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: More broadly, President Clinton suggested this morning that
Secretary Albright might be returning to the region in his stead. Is
there any word on possible travel to the region, to Rome, a new
symmetry?
BOUCHER: No.
Q: Would you expect to have word on that today?
BOUCHER: I don't know. At this moment, there are no travel plans. The
President, I think, said the Secretary or I might go -- or he himself.
Q: Or both.
BOUCHER: Or both. Or neither. Or we'll see. So at this point, no
travel plans.
Q: You've made that contingent on that end of the violence. That's
still the line, right?
BOUCHER: Yes. I mean, well, the President -- what he said is the
primary and first thing is the commitment to end the violence, where
suffering continues, the deaths continue. We want to make it stop. We
are also then working to, shall we say, cement the relative calm that
is taking place. There is sporadic violence still. We all know that.
There are demonstrations still, and possible flare-ups. But, at this
point, we are trying to cement the calm and then move on the
transition back to a peace process.
Q: Can you say if the reinstation of Ambassador Indyk's security
clearance has had any immediate impact -- I mean, not on the situation
itself, but has it --
BOUCHER: It has contributed enormously to the calm and saved lives.
Q: No, but has he had any meetings that he otherwise -- already that
he would not have already -- would not have been able to have prior to
the Secretary's decision?
BOUCHER: I guess it depends when you go back to which decision. The
Secretary made a decision last week to have him work under careful
guidelines that essentially made his work unclassified. But, by
allowing him access to classified information, he is much better able
to carry out his obligations in this situation, to assist in the
process of working with people on both sides to calm the situation and
to fulfill his duties to a full extent with regards to things like the
protection of Americans.
Q: Could you say a few words about Kofi Annan and how his efforts fit
in? In a sense -- you know, isn't it -- I don't mean a physical
substitute for US intervention, but doesn't it take some of the burden
off the US, which was consistently for 25 years called the only -- the
sole intermediary, the only one trusted by both sides? Is the UN now
-- Kofi Annan, at least -- reached that level of trust with the
parties, as far as you know?
BOUCHER: I think that's something you have to ask the parties
themselves what their view is. Certainly, as you see in the diplomacy
on this, there are any number of people that are involved in one way
or the other. Perhaps each of them has their own particular role. We
do think that the United States continues to have a very central and
important role. You know, by how hard the President and the Secretary
have been working in keeping in touch with the parties, that we have
played that role in this situation, that we have set up the
commitments, the kind of mechanisms that we're looking for to
effectively calm the situation, and then transition back to the peace
process.
So we certainly support the Secretary General's efforts. We think he
can make a very useful and important contribution to calming the
situation. Many people involved here are all pushing in the same
direction, trying to help the parties take the kind of steps that are
necessary to calm the situation, and we welcome that. We have stayed
in very close touch with him as he has been out there. Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook is out in the region. The Secretary has talked to
him several times in the last few days, including this morning. So we
are all working together on this.
Q: Just please remind us or bring us up to date on conversations
between the Secretary and Secretary General. I think the President
talked to Kofi Annan.
BOUCHER: The President, I think, this morning said that he had talked
again to Kofi Annan this morning. So that would be the latest
conversation. She has talked to him several times over the past few
days. I can't remember when her last conversation on her own was, but
obviously when the President talks, he speaks for the United States.
Q: Richard, Egypt has said repeatedly that they're not going to be
willing to host a summit until after the Arab League on the -- I think
it's the 21st of October. Is the US comfortable with that kind of time
table, with letting this thing go that long, another ten days or so,
if it means having a summit --
BOUCHER: I don't think we should get fixated on one particular meeting
and one particular time in one particular place. As the President said
this morning, the goal is not just to have a meeting; the goal is to
bring this situation back to a more calm situation, to take the steps
necessary to keep that calm, to sort of cement it in place, and then
to transition back into the peace process.
So, if meetings or other mechanisms prove useful in doing that, then
the meetings will occur. There are a variety of ideas about how to do
this, and as anything contributes to that process, I'm sure we'll use.
