U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing, 01-07-03

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

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

Richard Boucher, Spokesman

Washington, DC

July 3, 2001

INDEX:

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
1-2, 12, 13US Opposition to Targeted Killings / Recent Violence / Status
           of Ceasefire
G-8 SUMMIT
2, 3-4    Climate Change Policy / Security at Summit in Italy
JAPAN
2         Timing on Okinawa Investigation
PAKISTAN
3         Ambassador Visit
IRAQ
3, 4-7    Alleged Asylum Request for Reported Diplomat / War Crimes
          Charges Against Saddam Hussein / Smart Sanctions Resolution /
          Iraqi Opposition Sanction Support / Economic Retaliation
MEXICO
3, 4, 10  Visa Requirements for Mexican Legislator / Possible Seal of
          Southern Border With Guatemala
NORTH KOREA
6, 7-8    Possible Upcoming Meetings / Missile Engine Test
THE HAGUE
8-9       War Crimes Trial of Milosevic
JAPAN
9         Compensation for US Veterans of WWII
INDIA
9-10      Threats by Usama Bin Laden Against US Interests
GUATEMALA
10        Guatemalan President’s Upcoming Visit
MACEDONIA
10-11     Reported Disappearance of American Citizen
CHINA
11-12     Return of the EP-3 / US Policy Towards China

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

Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: Why don't we pick it up where we left off yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: Israel and the Palestinians. The cabinet's cabinet, or the inner cabinet or the kitchen cabinet, whatever -- the elite of the Israeli cabinet -- met and scoffed, as the AP story put it, at the US admonition that it doesn't like targeted killings. One cabinet minister wondered what the US would do if terrorism was afloat in Manhattan.

In any event, is this just a disconnect? I mean, Israel and the United States can't agree on this, I take it, yes?

MR. BOUCHER: We have our view.

QUESTION: Is the US view that Israelis -- the general who was here yesterday when he came out after seeing -- the chief of staff,after seeing Mr. Powell, said that we have the right to defend ourselves. Any quarrel with that?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: So how do they do it? If they have discriminate killing, they don't harm civilians; if they have indiscriminate -- you know --

MR. BOUCHER: Israel defends itself in a variety of ways that we are involved with, that we assist with. We think this policy is not right, and we've said that many times. We've made that quite clear.

QUESTION: Okay, and can I pursue one other thing?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: The Syrian-Israel dispute over whether Syria launched a missile or not. Is there anything the US State Department can do to shed light?

MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not the kind of matter I'm able to comment on.

QUESTION: Can I just get back to the targeted killings? Are you doing anything but stating your view publicly at this podium, and obviously I'm assuming in meetings with Israeli officials? What are you doing, I mean, if you dislike this policy? Obviously, Secretary Powell has become --

MR. BOUCHER: We make clear our opposition to it publicly and privately.

QUESTION: I think the Secretary was supposed to have, at one point, a meeting with the EPA Administrator -- today, was it?

MR. BOUCHER: He meets with her periodically. I don't know if there is a meeting today or not, frankly.

QUESTION: Well, irrespective of whether there is a meeting, is there something going on vis-à-vis the environment in advance of, I guess, the G- 8 summit?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Next question. There is always something going on with regards to the environment. We have been working on climate change policy. The Secretary has worked very closely with Governor Whitman, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other members of the cabinet, as you know, on climate change policy.

The meetings coming up in Bonn, first of all, are about the same time as the leaders meeting of the G-8 that comes up in Genoa. It will provide another opportunity to discuss climate change policy with other governments, and it is important that we be out there and able to elaborate on the US position so people are in a position of discussing it now.

I don't have any new announcements or statements for you at this point. I am sure we will be in a position to state the US view at those meetings.

QUESTION: Is the US evolving toward -- with a view toward these meetings?

MR. BOUCHER: We are looking towards those meetings as an opportunity to state the US case.

QUESTION: Has there been any decision yet on handing over the US serviceman to Japanese police in Okinawa?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we are still looking at that request from the Japanese.

QUESTION: Richard, a question on Pakistan's Ambassador to the US. Maleeha Lodhi is pretty angry and upset with the State Department, also at the Bush Administration. She is saying that, one, her Foreign Minister was not treated as the Indian Foreign Minister, he didn't get the red carpet treatment here; and, two, that there is a discrimination compared with India and Pakistan dealing with -- from the United States, and Pakistan should be treated in the same way.

So do you have any comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Richard, can you discuss a reported asylum request by an Iraqi diplomat?

MR. BOUCHER: Sorry. We don't discuss alleged asylum requests, so I can't.

QUESTION: Do you maybe have some information today in regards to the Congressman that was involving with that --

QUESTION: Could we follow up with --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me take care of this and take care of that.

I can't go into any specific situation. The Immigration Service would have to do that. But there was one aspect that you asked about yesterday, which was a question of regulations. And the State Department and INS regulations say that a visa is not required of a Mexican official bearing a diplomatic or official passport who is entering the United States for a visit of up to six months as long as they are not a permanent employee assigned to an office of the Mexican Government in the United States.

But whether in this specific case this person qualified for that, I don't know, and the Immigration Service would have to do any specifics.

QUESTION: Did the State Department conduct an investigation maybe with the INS to find out --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, with regard to a specific case, you would have to talk to the INS.

QUESTION: Have you received any diplomatic note from the Mexican Government expressing concern about this incident?

MR. BOUCHER: Did we get an answer on that one? I don't think we did. That's another one we have got to double-check on. Sorry.

QUESTION: Okay, just one more. In regards with the meeting of the G-8, is the US involved in providing security or some sort of support for security?

MR. BOUCHER: With the G-8?

QUESTION: Yes, with the meeting of the G-8.

MR. BOUCHER: Our security people, the people who protect the President and other American dignitaries obviously work very closely with all the other security people involved in the G-8. But in terms of actual on-the- ground presence, it is really largely the responsibility of the host government.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up question. One, there was a time when Congress requested more H-1 visas -- now from 95,000 to 195,000 now. Many of those companies have gone out of business, bankrupt, or they have laid off their employees, now they are out of status. Now they are seeking jobs or to stay in this country. There have been a number of -- the Supreme Court also took some steps in a number of cases as far as immigrants are concerned, one about these visas.

And if the State Department --

MR. BOUCHER: If you get to the end of your question, I will refer you to the Immigration Service because we don't do people in the United States, and it is the same answer. You ask about people in the United States, whether they are Mexican officials who came in transit or whether they are H-1 visa holders who may be in California looking for jobs, Immigration Service is responsible for them. We take care of people overseas who want to get in. Once they are here, Immigration handles them.

QUESTION: Including the extension for 245-I and the --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't even know what 245-I is, but I bet it's Immigration Service.

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions on Iraq. On these defectors, it's not really alleged anymore if US law enforcement officials are confirming that it has taken place.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, do you have a name of a US law enforcement official confirming that it is taking place?

QUESTION: I don't have a name, but --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't either. Thank you.

QUESTION: Okay. You said yesterday that there was no change in the efforts to bring Saddam Hussein -- to indict Saddam Hussein for war crimes. Can you talk about the efforts, though, thus far to bring him to justice? The investigation or --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the full brief with me here. Obviously we have been collecting information. I think part of our cooperation with the Iraqi opposition, for example, has been in terms of collecting information. There has been an effort under way for some time.

QUESTION: But nobody thought that Slobodan Milosevic would be brought to justice for his alleged war --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the people who set up the Tribunal and who carried through the indictment and who have undertaken this effort for so many years to get him to The Hague did think that he would be indicted and did think he would be brought to trial. And we did it.

QUESTION: Well, can you say that you are confident that that will happen to Saddam Hussein as well?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have exactly the same kind of effort under way, so I wouldn't make exactly the same claim.

QUESTION: Will the US continue to seek smart sanctions on Iraq now that it doesn't appear to have been accepted by the Security Council?

MR. BOUCHER: We see that what is happening today in the Council in terms of the rollover to be, shall we say, a phase or a stage in the process and not the end of the process. We will continue to work on the new policy to get the policy implemented by the Council. The Council at the beginning of June said that they wanted to take a new approach to Iraq, and we think it is important to continue the work to carry this out.

We have made some significant progress in terms of getting four of the five members of the Council to agree on the goods review list. That is the core of any new system. And we will continue to work on that. We think it is important also for Russia to consider its position and try to bring itself into line with what the other members of the Council are doing. So we will keep working on that.

There will be, we think today, a rollover resolution to extend the period that we have to work on this. We have accepted a proposal for a five-month rollover and we'll use the next 150 days to try to implement what the Council said it would do in terms of a new policy. We think it's a better policy and one that the Council should follow.

QUESTION: Is the US ready to consider concessions such as direct foreign investment in Iraq's oil sector?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is any particular negotiation going on on points like that at this stage. We’ve done the list. There are various other elements that have to be done.

QUESTION: So are you working on Plan B just in case you can't get the Russians on board -- an alternative to Food-for-Oil and an alternative to the current proposal?

MR. BOUCHER: I think Plan B is to stay where we are, with an imperfect and -- granted -- not necessarily well-functioning system, but the alternative to proceeding with a new policy is to keep the old one.

QUESTION: Can I ask a somewhat relativistic question? You've asked the Russians to sort of maybe reconsider their position, at this point do you think that some of the other areas where you didn't reach the kind of consensus, such as some of the border state provisions, is there room there to maybe step back and reevaluate those kinds of things?

MR. BOUCHER: We're not reevaluating; we're proceeding forward. We're proceeding forward to put in place the details, to put in places the pieces of the resolution that need to be done. That's our goal and that's what we're actually going to be doing for the next 150 days.

The fact that all those pieces were not put in place in the first 30 days probably should come as no surprise to people who have watched these things in the past. It has taken six months to two years to work out that kind of detail in the past. We had hoped to do it in 30 days. The Council set itself a limit of 30 days, and I think the fact that four out of five were able to agree on the toughest part, which is the list, shows the Council could have done it in 30 days if everybody had wanted to play ball. But now we have given ourselves another five months to work through these, and we'll be working through those other pieces as we go forward.

QUESTION: On Korea, is there another session with North Korea?

QUESTION: I have a question about Iraq.

QUESTION: You want to do Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: We'll finish on Iraq.

QUESTION: The Iraqi opposition supports the sanctions or did they ask any demand about sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as I can tell, Iraq has denounced everybody, including people that were trying to help them. Iraq's government has shown itself steadfastly opposed to any attempt to ease up on the flow of goods to the Iraqi people. I suppose that shouldn't come as any surprise, although it is still a shock to us all that Iraq's government shows such callous disregard for its own people.

And as I noted, they seem to have denounced the British resolution, the Russian resolution, and just about any other resolution that's out there, and don't seem to indicate any desire to live in harmony with the international community or to fulfill their obligations.

QUESTION: One more on Iraq? Will you insist in the rollover, in terms of the rollover, on a restatement of the language of Resolution 1352? There have been some reports that Russia is now quarreling that that kind of language be included in the rollover terms.

MR. BOUCHER: There are meetings going on right now in New York, where exactly how to formulate this is being worked on. So that will be worked out in New York. I don't have a definitive answer on that one yet.

QUESTION: In regard to economic retaliations about Iraq, are there any specific efforts to combat that or to assuage?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have been making clear all along that we understand that while there is an overall benefit from enhanced trade with the people of Iraq, that Iraq has also threatened retaliation against some countries, particularly neighboring states, and therefore we have been working with other governments.

I don't have any specifics to talk to you about, but we have been working with other governments to make sure that the interests and the needs of the neighboring states are looked after, and that should Iraq try to carry out any sort of retaliation, that people wouldn't suffer as a result of supporting the international community and its obligations.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this matter?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been talking to the individual governments about it.

QUESTION: North Korea? Another meeting in prospect at some point?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is anything scheduled at this point. I can double-check.

We met in New York June 13 to arrange bilateral talks. We have not yet received a direct response from Pyongyang. They did issue a public statement on June 18, but we don't consider the June 18 public statement -- which discussed some ideas about dialogue -- we don't consider that to be a response to the proposals that we made, and so we would expect to get a direct response back through the usual channel.

QUESTION: What do you mean the proposal? I mean, the agenda or --

MR. BOUCHER: The proposals that were made both in the President's statement and also in the specific meeting that Jack Pritchard had in New York.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: Well, why don't you consider the public statement a response?

MR. BOUCHER: Because it's not.

QUESTION: Because it doesn't address the --

MR. BOUCHER: It is not a response to what we talked to them about in private. It doesn't respond to the request, and we think a private discussion deserves a private response.

