09 May 2003
State Department Briefing Transcript
(Iraq, Iran, France, China, Germany, India/Pakistan) (9090)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, MAY 9, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:25 p.m. EDT
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Index
IRAQ
Tabling of Resolution on Iraq / Elements of the Resolution
US Working with Other Governments on Resolution
Political Leadership / Transition Government
UN Role/Contribution
Iraq's Oil Revenue / Control / Audit
Status of Oil-for Food Program / Contracts
Location of Former Iraqi Minister Tariq Aziz
Iraq and Membership in OPEC
IRAN
Iranian Reaction to US Presence in Iraq
Mujahideen E-Khalq
US Channels of Communications with Iran
Al-Qaida Members in Iran
Iraq and Membership in OPEC
FRANCE
Allegations of France Providing Passports to Escaping Iraqi Officials
CHINA
Secretary Powell's Call to Chinese Foreign Minister
GERMANY
Secretary Powell's Visit to Germany
INDIA/PAKISTAN
Deputy Secretary Armitage's Travel
Plans for Missile Test
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I might, I'd
like to start off just sort of filling you in on the basics of the
news of the day, which is our tabling of the resolution at the United
Nations today to take into account the new situation in Iraq, to lift
the sanctions on Iraq, to provide a vital role for the United Nations,
and to encourage others to get involved and help the Iraqi people
achieve their status in the world as a peaceful and representative
nation.
The elements of the resolution basically achieve -- do three things:
they lift the sanctions burden on the Iraqi people; the encourage and
provide a means for the international community to help build a free
and peaceful Iraq; and they define in some detail the vital role
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have called for the United
Nations to play in Iraq, in particular the appointment of a Special
Coordinator for the United Nations and a definition of his
responsibilities, the kinds of things that he would be expected to do.
Our intention is to create the conditions for Iraq's political
stability and economic recovery so that the Iraqi people may freely
determine their own future. The resolution, as the Secretary has said,
has a singular purpose: to help the Iraqi people obtain a better life
for themselves and their children and to put in place a democratic
form of government representing all the people of Iraq that will live
in peace with its neighbors and be a responsible nation among the
family of nations.
In our preliminary discussions with other Council members, as well as
coalition allies, there is clearly a willingness to work together
pragmatically to help the Iraqi people. We'll be engaged in intensive
discussions with Council members and others, both in New York and in
capitals in the days and weeks ahead. Members, of course, will be
consulting with their capitals and Council discussions will resume
next week.
The circumstances in Iraq have changed fundamentally. The regime is
gone, so there is now no reason to have any sanctions continue, to
have economic sanctions continue. The Iraqi people deserve an
immediate and unconditional sanctions lift so that they can fully
engage in economic and political reconstruction of their country. It's
not the time, we believe, for temporary fixes or for half-measures.
The draft that we presented also fulfills the promises made in the
Azores and at Hillsborough that we would engage the international
community and the United Nations in the future of Iraq and that the
United Nations would have a vital role in building a free and
democratic Iraq.
The resolution calls for a UN Special Coordinator to coordinate
participation by the United Nations and other international agencies
in humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction and to support
the Iraqi people in developing a representative government.
The Coordinator will also support international efforts to contribute
to civil administration, to promote legal and judicial reforms, to
promote human rights, and to help rebuild the civilian police force.
In addition, the resolution encourages support for Iraq's recovery
from states and interested organizations and enlists the assistance of
the international financial institutions, and therefore calls on
states to give to United Nations humanitarian appeals and to provide
the resources for the reconstruction of Iraq.
So that's the basics of this resolution that we presented today. We'll
be working it in the days ahead. As you know, the Secretary's travel
that begins this evening will take him to several Security Council
member countries, including Russia, Bulgaria and Germany. Under
Secretary Grossman today briefed coalition ambassadors in Washington.
There will be similar briefings in New York today. I think Ambassador
Negroponte is meeting with the Arab group ambassadors in New York, and
I mentioned the other day that our embassies had talked to Arab League
members and now, over the night, even more broadly around the world to
countries about this new resolution and the importance of passage.