Q: Could we go back to Indyk for a minute?
BOUCHER: Sure.
Q: Could you tell us, is the investigation complete and the file
closed on that?
BOUCHER: No.
Q: And can we assume that they came to the conclusion that the
violations were not serious enough to justify any kind of follow-up
action? And would this have been treated in the same way if Mr. Indyk
were not in such a hot spot?
BOUCHER: I think I would describe it differently than that. First of
all, the investigations do continue, and his security clearance has
been reinstated for the duration of the current crisis. Once the
situation stabilizes, the status of his security clearance will be
reevaluated.
From the beginning, we have made clear that we had no indication of
espionage in this circumstance, and we had no indication of compromise
of intelligence information either. Given that and the status of the
investigation, there were indeed -- you know, we said it was a
difficulty to have our Ambassador not be able to fully exercise his
functions as we proceeded along with the peace process and other
things that we have been working.
With the outbreak of violence, we feel there is really a compelling
need to have him fully functional; and the Secretary, based on that
determination of compelling national security interests, reinstated
the security clearance two nights ago. So, it was made because of the
particular situation we're in, because of the particularly urgent need
to have Ambassador Indyk not only meeting with the Israeli Government
and working with his team there, but also to be able to do that using
classified material, which is essential to doing that completely, both
with regard to the efforts to calm the situation and with his
responsibilities to protect American citizens.
So, it was done in the current crisis because of a very compelling
need to have our Ambassador fully functional in this situation.
Q: I'm just a little confused. If the Department made the
determination that Mr. Indyk had ostensibly or allegedly broken enough
of the security regulations that his security clearance would be
temporarily pulled, what makes you think that he is now any better
placed to handle top secret information?
BOUCHER: Well, I think anybody who has gone through the experience
that he has gone through recently is going to be a whole lot more
careful, first of all.
Second of all, he is going to be -- is being fully briefed on
procedures and the proper handling and the importance and the critical
need of protecting classified information.
And third of all, I think it's really the overriding need to have him
in place and fully functional, given the crisis, that means that we
think he should be back on the job.
Q: So, would it follow then that if he -- as you just said, anybody
who has gone through an experience that he did certainly has learned
certain things. Would it then follow that he would be able to handle
top-secret information, even after the crisis is over?
BOUCHER: That will depend on the outcome of the investigation.
Q: Will his security clearance then be revoked as soon as the crisis
is over?
BOUCHER: Once the situation stabilizes, the status of his security
clearance will be reevaluated. We'll tell you that at that time,
depending on what the status --
Q: (Inaudible) -- reevaluated?
BOUCHER: It depends on when the crisis is over, when the investigation
finishes, what happens in the meantime, what they find in the
investigation, and then we'll decide.
Q: But if the investigation is still going on --
BOUCHER: These are "ifs." There are about 17 different possibilities,
and we'll deal with the ones that actually happen.
Q: But I think you said in that long statement that -- and certainly
it's been said before -- espionage was not an issue. It sounded like
the allegations weren't all that weighty. And with all due respect,
even with the violence, I mean, the peacemaking process has been in
trouble before. This guy has been a page one figure as somebody who
may have done something dastardly, and it sounds like he really --
even the allegation doesn't run that deep. And I think there is a
morale problem here if you talk to people in the cafeteria, and I
wonder if it was worth all that. If Indyk can come back to work before
the investigation --
BOUCHER: All right, let's all go to the cafeteria.
Q: No, no. If Indyk can come back to work without the investigation
being concluded because there is some rioting on the West Bank, I
question whether there was a basis for lifting his clearance in the
first place.
BOUCHER: All right, Barry. First of all, there was a basis for lifting
the clearance. The investigation continues. You can't draw any
conclusions at this stage about the allegations. What you can draw in
terms of conclusions is the fact that there are people dying out
there. There are people dying in the region every day. There is
violence that threatens to disrupt the peace process and the region.
