take place, or has it already happened? And also, have you talked with the Chinese about this new -- about the policy review? MR. BOUCHER: I didn't check on the Chinese, to what contacts we have had with them. With the Japanese, as I said, we have had preliminary -- prior consultations through the trilaterals and our individual meetings with the Japanese Government. Yesterday we were in touch just to make sure they saw the news, they got the statements and stuff. And then today we have had a more detailed discussion between Mr. Pritchard and some people from the Japanese Embassy to go through this in somewhat more detail to make sure that they were fully informed on that policy. Q: Okay. And is there any thought given to a new TCOG meeting, just to discuss this move? MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure we will have one, but I'm not exactly -- I don't think there is a particular one scheduled at this point. Q: Will the United States pursue inspection of a nuclear site in North Korea? MR. BOUCHER: What do you mean inspection of nuclear sites? Do you mean like Kumtang-ni or -- Q: Yes. Two days ago, North Korean newspapers, according to North Korean newspapers, they are going to develop again nuclear weapons? MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, verification and transparency are going to be very, very important to us, and you see in the President's statement itself that we are looking for compliance -- as the Agreed Framework proceeds, compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency rules and safeguards in that respect. Were there to be suspect sites and locations, we would expect to get the same kind of access as we have had before -- if not improved, as they say. Q: Different subject, different reason. In France today, there was an extradition hearing in the case of James Kopp, and I understand the US did give some assurances concerning a death penalty or a lack of death penalty if he were to be extradited. Can you tell us whether you think the US has given unambiguous assurances to the French Mr. Kopp would not be executed or face the death penalty? MR. BOUCHER: The Embassy provided a diplomatic note on June 1st to the Government of France. It indicates that we would not impose the death penalty or carry out the death penalty against Mr. Kopp. I think anything beyond that, though, is a matter of discussion in the courts, and it is an ongoing judicial proceeding, so I think I am going to have to stop with that. Q: Would you know why in that case that the French lawyer for Mr. Kopp seems not to be pleased with this, or not to be satisfied with that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't pretend to explain behavior of foreign defense lawyers. They do what they need to do for their clients. Q: Was there someone from the Embassy at the hearing today? And also, what has ever happened to the extradition proceeding for Ira Einhorn? Is that situation finished? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if anybody from the Embassy was there. No, I don't know if anybody from the Embassy was there. The judicial process with Mr. Einhorn continues. We continue to follow that case very closely. Q: Can we go to the Middle East? MR. BOUCHER: Please. Q: Could you update us on Tenet's meeting, please? And any reaction to comments like the Israeli Defense Minister said yesterday, there is no ceasefire. It seems they are getting a bit impatient with the smaller conflicts that are still going on. MR. BOUCHER: I would say, first of all, on Director Tenet's meetings, I think I mentioned that he stopped in Cairo and Jordan, Amman, yesterday. He is now conducting a series of meetings with the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think he has met already with Prime Minister Sharon, he has met with Chairman Arafat, having discussions with other security officials. The goal, as we have said before, is to have serious discussion at the security level about how to make sure that the ceasefire continues. We have seen a lower level of violence. That is good. But it indicates to us that the parties are capable of cooperating to end the violence, and we want to push and encourage them to continue going in that direction. That is one of the main reasons why Director Tenet is out there. It is important that we see sustained actions, actions by the Palestinians to calm the violence, to arrest people involved in terrorist activities. And as you know, we have continued to encourage Prime Minister Sharon to exercise restraint. We are looking for what the Mitchell Report said, an unconditional cessation of violence, and we expect the parties to continue taking steps to achieve that and to engage in cooperation to achieve that. Q: But you have no question that ceasefire is the word that should be used to describe the situation? MR. BOUCHER: I believe -- I don't -- now you've got me confused. I don't remember whether Mitchell said unconditional ceasefire or unconditional cessation of violence. Q: Oh, I don't know. MR. BOUCHER: So I am not going to quibble over words. We want to see the parties to continue to take steps to bring the violence to an end. And that has to be done, and we think that needs to be done both by their own actions and through their cooperation, and that is what we continue to work for. Q: Richard, what do you make of these reports that say that Director Tenet has, in fact, managed to persuade the two sides to get together for a face-to-face meeting tomorrow, security talks tomorrow? MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything to say about tomorrow yet. Q: Okay. And how about Ambassador Burns? MR. BOUCHER: Ambassador Burns is in Amman, Jordan. He met with the Director of Central Intelligence yesterday. They discussed next steps. I think, as we know, Director Tenet had some meetings in Jordan as well. So we continue to focus on his efforts, on Director Tenet's efforts to calm the situation, to sustain the ceasefire and help create an environment in which we can discuss a timeline for implementation of the Mitchell Committee Report in all its aspects. And that second part, the discussion of the timeline for implementation of the Mitchell Committee Report, is the task that Ambassador Burns has been given. Q: So you are not prepared to say that -- or to confirm reports that he is going to meet with the Israelis and -- that Ambassador Burns is going to -- MR. BOUCHER: I will use the same answer I used before. I am not going to discuss the future from here right now. We are going to take this one step at a time, and I will report to you on the meetings that have been held and the travel that has been conducted. Q: How about this one? What do you make of the EU invitation to Nabil Sha'ath and to Foreign Minister Peres to attend the foreign ministers meeting on Monday? Did this come up with Foreign Minister Vedrine in the meeting this morning? And is the US welcoming these EU efforts? At what point does it become too many cooks? MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary talked to Robin Cook last weekend about it. We have worked very, very closely with the European Union on these efforts. In the Secretary's discussions, not only has he worked very closely with High Representative Solana and talked to him just about every day -- he talked to him again this morning -- so he is in constant touch with Solana, but also with other members of the European Union. As you know, Foreign Minister Fischer was out in the region, was working with the parties as these steps evolved, and the Secretary was talking to Foreign Minister Fischer sometimes two, three times a day to make sure that we were coordinating very, very closely with him. We and the Europeans -- and you see this in the discussion this morning with Foreign Minister Vedrine as well -- we have all been very much united on the issue of encouraging the parties, urging the parties, pressing the parties to adopt the Mitchell Report recommendations and to implement them in all their aspects. And that remains the effort that we are making and the effort that they are making as well. Q: Richard, there were some reports that the US and the EU are working on like a joint -- I don't know if it's a declaration or a document or a policy. Would you say that all these coordinated efforts between the US and the EU are going to culminate in a kind of joint effort or initiative or something? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what we might want to say together. I haven't seen the drafting of communiqués from the (inaudible) meeting or anything like that. But certainly the policy of the United States and, as we understand it of the European Union, is very close and based on the desire to see the Mitchell Committee recommendations carried out by the parties. I don't think that's where the -- the issue is not between the United States and the European Union; the issue is between the Israelis and the Palestinians. They are the ones that need to come together and implement the support in all its aspects. Q: Has the Secretary spoken with Director Tenet by phone since he has had -- MR. BOUCHER: Since he's been in the region? Let me check on that. I think I didn't check on those kind of phone calls. We are obviously getting reports from our ambassadors in the region of the meetings that have been held and the things that are going on there. We are in quite close touch with them. Q: Have there been Arafat or Sharon phone calls since yesterday afternoon? MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday afternoon, the Secretary talked to both Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat. As of briefing time today, he had not talked to them today, but anything can happen. Q: We haven't had a report on the view of this San Jose meeting to which the Secretary did not go. And at least the Venezuelan press has been reporting that 16 out of the 24 countries objected to the -- had objections to the Charter for Democracy. MR. BOUCHER: That's kind of a distorted view of the meeting, I would say. I haven't been reading the Venezuelan press so I don't want to slander them by commentary, but that's not an accurate portrayal of the meeting. The meeting was a good one. And as you saw from the Secretary's comments this morning, he regrets that he wasn't able to make the meeting. Because of the press of business with the Middle East, he had to stay in Washington. But Ambassador Romero was down there, Ambassador Lauredo was down there, and they had a good meeting. And they, we think, came up with some very productive developments. The meeting concluded June 5, which was yesterday. It was a very productive General Assembly. The ministers were able to follow up on the mandate that was given to them in Quebec by the presidents to construct a democratic charter. This process will continue over the next few months and the charter will be adopted at a special session of the foreign ministers. So that is work under way, but we think we have advanced the process of the Democratic Charter considerably by the discussions down in San Jose. Second of all, they broke new ground by creating a mechanism to evaluate governments' implementations of the OAS Anti-Corruption Convention. There was also an agreement in principle on devoting more OAS resources to the regional human rights system. The Secretary General was instructed to increase his efforts to resolve Haiti's political crisis. The meeting also urged the Government of Haiti to follow the resignation of the seven contested senators with a constitution, in consultation with the opposition, of a credible provisional electoral council by June 25 of this year. All in all, we think it's very good outcome. But there is work that remains to be done and we will keep working with our partners in that hemisphere to achieve these big goals that were set in Quebec. Q: Was there a vote on the charter at -- MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of. It's still being worked by the countries involved. Q: While we're still in that region, can you say anything about the arrest of Menem and his continued assertions that the US knew -- or his indictment, rather, and that the US knew about his arms sales to Croatia and El Salvador. MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that. I think we addressed it the other day, and there is nothing new. Q: Have you seen reports that the KLA is declaring a cease-fire? MR. BOUCHER: I just saw some kind of reports of that. Obviously the key question will be whether they actually -- Q: (Inaudible.) MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I knew what you meant. The key question will be whether the National Liberation Army, the extremists in Macedonia, actually follows it. We have seen some very terrible violence by them in the recent days. You have seen the attack on the ambulance, and really that raises doubts about their intentions and does serious harm to the interests of ordinary Albanians in Macedonia. So we just saw this cross the wires. We will really look to what they actually do more than what they say. Q: Can you tell us anything about any US involvement in the hostage situation in the Philippines? MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. The lead on this is the Philippine Government. We stay in very close touch with the Philippine Government, but I can't go beyond that. Q: Do you have any comment on these various rampages that the Macedonians (inaudible) engage in the last -- MR. BOUCHER: There was some very bad mob violence, and there is absolutely no justification for violence like that. We strongly condemn that kind of mob violence. Q: Going back to something we were talking about yesterday, is there any circumstance in which the NLA or members of the NLA you would see it being reasonable for them to enter into a political dialogue? MR. BOUCHER: We don't think they have a place -- the people that carry out this kind of extreme violence have a place at the table. Q: Ever? Well, I'm just saying this because Ambassador Walker, former Ambassador Walker, your former colleague -- MR. BOUCHER: We've discussed Ambassador Walker for 20 minutes in the last few days. Q: Yeah, I know, but he's saying the same thing again. MR. BOUCHER: Is there any circumstance conceivable under which we would ever fly to the moon in our sneakers? I don't know. But I'm not going to take questions like that, Matt. We don't think they have a place at the table. That's it. Q: Do you have any comment on the Bulgarian offer to bring the Albanian and Macedonian presidents together to talk about this? MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen it, so no comment. Thank you.[End] Released on June 7, 2001
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
All Rights Reserved.