Assistant Secretary Holmes, as you know, has been in Moscow and
Berlin. He had good meetings there. He met today with senior officials
from the German Foreign Ministry, I think, in partnership with his
British colleague. They did that together.
So these kind of meetings are going on all over the world, including
in this building, including on the phone, and we are working with
other governments to get a resolution that provides opportunity, now,
for the Iraqi people, that provides an opportunity for the
international community to help the Iraqi people as well.
And with that, I would be glad to take your questions on this or other
topics.
George.
QUESTION: Do you know how many ambassadors there were from coalition
countries?
MR. BOUCHER: Fifty or so. I don't know how many showed, but we we've
been having, as you know, for two months or more, regular meetings
with ambassadors from coalition countries, and I think it was the
group that gets together regularly to look at events in Iraq and how
to move forward.
QUESTION: In the list of things that the UN would be doing under this
resolution, it doesn't seem like they would have a role in helping
establish a political authority in a transition government. Can you
sort of speak to that?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure. Look at Paragraph 8C, Working With The Authority
and the People of Iraq With Respect To The Restoration and
Establishment of National and Local Institutions for Representative
Governance; 8D, Facilitating Reconstruction Key Infrastructure. That's
not completely political; 8E, Promoting Economic Reconstruction and
the Conditions for Sustainable Development, Including Through
Coordination With National and Regional Organizations As Appropriate,
Civil Society Donors and the International Financial Institutions. So
that -- also working with civil society, working with people inside.
Contribute to basic civilian administration functions, promoting human
rights. These are all working to promote the legal and judicial
system. These are all political aspects. But in terms of
representative government, it also makes clear, in addition to saying
that they'll be involved in the establishment of national and local
institutions, also makes clear that the Special Coordinator for Iraq
would have responsibilities to involve coordinating activities of the
United Nations in post-conflict processes in Iraq, one of which is the
political process.
QUESTION: It's so much information, but let me just -- I'm assuming
that -- well, we've been told that there will be, at some point, a
political leadership of Iraqis in Baghdad that will form a kind of
transition authority -- some will be inside, some will be outside. The
process for finding those Iraqis, however many there will be, whoever
they are, will the UN be in some way, will they be recommending but
not vetoing? I mean, what's their role in that?
MR. BOUCHER: They will certainly have a role. The United Nations
Coordinator will certainly have a role in this. The President, I
think, at one point specifically referred to their putting forward
names of people who might participate. I'm sure there are a lot of
aspects of this -- the institutional aspect, the civil society aspect,
or even the political aspects where the United Nations will wish to
make some kind of contribution -- and this resolution says that the UN
Coordinator would coordinate the United Nations contribution to that
and to many other things that are going on in Iraq.
QUESTION: So they are one of many groups of people who submit names
for this and --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to reduce it to that. That's just an
example.
QUESTION: Okay. And they do a lot of that stuff too, obviously, but --
MR. BOUCHER: Just an example of how they might contribute. The UN
would contribute. The UN would help. The UN would be involved in this
process through the UN Special Coordinator. That's what the resolution
sets up because it's one of the processes that relates to many of the
other things they are doing.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: Richard, you have -- you neglected to mention in your list
of what this resolution does what most people say is the main point,
which it gives the United States and Britain control over about $20
billion a year in revenue.
How are you going to sell this exclusive control, and how are you
going to counter the argument that the United Nations should have
control of this money and not the occupying powers?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, to tell people that that's not true.
That's not what the resolution does. The resolution does not put the
United States in unencumbered or sole charge of Iraq's oil revenue.
The resolution establishes a process by which the money from Iraq's
oil revenue can be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, unlike
what has happened for the last, lo, so many years.
Remember, the first part of this is selling oil. Oil is building up in
the pipelines and in the storage tanks, and that oil needs to be sold
in order for the products to get to the Iraqi people and others, but
also in order for the revenue to be created for the Iraqi people to
use. Somebody has to sell it.
