02 October 2001
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, October 2, 2001
(Terrorism, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestinian Authority,
India/Pakistan, Italy, Sudan, religious freedom, Caribbean, Algeria,
UK) (7870)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Daily Press Briefing Index
Tuesday, October 2, 2001
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
TERRORISM
-- Evidence Against al-Qaida's/Frank Taylor in Brussels/Sharing
Information
-- Commitment of International Community to Fight Terrorism
PAKISTAN
-- Ambassador Chamberlin's Talks with President Musharaff
AFGHANISTAN
-- Taliban Request for Information
-- Condemning Attacks and Offering Condolences
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
-- Recognizing Palestinian State/ Ending Violence/ Mitchell Plan/UN
Resolutions 242 and 338/ Plans for New Envoy
-- Defusing Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World
Palestinians Arresting People on List/ Support for Israel/Cutting off
Economic Aid
-- UN General Assembly Meeting
INDIA/PAKISTAN
-- Meeting with Foreign and Defense Minister Jaswant Singh/India as
Key Partner in Global Coalition Against Terrorism/Attack in
Kashmir/Cooperation with Pakistan
ITALY
-- Public Announcement/Safety of American Citizens
SUDAN
-- Release of Political Prisoners/U.S.-Sudanese Relations
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
-- Release of International Religious Freedom Report
CARIBBEAN
-- Missing U.S. Government Aircraft off the Bahamas/Aerial Spray
Program
ALGERIA
-- Cooperation with Algeria/Mr. Brahimi's Current Status
UK
-- Speech of Prime Minister Blair
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001, 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to
be here. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I'd be glad
to take your questions.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about the conversations that have been
going on in Brussels and in Islamabad and elsewhere around the world
between your diplomats and foreign leaders, as it relates to whatever
kind of evidence you're providing them?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me, I think, start with the general, and then we'll
go to the more specific places.
First of all, as the President and the Secretary and others have told
you, we are building a very strong case against al-Qaida. This is a
process of amassing information. There is a great body of evidence
that indicates clearly to us and to others that al-Qaida was
responsible. We've noted the statements by Prime Minister Blair; we've
noted the statement by the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, and
others as well, who have seen this information, who have developed
their own information. Let's not forget, there are investigations
going on around the world. And I think people in this Government and
elsewhere have an increasing body of evidence that indicates quite
clearly that al-Qaida was responsible.
We have said all along we will be sharing that information with
foreign governments as we can. And so we have instructed our
ambassadors to likeminded nations to brief their host governments on
the kind of information, on what we have and on what we're learning,
about the al-Qaida network and about this operation.
As part of those discussions, our Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
Frank Taylor, is in Brussels. He has briefed the North Atlantic
Council and the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. He will also be
having other meetings in NATO in Brussels with other partners of NATO
and with, I think, members of the European Union as well.
I want to stress a couple of things about this. This is a
back-and-forth process of sharing information with other governments.
As I said, there are many other governments that themselves are
developing information. This will be an ongoing process of sharing
information.
Second of all, that the fact that we're sharing this information with
other governments at this point does not indicate any particular
decisions about our response options. It's not a prelude to something
else, other than the continuing process of sharing information.
The global coalition, as you know, is multifaceted. There are many
aspects to this: the diplomacy of it, the financial controls that we
put in place, the legal cooperation that we have with many
governments, the intelligence-sharing that we have with many
governments, as well as possible military steps. And this kind of
diplomatic coordination with other governments is very normal.
One of the places where we have shared information is in Pakistan, and
our ambassador, Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, has been in to see
President Musharraf today, and she shared with him some of the
information that we have been developing. Again, this is going to be
an ongoing process of sharing information and discussion with the
Government of Pakistan, and we are continuing our consultations with
Pakistan on how best to wage the Campaign Against Terrorism, and how
we can move forward together.
I'll stop with that.
QUESTION: Well, where else? Can you say what the other like-minded
countries are that have so far been the recipients of this
information?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't give you the list of countries because this
information is being shared on a classified basis and I am afraid I am
not in a position to indicate where we are able to do that and where
we are not. I would say that, generally, there are quite a number of
nations in Europe. Obviously, we talked to all of our NATO allies at
NATO. There are countries in the Far East, there are countries in the
Middle East, there are countries in South Asia where we have been
talking to people and sharing the information that we can and to any
extent we can. Central Asia as well.
