26 October 2001
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, October 26, 2001
(Announcements, department, Religious Freedom Report, anthrax,
Afghanistan, Turkey, Mexico, Israel/Palestinian Authority, Venezuela,
North Korea, Russia) (9010)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, October 26, 2001, 1:15 p.m.
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
ANNOUNCEMENTS
-- African Growth & Opportunity Act Forum
-- Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
DEPARTMENT
-- White House Announcement of President Bush Visit Next Week
-- Impact of Mail Interruption on Business of the State Department
-- Unhindered Classified Pouch System
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
-- Strict Interpretation of Sharia Islamic Law in Afghanistan
-- Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan Not Designated as Country of
Concern
-- Implications of Being Designated on the List
-- Addition of North Korea to List
-- Countries Cooperating in Coalition Against Terrorism
-- Comparing Religious Freedom in Iraq to Religious Freedom in Saudi
Arabia
ANTHRAX
-- Tests Negative So Far on Second Person Being Evaluated
-- Contractor has Inhalational Anthrax/Condition Guarded but Stable
-- Steps Taken to Protect Employees/Testing of High-Level Officials
-- Results From Environmental Sampling
-- How the Anthrax Got to the SA-32 Facility
-- Powders Testing Negative for Anthrax
-- Worldwide Threat of Anthrax
-- Sharing Information with Foreign Governments
-- Possibility of Domestic Source of Anthrax
AFGHANISTAN
-- Peacekeeping in Post-war Afghanistan/Working with the UN
-- Reported Execution of Abdul Haq/Post-Taliban Afghanistan/Poppy
Cultivation
-- Red Cross Warehouse
TURKEY
-- Meeting in Istanbul of Representatives of Northern Alliance and the
King
MEXICO
-- Immigration Agreement
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
-- Secretary Powell's Telephone Call with Foreign Minister Peres
-- Urging Israeli Government to Withdraw from Palestinian-Controlled
Areas
-- Arafat's Actions in Wake of Assassination
VENEZUELA
-- U.S. Position Regarding President Chavez's Crusade to Get Higher
Prices on Oil Production
NORTH KOREA
-- Dialogue with the U.S.
RUSSIA
-- Foreign Minister's Visit/Amendments to Jackson-Vanik
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2001, 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can start, let
me tell you about a couple of things. A conference on Monday about the
African Growth and Opportunity Act. This forum will be co-hosted by
Secretary Powell, Trade Representative Zoellick, Secretary Evans,
Secretary O'Neill.
It is a forum on the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. It will be the
29th and 30th in the Loy Henderson Conference Room here at the State
Department. Later in the day, we will get you information on press
arrangements. The Secretary will be speaking to this group about 11:45
a.m. on Monday, along with his Senegalese counterpart, Cheikh Tidiane
Gadio. Their remarks will both be open for press coverage.
The forum will include trade, finance and commerce ministers from
about 35 eligible sub-Saharan African countries. The forum discussions
will range from strengthening commercial linkages to sound finance
policies to wrestling with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, implementation of
the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and strategies to expand trade
and to take advantage of the opportunities that are offered by this
act.
So this act has been a major impetus to the growth of economic ties
and trade with Africa and we are going to have this forum on Monday to
talk about it with the Africans who are involved and eligible to
benefit from it.
QUESTION: The President apparently is going to be here Monday as well,
the White House announced. Do you know what time he is speaking?
MR. BOUCHER: Has the White House announced it?
QUESTION: They announced he was speaking here; I didn't catch the
time.
MR. BOUCHER: I leave it to the White House to announce anything
involving the President.
Second of all, the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom is
being made available on the State Department's website today. This is
a report that covers the period from July 1st, 2000, to June 30th,
2001. On Thursday, that's yesterday, we submitted the report to
Congress.
This year's report, again, like previous years, is a survey of the
state of religious freedom throughout the world. It reemphasizes the
strong commitment of the United States to respect and protect the
fundamental freedom of religion, and we look forward to using this
report as a basis of discussion and cooperation with other countries
around the world on this very basic issue of human rights.
Make clear, we think there is no justification whatsoever for
persecution of believers or discrimination against people because of
their faith. And the President has made absolutely clear that we will
not countenance in our country any form of discrimination, much less
persecution against individuals or groups because of their religion.
The Secretary in conjunction with the issuance of this report has
re-designated countries of particular concern in the International
Religious Freedom Act. The countries that are re-designated are the
following: Burma, China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. He has also once again
identified the Taliban regime as a particularly severe violator of
religious freedom. They are not designated formally under the act
because they are not a government. And finally, he has added the
Democratic Republic of Korea, that's North Korea, as a country of
particular concern under the act.
We continue to hold to the standards of the act. We continue to
advance the cause of religious freedom around the world as part of our
foreign policy.
In Afghanistan, I think you all know, but since the report gives us
the information, let me review some of it. There is very rigid
enforcement of a very strict interpretation of Sharia Islamic law. The
Taliban has severely restricted freedom of religion in the territory
that is under its control. Due to the absence of a constitution,
religious freedom is not protected, and is subject to the arbitrary
action of Taliban officials. Law and custom require affiliation with
religion. Atheism and conversion from Islam are both considered
apostasy and are punishable by death.