Now there is Iraqi responsibility now for the Oil Ministry and for the
state oil marketing organization, the Iraqis will sell the oil. Well,
what happens to the revenue? The revenue needs to be used for the
Iraqi people. Who has the authority to spend it is a matter of the
people who are in authority, who have taken on a certain
responsibility in Iraq, which is the coalition, but also in a manner
that is done in conjunction with Iraqis, who are there, that is done
under the supervision of an international board, and that is audited
by international auditors.
So this whole process, any decisions have to be made so that they are
consistent with the UN resolution and so that they are transparent to
the Iraqi people and to the world. So it's not a somehow willy-nilly
control issue; it's an issue of having a very careful process to
ensure that the revenues are used for the sake of the Iraqi people,
and the specific purposes for which that money can be used are defined
in the resolution. So the Security Council would lay out how it wants
the monies to be spent.
Sir.
QUESTION: Richard, but you know there are suspicions out there that
the whole Iraq enterprise is one big oil grab.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'll deal with those, too. I want a chance to
respond to that.
QUESTION: There's a suspicion out there.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I know that's true, and I will respond to it.
QUESTION: And so why not give the -- you haven't answered the
question: Why not put the United Nations, as the French demanded this
morning, at the center of the revenue control process?
MR. BOUCHER: The United Nations will be deeply involved in all these
processes. That's what the resolution establishes. The Security
Council is going to mandate the process, mandate the transparency,
mandate the procedures by which it shall be happened, and mandate the
purposes for which the money should be spent. That, again, puts the
United States -- puts the United Nations heavily involved in this.
But let's deal with reality. The United Nations is not running Iraq
and doesn't want to run Iraq. The United Nations is not in a position
to take over Iraq and doesn't want to take over Iraq. So somebody who
is there with some authority, which we have taken on by prosecuting
this war, needs to take the actions.
Now, as far as these whole, you know, suspicions question, I mean, you
have to ask yourself. Not one drop of Iraqi oil has been sold by the
United States for revenue. Not one dollar of Iraqi oil revenue has
been taken by the United States for any purpose. At some point, these
suspicions should also have to face reality and should also have to --
people should also look at the facts of the matter. We have collected
millions and millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and
put it in safekeeping for the Iraqi people.
So this suspicion that was out there, it's about time that it left
because the reality is quite otherwise.
QUESTION: Doesn't this resolution actually reinforce those suspicions?
MR. BOUCHER: No, this resolution sets up a carefully mandated UN
procedure that is transparent, that is clear, and that is subject to
international audit, and it should satisfy both the international
community and the Iraqi people, whose money has been misused and whose
money has been misused for so many years.
QUESTION: Would those auditors have a veto --
MR. BOUCHER: We have a couple other people with --
QUESTION: We haven't finished with this yet. Would those auditors have
a veto over -- ?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess we haven't. What? No, auditors don't have vetoes
over expenditures. They audit to make sure it's consistent with the
purposes, to make sure the money has been spent consistent with the
purposes outlined in the resolution.
QUESTION: And if they decide it isn't, what happens then?
MR. BOUCHER: Then they do what auditors do.
Sir.
QUESTION: I wanted to go back to the political leadership question.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The administration has stated a clear goal of
de-Baathification, that no senior Baath Party officials should be part
of the new Iraqi leadership. Yet, as The New York Times reported
yesterday, State Department official Robin Rafael reinstated Saddam
Hussein's personal physician, Dr. -- I hope I have this right --
Al-Rawi as the president of Baghdad University, and the Minister of
Health, the new Minister of Health is also a senior Baath Party
official.
How do you square those two?
MR. BOUCHER: I, first of all, invite you to ask your questions out
there. I think they are happy to talk about how the process works.
Second of all, as individuals are asked to take positions or remain in
positions, available information is always checked out.
Third of all, I think, to some extent, the article didn't reflect the
reality that these things are worked within these organizations as
well and that we don't sit in some isolated space but, rather, our
people go out and visit the organizations and talk to the people
there, and that these decisions are made in conjunction with the other
people who work in those places and who know what's going on.
QUESTION: The thing is, I mean, when you're talking about a senior
Baath Party official being Minister of Health, and Saddam Hussein's
personal physician, I mean, I think at that point, I mean, at that
point doesn't it kind of not pass the smell test? It could be --
MR. BOUCHER: These people have passed much more than a smell test, and
certainly a smell test from 12,000 miles away.
QUESTION: So what are the standards, then? I guess I didn't quite -- I
mean, I know I can talk out to the folks in the Middle East, but
obviously they do report back to the State Department here in
Washington. So my question is: What are the guidelines? What rules of
thumb are being -- ?
MR. BOUCHER: People are checked against --
QUESTION: -- used that allow Saddam's personal physician to be
president of Baghdad University?
MR. BOUCHER: Slow down. Okay? May I answer now?
QUESTION: Go right ahead.
MR. BOUCHER: People are checked against all the available information;
both on the ground and that might exist elsewhere in the U.S.
Government. And as I said, this is also -- they are also checked
against local opinion and local information to determine if somebody
is an appropriate person or whether he would be excluded, he or she
would be excluded, under the guidelines that you, yourself, cited:
that senior officials who participated in the Baath Party or who were
guilty of human rights abuses or crimes or other things do not get
reappointed.
And one of the things this resolution does is make that even more
explicit in international rules because the resolution would bar
Iraqis who committed crimes and atrocities from receiving safe haven
elsewhere, it mandates return of assets stolen by Saddam's regime, and
people like that would, indeed, end up being prosecuted.
So people that are in positions there temporarily, permanently,
whatever, are checked out against the best possible information as we
go forward. But these things are also worked within the organizations.
QUESTION: Well, not to be too technical, but if I heard you correctly
this morning, you said senior Baath Party officials or people who
committed war crimes, essentially --
MR. BOUCHER: And people who are both, as well.
QUESTION: -- but everyone acknowledges that these people that -- who I
just asked about in the question were senior party officials. So,
then, how does that square with, if you have two people who are senior
party officials and you say senior party officials -- ?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to play with the definitions. These
decisions are made out there and by people who are on the ground, who
know what's going on the ground, who consult with others on the ground
and who have available to them much more information than I do here.
And I think these are responsible decisions that have to be made in
the field and I have to, at some point, just tell you that they are
made on all available information, and these are the decisions they
came to, having evaluated all of that information.
QUESTION: Richard, just to -- I had just a very quick -- it is -- I
just want to make sure. You are saying that if you had information on
somebody, and then you got new information on somebody, and you found
out that they were worse than you thought, then there is a process
because this is a transition government.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, it's all transitional.
QUESTION: That they could be then --
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Right. Or that there would be eventually an elected
government that would then --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that -- that -- I mean, that's true. There is also
the overall provision that as this process of Iraqis taking charge
resumes as a representative of Iraqi government is put in place, that
first the interim authority, and then whatever transitional
arrangements and ultimately a full-scale Iraqi government, the Iraqis
will be making these decisions themselves, who they want in different
jobs.
And, certainly, if we had information during the period that we were
doing this, we would -- we could easily decide on something else. But,
ultimately, Iraqis will be taking charge of all of these areas, they
will be making the decisions, and not necessarily for crimes. They may
just decide he is not the right guy for the job any more and they want
somebody else, but that will be fully within their jurisdiction.
QUESTION: But, I mean, it's just -- I mean, it's a fluid situation on
the ground, and I'm assuming that we don't know everything about
everybody who ever worked in Saddam Hussein's government --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm assuming that true -- that, too. But we are finding
out everything we can and checking against as much as we do have.
QUESTION: And, finally, isn't it -- I mean, it would be the case that
the threshold of what crime you would commit in the old government --
I mean, the U.S. is not determining that in this vetting process, is
my question. You are not saying like, okay, these crimes are so bad
that we would never talk to you, and these crimes are okay, or -- do
you see where I am going with this?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't actually.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. It's for the Iraqi people to determine --
MR. BOUCHER: Do you mean if --
QUESTION: When the communists got out of Poland, there were certainly
commies who ended up staying in power, but they weren't the worse of
the commies.
MR. BOUCHER: We have seen this -- I do know where you are going. We
have seen this in a lot of places that have gone through transitions.