The United States has a very important role to play, and the United
States Ambassador has a very important role to play, not only in
working with the parties and meeting with the parties at the highest
levels to try to take steps to calm the situation, but also he has
personal responsibilities with regard to the protection of American
citizens. And if he is going to fulfill those responsibilities in
terms of protection of American citizens, he also needs classified
information to do that.
So there is a very compelling national security need that means that
our Ambassador, who is not implicated in espionage or loss of
intelligence information but is under investigation for proper
security procedures, it means this man needs to be on the job. And
that's the only conclusion you can draw at this point. You can't draw
any conclusions about the allegations.
Q: Wouldn't the crisis time be precisely the time when the volume of
secret information is the greatest, and therefore the risk of some
sort of a problem is also the greatest?
BOUCHER: I think, you know, having been briefed again, having gone
through what he's gone through, for whatever period he needs to handle
this crisis, whatever material he needs to handle to do that, I think
we feel that he could be trusted for that. That's different than
saying he's got a full-blown security clearance for the rest of --
Q: Secretary Albright said that security would be the -- that security
would be the top issue, and you seem to be saying that that's now
subordinated to the crisis in the Middle East. I thought she told the
Department and people abroad that security was the one issue.
BOUCHER: I think what she -- if you go back to what she said, that she
expected people to be as professional in handling security matters as
they were in every other aspect of their professional career, of their
professional activity. And that is certainly what we would expect out
of Ambassador Indyk in this situation.
Q: Can we go back to the wider issue of peacemaking? In an unusual
step, the White House disclosed the kind of summit and the location
the President would have liked to have had. That was in Egypt, as soon
as possible. What is the Administration's explanation for that summit
not taking place? What went wrong? It's clearly the US wanted it. What
torpedoed the idea? Who and why?
BOUCHER: Barry, I'm not going to do that. I think the President
discussed it this morning. I'll stick with what he said on the
subject.
Q: Well, this morning, one meetings or two meetings or seven meetings
or one trip, you know, isn't all that big a deal. On Sunday, the
biggest deal in the world was to have a quick summit in Egypt. The
question is did Egypt dis-invite the United States?
BOUCHER: That's what I read in the press report, if I don't remember
my saying that.
Q: No, not you said that. The White House said that.
BOUCHER: Well, you can ask them if you want --
Q: But who dis-invited the President? Egypt, or Arafat via Egypt?
Barak said he's willing to go.
BOUCHER: Once again, Barry, I think the issue to focus on is not a
particular meeting. The issue to focus on is what we can do to calm
the violence, and there are a variety of ideas out there about how to
do it. Meetings are certainly part of that. But the issue is how do we
effectively calm the violence. That's what we're trying to do.
Q: The President of the United States and the heads of three
governments and one would-be government, it seems to be a rather large
event in --
BOUCHER: It's a rather large endeavor, but would it or would it not
effectively calm the violence? I think that's the issue that has to be
decided.
Q: President Putin has been saying that the two sides are coming
closer together. Do you agree with that assessment? And what kind of
role is Russia playing at the moment in the crisis?
BOUCHER: I think that was the phrase the Secretary used the other day
in terms of the peace process, that she said we're closer. I think,
"We're closer than we've been in a long time," or words to that effect
that she said.
Certainly, as I said before, there are a number of people that are
involved in trying to help out in this situation. Russia, as you know,
is a co-sponsor in the Middle East peace process. Foreign Minister
Ivanov has been visiting the region in that regard with the same goals
as we have: to restore calm, reduce tensions, and promote peace
efforts. So, as I said, there are a variety of people engaged in this
diplomacy, and we try to keep in very close touch with each of them.
Q: I've got one more Middle East question. Just to clarify on the
summit, is the US posture that the violence must stop first, and then
the summit, or that the summit should occur and that one of the key
agendas of the summit be to find a way to stop the violence?
BOUCHER: Again, I'm trying to convince people not to get fixated on a
particular meeting or a particular mechanism. The point is, if it's
useful to have a meeting or a summit today, tomorrow, next week,
whatever, somewhere -- if that contributes to calming the violence, to
ending the violence, getting us back onto the path of peace, then it's
an important thing to do. But it's not important just to have a
meeting. And the goal is not the meeting; you don't set conditions
just to have a meeting.
Q: One other question, then. In regard to the commission of inquiry
that they are putting together, does the United States have any
objection then to Russia taking part, or France taking part? Arafat
apparently has wanted to make the base of this inquiry broader than
the trilateral one that we originally proposed?
BOUCHER: I think on this issue, we have been discussing with the
parties the issue of a fact-finding commission. We have been looking
for a mechanism, for a way of doing it that can be effective in
understanding the causes of violence, and thereby indicating ways of
preventing it and reducing the possibilities of violence in the
future. These discussions are ongoing. I'm not going to speculate
about how it might finally come out, but certainly we see a role for
ourselves and possibly others, as well as the parties.
Q: There are press reports circulating in the Middle East alleging
that the United States has changed its policy on the Bahrain
territorial dispute on the Hawar Island? Can you comment on that?
BOUCHER: No. I mean, I can comment, and allegations that we have
changed our policy are entirely inaccurate. Our position on the
dispute has not changed. We remain strongly committed to supporting a
peaceful resolution of the dispute over the Hawar Islands. We take no
position as to the relative merits of the claims brought by each state
to the islands.
We believe that Bahrain and Qatar should work out the issue
peacefully, either through direct discussion or through another
mutually acceptable mechanism, and the process under way at the
international court of justice is one appropriate mechanism to address
the dispute. We hope that the outcome of the proceedings serves as a
basis for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
Q: Do you support any findings by the court of justice?
BOUCHER: We think it's an appropriate mechanism. We would support a
peaceful resolution based on their findings.
Okay. Can we go to Yugoslavia for a bit?
Q: Can you give us an update on Jim O'Brien's travel and Ambassador
Montgomery's travel?
BOUCHER: You'll be pleased to know that Ambassador Montgomery is in
Belgrade.
Q: (Inaudible) -- pretty good. I just wanted to apologize to Mr.
Holbrooke.
BOUCHER: He was only deleting. He wasn't wrong; he was just early.
Okay.
Ambassador Montgomery arrived today in Belgrade. He'll be setting up
appointments to meet with members of the new leadership and other
actors involved in the effort to set up a democratic society,
including nongovernmental organizations, members of the independent
media.
Jim O'Brien arrived in Sarajevo today. He is expected to travel to
Belgrade tomorrow, and then he and Ambassador Montgomery will meet
with President Kostunica together. Mr. O'Brien will then travel on
Friday to Montenegro and from there on to Kosovo.
Q: Is it correct that Montgomery is the first US diplomat to go to
Belgrade since the bombing? Or was it someone in between -- I don't
know -- in between the elections --
BOUCHER: I think -- a definitive yes, or a probable yes? Definitive
yes. Yes. Okay.
Q: This is still on Yugoslavia. We're sending somebody into Montenegro
--
BOUCHER: Yes. O'Brien expects to be there on Friday?
Q: That's what you said, yes.
BOUCHER: Yes.
Q: How has the whole sequencing in Belgrade impacted on Montenegro? Do
you have any thoughts on that?
BOUCHER: I'm not sure I have any new thoughts on that. Certainly our
support for Montenegro continues. We continue to work with the
international community, not only to look at what can be done to aid
Serbia in seeing the dividend of democratic change, but also to
continue working with all the neighbors and people in the region in
terms of continuing support for their efforts to build their
democracies and their economies.
We have kept in close touch with Montenegro all along. The Secretary
spoke by telephone with President Djukanovic over the weekend, if I
remember correctly. So we have stayed in touch, and Mr. O'Brien will
be there on Friday.
Q: Montenegro's president has refused to acknowledge Kostunica as
President. Have you heard that?
BOUCHER: I haven't heard that. That strikes me as contrary to other
reports I have seen. Let's put it that way.
Q: There have been wire reports and radio reports earlier this morning
that the Milosevic cronies that were heading various departments of
the government were now going to cooperate with Mr. Kostunica, and
especially the army. The army general had said no, so basically it
looks like Milosevic is trying to take back the victory. What does the
State Department say to that?
BOUCHER: Well, several things, most of which we said before. One, we
have never underestimated the difficulty of taking over and making
democratic rule effective in Serbia. For many years now, Milosevic has
ruled the country, put his people in key positions, taken over
enterprises, and really turned much of the state apparatus and some of
the business apparatus into a private fiefdom. So, there is a great
deal to do in order to restore democratic independence of the
judiciary, of the media, and the rule of law generally, which is what
President Kostunica was elected to do. There is much to be done, and I
think the international community is helpful, and clearly the will of
the Serbian people is behind it.
Second of all, I think you have to describe this as a continuous
retreat, though, on the part of Milosevic and the people that were
once close to him. Many have abandoned him already. He is ostracized,
marginalized, and out of -- clearly out of power, and I think one can
see the direction that it is heading for others that might have been
associated with him in these positions. So, we do have confidence that
the democratic forces are strong and that the new government will be
able to take over, but it is a difficult process that can take some
time.
Q: Is Milosevic acting illegally, he and his cronies, by this kind of
delaying action?
BOUCHER: I don't know. I'm not a Yugoslav judge. I don't know that I
can tell you that.
Q: Going back to Montgomery for a second -- and maybe this is obvious
and maybe it's not -- but does it follow with his return that he is
working out of the Embassy? Is it back? Can we describe it as back up
and running? Did he take other diplomats with him? Is there set to be
a continued US presence there?
BOUCHER: He does have a team of people with him but, unfortunately,
our embassy is not usable at this time because of security
considerations, so they have set up in another location, which we will
for the moment decline to specify.
We do expect that Ambassador Montgomery and officers from his section
of our Embassy in Budapest will be making frequent trips to Belgrade
but, at this time, no decision has been made about the permanent
staffing of the office, the US office in Belgrade.
Q: About Jim O'Brien's visit, the fact that he has gone to Sarajevo
first would tend to suggest that there are Dayton Accord issues going
on here. Is part of the purpose of his visit to try and arrange some
kind of meeting with M. Kostunica and officials in Sarajevo?
BOUCHER: I don't know whether that is a specific part of his agenda at
this stage or not. Clearly, the overriding agenda is to help with the
consolidation, to update President Kostunica and his government on
what we are doing or will be doing with sanctions and with potential
aid programs, and to discuss how we can continue to help with this
process of establishing democracy and rule of law firmly in
Yugoslavia.
The attention that we devote to neighbors and our continuing support
and concern for people in the region, I think, is self-evident and
stands on its own merits. And, frankly, I'm not sure how the itinerary
was decided, whether it was scheduling or substance that dictated this
order.
Q: Richard, again on this question of Milosevic hanging onto power, do
you have anything specifically to say to the refusal of the Serbian
Government to call new elections, which essentially leaves him in
power alongside Kostunica and the federal parliament for a good long
time? No?
BOUCHER: I have to say that I thought yesterday we had just talked
about their agreement to call new elections, the Serbian parliament,
so I'll have to double-check the facts before I make the comment.
Q: I'd like to confirm one thing about North Korea. Do you really
expect that the discussion will continue late into the evening, even
after the dinner?
BOUCHER: We'll have to see. There will be meetings and discussions
going on all afternoon, members of the delegation, and then over with
Secretary Cohen. They can talk at dinner, but I just don't know
whether it will extend beyond that or not. I don't have -- there is
nothing scheduled at this point beyond dinner.
Q: You said that maybe tomorrow morning there will be an announcement
or a joint statement. If so, the discussions will continue in the --
late at night?
BOUCHER: Not necessarily.
Q: Not necessarily?
BOUCHER: No, we might finish it and put it to bed.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