The Afghan Shi'a minority victims -- Afghan Shi'a minority are subject
to abuse. They are victims of abuse. About 85 percent of Afghans are
Sunni. In January 2001, there were a large number of civilian Hazaras
-- that's a Shi'a ethnic group -- that were reportedly killed by the
Taliban.
In February 2001, as you know, the Taliban also destroyed the giant
Buddhist statues, despite the appeals of religious leaders from around
the world. And the Taliban law and the way the Taliban have acted on
religious freedom has had a particularly bad effect, made life very
difficult for women. Women have been subject to beatings by religious
police for not wearing proper attire, in their view. They can't leave
their homes unless they are accompanied by a male relative. They are
severely restricted from working outside the home. And these
prohibitions have severely affected the availability of medical and
educational services, since women doctors, nurses and teachers made up
a large part of the work force in these two areas. So that is the
situation in Afghanistan with regard to the lack of religious freedom.
Other questions on this? And then we can go on to other things.
QUESTION: The question immediately arises yet again why Saudi Arabia
has not been designated, given that many of the same -- the same
criticisms of the Taliban would apply to Saudi Arabia.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, the situation has not changed in
Saudi Arabia. This decision, based on the criteria of the report that
has been made twice before, and Saudi Arabia was not found to be
subject to the provisions before. So given that there has been no
change, no significant change one way or the other in the situation
regarding religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, one would not expect the
designation to change.
The report does make clear what the situation is with regard to
religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, and that is that there is
essentially no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The government
requires all citizens to be Muslim, continues to prohibit any public
manifestation of non-Muslim religion. So that situation is stable. The
designation has not changed.
QUESTION: Is that sufficient to warrant designation under this?
MR. BOUCHER: It is a legal definition and, as I said, it has been
looked at twice before in the past. The situation hasn't changed, so
it came out the same way this year as it has in the past.
QUESTION: Could you just go over what it means to be designated on
this list, from a US foreign policy perspective?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. I will have to get that for you, the exact
implications.
QUESTION: The same as Jonathan's question also applies to Uzbekistan
and Turkmenistan, I believe. Human rights groups have -- say that they
have urged the State Department to declare both groups -- both
countries as countries of particular concern, and that they said the
State Department was seriously considering that before the -- before
the publication.
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, our report reports on the state of religious
freedom in these places and reports quite frankly. The section on
Uzbekistan says that the government only partially respects the rights
to religion that are given in its constitution. And we have in the
past said quite clearly that Uzbekistan does not provide the respect
to Islamic groups and mosques that we think is necessary or required
under customary international law. So it is quite a frank report. But
again, the situation is very similar to past years, and they haven't
therefore been designated any differently than they have in years
past.
In Turkmenistan, same kind of thing, that harassment of unregistered
religious groups has continued and, in fact, some say intensified
there, but we didn't feel that they met the standard to be designated
this year.
QUESTION: What happened in the last year in North Korea that prompted
the Secretary to add it to the list?
MR. BOUCHER: Granted, the reports are difficult to confirm in North
Korea. But there are a lot of reports that indicate the regime seems
to have cracked down on unauthorized groups, particularly in recent
years. There have also been unconfirmed reports of the killing of
members of underground Christian churches. In addition, people who
proselytize or who have ties overseas appear to have been arrested,
subjected to harsh penalties, according again to unconfirmed reports.
Religious and human rights groups outside the country have provided
numerous unconfirmed reports that members of underground churches have
been beaten, arrested or killed because of their religious beliefs.
Reports of executions, torture and imprisonments of religious persons
in the country continue to emerge.
QUESTION: How would you respond to critics that might note that people
who were designated on this list are all countries primarily that are
considered not in the coalition against terror and also their foreign
policies are sort of aggressive against the United States; whereas, US
allies like Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia were given a pass. How would
you respond to that kind of --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, your generalization about Burma,
China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan are pretty much -- you know, doesn't fit
the facts. So the premise of the question is wrong.
QUESTION: Iran, Iraq, Burma, Sudan, I mean, you've got --
MR. BOUCHER: You've got a lot of different countries there that we are
cooperating with in different ways against terrorism. Some of them,
like Iraq, have put themselves outside the world's mainstream. Some,
like Iran, have made interesting statements, which we have said are
worthy to explore. We have said we have had very, very good
cooperation against terrorism with China. We have had good cooperation
against terrorism with Sudan. I'm actually not sure about the
situation right now vis-à-vis Burma. North Korea, nothing particular
to say, I think, against terrorism there.
But I think the fact is that we are going ahead with this report.
Religious freedom remains an important aspect of US foreign policy. We
have said that, in addition, you have countries designated, but the
fact of the report is used as a basis for discussion with foreign
governments so that we continue to advance the cause of religious
freedom, as we advance the campaign against terrorism.
QUESTION: Well, since the State Department is doing a ranking here and
putting people in different categories, I think it would be legitimate
to ask, in what -- can you cite one possible aspect of religious
practice or religious freedom in which Iraq performs worse than Saudi
Arabia?
