05/22/01
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, May 22, 2001
(Middle East, China/Tibet, Afghanistan, Europe, Africa)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Daily Press Briefing Index

Tuesday, May 22, 2001

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

MIDDLE EAST
-- Readout of meeting between Deputy Secretary of State Armitage and Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Sharansky
-- Regional Meetings with Ambassador Martin Indyk and Consul General Ronald Schlicher
-- Upcoming Regional Meetings with Assistant Secretary-Designate William Burns
-- Mitchell Plan/Commission
-- Israeli Settlements
-- U.N. Security Council and Iraq Sanctions
-- F-16's, and the use of U.S. Weapons

CHINA/TIBET
-- Dalai Lama in Washington
-- U.S./China Relations on Tibet
-- Chen Transit

SOUTH ASIA
-- Taliban require non-Muslims to wear Identifying Badge
-- Taliban Human Rights Violations in Afghanistan

EUROPE
-- Position on Waldheim Travel Ban
-- Leaked German Cable

AFRICA
-- Secretary Powell's Trip
-- African Growth Opportunity Act and Trade in the Region

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you all for coming. It is a pleasure and a joy to have you with us today. All right, in that case, let's start the briefing. I don't have any announcements or statements. I'd be glad to take any questions you might have.

QUESTION: A little updating, if you can, on Mr. Burns' travels. Has he talked to those two parties and do you have anything on what he said? And while we're at it -- throw it all at once -- Mr. Sharansky was here and he said a few words afterward. We have to hear your version of his meeting with Mr. Powell.

MR. BOUCHER: No, with Mr. Armitage.

QUESTION: Oh, Mr. Armitage.

MR. BOUCHER: Deputy Secretary Armitage. First of all, on the updating, as the Secretary said yesterday, we have begun working with the parties to facilitate implementation of the Mitchell Report's recommendations in the hope that those recommendations by a distinguished international committee can help the parties break the cycle of violence, rebuild mutual trust, and return to negotiations.

Ambassador Martin Indyk and Consul General Ronald Schlicher have met with Prime Minister Sharon and there will be a meeting with Chairman Arafat soon. Our Ambassador in Jordan and Assistant Secretary Designate for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns is in the region, but he will soon join these efforts.

We have also been in touch with regional leaders through our chiefs of mission to request their assistance in encouraging the parties to take the difficult steps necessary to facilitate the Mitchell Committee recommendations.

So that's where we are. We have begun the meetings. We have had meetings by our Ambassador and Consul General with Prime Minister Sharon at this point, and there will be a meeting with Chairman Arafat coming up soon, and then Ambassador Burns will join those efforts. He has been in touch with the Jordanian Government already, I think.

QUESTION: Can you tell us any more about that meeting with Prime Minister Sharon?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think we're in a position to do a step-by-step appraisal of the process. The process that we described has now begun. And as you know, they will be having meetings out there. Ambassador Burns will join some of those meetings and then they'll be reporting to the President and the Secretary with their assessment.

QUESTION: If you can't give us details of the meeting, can you tell us at least how they would differ from our usual contacts? Are we now discussing the Mitchell plan? Is it already centering on that, or is the security situation the first order of business?

MR. BOUCHER: Both. The Mitchell plan gives a foundation and a focus to the efforts, to the discussions the Mitchell plan offers: first and foremost, an opportunity for the parties to adopt an unconditional cessation of the violence. So we're focusing on the Mitchell plan, we're focusing on stopping the violence and the moving to a period of cooling off, confidence-building, rebuilding trust and then getting back to the negotiating process. So the Mitchell plan, the Mitchell Report, offers a basis for those discussions and a focus for those discussions.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Sharon (inaudible) shortly. Is this the Secretary's understanding that he intends to offer any confidence-building measures (inaudible)?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in the business of previewing speeches by foreign leaders. We'll just have to see what he says.

QUESTION: Okay. Would it be helpful for him to offer --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in the business of dictating speeches for foreign leaders either, so we'll just have to see what he says.

QUESTION: Natan Sharansky indicated outside this building --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, the second half of Barry's question, yes.

QUESTION: Well, he -- on settlements, he said that -- he seemed to indicate that they would not -- that the Israelis would not stop settlement activity until the violence stopped. Do you find that position helpful?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, on the rundown of the meeting itself, Minister Sharansky met with Deputy Secretary Armitage just now. As you saw, he just left the building. Our readout of the meeting is basically the same readout as he had.

They discussed primarily two subjects. One is the issue of Russian sales to Iran, an issue that we have had an ongoing dialogue with Israel on and that we continue to have a dialogue with Israel on. Obviously, it's a subject of concern to us both, and we've just recently had our meetings with Foreign Minister Ivanov and wanted to bring him up to date on those discussions.