QUESTION: Bill Gertz today reported that there was an engine test in -- that North Korea has tested an engine for a long-term missile. Does that violate the agreement on the --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) AP report.

QUESTION: Would it be AP? Sorry. Does that violate the moratorium on missile testing that the North Koreans agreed to in terms of --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to address this in a number of ways, and first of all tell you that I can't address it in any specific way, which is whether or not such an event occurred would be an intelligence matter, and I can't talk about intelligence matters.

But on North Korea's missile activity in general, I would say that we think those activities continue to pose a threat to regional security and stability, and to US friends, forces and interests. We expect North Korea to abide by its moratorium on the launch of long-range missiles. We will continue to take steps to address North Korea's overall missile efforts and to work closely with other countries in doing so.

The article claims that North Korea conducted a ground-based test of its rocket engines, not a flight test. A flight test, of course, would be prohibited by the moratorium. It would be a very serious matter and contrary to the understandings between the two sides.

QUESTION: On India?

QUESTION: Well, hold on, I just want to -- but a ground-based test is not prohibited by the moratorium?

MR. BOUCHER: The moratorium is on launches, flight-testing. That is what we have understandings on.

QUESTION: In the trial today, he said the trial is to produce false justification for the war crimes of NATO that were committed in Yugoslavia. What is your comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any comment. I am sure there will be a lot of outrageous things said during the course of the trial, and we will rely on the court and the prosecutors to establish the facts.

QUESTION: There are also reports that some of his deeds in the late '80s and early '90s were agreed by Western governments, the US or the UK or Western governments. And then it's a tradeoff, and then he was sort of saying they betrayed him --

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, they are going to say all kinds of things during the course of this trial. We will leave it to the court, the Tribunal, to establish the facts. And I think you have seen, as well, a variety of people who were around in the late '80s and early '90s from our side who can tell what they did and did not agree to. And it sounds like they did not agree to much of anything.

QUESTION: Well, he didn't -- he even said the whole Tribunal is a false tribunal.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we will let it be sorted out. The truth will out, don't worry.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about Americans POWs forced into slave labor in Japan. Can you spell out what is the US policy on American POWs forced into slave labor in Japan who are seeking compensation from those companies?

MR. BOUCHER: The US policy for 50 years, ever since the treaty of 1951, has been to recognize that the claims were settled at that time. The treaty of peace with Japan that was signed by the US and some 40 allied nations settled all the claims, and since then, US administrations, as well as courts, have held that those claims were settled.

We have every sympathy with the injustices and the terrible hardships that many, many people suffered at the hands of the Japanese forces during the war. And it was deemed at the time, frankly, to try to settle those claims right away and to get those people settlement. And they were paid, in fact, compensation, various kinds, right after the war, often using assets taken from Japan.

So those claims were settled by the treaty shortly after the war for the people involved, and since then, all the courts and administrations have held that that was a final settlement.

QUESTION: Richard, on India, according to India Globe and other news, Usama bin Laden have threatened US interests in India in connection with Indian Government's arrest of his number of terrorists in India.

Now, do you think this issue have come up here in this building during Sonja Gandhi and (inaudible)'s meeting with a number of US officials?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

QUESTION: And what US is doing really about this threat, and Indian authorities are taking very seriously? Are they --

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to be in a position to go into any specific threat in a specific place. We have put out advisories right now that indicate the possibility of terrorist attacks around the world. We are very concerned about the situation at this moment.

With regard to the specific situation that arose in India, I know there were some press reports a while back about some arrests that the Indian Government made. The Indian Government would have to comment on that. But I would say generally that we cooperate very closely with the Indian Government and we work very closely with them to counter terrorist threats.

QUESTION: Going back to Mexico, how the US sees the plan of the Mexican Government to seal its south border to Guatemala to prevent illegal immigration and drug smuggling?

MR. BOUCHER: That is something that we have generally talked to the Mexican Government about. We want to work cooperatively with Mexico to prevent the transits and the illegal immigration of all kinds, and to make immigration an orderly and safe passage for everyone.

So I don't think I can comment on a specific plan or proposal from the Mexican Government, but I would just say it has been a subject of interest to us in regularizing and making safe the whole process of immigration.

QUESTION: What do you think about the Plan Pueblo-Panama and --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

QUESTION: No?

MR. BOUCHER: No, nothing specific on that.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary of State going to meet with the Guatemalan President when she is here in Washington?