MR. BOUCHER: We are not doing comparisons from country to country,
Jonathan. We are not doing a "ranking," as you pretend. We are not
doing a comparison, as you pretend. We are doing a judgment based on
US law. Have people gotten to a particular level? I mean, it takes not
a lot of memory to remember Iraq's persecution of Kurds, Iraq's
persecution of the Shi'a in the south. The system in Iraq
discriminates against the Shi'as. They restrict, they ban Shi'a
religious practices. For decades, they have conducted murders, summary
execution, arbitrary arrests, and protracted detention against the
Shi'a religious leaders and adherents.
In addition, the government sought to undermine the identity of
minority Christian groups. The government has consistently politicized
and interfered with religious pilgrimages, both of Iraqi Muslims who
wish to travel to Mecca and Medina, and of Iraqi and non-Iraqi Muslim
pilgrims who travel to holy sites in that country.
So I think you'll see that that kind of activity -- summary
executions, murder and killing of religious minorities -- qualifies
them for designation.
QUESTION: Richard, I had trouble understanding the Secretary of
State's speech today, in which he welcomed other countries to join a
coalition, and said at the same time, we're not going to lower our
standards of human rights. In other words -- you know, we'd like you
to come in, but we're not going to put up with bad behavior. But you
put up with enormous bad behavior among members of the coalition right
now.
I don't understand what he's driving it. Your standards --
MR. BOUCHER: It was perfectly clear to me, Barry.
QUESTION: Well, your standards -- US standards don't seem to be so
high so far as welcoming help from Iran or from Syria, do they?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I guess the question of cooperation against
terrorism -- we've talked about this a number of times, talking about
essentially again as we talk about religious freedom. Things that are
important to the United States in terms of human rights, in terms of
religious freedom haven't changed. And we have made the argument, and
the Secretary himself has made the argument a number of times that
respect for human rights is essentially part of the tools we use
against terrorism as well. You have to separate political causes. You
have to separate the parasites from the bloods of discontent that they
feed on.
And therefore, it does take some respect for human rights, and we have
said, again, with regard to Uzbekistan, that we think that respect for
Islam in that country can be an important tool in separating Islamic
believers from terrorists.
But the standard for participation is what are you going to do against
terrorism? That doesn't mean that everybody in the coalition has
suddenly become an enlightened Western democracy. It does mean that
everybody in the coalition is contributing to the fight against
terrorism. People want to fight the terrorists. We want their help.
QUESTION: Presumably in Afghanistan, you would want religious freedom
to be protected in any new system of government?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: But what happens if the Afghan people get together, as you
have been urging them to do, and decide they don't want this in their
constitution, they believe it should be an Islamic republic that
doesn't permit --
MR. BOUCHER: That is about three degrees of hypothetical. I don't
think I am going to try to deal with that at this point.
QUESTION: What kind of relations are there between the Saudi's radical
religious regime called the (inaudible) and the Taliban and the other
radical groups in Central Asia? Do you have anything about that? Can
you comment about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything about that and I don't think I can
comment on it. You might find yourself an Islamic scholar to do that
one. I'm not sure we will be able to do that for you.
QUESTION: Back on Saudi Arabia, Richard, you said that it was not on
the list because there has been basically no change. But you have also
said that there is essentially no religious freedom there. So what has
kept it off the list in the past?
MR. BOUCHER: Essentially, the same decisions have been made about the
criteria and the law as were made in the last two years. I am not
going to go back through that. I think we have explained it in years
past. We judge -- first of all, we report on the countries and we make
the designations under the law.
But I think it is important to remember, the key element here is not,
frankly, the designation of countries of particular concern; it is
that we do reporting on religious freedom in different countries and
we use these reports as a basis to talk to countries and governments
about how they can improve the situation with regard to religious
freedom. The prospects, perhaps, for change and improvement in the
countries that are designated may not be as good as the ability to use
the report in countries that are not designated to try to get them to
continue to improve the situation.
QUESTION: Can we --
MR. BOUCHER: Switch gears now? Okay, let me start out by telling you
the news that we have about anthrax. First, if I can, the good news.
The second person who was being evaluated, who went to the emergency
room with flu-like symptoms on Thursday, October 25th, was evaluated,
was released. The tests are negative so far. He is taking cipro and he
continues to be monitored closely. So at least in that situation we
don't have a worsening.
As far as the first individual, the contractor from our mail and pouch
facility in Sterling, Virginia, as I think I told you last night, this
person is confirmed to have inhalational anthrax. He is currently in
guarded but stable condition at Winchester Medical Center in
Winchester, Virginia. And that is his status.
Now, we are taking a number of steps. I think I have described to you
how employees who work in our mail handling are taking cipro, taking
the antibiotics. People who work at the main center in Sterling,
Virginia, who worked there -- it is now shut down -- are taking 60
days of it. The rest of the people in mail handling in this building
and elsewhere are taking 10 days. We have instructed our overseas
posts to give cipro to their employees who handle the bulk mail. And
that will be done.