And second of all, on the initiative the Secretary announced yesterday to try to focus on the Mitchell Commission report and move forward.

As far as your specific question, rather than trying to interpret Mr. Sharansky's remarks, let me just say that if you look at what the Secretary said yesterday and what we have been saying today, an unconditional end to the violence is the first priority, is the first objective. And then there would be some sort of sequencing after that where we would move into cooling off and confidence-building measures including, we think, the need to deal with the issue of settlements.

QUESTION: But if the Palestinians don't see that they are gaining anything by stopping this violence?

MR. BOUCHER: Everybody gains by stopping the violence. I think that is the fundamental premise of the Report and of the effort is that by stopping the violence, first of all, you preserve innocent life; you stop the killing. That in itself is an important objective.

But second of all, you also open the door to this path back to a negotiation, which offers a prospect of improvement, first of all through confidence-building measures, improvement in the lives of the population, and then a chance for resolution peacefully of the issues.

QUESTION: Richard, you said today -- and I know the Secretary said yesterday -- the need to deal with the issue of settlements -- you said that the settlements are provocative, and the Mitchell Report, which you endorse, says that there should be a freeze on all these activities.

Can you -- when you say, "need to deal with it," are you suggesting that the two parties should reach some kind of compromise on this, or are you taking it -- or do you stick to a position of principle that they are provocative and should stop? You can't have both --

MR. BOUCHER: Our view of the settlement activity has not changed. What is clear in this situation, though, is that they are one of the most difficult issues for the parties, and therefore an issue that needs to be dealt with, not only as one of the final status issues, but also as part of the building of confidence after the violence ceases.

QUESTION: But are they still provocative, and should they stop?

MR. BOUCHER: Our view on that has not changed, that continued settlement activity is provocative. I think the Secretary said so yesterday.

QUESTION: No, he didn't.

MR. BOUCHER: Recently. Let's put it that way. And our view of the settlement activity has not changed. What the focus is now, when you look at the issue of settlement activity and the way it is dealt with in the Mitchell Report and the way it is dealt with in the Secretary's statements, is a strong view on our part that it needs to be one of the issues that is dealt with as a confidence-building measure because we do recognize that it is a source of friction.

QUESTION: Yes. But there is a difference between saying it has to be dealt with and it has to stop. You're saying it should stop, correct? And it should be dealt with? You want to have it both ways.

MR. BOUCHER: I am not changing anything that we have said before. I am not using new words here.

QUESTION: Richard, what is the status of the Mitchell Commission at the moment? I mean, is it still constituted? Does it go out of business? What is the -- where does it stand?

MR. BOUCHER: That is an interesting question.

QUESTION: Any answer?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is, why don't we all ask Senator Mitchell. I suppose the original agreements would probably tell us, but I will have to double-check on that. I hadn't thought about asking.

QUESTION: South Asia? Today the Dalai Lama meets with the Secretary of State. And what he told me in the past and today he is saying the same thing that what he is asking the United States for the last 50 years only justice for his people who have been under pressure and depression from China and torture, and maybe he said his hope is that this Secretary of State will listen his plea.

And I have another on South Asia.

MR. BOUCHER: Is that a question?

QUESTION: Yeah. What is your comment on -- if Secretary had invited him, on what are they going to talk and what you think this new State Department feels under this new Secretary of State and the Administration?

MR. BOUCHER: We continue to look forward to meeting with the Dalai Lama. The meeting will be this afternoon with the Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary of State will join them. The Under Secretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, who has been designed as our Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, will also meet with him.

We see him as a respected religious figure. Obviously, our position on Tibet is also well known. That has not changed. But these are important and useful meetings to improve our understanding of the situation in the region.

QUESTION: Do you see anything (inaudible) China's presence there or are you also in touch with China on Tibet now than in the past in any different ways?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say that the issue of Tibet is one that we raise regularly with China as part of our discussion with the Chinese. We do have a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues and we would hope that our Coordinator would be able to take up these issues with China as well.

QUESTION: This coincides with President Chen's visit, and I'm just wondering if the two together, or either one of them, have caused the Chinese to raise a protest with us yet or a complaint of any kind.

MR. BOUCHER: I think the Chinese have expressed their views of both of these events, but these events are not linked in any particular way.

QUESTION: Right. Have they complained since President Chen arrived, or now that the Dalai Lama meeting is set up?

MR. BOUCHER: I think they complained before he arrived. I'm not sure if they've complained since. But I think Chinese views on both of these issues are fairly well known. They have expressed them to us. They have expressed them in public. But at the same time, I would say our views are very well known as well.

