State Department Noon Briefing, Wednesday, October 11, 2000
U.S. Department of State DAILY PRESS BRIEFING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2000 -- 12:50 P.M. (ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) Q: All right. How about Turkey preparing to tap in full blown to the Iraqi pipeline? Does that distress the State Department? BOUCHER: I just saw that. I'll have to do some checking on it. Clearly we have -- you know we have a lot of common interests with Turkey, and we talked about that yesterday. There is an Oil-for-Food Program that essentially doesn't limit the amount of oil that Iraq can pump, but I'd have to check how this pipeline fits under that program and how it's being handled. Q: When you check, if you don't mind, could you ask if the US tried to dissuade Turkey from doing this? BOUCHER: Okay, I'll check on that. Q: Thanks. Q: More on Iraq? BOUCHER: More on Iraq. Please, go ahead. Q: Okay. To start, any reaction at this point to the Government of Jordan's decision to expel Lloyd's of London from their job of checking Jordanian exports to Iraq at this point? Some have said this might be further or more violations of the UN sanctions. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I know about that. Do I know about that, Phil? No, I don't know about that. Does Phil know about it? All right, that's something we're going to have to check on. I hadn't seen that one. Q: All right. Question number two then is the Iraqis are being invited to the next Arab League summit. I guess this is the first time since the Gulf War. What impact do you think this is going to have on the peace process and the reaction at this point? BOUCHER: I hesitate to try to give too broad a reaction. I think you'll see that these decisions are being made by others for their own reasons. I think there are two things that are important to remember: first of all, that sanctions remain effective on Iraq, and these various disputes and discussions and statements about the status of sanctions don't change the fact that all members of the Security Council have called on Iraq to abide by Resolution 1284 and we think that still remains the common view in the region as well; and, second of all, that Iraq's position on the peace process is well known, and I think heavily discounted. The fact is, the parties remain engaged, the parties keep working with us, and we keep proceeding despite some of these voices that are trying to tear down the peace process, because we believe it's the only way and many others agree as well. So, I wouldn't read too much into this, frankly. Q: If I could follow up on just the -- but I understand that this meeting is being called specifically to deal with what's going on in Israel right now, and the decision to invite Iraq, knowing their position on the peace process, may indicate that the position in the region is changing. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask people in the region why they did it. Q: On Iraq, the Syrians and your friends from -- now your special friends from yesterday, the Sudanese, have announced plans to send planes into Baghdad without -- at least the Sudanese have said they are going to do it without seeking the Sanctions Committee approval. What do you make of that? BOUCHER: There are clearly differences over certain flights and how they have to be cleared. We have made no secret of our disagreement with the French and Russian interpretation of things. There are a lot of these stories out there. Iceland has confirmed that the stories of the Icelandic flight landing in Baghdad were false. There is an Iranian flight that is pending. We know flights from Turkey, Algeria, United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Yemen that were all approved by the Sanctions Committee. We also know flights by Egypt and Syria that were not approved by the Sanctions Committee. And even in those cases, Syria didn't notify the Sanctions Committee of the flight, was asked to delay by the vice chairman of the Sanctions Committee, and I guess didn't. Egypt, in fact, did notify the Sanctions Committee but didn't wait for the approval. So, you have various situations there. We do view unapproved flights as inconsistent with the sanctions regime. We think the Sanctions Committee has been quite clear. We are pleased that so many countries in the world, when they have these flights, do follow the procedures and get the approval of the Sanctions Committee, and we remain in disagreement with those who do not. I don't, at the same time, want to draw any conclusions that this particular dispute over the status of certain kinds of flights has any implications for the broader regime, because we do think that the sanctions are effective and that everybody remains behind 1284, which was a very carefully worked out procedure by which Iraq, with inspections of its weapons programs, could succeed in obtaining a suspension of sanctions. Q: Well, does that mean you think that the Syrians and the Sudanese are -- and now the Egyptians -- are in violation of the Security Council resolution? BOUCHER: We think their actions are inconsistent with the UN sanctions regime. Leave it at that. Q: What do you think about -- this morning people in the Department were going rather further on the Syrian one, saying that they considered it a violation of the sanctions regime. Now that Egypt has followed suit, you have amended your language. Would you say it's not in line or something? BOUCHER: I don't -- well, tell me who they were and I'll work it out with them. Q: So you're not saying that -- you're saying that the Egyptian flight is not in violation? Q: He said "inconsistent." BOUCHER: I'm saying it's inconsistent. If the Sanctions Committee approves a flight, it's not a violation. I don't frankly think there's too much of a difference there. A violation of the sanctions regime and an action that's inconsistent with the sanctions regime both amount to the same thing; that we think it's not consistent with the way the UN Sanctions Committee has operated in the past and with the policies that they have operated under, and we think it's not -- Q: Have you spoken with the Egyptians about this inconsistency? BOUCHER: I'm sure we will, but I'm not sure if we have at this stage. Q: And the Syrians, too? BOUCHER: I'm sure we will, but I'm not sure if we have at this stage. Q: And the Sudanese? Or are you not speaking with the Sudanese? BOUCHER: We have ways of talking to them, too, when we need to. Q: Another topic? Q: Can we follow up on -- can you say, do non-sanctioned commercial flights to Iraq represent a security risk to the United States or US interests in the region? Can you sort of explain why they are problematic? Or is it just they know they're breaking the rule; it's a slap, it's technically not in line? BOUCHER: Well, I think they're breaking the rule and they're doing things where the international community is not able to know exactly what's going on, and therefore they can raise potential suspicions. The point of the sanctions regime on Iraq is to make sure that they don't import the wherewithal to threaten their people and threaten their neighbors. That remains the goal. Iraq's posture in the region, Iraq's threats to its neighbors and to its people, remain active. And we have made quite clear that if we see activity that we think is designed to renew its weapons of mass destruction programs or carry out other things like attacks on neighbors or on the North or on US forces, that we're prepared to respond. So, I think the question of these flights is that they provide an area where the regime is not being -- the sanctions regime is not being followed, and therefore the international community has a little less knowledge about what's going in and out. (The briefing was concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