The State Department pouch system, the mail system, is essentially
shut down. Some of the pouches that might have gone from this SA-32
out to overseas posts -- posts have been instructed not to open them,
just put them somewhere, keep them unopened.
As I think you all know from the various reports, these reports of
inhaled anthrax seem to indicate that the processing of bulk mail, the
sorters, the machines, the compression, the decompression, can release
the spores. And therefore we have told them to just leave the mail
unopened, don't touch it.
We are sealing the mail facilities in this building and in the annexes
where mail goes either from SA-32 or directly from the Brentwood
facility. That involves five or six locations in this building, and
six or seven locations outside this building at State Department
annexes. Those are being sealed. They are shut down. They are being
sealed, and they will be tested. The first testing will be done on the
air filters in this building to make sure that none has entered into
our air system. And, obviously, depending on the results of all those
tests, we may take further action.
Those actions are starting today. They won't all be completed today. I
think the testing will proceed today and then over the weekend.
Actually, the facility out at Sterling probably won't be tested until
early next week, because I'd say that's the most suspect location, and
therefore, they are going to be very careful about preparing properly
and doing that test properly.
You may see people walking around in suits, in hazardous material
suits. That's what will be involved. They will be going into those
sealed places and doing the testing to see if any of these spores have
entered into our rooms or our systems.
Questions?
QUESTION: When do you expect to have the first results from this
environmental sampling in this building and in the annex?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm told that the testing and the results take about 24
hours. So presumably, if they start some of it today, the results will
start coming in over the weekend.
QUESTION: So you may be able to announce some results over the
weekend?
MR. BOUCHER: Don't count on it; if we can, we will.
QUESTION: Can you speak a little bit to the impact this mail
interruption has on the business of the State Department? Is it -- for
a few days, at least, is it not a big problem?
MR. BOUCHER: Most of our business, particularly our urgent business,
is done by telegrams and by e-mail. We have in our telegram system
somewhere between a half a million and a million telegrams. And
probably a half a million that go to or from this building, and then
some additional number that go between our embassies overseas.
QUESTION: A year?
MR. BOUCHER: A year. Sorry, a year. (Laughter.) Essential piece of
information.
And that's the way we give instructions to our embassies, that's the
way they report back to us on meetings, on events and developments.
When we are trying to arrange over-flight clearances or improvements
in religious freedom, that is generally done by telegram.
We also send a lot of e-mails, particularly on management issues,
checking on pieces of information. There's enormous e-mail. So I'd say
most of the urgent business and the day-to-day business goes on
electronically. Certainly, we communicate with the outside world
electronically. I think more and more in our bureau, where we get mail
from the general public, more and more of it is electronic mail, and
less and less is actual mail.
On the other hand, the mail systems are important to us, for two
reasons. One is we have documents that we send back and forth to our
posts overseas, things that go around this building, things that
people may send us from outside, mail that people send us from
outside. We always like to get real letters from people in the general
public. And so it's important to have those things.
And the second reason is that many of our posts that don't have
military postal facilities, this is how people get their mail, this is
how we pay our bills, this is how we get news from home, this is how
we get American magazines and reading material. This is how we send
out our internal publications.
So the mail and pouch system is very important to a lot of us, and
particularly to many of the people who are stationed in dangerous and
faraway places. This is how they get their mail. So we do -- we're
going to do these tests, we're going to do the checks, we're going to
look at how to get it back up and running so that our people,
particularly those who rely on it for personal mail, can have that
again.
QUESTION: Richard, can you speculate -- that may be the only thing you
can do at this point -- of how you think that that -- that the anthrax
got to that particular facility?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't, because at this point we don't know a lot. We do
know that this facility receives mail from the Brentwood postal
facility, where I think employees there have come down with inhaled
anthrax. So that's clearly one of the possibilities. But it does
receive mail, also, from pouches and things like that.
I have to say, most of the diplomatic pouch mail that goes in and out,
I mean, 80 percent of the mail that is handled out of this Sterling,
Virginia facility is in fact the pouch mail to and from our embassies
and consulates overseas. But most of that is official mail generated
in the Department, or at the post, or it's the personal mail of our
employees. There is not very much outside material that gets into that
stream.
But about 20 percent of what they handle out there is Postal Service
mail that goes to the State Department, and almost everything that
they get, I think, comes from Brentwood.
QUESTION: Richard, just to clarify, and for the public at large, when
you talk about the pouch and mail system, is that the same thing --
should people understand that to be the same thing as what people know
to be diplomatic couriers carrying diplomatic pouches with sensitive
documents? Are those two different things?
MR. BOUCHER: No, that's different. Those are two different things. We
have what we call the classified pouches that are carried by
diplomatic couriers. That system is internal, self-contained. It
doesn't have any exposure to the outside world. Then there is the
unclassified pouch system, which is our mail system for publications,
personal mail, these kinds of things.
QUESTION: And does the classified pouch system go on unhindered?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Earlier this month, there were two scares in this building
regarding potential for anthrax or some other kind of powder. Can you
confirm, have those test results come back? Are they negative?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we did already. Those came back as inert,
non-hazardous powders. I think we are never going to be able to
specify exactly what brand name they might have been. But we did --
they tested negative for anthrax or any other hazard.