So to the extent we can with all governments, we share information and
go back and forth with them in various channels on the information
that we know and that we have.
QUESTION: Without saying any country, were these packets or whatever
they are -- cables, information to be shared -- sent to every embassy?
Or were there embassies that were not --
MR. BOUCHER: No, they were not sent to every embassy.
QUESTION: Can you characterize roughly what you are telling? Is it
information that leads directly to Usama bin Laden? Is it intelligence
information? Is it evidence that will stand up in a court of law? Can
you in any way lead us any more --
MR. BOUCHER: I have tended to use the word "information" because we
are not in a court of law. And it is being shared on a classified
basis and, obviously, most of the time, when you go into a court of
law, you have to have it available for the jury and for the defense,
et cetera. So this is not, we are not, proceeding to trial. What we
are doing is sharing information with like-minded governments, telling
them what we know, hearing from them what they know. And it is a
considerable body of information that comes from a whole variety of
sources.
Clearly, when one looks at the pattern of activity of al-Qaida in past
attacks, and the kind of attack that this was, there is a similarity.
There are also elements that tie al-Qaida to this specific act, and
those are the kinds of things that we are sharing and discussing with
other governments.
QUESTION: There is one other thing, and I know they're not exactly
friends, but the Taliban were also saying this morning -- their
representative was saying -- look, why don't you give us information
because you are asking us to extradite this person. What is your
response to that?
MR. BOUCHER: My response, first of all, is that strikes me as a
request for delay and prevarication rather than any serious request.
And second of all, they're already overdue. They are already required
by the United Nations resolutions that relate to the bombings in East
Africa to turn over al-Qaida, to turn over their leadership, and to
shut down the network of operations in their country. There should be
no further delay. There is no cause to ask for anything else. They are
already under this international obligation, and they have to meet it.
QUESTION: Richard, the Secretary said maybe 10 days ago that some
information will be shared with the public. Any closer to that?
MR. BOUCHER: Not today. What we have been able to share so far has
been information that we have been able to share with foreign
governments. I don't have anything that I can give you at this point.
But as the Secretary has said, we look forward to doing that when we
can.
QUESTION: Richard, I wanted to make sure I'm clear on this. So the
information that you all are providing to people is information that
relates not only to the World Trade Center and Pentagon incidents, but
also to embassy bombing and other past incidents to show past practice
and linkages?
MR. BOUCHER: I know that you would like to be quite clear on this, but
I'm afraid I'm not in a position to go through the information in any
more detail than I have.
QUESTION: Richard, just on another detail. If you were able to share
the information with us, would it be a notebook full, would it be a
page? I mean, is there a way to quantify the evidence you're sharing
with others?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it would be a --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) breadbox?
MR. BOUCHER: (Laughter.) Yes, I'm trying to figure what the metaphor
is. It would be a significant amount of information, but obviously
it's only a portion of all the information that we and others have
been able to amass, because a lot of the things we know we're not able
to share.
QUESTION: Richard, given the importance of building support in the
Muslim world and the Muslim allies, why aren't you providing enough
information so that they can sort of have cover from their own people,
where all of them are being inundated with sort of pro-bin Laden
views? Why aren't you opening the books enough to show them what
you've got?
MR. BOUCHER: Who says we're not?
QUESTION: Richard, when you just responded to the question about the
Taliban asking for information, you said, "It strikes me as a request
for delay and prevarication." What exactly do you think the Taliban is
lying about?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Prevarication.
MR. BOUCHER: I think they know enough to know that they have this
obligation. I don't think they can avoid it anymore. Maybe you're
questioning my choice of the word "prevarication." I'll go look it up
afterwards.
QUESTION: I just want to know why you --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll go look it up, Matt. Sorry if I used the wrong word.
QUESTION: No, no. I just -- I thought maybe you meant something by it.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm happy to have my grammar corrected. I'll check it
myself.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask about the report that Secretary Powell was
going to give a speech recognizing the Palestinian state and laying
out some other U.S. ideas at the UN. Is that, indeed, a correct
account, and can you give us some idea whether that speech might still
be delivered in the near future?
MR. BOUCHER: There was no speech scheduled, as you know. At the same
time, I would say that we are always considering options at how best
to end the violence between Israelis and Palestinians. No decisions
like this were made before September 11th on how best to proceed. But
I'd point out, at the same time, that we've been working very long and
very hard on trying to move this process forward, trying to create a
momentum, trying to get the parties to end the violence and get into
the Mitchell Plan, and eventually that leads to negotiations.