We have seen truth and reconciliation commissions in some places. We
have seen, you know, government guidelines. We have seen vetting
procedures. We have seen political, you know, vetting. We have seen
just, you know, dossiers coming out and being published in the press
from Eastern Europe or from other parts of the world. And I guess each
nation approaches this in different ways. They decide what the -- what
the criteria are. That said there are certain crimes that are not
excusable.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR. BOUCHER: You know, that people who are involved in the brutality
of the Saddam Hussein regime don't belong in these positions, period.
And that's -- that's what we try to check things against.
Christophe.
QUESTION: Just a clarification on the Oil-for-Food program and new --
new proposal for a new resolution. What is going to happen with the
previous contracts which are -- which were concluded under the
Oil-for-Food program? What is going to happen with the money, which is
already on the Oil-for-Food program escrow account?
QUESTION: Those things are addressed in the resolution. Let me -- let
me review it briefly. First of all, the resolution that we presented
would extend the Secretary General's authorities granted under
Resolutions 1472 and 1476. That authority is for him to prioritize the
contracts that were previously approved for delivery by the United
Nations. Those contracts provide for goods that are necessary for Iraq
in critical areas such as food, health, water, sanitation,
agriculture, education and electricity.
Among those priority contracts are also ones that support the World
Food Program, the World Health Organization, and other UN agencies in
meeting Iraq's essential needs.
So our proposal would enable delivery of the civilian good contracts
and the humanitarian contracts in the Oil-for-Food pipeline, which the
United Nations has previously approved, and which are funded now from
that account to meet the needs of the Iraqi people; and then the other
provision deals with the other part of your question, that the -- the
money that is not "encumbered" is the word they use -- the money that
is not part of -- necessary -- needed to pay for these contracts now,
that the Secretary has authority over, would then be moved to the
Iraqi Assistance Fund, so that that money could be spent by the
authorities, and more and more by the Iraqi authorities as they took
over under the transparent procedures that were laid out for other oil
revenues, things like that.
Andrea.
QUESTION: A couple of quick questions. One, who has control of the
Iraqi Assistance Fund?
MR. BOUCHER: The resolution states that the coalition authority would
spend it in accordance with the guidelines that are laid out in the
United Nations resolution under the supervision of an international
board and subject to international audits and in cooperation and
consultation with the Iraqi interim authority.
QUESTION: So the coalition authority would presumably be the same
members of the coalition that fought the war? Would there be
additional members?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's not -- this is kind of where we started out.
It's not as simple as saying the people who fought the war get to
spend the money. It's not the case. The United Nations is putting --
the United Nations Security Council is laying down how the money has
to be spent, a transparent procedure so that it's spent to the
satisfaction of all, and an auditing process to make sure it is spent
that way, and it's done in conjunction with the Iraqi interim
authority. That's recognized in the resolution. And increasingly, as
the Iraqis take more and more responsibility, they will be spending
the money.
QUESTION: So is it possible that members of the coalition authority
could be other countries than the ones that fought the war? Is it open
to that possibility?
QUESTION: Specifically the United States and Britain.
MR. BOUCHER: No, the resolution doesn't say that.
The letter about the establishment of the coalition provisional
authority that was provided today describes it as the United Nations,
the United Kingdom and coalition partners, so others that were
involved in the process.
QUESTION: In the war?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. If I could also just follow up on Jonathan's earlier
question, I just want to make sure I understand you. In reassuring the
international community that the war was not, you know, a ruse for a
grab on Iraq's oil, did I understand you correctly? You said that the
U.S. or coalition members have not spent any of or sold any of Iraq's
oil and taken that money? Is that the essence of your question?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, exactly.
QUESTION: But isn't the whole purpose of the UN resolution to lift the
sanctions, which precluded the U.S. or anybody else from selling the
Iraqi oil because sanctions were in place?
MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not true. I mean that's not the -- first of
all, that's not the purpose of the resolution. And then second of all,
that's not the -- not actually what sanctions precluded. Sanctions
dealt mostly with the import of goods into Iraq.