QUESTION: I feel I must ask this question once again. Is there any
indication that you are aware of, of the source of this anthrax? Not
necessarily coming from the Brentwood facility, I mean the ultimate
source? Do we believe that this stuff came from overseas, any foreign
connection that you know of?
MR. BOUCHER: No, there is no way we can speculate on that at this
point. I think Ari Fleischer at the White House today sort of
described the kind of person and lab that could produce the quality of
anthrax that has been seen in places. But that doesn't lead to any
particular conclusion, in fact, about whether it's domestic or
overseas or how it was done.
QUESTION: As far as the threat of anthrax is concerned, how about the
international and diplomatic community? How much they are scared? Or
are you hearing from them here or back home how their countries are
doing as far as this threat is concerned?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know about the diplomats here. Certainly, our
embassies overseas have been in close touch with a number of
governments on the issue, and it is -- when it surfaced overseas, our
experts at the Centers for Disease Control have contacts in any number
of countries. And are, I am sure, providing expertise to various
places. So there is a lot of back-and-forth discussion. Whether it's
about embassies themselves, suspicious materials or packages they
might want checked out, or whether it is about what's going on
locally.
QUESTION: Have any State Department employees other than mail handling
employees been advised to go on cipro?
MR. BOUCHER: No. All our mail handling employees have been advised to
go on cipro. No one else has. We are making clear in the notices and
the information that we put out to our employees that if other people
have concerns, if other people don't handle bulk mail and therefore
have been designated but they have concerns anyway, they should go in
and talk to the medical professionals and determine if it's
appropriate, they might be put on cipro as well.
QUESTION: Have you been able to pinpoint when this man might have been
exposed to anthrax and tried to narrow down when that -- what mail was
-- I know it is very difficult, but exactly what might have been the
source?
MR. BOUCHER: They are in the process of doing that. You know, the
literature on anthrax indicates an incubation period of seven days,
sometimes a lot more. So I think it is a little difficult to pinpoint
it exactly. But certainly, the medical professionals are in the
process of doing as much as they can to identify when the exposure
might have taken place, how it might have taken place.
Clearly, the sealing and then testing of the various mail rooms, you
know, that will tell us if there is -- if the spores have traveled
through our system, and if so where they might be, or find out where
they are and be able to stop them.
QUESTION: Given some of the precautions that have been taken in the
last 24 hours, can you say if the State Department is worried that
this anthrax may have actually traveled to other embassies and
overseas to our posts there?
MR. BOUCHER: We are, I think, being careful at this point. We are
trying to be very careful. The places where it might have come, from
Brentwood or SA-32, the mail facility to other places. The places
where it might have come in DC are being sealed, tested directly, so
we are trying to get ahead of the game there. We are trying to get
ahead of the game by telling our posts not to open the pouches that
they might receive that would have been shipped in the recent time
period. And therefore, we're trying to stay ahead of this. And as we
do the testing, we'll have more facts, we'll know where it showed up,
where it doesn't show up.
As I said, things like checking the air system first. If we check the
air system first and find it, that will lead to other conclusions. If
we don't find it, then that tells you to concentrate elsewhere.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary been tested and is he taking the cipro?
And have you been tested and --
MR. BOUCHER: I think in keeping with what the White House has done
with the President and other high-level officials, we are not going to
talk specifically about the Secretary. But I would say we have no
reason to believe that he would have been exposed. We have described
to you the kinds of employees who are getting cipro, the kinds of
employees who are being tested. The Secretary, nor I, fit in those
categories.
QUESTION: How many employees total are being treated with cipro or
other antibiotics at this time?
MR. BOUCHER: There are about 80 or 90 employees at Sterling that are
taking cipro for 60 days and are being tested. There are an additional
200 or so who were involved in mail handling who are taking cipro.
QUESTION: Have you -- I know, again, it must be speculation at this
point. But have the medical professionals told you that they think
this might have been from the original letter that was sent to Tom
Daschle, Senator Daschle? Or do they think that it was possibly from
another letter that might have come through?
MR. BOUCHER: The answer to that is, we don't know.
QUESTION: Are you asking your posts to share the new information on
anthrax, which is being developed all the time, and can you describe
how you're sharing that information?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know -- you mean, like medical and scientific
information that's being developed?
QUESTION: Yes, and how you're treating it --
MR. BOUCHER: I think a lot of that, frankly, is shared routinely by
the CDC, by the Centers for Disease Control, with their counterparts
overseas. I think a lot of it, frankly, appears on their website. I
don't know what our posts are doing in that regard. I'll try to check
and see if we have a regular program of sharing information with
foreign governments.
Okay, more on this topic, or not?
QUESTION: The Wall Street Journal today and the Washington Times
stated fairly committedly that they think that the source of the
anthrax is domestic, and not foreign. In fact, the Washington Times,
for whatever the article is worth, said that they -- informed sources
think that the source of the anthrax is not Iraq or Russia, but would
be domestic. In fact, I believe AP had an Australian who said that it
was right-wing militia in this country.