So we were looking at how to get that process moving, and we still
are.
QUESTION: So the story was incorrect, then?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to comment on specific details of a
particular story.
QUESTION: You said no speech was planned and the story said explicitly
a speech was planned.
MR. BOUCHER: I am not a commentator on press here. I am not going to
tell you -- if I start going through a story and saying, this piece
was wrong and that piece was right, then obviously I get myself into
being a press commentator instead of a spokesman for the U.S.
Government. So I am not about to do that.
QUESTION: Well, you said there was no speech scheduled. That's a
little different from saying, no speech planned.
MR. BOUCHER: Are we going to argue over the words "planned" and
"scheduled"? I tell you that we are always looking at various ways of
how to proceed. We have always been pushing hard on the substance of
the policy and we continue to do that.
QUESTION: What has been the U.S. position vis-à-vis a Palestinian
state?
MR. BOUCHER: As the President said this morning, the idea of a
Palestinian state has always been part of a vision, so long as
Israel's right to exist is respected as well. As the President also
said this morning, first things first. We've got to get into the
Mitchell Plan, we've got to get into the process of ending the
violence, rebuilding confidence and returning to negotiations based on
UN Resolutions 242 and 338.
So our objective now needs to be to end the violence between the
Israelis and Palestinians. The administration has been engaged since
it came into office in an effort to do that. The recent cease-fire
that was announced by Chairman Arafat and Foreign Minister Peres is a
step in that direction. We support it and we will continue to support
their effort. So our focus right now remains on taking all possible
steps to end the violence.
I would note, though, that the parties themselves have identified the
creation of a Palestinian state as the likely outcome of the
negotiating process. And Prime Minister Sharon, as recently as
September 24th said, "Israel wants to give the Palestinians what no
one else has given them, the possibility of establishing a state."
So in the context of a negotiated settlement between the parties, the
United States believes that the Palestinian people should live
peacefully and securely in their own state, just as the Israelis
should live peacefully and safely in their own state. Obviously, the
nature of that state is something to be decided through negotiations.
QUESTION: Richard, can you say whether the people who deal with the
Middle East issues have discussed with the parties the possibility of
a Palestinian state during this administration?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that the parties themselves have discussed
it-- you have seen the remarks by Prime Minister Sharon -- so it has
obviously been something in the air. I don't know if I can go any
farther than that, in saying this is obviously a subject that is part
of the discussions. It is one of the issues that we have always
defined as a final status issue and therefore has always been
envisaged to be dealt with at that point in the process. And this is a
process that leads back, we hope, through an end to violence and a
rebuilding of confidence, a process that leads back to the resumption
of negotiations, as the Secretary and others have pointed out, where
they will deal with these issues.
QUESTION: If you could just refresh our memory though, hasn't
Secretary of State Powell mentioned -- used the phrase "Palestinian
state" in public discourse before? I believe he has.
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't have a chance to do the word search on the
Internet, but -- I don't know.
QUESTION: Any plans for a new envoy?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing. Nothing that we have to announce at this point.
QUESTION: Richard, long before the story came out this morning, and as
recently as the four days before the 11th, on the 7th, there were
people in this building, senior officials and then I think Secretary
Powell himself, talking about how you wanted the UN General Assembly
session to be a kind of -- I don't want to use the word "target" --
that that as a focal point.
MR. BOUCHER: It was a moment in time that we were looking at that
could either be trouble or be positive. And the Secretary himself had
talked about how to build some momentum by that time.
QUESTION: Is there now something coming up in the future that would be
equivalent of that? Or is it just every single day is that moment in
time?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the UN General Assembly will be scheduled as well.
The point was, looking at it in August, as we were looking at it,
looking forward to the UN General Assembly, it was quite clear that
could either be a moment of great complication and noise, or it could
be a moment where the world realized that there was something positive
going on in the Middle East. And we wanted to make sure it was a
moment when there was something positive going on.
And so, during that time, we worked very hard on focusing people's
minds again on stopping the violence, helping them prepare for these
meetings between Foreign Minister Peres and Chairman Arafat. I think
the Secretary at one point talked about the possibility that there
would be a series of meetings leading up to the United Nations. So the
focus has been, at that time, before September 11th, on moving that
process forward to create the momentum before the UN General Assembly
meeting.
Now, clearly, September 11th changed a lot of things in terms of time
tables and specifics. But we have worked just as hard on the Middle
East. We have worked just as hard to try to make these meetings
productive. And that is why we are pleased that Chairman Arafat and
Foreign Minister Peres had their meeting, that it was a meeting that
resulted in a lessening of violence and a cease-fire. Not completely,
and there is still work to be done. And that it was a meeting that
produced some specifics for both sides to move forward with.
And so we will continue to work with them in that process, perhaps
without the same sense of deadline but with a sense now that they have
begun something that absolutely needs to be continued. And every day,
the importance of that is -- we are reminded of the importance of
that.
QUESTION: But the short answer to my question then was, no, right?
That there isn't --
MR. BOUCHER: There is going to be a UN meeting coming up.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: But we are moving beyond the point of saying we've got to
be somewhere by then, to say there's something getting started now,
it's good, let's make sure it continues. We don't want to lose this
opportunity that we have now, and we don't want the parties to lose
the opportunity that they themselves have created.
QUESTION: Has Mr. Burns or someone from his department, are they going
to the region soon?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't have anything new to say on that at this
point. They do go from time to time, but I don't have anything new to
say today.
QUESTION: He's here, then?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, he's upstairs. Or maybe in the cafeteria. I don't
know.
QUESTION: Is there a danger that with this out-and-out terrorism by
bin Laden and al-Qaida, that they're doing this purposely? And also
there's been trouble, as we've mentioned, within the last day or two
in Colombia and elsewhere that this is -- to try and focus
specifically on one location and maybe not another? And what --
throughout the world, in talking to various governments and various
entities, what in the word "no" don't people understand? How are you
conveying --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I follow the line of questioning here. What
is "this" that's going on that you're concerned about?
QUESTION: Okay. How are you getting into some of the problematic areas
with various entities that what a terrorist is, as you mentioned a day
ago, and to make clearly known what you expect in those particular
entities and/or governments? I'm saying this in a general manner, not
specifically.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I know. I don't know how to quite answer the
question. We've been in to talk to governments around the world about
the need to combat terrorism, about the things we can do to prevent
terrorism, the things we can do to stop the financing, to stop the
transits, to stop the training, to stop the ability of these groups to
operate. Those apply throughout the world. Those apply in the United
Nations resolution to all terrorist groups, to all activities of
terrorists.
QUESTION: But, as a group -- okay, and to go further, if these groups
don't adhere to particular governments, and let's say are fighting
them, is there any broad consensus, for instance, in a worldwide
meeting on terrorism, or whatever, that would work --
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, there's no consensus to do that sort of
thing, but there is, I think, a strong commitment of the international
community to fight terrorism and for governments to help each other in
that regard.
These groups don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in places where
there's lawlessness, they operate in places where there is tolerance.
And we need to remove that sort of opportunity for these groups to
operate.
QUESTION: Is there anything you can say about Mr. Powell's meeting
with Jaswant Singh, and what we expect?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, in a very short time, I expect the Secretary
himself will say, not only what he expects, but what he did with the
Indian Foreign Minister. The Indian Foreign Minister is in town today
meeting with Secretary Powell, Vice President Cheney, Secretary
Rumsfeld. Yesterday, at the White House, he met with the President,
with Dr. Rice. He is also Defense Minister, so we're talking to him
about not only the coalition against terrorism, but also issues
involving defense cooperation.
India is obviously a key partner in the global coalition against
terrorism, and the United States' relationship with India is one of
the most important ones we have. The U.S. and India already cooperate
extensively against terrorism, and our cooperation is growing. We
established a counter-terrorism joint working group in January of the
year 2000, for example.
New Delhi was also one of the first to offer full support for the
global coalition against terrorism. They have experienced terrible
acts of terrorism themselves, including yesterday's bombing in
Srinagar, Kashmir. They've lost close to 250 people in the attack on
the World Trade Center.
So I think we are very much in this together with the Indians, and I
just saw the Indian Foreign Minister on TV. And he expressed the same
sentiment, that they are very much together with us.
QUESTION: Following yesterday's attack in Kashmir, the Prime Minister
sent a letter -- of India -- sent a letter to President Bush, blaming
Pakistan for this, saying India is no longer going to be patient with
Pakistan. And today, a lot of Pakistani officials are saying that one
of the things that India is trying to do is to lump Pakistan together
with the Taliban, Afghanistan, and Usama bin Laden.
Now, obviously, with Pakistan, as you said, a key component of the
U.S. coalition against terrorism, do you share that view?
MR. BOUCHER: That Pakistan is a key component of --
QUESTION: No, no. That India's assertion that --
MR. BOUCHER: I think that the U.S. Government view has been stated
many times, and I'll state it again, that our cooperation with
Pakistan in this matter is very, very important to us. We have worked
all along with Pakistan on issues in the area and we have always
encouraged all the countries in the region to use their influence to
reduce the violence in Kashmir. It has been very important to us to
try to see that situation solved peacefully, and we have been very
close to the parties in that regard. As far as any other views that
the Indian Government has, I guess I would leave it to them to
explain.
QUESTION: Richard, can you explain or just talk about the public
announcement that you put out for Italy this morning? And, in
particular, explain what you mean by a symbol of American capitalism.
And if, by using those words, are you trying to imply that this is
from some kind of a left-wing -- that the threat emanates from
left-wing anti-capitalists or anti-globalization people?
MR. BOUCHER: The short answer is, no, since you want to get the short
answer to your questions. I am not in a position to explain that
phrase any more. That reflects the nature of the information that we
have, that so-called symbols of American capitalism in Italy may be
targeted for attack in the next month. Our Embassy has released a
warden message to the American community. And we would provide
information should it become available and able to reflect it. But
this is about as close as we can come to describing the threat. And I
don't think we have any more information on what that means.
QUESTION: I mean, I am sure there are a lot of Americans who are in
Italy right now wondering if they can -- does that mean it's not safe
for them to go to an American restaurant or an American store? Is that
what you are trying to say?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we are able to go into any more detail on
what kind of information this is. This is the best reflection we can
give people of where the threats might be. And, obviously, people
should be careful wherever they go, and that's what the travel
advisory says, that people should exercise a high level of vigilance
and increase their security awareness.
QUESTION: So this isn't some kind of a "buy Italian" campaign?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: The Sudanese released a number of political prisoners today,
and they have taken other steps that have been helpful. Have
U.S.-Sudanese relations changed in the last couple of weeks in any
noticeable way?
MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't aware of any prisoner releases. I will have to
double-check on that. There have been some in the past. We have always
said that there were quite a few more who should be released. So I
don't know how many or who these people might have been.
Certainly, we have tried to work with Sudan over the past year on many
of the issues that are of concern to us there. We have seen some
concrete progress in our dialogue on terrorism. We have seen
on-again/off-again ends to the bombing of aid convoys. So we have
tried to work on the many issues of concern.
As you know, the President has appointed Senator Danforth to guide
this overall process for us and to see if we can't help for the search
for peace there. So we welcome the cooperation where we have had it,
but we still do have a number of concerns in some areas.
QUESTION: As you know, last year, Sudan was listed as a particular
country of concern in the United States report on religious freedom
out of this building. And human rights groups would say that, again,
the United States is ready to perhaps criticize Sudan in its upcoming
report, which is not -- which was scheduled to be released last week,
which is not -- can you --
MR. BOUCHER: It hasn't been scheduled for release at this point and
it's not ready -- not quite ready for release yet. But it should be
soon.
QUESTION: Well, are you holding the report in order to not offend
countries that might or might not be criticized in the report, so as
not to offend any countries that you need for the coalition?
MR. BOUCHER: We have not yet scheduled the precise release date of
that report so that people at senior levels who have lots of other
things to do right now get a chance to review it before we put it out.
QUESTION: This is kind of a philosophical question coming up the back
of Sudan. But I wondered the extent to which the events in the last
few weeks have produced a kind of seismic change in relations with
countries like Sudan, but other countries -- has this changed the
whole American perception of the world?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to go seismic here, or philosophical. I
would go back to what the President said, which is that nations who
continue to harbor terrorism will find themselves viewed as hostile.
The corollary to that is that nations have a chance to make a
decision. They have to make a choice for change. And if governments
are willing to cooperate against terrorism, if governments are willing
to cooperate to solve the problems that we have in these areas, then
we welcome that cooperation, and that can result in a change in the
level of our ability to cooperate with them.
So it's really based on the facts. Where countries are cooperating in
the fight against terrorism, that obviously leads to a different
relationship. If they are not, then it's not going to lead anywhere.
QUESTION: Just returning to the Middle East for a second, do you think
it's possible that by reminding the Muslim world that the United
States has at some point voiced support for a Palestinian state under
some circumstances, that it might defuse some of the anti-Americanism
in the Muslim world now?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the importance of this process of search for
peace in the Middle East, the importance of ending the violence so
that people don't get hurt and die, the importance of moving back to a
more stable situation where the parties can negotiate their
differences, that's an overriding importance; that's a virtue within
itself. And so those are things that we have been pursuing.
We obviously know that many people in this region are concerned about
the situation with regard to peace, and that affects the atmosphere
and some of the attitudes. But as I think I have explained to you
today, we were involved in this search before September 11th, and we
will continue to be involved afterwards. Because it's important to
pursue it for U.S. policy and for the sake of the region.
QUESTION: The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, this morning in his
rather incoherent press conference in Islamabad, appeared to have said
that -- or he did say that -- the Taliban had actually been the first
government, or Afghanistan had been the first country in the world to
condemn the attacks and to offer its condolences.
I'm just wondering, in your list of 197 whatevers, do you register --
maybe this is a protocol question -- but do you accept --
MR. BOUCHER: The 198 countries and entities? I don't have the whole
list with me today.
QUESTION: Well, are they in there?
MR. BOUCHER: I tend to doubt it. We accept sincere expressions of
condolence.
QUESTION: So if in fact they had, it was insincere?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't remember exactly what they said and how they said
it, but I don't think it changes the fundamental situation, which is
that they are under an international obligation that they have not
carried out.
QUESTION: A State Department plane heading from the Caribbean to South
Florida is missing. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: All right. Let me give you the facts on this, as much as
I can. We probably have more, if you need them.
There's a State Department-owned single-engine aircraft that took off
from Turks and Caicos Islands at approximately 8:15 Eastern Time on
October 1st. It was en route to Patrick Air Force Base in Florida for
scheduled maintenance, and an American contractor piloted the plane,
no passengers.
At about 9:15, Miami air traffic control received a position report.
They got another one at 9:45. They tried -- the next position report
was due at 9:45. They tried to contact the pilot at 9:23 a.m., but
they were unable to make radio contact. By early afternoon, a search
and rescue operation began with planes from U.S. Coast Guard Miami and
U.S. Air Force at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. Search and rescue
operations continued through the night and into this morning. The
State Department's airplanes, the air wing at Patrick Air Force Base,
also joined the search this morning.
It is our understanding that the weather was bad and that weather
conditions have improved from last night.
QUESTION: Where was the plane originally located?
MR. BOUCHER: It was coming up from Colombia, being ferried up, making
regular stops along the way, and the pilot, I think, normally spends a
night in several places as he brings the airplane back up to Florida.
QUESTION: Just for the record, what was it doing in Colombia?
MR. BOUCHER: It was part of the anti-drug operations that we have down
there.
QUESTION: So it was spraying cocaine?
MR. BOUCHER: It was an aerial spray program airplane. Its spray boom
and spray pump were pulled before the plane departed Colombia, and the
spray tanks are filled with fuel for up to 12 hours of flying time.
QUESTION: Richard, you said it was a State Department-owned plane?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: How many planes does the State Department own?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the number. We have an air force that we
operate out of --
QUESTION: The State Department has its own air force?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we have an air wing.
QUESTION: Does the Pentagon know?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they do. (Laughter.)
These airplanes that are used in counter-drug activities in Latin
America belong to the State Department.
QUESTION: "The Fighting Diplomats"? (Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: I offered to fly, but they wouldn't let me.
QUESTION: Was it coming up for maintenance?
MR. BOUCHER: It was coming up for -- I think that's right -- yes,
scheduled maintenance.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Mideast briefly? There were -- in the
days after the 11th, there was a brief period there where there were
some positive signs in the region, there were a couple of short pauses
in the fighting and some expressions of desire to have talks, et
cetera. That all seems to have now kind of turned back to the violent
normal.
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say that. I think the meetings that have been
held, the security discussions that have been held have resulted in a
lessening of the violence, and we obviously are working very hard to
try to see that continue. The parties have to take further steps.
We've made that clear.
QUESTION: My question is, were those signs that were progress, however
modest, linked to the knowledge among leaders in the region of
potential impending administration initiatives, or were they linked
to, you know, the reaction to the violence, or none of the above?
MR. BOUCHER: The potential, pending, contemplated, thought-of,
perhaps, maybe- might-have-done-something, could-have-done-this,
could-have-done-that kind of things, I'm not going to get into what
those might have been. If we say there were no plans and nothing was
scheduled, then you can assume that we had not talked about it with
the parties at that point.
What those relate to, I would say, is the fact that we were working
hard and have been working hard on the peace process, on trying to get
the meetings together, trying to get the concrete steps on the ground,
trying to get the parties to do what they have to do to end the
violence.
And, immediately, if you look at the abundance of phone calls that I
have talked to you about, you will see that the day after the attacks
on the World Trade Center, the Secretary was again on the phone with
the parties in the Middle East. Our representatives in the region were
talking to the parties to continue the search for peace. And that is
an effort that has been under way, and has led in recent times to some
progress that we were working very hard to try to sustain.
QUESTION: I have a political question. Was there -- would it be fair
to characterize there being somewhat of a full court press going on in
the Administration behind the scenes in order to bring about some
modest improvement that would then set the stage for whatever maybe,
kind of, sort of announcements might have been contemplated?
MR. BOUCHER: If you go back to what we said before, before September
11th, we were working very hard to try to create a certain momentum in
the process, to try to make the violence and help the parties make the
violence end and get back to this path of negotiation and
confidence-building measures, confidence building and then
negotiation. That was an effort that was under way, and after the
attacks on September 11th, obviously some of the specifics changed in
terms of scheduling and dates and the UN session and things like that.
But we maintained the sense of involvement that we had and continue to
work very hard both through the Secretary's calls, our representatives
in the Middle East, the activities of the President, et cetera. So we
had been working hard on this, continue to work hard on it, and will
continue to work hard on it.
QUESTION: And one more follow-up. I realize you've basically been
asked this, but I want to take another crack at it. Obviously, you see
the peace process as important in its own right; you said that. Does
the Administration see any link between the peace process and the
whole terrorism crisis?
MR. BOUCHER: As I have said before, we know that people in the region
who are working with us, who care about terrorism, who themselves have
been subject to terrorism and are working very hard with us on that,
we know that they also care about the status of efforts in the Middle
East. They have welcomed the fact that the U.S. has been involved and
engaged. They welcome the steps that we have tried to take with the
parties. And that does affect the atmosphere, the attitudes involved.
But I think, as we have said, the fight against terrorism is very
important for all of us, for its own reasons. And the search for peace
in the Middle East is also important.
QUESTION: Any indication that the Palestinians are arresting people on
a list of about 100 names the Israelis have given them?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me see if I have anything on that, specifically. I
think I am not able to report to you on specifics. You would have to
check in the region for those. But I would just say that we have made
very clear all along that the Palestinian Authority needs to take
sustained and effective steps to preempt the violence and indeed to
arrest those who are responsible for planning or conducting acts of
violence and terror. We think that is an obligation they have and we
have talked about that frequently.
QUESTION: What about the Israelis? Have you been pressuring the
Israelis, stepped up your pressure, to ease up on some of the closures
on the Palestinians and return to a normal life? Would you say that
that pressure has increased a little bit in the last few weeks?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that we have continued to work very hard with
the parties. I have been quite explicit this day and previous days
that we think that there are certain things we would look to the
Israelis to do, there are certain things we would look to the
Palestinians to do, particularly when it comes to sustained and
effective steps to stop the violence.
We have been in close touch with the parties on those. We have looked
for them to -- we tried to help them work out how those steps could
take place, so that we can get into an end to the violence, the
Mitchell Plan and return to talks.
QUESTION: There is a widespread view in much of the Arab and Muslim
world that the United States supports Israel and that therefore is
somehow responsible for the sufferings of Palestinian people in this
conflict. What can you say to the people of the Muslim world and the
Arab world to convince them that this is not a correct attitude?
MR. BOUCHER: I would point out the facts, as we always have. Obviously
the United States supports Israel. Israel is an ally, it is a fellow
democracy, it is a government with whom we work and cooperate in many
ways. But, just as clearly, the United States has worked very hard to
see that conditions for the Palestinians are eased, to see that they
have a chance to achieve their legitimate aspirations through
political process, through negotiation. The United States has worked
very, very hard to try to see that they are able to achieve what they
want to achieve through negotiation.
So I think we would say that our longstanding support for Israel and
our relationship with that government does not in any way change the
fact that we are working very hard to see that all the people in the
region have an opportunity to live peacefully and securely, as we've
said, within their state.
QUESTION: Any possibility of inviting Mr. Arafat to Washington now?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything like that to announce.
QUESTION: One of my distinguished colleagues wrote a superb article
quoting the Algerian President as saying that the Islamic extremist
movement in Algeria had been, in a sense, manipulated from abroad. And
I was wondering whether there is any involvement of Algeria in an
attempt to defuse what's going on. I know that Mr. Brahimi, the former
foreign minister, was Kofi Annan's special expert on Afghanistan. So
could you comment on any of that?
MR. BOUCHER: I would leave to the United Nations what Mr. Brahimi's
current status is and whatever he is doing now. I'm not quite sure.
As far as Algeria goes, clearly it is one of the countries that people
want to cooperate with. I don't have a specific update on our
cooperation with them. But I think we have seen the European
governments working with them, and I am sure we are working with them
as well.
QUESTION: Do they appear to be enthusiastic about mediating?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try -- first of all, "mediating" is not
the word that operates anywhere in the current circumstance. We are
not open to negotiation. The requirements laid down are quite clear.
I think if you look at our terrorism report, you will see a write-up
of the groups that do operate in Algeria, including some of the
terrorist groups there, and what links they might have to the outside.
QUESTION: One other Mid East question. Sorry. There was a Ha'aretz
report about the U.S. considering a cutoff of economic aid to Israel,
which I guess was planned in a phase-out, but might be speeded up for
a variety of reasons.
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen anything like that. I don't know anything
about that.
QUESTION: On the information on bin Laden's network, was the
information shared with all the embassies that it will be shared with
today? And were -- if not, were Pakistan and NATO allies the first to
receive that information?
MR. BOUCHER: The information that I discussed that went out to a
number of posts around the world is available for ambassadors and
embassies to share with governments today or tomorrow, whenever they
get scheduled to do so. Clearly, the discussions at NATO were very
important to us and coordination with our allies is very important to
us, as well as other governments. But, yes, the people that we were
able to share information with in this fashion, that cable went out
last night for sharing today.
QUESTION: On that, Richard, are all the embassies getting exactly the
same thing? Or are they graded as -- you know, in terms of the amount
of information in them, as to what the country -- how much information
you think that their specific country should --
MR. BOUCHER: That is something I really can't go into. We have
different kinds of cooperation with different governments around the
world. Some governments, we have very close intelligence sharing and
law enforcement cooperation. In other places, we might be sharing only
through diplomatic channels. So I am not able to draw distinctions on
that score.
QUESTION: But is it the same message to every embassy that got it?
MR. BOUCHER: I just said I am not able to draw distinctions on that
score.
QUESTION: Can I ask then on a related note, I know that you heard the
speech of Prime Minister Blair this morning. Do you agree -- does the
United States agree with his assessment that the killing of Mr.
Massoud was a payment in blood from bin Laden, that bin Laden was
behind it as a payment to the Taliban for safe harbor?
MR. BOUCHER: We, obviously, appreciate very much the efforts of the
British Government, Prime Minister Blair. The President has described
him as a true friend. I think that is reflected in the attitudes that
they have taken and that he expressed today in the speech.
I am not going to try to parse his every word or explain on his behalf
things that he said in his speech. I am not in a position to --
QUESTION: I am not asking you to explain it; I am asking if you agree.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think what he said needs any corroboration or
further comment from us, frankly.
QUESTION: Do you agree with him? Do you think -- forget about him.
Forget about what Blair said entirely. Do you think that Massoud was
killed by bin Laden as payment to the Taliban?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check on that and see if I can say
anything in that regard.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) much more detail about the military objectives.
Were you happy about that?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, he is a true friend, great ally.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. agree with the Prime Minister that either the
Taliban surrender bin Laden or they will surrender power, in effect be
taken from power? Is that the same message that --
MR. BOUCHER: The President's message in that regard was quite similar.
I don't have the exact words, but it was turn him over or suffer his
fate, I think was the way that he put it. So, it was quite clear.
(The briefing concluded at 1:35 p.m.)
(end State Department transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