QUESTION: To follow up on that, China actually has said something but it's been very mild. The rebuke has been pretty mild. Do you see that there is a slight shift in the Chinese attitude towards the United States? Is it less aggressive than before?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize other people's attitudes on these issues. In particular, these are sensitive and important issues to both of us. We have stated our position quite clearly, and I'll let other people characterize their attitudes.

QUESTION: You mentioned that you hoped that Paula Dobriansky would be able to speak to the Chinese about this issue. Have you actually requested any meetings or contacts?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that we have at this point.

QUESTION: In Afghanistan, do you have any comment on the Taliban's latest move, especially regarding the Hindus and some identifying badge to be worn?

MR. BOUCHER: We want to make quite clear that forcing social groups to wear distinctive clothing or identifying marks stigmatizes and isolates those groups and can never, never, be justified. This reported edict is only the latest in a long list of outrageous oppressions that have been inflicted by the Taliban authorities on Afghanistan and on the people of Afghanistan. These kinds of strictures only add to the suffering of people who have borne 23 years of war and natural catastrophe.

We remain committed to bringing the Taliban and other Afghan factions into compliance with international norms of behavior on all human rights issues, and those norms would certainly preclude any steps such as these.

We have raised the issue of human rights repeatedly with Taliban authorities and we are working with other countries and with the United Nations to bring about change.

QUESTION: Can I go to Austria? Has the Secretary had a chance to reflect on his meeting with the Austrian Foreign Minister yesterday with respect to her request to have Mr. Waldheim removed from the watch list?

MR. BOUCHER: They did discuss the issue of Mr. Waldheim at the end of the meeting privately. I think I would just say that the Secretary made it clear that we are not in a position to change the US Government's determination on Mr. Waldheim, and the Secretary took no new positions on the matter.

QUESTION: Why are you not in a position to change (inaudible) something new (inaudible) legal view?

MR. BOUCHER: Because we think that the position that we have taken is well justified. I think some people have raised this issue of some CIA documents that have been released recently, and those were not the reason for putting Mr. Waldheim on the watch list. So the files don't really provide any new or relevant information on the case. They don't change our decision with respect to his inclusion in the lookout.

QUESTION: But if it wasn't -- I mean, if I understand the CIA, these files were not the reason -- can you tell us again why then he is on the list and what you think about the view of some historians now that in fact, although he may have been a witness to war crimes and been aware of them, that he himself was not involved in them?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me double-check and see to what extent I can go into the information on which we based the listing. But I think it is quite clear to us, based on the information we have, that the decision was justified and remains justified, and that there is no new information at this stage that would result in a change.

QUESTION: Richard, any update on the situation in Nepal, and also in Bangladesh? And at the same time, 16 foreigners are still being held in Sri Lanka, including two Americans. So what is their fate?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have any updates on those things.

QUESTION: This is a subject you haven't wanted to talk about, and that is the supposed leaked memos. But now today there is a story that -- about more information that Bush and Schroeder talked about withholding aid to Russia.

And my question is, whether or not you want to confirm the leaks or anything like that, are you having to deal with the repercussions of reports that the information was leaked? Are these countries asking the State Department for confirmation of whether this is or is not the view?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether it has come up at various embassies or elsewhere. I think in these cases, rather than trying to deal with the issue of what somebody might have reported about a report on a meeting, we are quite up-front in most cases with the questions of what our policy actually is.

So if somebody inquires, you know, did you say X, Y or Z, rather than getting into the meeting, we tend to say, here's what we think about that. And certainly the issue of aid to Russia is one we have addressed before. I note there are some comments by President Putin in that regard.

I don't think I would describe any of these questions or comments that people might make as major issues because I think our policies are easily explained and well known.

QUESTION: But have there been questions as a result of the stories of these leaks?

MR. BOUCHER: I have to assume so, here, there or somewhere, but I don't really have a list of them.

QUESTION: Yes, thank you, Richard. This is Arshad with The Daily Inqilab. On the question -- I am just revisiting the Middle East again, Iraq. The US-British proposal now under consideration at the UN Security Council, and knowing fully well that the Iraqi regime had turned down that proposal at smart -- they call it "smart sanctions."

What is the status of the State Department at this point in time, when we have a report already on The Washington Post which says US seeks funding for Iraqi neighbors to cut down their illegal cross-border activities, trade.

Would you please comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to deal with all three pieces of the things that you raised.

First, the status of the effort in New York. The focus, as you know, of the effort is to institute controls that prevent Iraq from rebuilding its military capacity while facilitating a broader flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people and the Iraq economy.

We think there is broad consensus within the Security Council on those two objectives, as well as in the international community, including our partners and friends in the Middle East who we have been talking to for several months now about this approach.