MR. BOUCHER: I appreciate the AP, the Australians, the Washington
Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the many others that are trying to
write about this and speculate about this. But I am not aware of any
experts that I have talked to in this building, or heard of any
elsewhere, who really think that we have enough information to
speculate or to identify this with any kind of accuracy.
QUESTION: Can I pursue with you what the Secretary said about
peacekeeping in Afghanistan, post-war Afghanistan yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: Go for it.
QUESTION: He seemed -- I know everything was tenuous, and I know it's
early in thinking about these things. But he told the Committee that
Kofi Annan and the Afghan Rep were a little skeptical about UN blue
helmets. And the Secretary said, maybe the way we'll go is volunteers.
Of course, I wondered, with the role you're giving the -- any
elaboration would help -- but, I mean, the role you seem to envision
through the UN, would nations volunteer but still be under some UN
operation? I don't quite get it.
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Secretary described it about as much as it
can be described at this point. He talked about three fundamental
possibilities. Working out any particular one of those possibilities
in detail would be down the road. So he talked about different
possibilities from blue helmets to willing -- coalitions willing to --
there have been also talk of local groups, national groups getting
together and maintaining stability and security.
So those are the possibilities. They are not elaborated very much at
this point. The, I think, first task remains to work with the Afghans
through the UN, work with the UN, work with the Afghan parties and
factions to help them get together and form a broad-based government.
As that process proceeds, we will also look further at the issue of
maintaining security so that that government can get set up,
established and operating.
QUESTION: On that, do you have any response to reports that the
Taliban opposition leader Al-Haq may have been executed?
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen them. We can't confirm them. I guess Abdul
Haq's mission, he was described by Afghans as a peace mission. We
can't confirm that he has been arrested or executed. Certainly,
throughout his life, this gentleman has been a voice for the
establishment of broad-based government for his country, and now more
than ever, we think it is time for Afghans to work together to end the
presence in their country of foreign terrorists and to establish this
broad-based government.
QUESTION: How big a loss is his death?
MR. BOUCHER: Well --
QUESTION: Or something. I'm sorry. That was poorly asked. How big a
loss is he to your fight?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can say, because I don't know for sure
what's happened to the man. And, certainly, we hope these reports are
not true. But we have seen them and his death would be very sad and
regrettable. But I can't describe his exact role at this point.
He has been a proponent of broad-based government. We think those
people are important for Afghanistan. We think -- I think many -- all
those on the outside that we have spoken to agree that it is important
for Afghanistan to have a broad-based and stable government. And
anybody who has been an advocate of this is certainly important to
that goal.
QUESTION: Richard, was he working -- was this person working directly
with the US as one of the people that the United States officials in
the region have been working directly with to try to sort of lay the
foundation for a post-Taliban Afghanistan? And was there any direct US
role in his presence in Afghanistan on this mission, however it might
have turned out?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me check on those specifics. We have been in touch
with all kinds of Afghan groups, leaders and people, and certainly I
wouldn't be surprised if we had been in touch with this gentleman as
well. I will have to check and see, though.
QUESTION: There were reports of US warplanes in the vicinity of his
supposed capture, which would strongly suggest a direct US involvement
in where he went. And I guess the question is, was this some sort of
bungled or failed US effort to go in and do some recruiting that just
went bad? I mean, is that what happened?
MR. BOUCHER: That sounds wildly speculative to me. Let me see if I can
give you a definitive answer on that one.
QUESTION: Let me try this again. If Mr. Al-Haq has indeed died, would
it be a blow to your efforts to bring a different kind of government
to Afghanistan, if you get a chance to do that?
MR. BOUCHER: It would be a loss for those who believe in that effort,
for those who believe in a broad-based government for Afghanistan.
There are others who are working on this, meetings taking place. There
was a meeting in Peshawar the other day. There are meetings that are
planned for Istanbul in the coming days.
So I think there are many who are working on this cause of trying to
help Afghanistan have a broad-based government that doesn't allow
foreign terrorists to operate. And he was among them. He is among
them.
QUESTION: Okay. Abdul Haq. Are we in contact with other Pashtun
Taliban resistance figures in Peshawar or Afghanistan at this point
and, if so, if you could name them?
MR. BOUCHER: We are in touch with all the Afghan factions, different
leaders from different places. I don't have a list of names.
QUESTION: But Abdul Haq was described as one of the very few leaders
who was of Pashtun origin who actually was not with the Taliban. So do
we have other -- specifically, contacts that would fit that kind of
description?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: What is your expectation of the coming Istanbul meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me get the details of it. The meeting in Turkey, we
expect, will be soon. These are representatives of Northern Alliance
and representatives of the King. I think actually the meeting is
somewhat delayed because of travel arrangements, but we expect it
soon. They are going to discuss lists of members for the joint Supreme
National Council that they have agreed to last month. We also
understand that members of the Cyprus Group -- that is another group
of Afghan notables that is outside the country -- recently traveled to
Rome to convey their group's support for the King's effort to gather
Afghans from all the country's communities.
So we welcome these efforts by Afghans to work together for peace and
for broad-based government in their country, and we will look forward
to hearing about their discussions.
QUESTION: There were reports -- rumors, rather -- that several
Americans were actually physically present with Abdul Haq at the time
of his capture. I wonder if you can --
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen those, so I haven't had a chance to check
those out. So I can't do anything on that right now, but I will.
QUESTION: This is on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. There are
reports that farmers in the eastern provinces are starting to re-grow,
in light of the -- that the Taliban seems as if it's -- it could fall.
And what do you think that this is going to do to our efforts to
combat drug trafficking in the region? And also, are you afraid that
if there's a re-growth, that terrorists will continue to use drug
money to aid their financial networks?
MR. BOUCHER: Let's deal with the issue, first, of what's going on. We
don't have information that the Taliban has reversed the ban that they
had last year on poppy cultivation. But there is a resumption of poppy
cultivation that suggests that they are not enforcing it.
This would be very unfortunate. It would further distance the Taliban
from the international community. It would further demonstrate their
willingness to violate the laws of international activity in the way
that countries try to respect and cut this off.
At the same time, we have said that the Taliban benefits from the drug
trade, because there have been stocks that are still traded, and the
Taliban has benefited from that trade. Our information now is that UN
drug control officers in Pakistan have detected signs that Afghan
farmers in Taliban areas have begun planting opium poppy again, and we
will keep following that to see if it means that this trade, this
benefit to the Taliban will resume and expand.
QUESTION: If I could follow up, some people in the region -- academics
-- are calling this a missed diplomatic opportunity with the Taliban,
that initially when the Taliban issued the ban on poppy cultivation,
and UN drug control office said that it was working, that this should
have been followed up as one area of cooperation with the Taliban that
could be built upon. Do you see this as a missed diplomatic
opportunity?
MR. BOUCHER: I think everything the Taliban does is missed
opportunities one after another after another. They have missed the
opportunity to cooperate with the international community in many,
many ways, first and foremost by tolerating foreign terrorists within
their borders; second of all, by not taking advantage of the
opportunities to cooperate which did exist. We were, in fact,
preparing a program that would have involved about $2 million in
assistance to the United Nations, and the nongovernmental
organizations, to help with drug control in Afghanistan. So that's
another opportunity that the Taliban missed out on by pursuing
terrorism and by pursuing the reliance on the drug trade that they
have had.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) terrorism in Afghanistan's concern, (inaudible)
of the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, said that it's time
for the United States and the coalition fighting in Afghanistan to
look into the nuclear arsenals in Pakistan, because Taliban or Usama
bin Laden may get there hands to nuclear facilities in Pakistan. What
-- my question is, when the Secretary of State was in Pakistan,
whether he had all these discussions with General Musharraf or not,
about the safeguarding of these, which can be much worse than what is
happening, anthrax and all that?
And number two, if the Secretary invited him to Washington.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the particular gentleman you're talking
about. So I have no idea if he has been in Washington or not. I don't
think the Secretary has had any meetings with him.
As far as nuclear safety issues goes, this is a subject that we have
discussed in the past with India and Pakistan, a subject we would
expect to continue to discuss. But that's about all we say about it.
QUESTION: New topic? This is about -- another random question about
the Mexican immigration agreement that the US has been working on with
Mexico. In light of the September 11th attacks and US desire to get
stricter border controls and a crackdown on people that are coming in
the country, are talks with the Fox government still on track? Have
they been impeded in any way? And what do you think is going to happen
to the guest worker program as a result of what's going on right now?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't speculate in that direction. I think we have
always felt that these programs can be designed to take into account
the security needs of both countries. But we have always had a
prohibition on terrorists entering the United States, and that would
certainly be a feature of any program that we would want to design.
QUESTION: Any telephone calls, diplomatic initiatives for the Middle
East?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has kept in close touch with the parties in
the Middle East. He talked to Foreign Minister Peres this morning. Our
diplomats out there have been in close touch with the parties. There
was a meeting of a group of diplomats with Chairman Arafat yesterday,
including another specific discussion with him from the four
representatives of the United States, the United Nations, the European
Union and Russia, directed at the need to act immediately to arrest
all those responsible for the assassination of Minister Zeevi, to move
decisively against all those planning or conducting acts of terror,
and do all in his power to halt violence and terror.
We have also urged -- continued to urge the Israeli Government to
withdraw from all Palestinian-controlled areas. We think that step can
lower tensions and help restore better trust and confidence between
the sides. We have also made clear we think it's important that Israel
exercise discipline and restraint, and the use of force in order to
avoid civilian casualties.
So we have continued to call upon both sides to do all they can to
restore the violence, restore calm, act in a manner that allows
progress on implementing the Mitchell report and restoration of the
direct dialogue between the parties.
QUESTION: There have been reports from the region that in the initial
roundup of suspects after the tourism minister's arrest from the
Palestinian Authority, a janitor, who apparently had nothing to do
with the assassination died under custody. Are you raising any
concerns that Arafat's actions in the wake of the assassination were
cosmetic and may have gotten some of the wrong guys?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check on that and see. I wasn't aware of
that specific report. I'll have to check on it.
QUESTION: Richard, it's now been four days since you asked the
Israelis to withdraw immediately. And it's been repeated several times
since. But what do you have to say to this defiance of your wishes?
And what do you say to those who are beginning to say that it's all
just a charade, as you say?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that it's the -- we think it's the right
policy. We think it's the right policy for Israel to withdraw, and we
will continue to state that policy and to urge that policy in our
discussions with them.
QUESTION: But are you actually willing to take -- to go any further
than merely saying they ought to withdraw? Are you thinking of any
punitive measures?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say this is a very consistently expressed and
strongly held view from the United States, and we will continue to
express it.
QUESTION: Going back to Mexico, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
concluded his spectacular 15-state visit, international tour yesterday
with President Fox. And the day before, he had been with Chretien, and
he came over from England, where he talked with Tony Blair and had tea
with the Queen. And he has been with all of the heads of state of
OPEC, except Iraq. And he says that they are all favorable to cutting
production.
Now, his man in the OPEC says the same, and now does the US -- one
other thing, the US Ambassador in Venezuela yesterday went on
television to point out to them that they were --
MR. BOUCHER: Can I have a question around here somewhere? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, it gets involved. You say very little about Venezuela,
so. Well, anyhow --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, maybe there's a reason for that.
QUESTION: What is the US position regarding Chavez's -- he calls it a
crusade -- to get higher prices on oil production at this juncture?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as our view of President Chavez's travels, I don't
think we have any particular view of his travels. We have expressed a
view when he went to certain places at certain times, but he doesn't
seem to have done that again.
And as far as our view of the oil markets, I'll see if we have
anything to say on that. That is a subject we are pretty careful
about.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on remarks out of North Korea's
dear leader about no longer being interested in talks with the United
States? We have always said we are waiting for a reply. Do you
consider this a response to the offer to hold talks?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what we have seen is an editorial in a state-run
newspaper -- actually we have seen reports of an editorial in
state-run newspapers, and I'd just repeat our position. The President
has made clear, the Secretary, both have made clear, the United States
is prepared to undertake serious discussions with the North Koreans at
any time at any place, and without preconditions. That remains our
policy, our point of view, and we're open to discussions on whatever
issues they might want to talk about.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) something less than an independent media, you
don't consider that to be comments coming straight from Kim?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that we've gotten a definitive or direct
reply at this point, and we remain open to the idea of serious
discussions at anytime, anyplace without preconditions. That's our
policy, and if we hear from them, we will.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on another Red Cross warehouse being
hit in Afghanistan?
MR. BOUCHER: No, that would be a military question for the Pentagon to
do.
QUESTION: Can I get a quick one? Aren't there ongoing contacts in New
York with North Korea? And, I mean, in light of that, aren't we
already sort of talking to them already? Albeit not at as high a level
as we'd like.
MR. BOUCHER: I think we have always maintained contact with North
Korea through their UN representative -- their representatives at the
United Nations. As far as I know, we continue to do that regularly.
But I think the kind of serious policy discussion that we have
envisaged is another sort of thing. And that, as I said, we are ready
to begin that anytime, anyplace they want to.
QUESTION: I mean, I'm just -- I thought that the New York channel,
though, in this context, you were talking about future talks, or how
that might look, albeit not the substantive policy. Is that still the
case? (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So nothing's changed?
MR. BOUCHER: But the goal is to sit down and talk about the issues
with North Korea. We haven't done that yet, and we're ready to do
that.
QUESTION: I have a little quickie, as they say in the House. Is the
Russian Foreign Minister coming here next week? And the Russians have
been complaining for a long time about the Jackson-Vanik legislation
-- and they're on the list. Is there any thought going into removing
them from that?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as the Russian Foreign Minister's travels, let me
double check on that. Certainly, he and the Secretary have kept in
touch. I think they have talked twice by phone this week. And they
have talked about continuing their discussions. I'll have to see if we
have anything set.
QUESTION: And Jackson-Vanik?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm getting there. (Laughter.) On Jackson-Vanik, as you
know, this was an amendment from 1974 that denied Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to former Eastern Bloc countries, at that time,
Eastern Bloc countries that restricted emigration rights.
Today, as a result, normal trade relations can be extended and
maintained only after the issuance of an annual Presidential waiver.
We have, however, started to consult with the Congress and interested
groups on the possibility of graduating Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine,
Tajikistan, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan from the provisions of
the amendment.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Russia -- say again?
MR. BOUCHER: Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Moldova, Armenia
and Azerbaijan. Those are the ones we're interested in seeing whether
they can be graduated.
QUESTION: And do you expect that that should be a fairly
straightforward process? I mean, do you see any emigration problems
from any of these countries --
MR. BOUCHER: I think in terms of certifying the emigration, we have
been able to do that on an annual basis for all these countries. When
it comes to graduating them out of it, some broader considerations
apply.
QUESTION: What broader considerations?
QUESTION: As far as the State Department's views are concerned, what
does the future of six to eight million illegal immigrants after the
attack? Anything change, or any governments are in touch with the
State Department?
MR. BOUCHER: That is, I think, a question you can ask the Immigration
Service, because once people get to the United States, it's their
responsibility.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:15 p.m.)
(end 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
|
|
|