MR. BOUCHER: I know the visit is coming up. Let me see what I have on the particular meetings. President Portillo will meet with President Bush and US Trade Representative Zoellick to discuss bilateral issues. I guess the embassy would have more information on particular meetings with NGOs or others.

So I guess he doesn't have a separate meeting with the Secretary, but I think we do have meetings with the President and with US Trade Representative Zoellick. We have an excellent relationship right now with Guatemala, and I think the visit is a reflection of that.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on reports of an American missing in Macedonia?

MR. BOUCHER: I think all we really have is that we have seen the press reports. The embassy, as well as local police force, is looking into the disappearance. And that is all we know at this moment.

QUESTION: But into the disappearance?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Not the reported disappearance?

MR. BOUCHER: The reported disappearance.

QUESTION: Okay. I understand. I mean, you seem to be --

MR. BOUCHER: The possible disappearance, yes.

QUESTION: Richard, I'm trying to -- it looks like the reconnaissance plane, which is about to be returned to US custody after I guess a little more than three months -- do you have any details on that? And is this chapter in the US-Chinese relations closed, and can we look to a more productive future?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me give you the details on the airplane. The recovery operation that began on June 13 has been completed. After final loading operations, the remaining parts of the EP-3 aircraft, including the fuselage, are currently en route to the United States. The final flight of the AN-124 that carries the airplane departed Lingshui today at 4:45 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The AN-124 will make brief stops in Manila and Hawaii while en route to a final destination of Dobbins Air Force Base in Marietta, Georgia. The flight is scheduled to arrive in Hawaii later today at about 11:30 p.m. Eastern Time, so they are still a ways from Georgia.

As far as the future of the US-China relationship, certainly we are glad to resolve this issue and to get the airplane back. We do seek a productive relationship with China, as the Secretary and the President have made clear on a number of occasions. We don't see China as an enemy; we don't think China should see us as one. We look for a relationship that is marked by cooperation, not confrontation, but we also look to raise in a serious manner some of the issues that divide us.

QUESTION: Are enemy and adversary sort of similar words, because it was described as a "strategic adversary." I don't mean to --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not going to play word games with you.

QUESTION: No, no, I'm just -- it's important, the words, because you remember the Clinton Administration saw quite a different relationship, and it sounds like this Administration is --

MR. BOUCHER: I do remember the Clinton Administration.

QUESTION: You were there. And it sounds like this Administration on this subject, like so many, has begun to find --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the phrase that has been used, Barry, is "strategic competitor," which is not adversary.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: But in any case, rather than trying to parse individual words or not, I want to say we look for a productive relationship.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. BOUCHER: We look to bring China into the system of world standards and world rules. Whether it is a matter of trade or human rights or proliferation, we look for China to participate in and abide by the standards that the rest of us use. And within that context we look for a productive relationship with China.

QUESTION: Do you think the feeling is mutual at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: You would have to ask the Chinese.

QUESTION: So you want to forget what happened and what China did to the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say that.

QUESTION: So what is your answer?

MR. BOUCHER: My answer is that we obviously are very cognizant of what happened. We are cognizant of what happened to our airplane and its crew. We are aware of the entire scope of the relationship, and we look within that context to try to make productive things happen.

QUESTION: On the Middle East problem, any phone calls recently you can tell us about?

MR. BOUCHER: No, no phone calls. There was a security meeting last night with a trilateral meeting with the parties. It was quite constructive, we think, and there will be another one soon.

Our Ambassador there, Consul General Schlicher, has been in close touch with the leaders in the region, continue to have meetings. Ambassador Burns, who is in the region, and the Secretary here have followed the situation closely. We are looking to do everything we can to work with the parties to try to get them to calm the situation, and we will continue to urge them to make maximum efforts to do that.

QUESTION: Is today still possibly day one?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen any of your dispatches report quiet, but we'll see.

QUESTION: Will there be, like, a system to let us know when it's day one?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we're going to put up a thermometer and we're going to have a little chart, and it will go up and down every day and back to zero.

QUESTION: Well, a clock, because if the clock was --

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe a clock. No, the answer is no. I think once we have a real period of quiet, then we can start debating and discussing these points. Clearly, that hasn't happened yet.

Thanks.

[End]

Released on July 3, 2001

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