A draft resolution was circulated yesterday among the Permanent 5, and the subject will be discussed this afternoon in the Security Council.

I think it is important to remember that Resolution 1284 will remain in place, and that Iraq still has the obligation to comply with Security Council resolutions.

Now, on the question of Iraq's attitude, first of all, I think we have to make clear it is unacceptable for any UN member-state to threaten other states with retaliation for compliance with a UN resolution. We are in close discussion with Iraq's neighbors. We are in close discussion with them on a number of elements that will be part of this program, their own arrangements for oil imports. We are in touch with them on steps to curb smuggling and how all these things might be handled. The resolution will address some of these issues too by a framework and a means of handling these things.

I think the other thing is we have made clear all along that we are in discussions with these countries and their economies, their economic officials, to make sure that we have ways to protect their economies from any possible Iraqi economic retaliation on this. Iraq has tried in the past to blackmail neighboring states, to blackmail the entire world by cutting off oil, and they failed to do that. And I think we are confident that we can defeat any further attempts to fail.

Let me finally deal with the question of Iraq's attitude. I think one of the largest ironies in this situation is that Iraq seems to be the only country that is opposed to loosening controls on the flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people, that the Iraqi regime would rather maintain controls through a technical renewal of the resolution than they would to allow an easier and open flow of civilian goods to the Iraqi people.

And one has to question, once again, what Iraq's intentions are, both with regard to weapons of mass destruction and with regard to their own people to object to a regime, to object to a set of controls that would prevent them from purchasing the wherewithal for weapons of mass destruction, but would allow the civilians of Iraq to get the goods that they need for their own daily life, and would even allow the regime to keep buying its whiskey if it wants to.

QUESTION: Richard, you may have covered this, and if so, I apologize. I have a late slip.

On the Middle East again, does the Secretary plan to meet with either Arafat or Sharon on this Africa trip?

And secondly, the question of the F-16s and the Apaches that the US has given to Israel, which are ostensibly to be used for defensive measures only. Are we going to crack down at all on the offensive use of these weapons, even though they claim it is defensive?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as any meetings, there is nothing scheduled, nothing planned at this point for the Secretary in the Middle East.

And as far as the F-16s, Vice President Cheney addressed it over the weekend. I really don't have anything to add to that.

QUESTION: Richard, I wasn't here yesterday, and I know you were asked about the Africa trip because I heard your voice on the radio, at which point I sat bolt upright.

MR. BOUCHER: At which point you turned off the radio, I'm sure.

QUESTION: Well, do you have anything new with regard to his activities that you didn't have yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary's visit to Africa will be a chance for him to talk directly to a number of African leaders in a number of different countries.

The issues that he is taking up in Africa, the issues of regional efforts to solve regional conflicts, the issues of disease, but also the positive issues of democracy and building a basis for economic growth -- these are issues that are important in these countries of Africa, but they are also worldwide issues.

So the issues that we discussed at the Summit of the Americas, in terms of building democracy and building more open trade, building economies that are more free market oriented, getting rid of corruption and crime -- these are issues that he will be taking up in Africa as well.

The issues that he discusses with foreign ministers around the world, of building an environment for investment -- these are issues that he will be taking up in Africa as well.

And as we take up the issues in Africa of HIV-AIDS, which has just reached horrible proportions in many places, of southern Africa in particular, we are very mindful of the fact that the world needs to fight the disease in Africa, and to be aware of the fact that it risks spreading and risks erupting in many other places as well.

So we need to really try to tackle the problem in Africa as we tackle it in other places, because it is there in a way that we don't want to see spread and we don't want to see grow in other places. So the experience that we get in Africa, the methods that we get in Africa, and just controlling the disease in Africa, is important to us all over the world.

So I think the most important thing to remember about the trip is that it is a chance to deal with African leaders on Africa's problems and the democratic and open ways of dealing with African problems, but at the same time, the issues that will be taken up are issues that are important to us throughout the world.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary want to expand the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act to permit more products to be imported into the US?

MR. BOUCHER: I think where we are now is we are in a period of qualifying people, of having them established that they have the requirements of the Act. And as you know, the President has announced a summit meeting this fall after the United Nations General Assembly to meet with the people who are eligible under the African Growth Opportunity Act and to continue working with them on that process of making sure that their products benefit from the Act and that their economies get the opportunity created by the Act.

QUESTION: Walter Kantheim --

MR. BOUCHER: Kansteiner.

QUESTION: -- mentioned at his confirmation the idea of an AGOA II. Is that something the Secretary would support?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't heard that addressed yet, so I will have to check with Walter before I can do it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN