11 December 2001
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, December 11, 2001
(Announcements, Afghanistan, Middle East, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iraq,
Macedonia, Czech Republic, trade/fast track) (7630)
Deputy State Department Spokesman Phil Reeker briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Tuesday, December 11, 2001
1:10 P.M. EST
BRIEFER: Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
ANNOUNCEMENTS
-- Baltic Partnership Commission
AFGHANISTAN
-- International Security Force
-- US Embassy in Kabul and Amb. Dobbins
-- Afghan Control of POWs
MIDDLE EAST
-- Gen. Zinni and a trilateral meeting
-- Amb. Burns in the Maghreb, Syria and Lebanon
-- European Union Envoy
VIETNAM
-- Armitage meeting with Vietnamese Deputy PM
VENEZUELA
-- General Strike/President Chavez/Carta Democratica
IRAQ
-- Iraq-Turkey Border
MACEDONIA
-- Report of the International Crisis Group
CZECH REPUBLIC
-- Release of an Uzbek Opposition Leader
TRADE
-- Fast Track
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
1:10 p.m. EST -- TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the
State Department. I'm pleased to be here to brief you this afternoon,
and I'm very pleased that Ambassador Boucher will be here tomorrow to
brief you -- (laughter) -- with the return of Secretary Powell, who is
at this time en route from London, expected to return to Washington
about 7:00 p.m. this evening.
QUESTION: But you're not suggesting that you've had a bad time up here
for the last --
MR. REEKER: It has been fantastic, Matt. As it always is.
QUESTION: All good things have to end.
MR. REEKER: That's right. Exactly. Let me just note one statement. I
think we have put it out in paper already, further to what we
discussed, some of us, yesterday. That is the Baltic Partnership
Commission, which met yesterday and today here in Washington, noting
that the foreign ministers from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania met with
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage here at the State
Department yesterday, along with other State Department officials, in
the framework of the Fourth Annual Baltic Partnership Commission. That
Commission was established in 1998 by the US Baltic Charter, and it
aims to advance the integration of the Baltic nations into
transatlantic and European structures.
Deputy Secretary Armitage expressed appreciation for Baltic
assistance, including the quick adoption of financial controls and
security measures in the war against terrorism. The participants noted
plans to hold remembrance events today, on the three-month anniversary
of the September 11th attacks against the United States, and pledged
to continue work to eliminate the scourge of terrorism.
The Deputy Secretary also reaffirmed our commitment to President
Bush's vision of a new round of NATO enlargement at the 2002 Prague
NATO Summit. And the Deputy Secretary welcomed the steps taken by the
Baltic States to fulfill their own NATO membership action plans, and
encouraged the spirit of solidarity expressed by NATO aspirants
through the Vilnius Ten process.
So we will let you get that statement on paper to follow up with.
QUESTION: Do you have -- can you expand on the NATO discussion? Did
Deputy Secretary Armitage talk to them about what the recent meeting
that Secretary Powell was at in Brussels, and talks with the Russians
about NATO expansion?
MR. REEKER: I really don't know, Matt, whether they got into that kind
of detail at all. I would suspect they reviewed that. It was a
broad-based discussion. NATO is one of the subjects that, of course,
the Baltic countries are very interested in. And, as I indicated, the
Deputy Secretary reaffirmed our commitment, as President Bush has
described, to another round of expansion, and that would begin with
the 2002 Prague Summit. And clearly we will be able to keep in touch
with the Baltic States and other friends and allies on the discussions
the Secretary had, and any developments that move forward from there.
Any other questions on that subject?
QUESTION: Afghanistan. The Secretary has been talking about a
peacekeeping force, and you may or may not be prepared to talk about
it. But there are a lot of unanswered questions, as Tony Blair
suggested. Can you fill in any of the blanks?
MR. REEKER: I am not quite sure which blanks it is you would be
wanting me to fill in, but I think we are --
QUESTION: Have you got some filler material that we --
MR. REEKER: We are all aware of the fact that the Afghan parties
stated, in the Bonn agreement, which they the Afghans came to, through
very solid negotiations under the UN rubric. In that agreement they
requested an international security force. We have been working with
our coalition partners. We have been working with the UN, and others,
to help assemble one. I think the scope, the participation, the timing
of the force are all still things that are being discussed. I think
the Secretary indicated that there is a vigorous discussion at the UN
in terms of getting a UN resolution in place as quickly as possible.
And then the roles of individual countries could be worked out within
that framework.
The Secretary this morning announced, or noted, our pleasure that the
United Kingdom has indicated its willingness to step forward. He and
Prime Minister Blair discussed that in their meetings in London this
morning, and also publicly at their press availability. I think the
Secretary reiterated what we said before about this force, that it may
have a humanitarian mission, it might have a security mission. That
mission in all of its details is still being structured and,
obviously, there will need to be coordination with the US mission that
continues in Afghanistan, that is, the US forces under the command of
General Franks, who have their own clear, defined combat mission. And
that is to continue to seek out al-Qaida, Taliban, to take them out
and also to bring Usama bin Laden to justice.
So the international security force that we envision is coming with an
entirely different mission. We certainly recognize the need for that
force to go to Afghanistan with a strong and clear mandate from the
United Nations Security Council, as Secretary Powell indicated today,
in a coalition of the willing, and we will continue to try to bring
you the details of that as they emerge here, in New York and in other
places.
QUESTION: Are you worried -- is the United States worried -- that
should the United Kingdom lead this security force, that it would
divert attention from the current task at hand, which is to round up
the rest of the Taliban and al-Qaida members?
MR. REEKER: I don't think that is a worry at all. I think if you look
at what Secretary Powell and Prime Minister Blair discussed publicly
at their press availability in London, it reflects of course what
we've been discussing privately with the United Kingdom, with the
other allies in the coalition, with those at the UN. We are talking
about two distinct missions here, as I indicated. And as Secretary
Powell described, we have a US force under the command of General
Franks, which has a specific combat mission. And that, of course,
remains our priority in terms of the war against terrorism in
Afghanistan. The Department of Defense, the President and others have
all addressed that. And while we have had some great progress in that,
as the Defense Department has indicated it is far from over, and we
are determined to maintain that campaign as long as it takes. And
Prime Minister Blair reflected that in his comments as well, the
importance that the British, our allies in this war against terrorism,
place in that as well, as the other countries that have joined us in
that.
So, again, the international security force is a different type of
mission. We are working on that along with others in the international
community and expect that we get a UN resolution in place as quickly
as possible on that.
QUESTION: A couple of questions on this. General Fahim said this
morning that he didn't think that more than 1,000 troops would be
needed for the security force. How does that fit in with current
thinking among the United States and its allies? Do you think that
sounds sufficient?
MR. REEKER: I just don't have anything to add for you on that. Those
are the types of discussions, as the Secretary indicated, the details
that need to be worked out, close coordination between and among all
the various players in this. That is the type of thing that is being
discussed at the United Nations, as they work to get a resolution in
place. It's the type of thing the Secretary discussed just today in
London, and earlier in Paris, and I'm sure yesterday as well, with the
Germans in his visit in Berlin.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on Elise's question, too? It sounds
fairly clear, from what people have been saying here, that you
envisage the deployment of this security force, while US military
operations continue.
Do you see any danger that the security force might in fact be
implicated in your offensive operations, and therefore liable to
attack by the same people who you are attacking now? Is this not -- I
mean, this is pretty unconventional?
MR. REEKER: I don't think I understand the premise of your question.
QUESTION: No, I mean, is this -- well, let's put it this way, do you
envisage the deployment of this security force at the same time as US
military operations are continuing in Afghanistan?
MR. REEKER: I think I just answered that, and I think Secretary Powell
talked about that at great length in his comments today.
QUESTION: Okay, in the minds of your opponents in this conflict, how
are you going to separate the two?
MR. REEKER: The international security force envisioned --
QUESTION: Yes, and the US --
MR. REEKER: -- and being discussed at the United Nations now I think
is distinct and quite separate from the Taliban, the al-Qaida
terrorist network that are the targets of our military force.
QUESTION: No, I said in the minds of your opponents, how are you going
to separate between your combat forces and this security force? I
mean, the security force --
MR. REEKER: I am not going to try to crawl into the minds of Usama bin
Laden, the Taliban or the others involved in al-Qaida and terrorism,
Jonathan. I think the fact that our combat mission under the command
of General Franks will remain in Afghanistan, carrying out that
mission as long as it takes, that has been made quite clear by the
President, echoed by Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, that will
happen.
At the same time, we are looking at the international security force
that was asked for by the Afghans, that is being discussed at the
United Nations, that was discussed at great length in a number of
stops and a number of public appearances by the Secretary with allied
officials today and yesterday. They are different forces. There needs
to be coordination obviously between them, and that is one of the
factors that is being discussed, as the specifics of the mission for
the international security force in a coalition of the willing is
being discussed.
So all of those issues are things that definitely need to be worked
out.
QUESTION: But Phil, can I follow up, please? Don't they overlap in
some way? Because while the United States is clearly going after the
Taliban and al-Qaida, part of this international security force, I
mean, most likely is going to be keeping the security of Afghanistan
against warring factions in the country, which could include some
Taliban hangovers.
So how do they not overlap?
MR. REEKER: I don't think I said they didn't. I said they are distinct
forces, and I think you just need to read the Secretary's remarks, and
we can make sure we get you the transcript of that. Clearly, if two
forces are there in Afghanistan at the same time, there needs to be
coordination. They have different missions. And I think I reviewed
what those different missions are, and this is one of the factors, in
terms of specifying, defining the mission for the international
security force that we need to continue working on. And that is what
people are quite seized with today, this moment, as we speak.
And so that mission is still being structured for the international
security force. And as the Secretary said, we recognize the need for
that. A strong and clear mandate from the UN Security Council is
something that is important. We need to get that in place as quickly
as possible. And in a coalition of the willing, we would expect that
international force to go in just as soon as everything is in place.
QUESTION: Basically, the bottom line is, you don't have anything else
to say more than what you said when you first answered the question
the first time.
MR. REEKER: The first time. Right.
QUESTION: And even if you did -- (laughter) --
MR. REEKER: Probably --
QUESTION: And even if you did, you're not going to tell us now. So
it's pretty pointless to keep asking about this, isn't it?
MR. REEKER: I leave that up to you, to you and your colleagues.
QUESTION: Can you tell us anything -- even if you just answer no --
can you tell us anything about contacts between the United States and
any of those Muslim countries which were mentioned earlier in this
process as possible candidates for contributing troops to this --
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything on specific contacts. But there's a
number of countries, as you know, have indicated their willingness to
be part of a coalition of the willing, as part of the international
security force. And I really think the UN is the main point, place you
would want to be looking right now for that discussion on that.
QUESTION: Can I just follow?
QUESTION: It wasn't that long ago, when you were talking about an
international force, that you said it was -- that the US Government's
position appeared to be that it was too early to discuss it. What has
changed now? Is it simply because you have taken the cities that --
MR. REEKER: I am not quite sure when you are citing those particular
quotations. Time does move on. It is certainly something that has been
discussed. We have been discussing it here, and we have been
discussing it in the circles that really matter, for some time now, in
terms of working on the development of this force. I think the most
important thing that happened is the developments that took place in
Bonn, in terms of the agreement reached by Afghans to establish a
roadmap, a plan for an interim authority that will take power on the
22nd of December as envisioned by that, and stated in the UN Security
Council resolution.
And so, under the Bonn agreement, the Afghan parties requested an
international security force. It was something, as you know, that had
already been discussed. And those discussions continue. We are working
along with others and at the UN and with the Afghan groups, of course,
to look at the structure for that, how that mission will be
structured. There is a lot of detail that needs to go into that, and
we will try to bring you the news as soon as there is some.
QUESTION: About Afghanistan, can you tell us anything about the first
day of the opening of the US embassy, or what information --
MR. REEKER: We still don't know when that day will be.
QUESTION: But everybody went in yesterday. What --
MR. REEKER: Not everybody went in yesterday.
QUESTION: I mean, people went in --
MR. REEKER: In fact, a survey team went in, as we discussed -- I
discussed with a number of you yesterday. There is a team of about 10
administrative and security personnel who remain in Kabul today
determining the capacity of our existing facilities there to support
the diplomatic presence that we've said we want to establish. They are
operating out of the US Embassy Chancery compound which, as you can
imagine after a number of years, has sustained a lot of damage. There
are issues about infrastructure that need to be dealt with in terms of
electricity and running water to be able to support a diplomatic
presence there.
But I think, as Ambassador Dobbins made clear to you last week and the
Secretary has certainly stated on numerous occasions, we do expect to
establish a full-time diplomatic presence there soon. I just can't
give you a specific date or time, but we will keep you posted on that,
as the team is able to survey what needs to be done and take those
steps to create the infrastructure that will be able to support --
QUESTION: Did they find anything surprising? Did they find it in worse
shape than they even thought, or better shape?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any particular readouts. I spoke yesterday
with the head of our team that's there, Kathleen Austin-Ferguson, who
said they were just working hard to examine the status of things,
working of course with our local Afghan Foreign Service National
employees who are really heroic in the efforts that they have
undertaken over a period of many, many years, into decades, in terms
of supporting the US mission there, even after US citizen presence had
to leave Afghanistan, given the situation there. And a number of those
employees, of course, are part of our team still, so they are working
there with our survey team on the ground to help prepare things for
that, and we will look to moving in a more official diplomatic
presence under Ambassador Dobbins just as soon as we can.
QUESTION: Do you have a count on how many unexploded ordnances this
team may have found so far?
MR. REEKER: No, I don't have anything like that.
QUESTION: The US mission and the UN forces will be in Afghanistan
before December 22nd, I understand?
MR. REEKER: I don't think I am able to give you any specific dates. I
know that that's something that everybody is quite aware of, that the
interim authority will take power beginning December the 22nd, and
obviously we would like to have our presence established by then. We
will have to see what the reality is on the ground in terms of the
infrastructure to support that diplomatic presence.
QUESTION: But do we know any timetable, how long the UN or
international forces will be in Afghanistan? If they are discussing
that as part of their discussion?
MR. REEKER: No, as I said, the mission of an international security
force is something that is still being structured, is still being
discussed. And so obviously I wouldn't be able to give you a
particular time frame for it, as they discuss what the specifics of
that mission will be.
QUESTION: When do you expect Dobbins to go back?
MR. REEKER: I just indicated that I have no way of knowing exactly
when he will go in. We would like to get that presence established as
soon as possible, but our survey team is on the ground there now,
trying to determine what actions are necessary and to take those
actions to create the infrastructure that can support a full-time US
diplomatic presence there in Kabul. And as soon as we know that, we
will let you know and we will let Ambassador Dobbins know as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER: I don't have a specific time. I think part of it depends
on what they are finding and how things go in terms of getting things
up and running.
QUESTION: Is this a State Department team?
MR. REEKER: Yes.
QUESTION: Or an interagency team?
MR. REEKER: It is a State Department team.
QUESTION: Is Ms. Ferguson going to brief us when she gets back?
MR. REEKER: I don't know that she would be coming back here. But I
will certainly look into it, George, if you would like.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the statement made by the Secretary
today, Mr. Powell, in London, that the war is not going to go beyond
Afghanistan?
MR. REEKER: It is an interesting citation that you made over at the
Pentagon as well, and I saw you there, Lambros. And I don't know where
you got it. You are obviously not --
QUESTION: It is a Reuters dispatch --
MR. REEKER: You are obviously not reading the same transcripts of the
Secretary's remarks that I am. But I will just be happy to point out
the transcripts to you. I will note that the Secretary talked, when
asked the question that many of you ask quite frequently, about next
steps. The Secretary of State made quite clear that President Bush has
made no decision as to what actions we should take in the next phase
of our campaign against terrorism, nor has he received any
recommendations as to what the next step should be.
And so, as the President himself and the Secretary have made quite
clear, we are dedicated to our campaign against terrorism, and we are
taking on terrorism with a global reach. But there are no next steps
to be announced at this point. We are still very much focused on the
first step, phase one, in Afghanistan, which is taking out the Taliban
regime which has supported the al-Qaida terrorist network and Usama
bin Laden, who perpetrated the attacks against us, some three months
ago, that we commemorated today.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MR. REEKER: Anybody else on Afghanistan?
QUESTION: A quick question. Have you decided yet whether or not it
would participate in a peacekeeping force, and with concern about
keeping missions separate as much as possible, a part of the
deliberation about whether or not to participate?
MR. REEKER: I think the Secretary and others have made quite clear
that there was no expectation of US troop presence in the
international security force. And as the Secretary noted in a number
of his press conferences during his trip, we have been very pleased to
see the response from many in the international community to forming a
coalition of the willing under the auspices of a UN Security Council
resolution, which is what we are working on right now.
At the same time, our forces continue to have a specific mission under
the command of General Franks, and I think I covered as fully as
possible the fact that those are two distinct missions. But obviously,
because they will be operating in some ways in the same theater, they
will need to coordinate and have good contacts, and all of that is
going into the discussions as they look at the structure of the
mission for the international security force.
QUESTION: With respect to the winding down of the -- at least the
shooting war with the cities being taken back by anti-Taliban forces,
with respect to the Taliban that are under arrest, there are some
countries calling for extradition for their particular citizens back
to their homelands, and also, with Taliban forces perhaps slipping
into Pakistan, and even in the north and Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
such, is there any formal working agreements with these particular
governments so that these -- whether detainees or people under arrest
are brought to justice, meaning in American courts, or world
(inaudible) -- or what is the particular policy right now?
MR. REEKER: I think, as far as I can go in terms of the facts that I
am aware of on the ground, and certainly you may suggest that the
shooting has slowed down, I think we are still very focused on the
military component of our campaign, and the Defense Department can
help you with the details on that.
But to date, all captured Taliban are in the hands of Afghan groups,
Afghan leaders like Hamid Karzai -- I wrote that down here, Matt,
except one -- like Mr. Karzai, have said, have indicated that the
Taliban leadership will face justice for crimes they have committed
against the Afghan people. And I think we will be discussing these
individuals with the Afghans, with the interim authority as it takes
power later this month.
I think we have been quite clear about wanting to bring to justice
Usama bin Laden and the leaders of the Taliban that perpetrated and
supported the attacks on our country, and we will take appropriate
action at that time on a case-by-case basis. And so I just don't
really have anything further to add on that now, but we will certainly
be looking at that carefully and working with the Afghans.
QUESTION: Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson --
MR. REEKER: Is this tied to Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Yes, following up on his question. Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesperson demanded that people from Sinkiang province who are
detained by United States forces should be handed over to China. Could
you kindly tell me how many were detained from that province? And if
you say, no, if you reject that demand, what is the rationale for
that?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of the comments. I don't know on what facts
those comments were made, if that's the way they were portrayed. Those
are obviously questions for the Defense Department. But to my
understanding, all captured Taliban are in the hands of other Afghan
groups. So you may want to try your question at the Defense Department
and see if they have any information for you, but I don't have
anything for you on that.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the reports that the reason
non-Afghan Taliban or Pakistani Talibans in Afghanistan, they are
surrendering on the advice of Pakistan's ISI, Interagency State
Intelligence agency, that this is not the time to fight against the
United States because --
MR. REEKER: I don't have any information on that. I hadn't heard those
reports.
QUESTION: But Secretary Rumsfeld agreed last week. He said that some
forces are there, non-Taliban and if we let them go loose, they might
form a group in the future and somewhere, sometime will fight the
United States.
MR. REEKER: I don't think anybody has suggested such a thing.
QUESTION: Can we move on to something besides Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Wait a minute. Do you think that the US mission there now
and the multinational peacekeeping force will be separate and
distinct?
MR. REEKER: I refer you to my previous remarks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- photon lasers and Kevlar vests?
MR. REEKER: I would refer you to the Defense Department. They might
know something about those things.
QUESTION: Retired General Zinni, did he have meetings today? How is
the quixotic quest for peace?
MR. REEKER: Yes. General Zinni remained there in the region, attended
a trilateral security meeting that took place today, that's Tuesday.
This, of course, follows on to the security meeting that was convened
on Sunday. So, clearly, General Zinni is still there in the region,
still working with the parties. The parties exchanged ideas which are
being reviewed by the other party and we reiterate again, as the
Secretary has so often, that both sides need to take advantage of this
opportunity to meet and discuss directly ways to cooperate to end the
violence and progress towards achievement of a durable cease-fire
which, of course, is the mandate that General Zinni is carrying out in
trying to work with the sides on this subject.
QUESTION: Did Zinni offer any US ideas or proposals, and if so, could
you share them with us in detail?
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of the specifics of those talks. And, even
if I were, I am sure the answer would be no, Eli.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Burns is flitting about the region these
days as well, going to Syria. I think he is in North Africa or was in
North Africa, at least. Can you fill us in on what exactly he is
doing? And also, does he have any plans to go hook up with General
Zinni?
MR. REEKER: Let's talk about Assistant Secretary Burns. He is visiting
the Maghreb region, stopping in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria and
Lebanon. In fact, he has already been to Algeria. He was there Sunday
and Monday, and met there with President Bouteflika. Yesterday, he
visited Tunisia for meetings with President Ben Ali and Foreign
Minister Ben Yahia. And today, he is Morocco for meetings with Foreign
Minister Benaissa and His Majesty King Mohammed VI.
He is going to continue on to Damascus, Syria, on Thursday. And he
will have meetings there with Foreign Minister Shara and perhaps other
meetings as well, and expects to also visit Lebanon and then return
home. There is -- at this point, I am not aware of a plan to leave the
Maghreb, as it were, and hook up with Zinni.
QUESTION: You expect then -- oh?
MR. REEKER: I was just going to note, since I gave you a bit of a
rundown on where and when, that he is discussing our broad range of
bilateral and regional interests in the region, including the campaign
against terrorism and our efforts, of course, to end violence and
restore political dialogue between Israelis and the Palestinians.
QUESTION: I take it by your comment on the Damascus stop that you
still expect Mr. al-Shara to be the Foreign Minister of Syria by the
time that Mr. Burns --
MR. REEKER: I couldn't know. I mean, appointments are made as these
things develop.
QUESTION: But you seem to -- you said that he will be meeting with
Foreign Minister Shara. So you think he is going to keep the job --
MR. REEKER: That was certainly the plan when he went on his trip and
we will keep you posted as to the meetings he has and the individuals
he has them with.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the Syrian Cabinet shakeup?
MR. REEKER: It sounds like an internal matter to me.
QUESTION: Are you short-handed these days at the NEA bureau, sending
the NATO ambassador on a trip to the Maghreb countries?
MR. REEKER: The Assistant Secretary for Near East --
QUESTION: Burns? Oh, I thought you --
MR. REEKER: Let me, for the record, state quite clearly that Assistant
Secretary Burns is still the Assistant Secretary for Near East
Affairs. He is still an ambassador as well. But there is often
confusion between our two Ambassadors Burns, Ambassador Burns at NATO
and Ambassador Burns here in charge of the NEA --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER: Have you heard back from the EU envoys in the Middle East
about their own efforts? They have meetings today with --
MR. REEKER: I am not aware of anything. I know the press reports
indicated the EU was having some meetings in the Middle East. As you
know, we have worked very closely with friends and allies, the
European Union of course being a key part of the Oslo Process, along
also with the Russians, with non-EU members like Norway. And so we
continue to be in touch on that.
In the Secretary's meetings with the European leaders just the last
day-and-a-half in Berlin, Paris, London and, of course, previously in
Moscow, I am sure the Middle East was a subject that they touched on
because of the interest of all those parties --
QUESTION: On that specific point, didn't General Zinni meet with Mr.
Solana this morning?
MR. REEKER: I don't know. I would have to check for you and see. I
don't have a full rundown on General Zinni's schedule.
QUESTION: Just let me go back to that security cooperation meeting. We
heard that at the Sunday meeting that they were told to go away and
come up with some ideas. And you said that they reviewed ideas. Are
these the new ideas that they came --
MR. REEKER: I just don't have any specifics on that.
QUESTION: Do you know whether they set a date for the next meeting?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I think we would like them to take advantage of
this structure, this forum. That is why General Zinni is there. There
is an opportunity to meet directly with General Zinni, participate and
discuss ways to cooperate on ending the violence. And that is what we
want to see go forward. I don't have a timetable for a next meeting,
but clearly both sides understand that this does provide them with a
forum in which to deal with these issues because both sides need to
look at what they can do to get the violence down and to move to a
cease-fire and then, obviously, get back to discussions that can lead
them into the Mitchell Committee recommendations and ultimately
negotiations.
QUESTION: This morning, Deputy Secretary Armitage met with the
Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister or Foreign Minister?
MR. REEKER: Deputy Prime Minister, I believe.
QUESTION: Can you enlighten us as to how that meeting went?
MR. REEKER: Sure. They had a constructive meeting this morning; that
is, the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister was here with Deputy
Secretary Armitage. They discussed counterterrorism cooperation, they
discussed prisoner of war, missing in action accounting, human rights,
and of course the bilateral trade agreement between the United States
and Vietnam. All of those are issues that are regularly on our
bilateral agenda, and the Deputy Prime Minister is leading this
high-level delegation here in Washington. I believe they are also in
New York and San Francisco.
QUESTION: On the human rights element, do you know if the Deputy
Secretary raised any specific case -- not specific to person but
specific to groups that may be being persecuted; i.e., certain
religions?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any specifics on what was discussed, other
than that human rights was part of the dialogue today, as it usually
is, and as was reflected in our annual human rights report. But I
don't have a specific readout for you on the meeting.
QUESTION: Did he discuss the Vietnamese concerns about Agent Orange
and maybe coming to some sort of accounting on that?
MR. REEKER: I don't know. I think I've given you all I have on that
meeting.
QUESTION: Venezuela was shut down by a general strike yesterday, which
was very effective, and President Chavez did not respond with
moderation, offers of moderation. He got angry instead and has
threatened to pass laws gagging the press and other things. The
country seems very polarized. And the importance of that country to
the United States, what is your impression?
MR. REEKER: I think we had noted earlier that there had been a call
for a general work stoppage and that indeed took place yesterday,
Monday, December 10th, as planned. The Federation of Chambers of
Commerce had called for the work stoppage to protest the recent
enactment by President Chavez of several laws, and the Venezuelan
Confederation of Workers supported the work stoppage.
I think this is clearly an internal, domestic matter to Venezuela. It
is not particularly appropriate for the US to comment on this. It is
part of a larger democratic dialogue taking place in the country. And
we will continue, through our embassy, to observe closely developments
in Venezuela.
We issued, as I think I made clear earlier last week, we issued a
public announcement for Venezuela to inform US citizens of the work
stoppage in terms of our standard consular information program to
alert travelers and those US citizens residing in Venezuela to issues
they may want to consider in terms of making their own travel or
security plans.
QUESTION: Is this something that you might consult with other American
republics about?
MR. REEKER: I don't know. I think we consult with lots of other
countries in this hemisphere and others about regional and lots of
issues. But certainly the specifics of the situation are a domestic
issue for Venezuela and we will continue to watch developments there
and keep you posted if we have anything else to say.
QUESTION: But violations of democracy are considered an inter-American
concern, according to the Carta Democratica. Will that possibly apply
to this situation as it worsens?
MR. REEKER: I couldn't tell you at this point. I think I have given
you about all I can on the Venezuela situation, and we will keep
watching it, as I am sure you will, too.
QUESTION: Will this building have anything to say about what is going
on in Argentina and US policy -- how the US sees the IMF?
MR. REEKER: I think I would refer you to the Treasury Department on
that one, Matt.
QUESTION: So the answer is, no? This building doesn't have --
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything further on that. We have certainly
supported efforts by the Argentine government to deal with these
issues, but Treasury might have a little more in terms of the IMF
angle in this.
QUESTION: I don't know whether you have anything on this either. The
mission to northern Iraq, to Kurdistan, do you have anything to add on
that? Would it be fair to assume that, even though no decision has
been taken on stage two, would it be fair to assume that Mr. Crocker
will at least be discussing possible scenarios for the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein?
MR. REEKER: No, without giving any specific bent to the trip, this is
part of a longstanding series of consultations by US officials with
Iraqi Kurdish leaders. We have met recently in Washington between
senior US officials and Iraqi Kurdish officials. And the last visit to
Northern Iraq was in February. I think we felt it was time to go again
and Ambassador Crocker has traveled there.
For those of you that weren't here, since we didn't brief yesterday, I
will just run through the details of what Jonathan and I are
discussing here. A delegation, a US delegation led by Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker is currently
in Northern Iraq. And during the course of his visit, Ambassador
Crocker is going to be in the main cities in the north, where he is
meeting with representatives of the Kurdish Democratic Party, the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Assyrian Democratic Party, the Iraqi
Turkmen Front and other opposition groups.
The main purpose of the visit is to demonstrate continued US
engagement with the Iraqi opposition, to consult with key players on
issues in Northern Iraq, to provide for direct discussions on the
status of Iraqi/Kurd reconciliation, and to evaluate the
implementation of the UN's Oil For Food Program in Northern Iraq. So
those are the four main themes of the discussion. In terms of the
mediation efforts, as I discussed with some of you yesterday, both the
patriotic union of Kurdistan, the leader of that, Mr. Talibani, and
the Kurdistan Democratic party leader, Mr. Barzani, have asked the
Department of State to try to play a mediating role on disputes
between those two parties. And this delegation, led by Mr. Crocker in
those discussions, is making the first step in that mediation process.
QUESTION: Since this is probably going to come up on the Kurdish side,
what is the State Department position on the activities between Iraq
and Turkey to build a second border gate between their countries. It
has been a concern from the Kurds. They bring it up often when they
talk about it with you all.
MR. REEKER: Let me check on the specifics of that. I don't know about
--
QUESTION: Yes, if you could. I just need to get something. Just what
the US --
MR. REEKER: I will be happy to look into that, see if we have a
position on that.
QUESTION: And I don't want to be picky, but I thought that there was
at least one level of envoys that were sent in June and July to the
region?
MR. REEKER: Perhaps to the region. My information is that --
QUESTION: But I mean, to the North of Iraq.
MR. REEKER: My information is that our last visit to northern Iraq was
in February, but I would be happy to check the memories of my
colleagues from that particular bureau, if you would like.
QUESTION: Do you know or have anything on the new deal -- electricity
deal between India and Iraq?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I would be happy to look into that as well.
QUESTION: North Korea and the United States will have a security
conference in India on December 19th. Can you confirm that?
MR. REEKER: I am afraid I had never heard that. So I would be happy to
look into it. If you would be so kind as to give my colleagues the
citation you are referencing, we can try to look into that. I had not
heard that news.
QUESTION: A question on Macedonia?
MR. REEKER: Please.
QUESTION: In the report of the International Crisis Group published
Monday, it is stated that peace in Macedonia will remain fragile if
this country is not recognized under its constitutional name. And the
group proposes few solutions for the dispute over the name between
Macedonia and Greece, and one of them is acknowledgement of the name
as Republica Macedonia, which is the Macedonian way of saying it,
Macedonian language --
MR. REEKER: I remember that, yes.
QUESTION: And how do you see this initiative?
MR. REEKER: As you know, the United Nations has a special negotiator
appointed to work on the issue, and we continue to support that
process and agree that it would be a useful thing to work out under
the mandate of that special negotiator.
Since we are mentioning Macedonia, I did want to point out that over
the weekend -- I think many of you saw -- there was a church outside
of Tetovo that was badly damaged, as well as more recently the burning
of a mosque near Bitola. And I want to be quite clear, as I was
earlier this year when similar things took place, that we condemn all
acts of destruction of cultural and religious sites. I think there
should be a full government investigation of these incidents, and I
believe the Macedonian Government has indicated that they are going to
be looking into that.
It is also important that we take the opportunity again to stress that
we urge the Macedonian political leaders to reach agreement on the
Macedonian self-government -- local government, local self-government
law, and pass that in the parliament as called for under their
political agreement from some months ago, the August 13th framework
agreement. That law remains a precondition, of course, for holding the
donors' conference that is also specified in the framework agreement,
and we really think it is in Macedonia's best interests to move ahead
on that law, and then we can move ahead to the important donors'
conference.
QUESTION: If I -- just a second -- do you consider or do you support
the initiative, the group's initiative --
MR. REEKER: Which group?
QUESTION: The International Crisis Group.
MR. REEKER: The International Crisis Group is an important
nongovernmental actor that monitors issues like this from their home
base in Brussels. And we certainly would support efforts by all of
those in that sector.
Our support is for the UN special negotiator, who has been appointed
to work on that issue and continues to provide an opportunity to use
the good offices of the United Nations to help resolve the issue.
QUESTION: The official name that you are using until the agreement
will be reached is?
MR. REEKER: It remains the name by which we recognized the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
QUESTION: Can you repeat for the record --
MR. REEKER: I just did.
QUESTION: A Czech court made a decision about Uzbekistan opposition
leader (inaudible). And he is free now. Do you have anything about
that?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I hadn't seen the latest on that. I know it was
an issue we were following. I think the Norwegians had an interest in
it as well. But I don't have anything new on it from here.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on an aid shipment by some
international groups that is being held up by contractors in Ukraine?
MR. REEKER: No.
QUESTION: Apparently the United States and the Ukraine are working --
MR. REEKER: I am happy to have somebody look into it for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) -- the Fast Track bill?
MR. REEKER: Yes, we discussed that at great length last week.
QUESTION: Are you doing anything to push it through the Senate? It's
stalled.
MR. REEKER: We certainly work very closely with the Senate committee
on that. We think it is an important thing that should be addressed as
quickly as possible and will benefit everybody involved.
QUESTION: How do you work with the committee?
MR. REEKER: We have a Legislative Affairs Bureau that works very
closely with congressional committees and with the White House as the
Administration moves forward on that process.
QUESTION: Do you think they can get it out this year at all?
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything further for you on that.
(The briefing concluded at 1:55 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
|
|
|