QUESTION: Okay, but then let me rephrase the question. My
understanding was that it was illegal to sell any oil -- it is illegal
to sell any of Iraq's oil right now due to some of the sanctions that
are in place.
MR. BOUCHER: It's not illegal. It's as much a question of market
conditions. The fact is nobody wants to buy oil that doesn't have
clear, established title. You don't want to buy a boatload of oil and
have somebody come attach it and say it's not your oil. You've put a
lot of money into it. And so people in the markets are not going to
buy oil unless there's a clear process, a clear procedure and a clear
authority to do so. And that's what this resolution provides for.
That's why -- and that's necessary. That's necessary for Iraq's oil to
begin to be -- to flow for the -- you know, as the pipelines fill up
and the tanks are full, you can't rehabilitate the oil wells because
there's no place to put the oil that might come out. The Iraqi people
deserve this revenue. They deserve this revenue as soon as possible to
help provide for their own redevelopment. So you need -- somebody
needs to take -- have responsibility for selling the oil and make sure
it's used in the proper manner, and this is what's laid out in the
resolution. It reflects the conditions on the ground right now --
who's there, who can do it as these oil fields are repaired, and it
provides for a completely transparent process and it provides for a
transition to more Iraqi authority.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) had Iraq able to skirt UN sanctions and sell oil
either, you know, through the Arab or through the Syrian pipeline? How
would -- why would any companies be willing to buy oil that didn't
have a clear --
MR. BOUCHER: I suppose there is always some, but certainly on the
scale that we're talking about, reputable and major companies don't --
just don't do that.
QUESTION: Richard -- oh, yes. I understand that you're reluctant to
talk about your negotiating tactics, but would it be fair to assume
that this is the sort of maximalist starting position which is subject
to considerable amendment over the weeks to come and that you really
don't expect people to give you complete carte blanche to spend all
this money as you wish?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't expect people to give us complete carte blanche,
and that's why we've not asked for it. We have not put complete carte
blanche in this resolution and it would be inappropriate to refer to
it that way.
This is a careful procedure that's been thought through that reflects
the desire by all to have transparency, the need for the Iraqi people
to benefit from the revenue, and the reflection of the facts on the
ground that somebody needs to take authority in order to -- have
authority in order to be able to sell this oil for the benefit of the
Iraqi people.
It's been carefully thought through. It's been carefully brought
together, and you'll see in this resolution now a lot of somewhat
complicated legal points are addressed by -- by this resolution in a
way that has been carefully studied and put together. In this process,
we have listened to friends and allies, ideas from countries around
the world, suggestions by the other carry out-sponsors, Britain and
Spain, as well, that have been brought in and incorporated in the
resolution.
We think it's a good resolution. We think it's a solid resolution. We
think it answers the questions that need to be answered. And, above
all, it does for the Iraqi people what the Iraqi people need right
now, that's a lifting of the sanctions burden and an opportunity to
accept and to benefit from the assistance of the international
community.
QUESTION: But Richard, once this -- if this resolution is passed, and
once it's passed, what recourse does the international community have
if it disputes the way in which the authority is spending the money?
What can they do to -- ?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I don't accept the suspicion that we will
not follow this. This lays down the procedure by which it needs to be
done. It lays down the goals for which it needs to be spent. It lays
down a procedure that ensures it will be done transparently. So
everybody will know in the board in the audit whether it's being
followed.
I would not assume, at this point, it would not be followed. If there
is a dispute about it, the dispute I am sure will be raised by the
board, raised by the auditors, and can be brought back to the Security
Council.
Okay, Joel.
QUESTION: Richard, right now, it seems that the Iranian clerics want
to undermine all this process. Rafsanjani has warned the United
States' of prolonged U.S. presence in Iraq. And also, there was a BBC
television report a day ago, which showed in a hospital a cleric that
came in and was handing out sums of money to the employees. And he
just plain took over and U.S. Army troops were right there, and
basically, a police spoke with him. I don't quite know -- they didn't
show how that was resolved.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know either. I think we have made our position
clear on Iran, on any neighboring country. People need to help the
process of representative government in Iraq. They need to avoid
interference, particularly military interference, and need the -- let
the Iraqi people go and have the opportunity to decide their own
future.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a starting point for negotiations with the Security
Council, or is this resolution, in fact, sort of the --
MR. BOUCHER: This is sort of the same thing.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: This -- let me put it as succinctly as I can. This is a
good, well thought out, solid resolution that addresses the issues
that needed to be addressed, that provides procedures that need to be
provided, and that helps achieve the goals that the international
community, we think, shares.
The reaction that we have heard from people, as I said, is one of
pragmatism. We would hope people would work with us on this
resolution. We think we have answered the questions here. But if
people have other ideas, and better ideas, and other ways of doing
these things effectively, we'll obviously listen to those and we'll
work with them, in order to achieve a resolution that has the widest
possible support.
QUESTION: The reason I asked is maybe you can -- I mean, time is of
the essence, as everybody, I think, would admit. The Iraqis need to
start profiting from their oil and rebuilding the country. It took a
long time, I think, two-and-a-half months to do 1441. This
institution, the UN Security Council, does take a long time to
deliberate on things, particularly on Iraq, it seems.
Do you have a limit of how long? I mean, the sanctions of the
Oil-for-Food program --
MR. BOUCHER: I --
QUESTION: -- June 3rd. Do you know what I mean?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I don't have -- we don't have a precise limit. The
Oil-for-Food, as it's now constituted, expires on June 3rd. It would
seem logical that these things would certainly want to be done before
that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: -- as well before that as possible. We think that this
can and should be done within a period of a few weeks.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: Sir.
QUESTION: Going back to the contacts, you were talking about the
contracts under the Oil-for-Food program. I believe some Russian oil
companies and Chinese oil companies had contracts with the Saddam
Hussein regime for development of oil fields. Does the U.S. honor
these contracts, or are you going to say, "They are contracts with the
past regime, they don't --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly if there are binding contracts or
not. That would be something for the Iraqis to go through. The Iraqis
are now in charge again of their Oil Ministry, of their oil marketing
organization. They are responsible for all marketing and sales of oil,
for development, and things like that. We certainly -- you know, there
are plenty of people that can help them do that. But they have
responsibility for those decisions. They'll have to make them.
George.
QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the -- on something that an EU
official -- I believe he is from Denmark -- said, to the effect that
what the U.S. has done in Iraq is all about oil, and more
specifically, it's a back door way for the U.S. to be, in effect,
another member of OPEC?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I noticed also that the European Commission didn't
back up the statement. I guess I'd call it ridiculous blather. That's
about as much as I can think of right now.
Sir.
QUESTION: The leader of the Hezbollah, Mr. Nasrallah, said today in an
interview on al-Jazeera that U.S. official approached them and said
they will recognize Hezbollah as a political party if they abandon
their so-called armed struggle. Can you confirm that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of any contacts like that. I'll double check
just to make sure. Okay. We'll start our way back again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Two quick questions about Iraq.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about where former Iraqi -- the Prime
Minister Tariq Aziz is detained? According to Iraqi sources, he would
be or could be in Morocco either (inaudible)?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that. You can ask the coalition
forces or the Pentagon. I don't have that would indicate that report
is true.
QUESTION: And the second quick question about U.S. lawmaker Mr. James
Bremmer, who yesterday called on the U.S. Government to launch an
investigation into the charges that France secretly supplied passport
to former Iraqi officials?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen --
QUESTION: -- and he is suggesting sanctions to retaliate on visas for
French national returning to the U.S. That's report on the U.S.
Government from a person with (inaudible) influential U.S.
(inaudible).
MR. BOUCHER: This is a purely journalistic question of, and not a
personal one, I assume. They -- we're happy to have you with us,
Christophe. I don't -- I didn't see the statement. I don't have any
comment on any proposals for legislation, but I think we have made
clear that we don't have any information that would indicate the
French issued passports or visas to Iraqi officials.
QUESTION: What about sanctions on France? (Inaudible) coup de grace.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, well, that's cute, but we don't have anything that
would substantiate the premise.
Terri.
QUESTION: On Iran, can you say anything about the talks supposedly
going on between the U.S. and other Mujahedin in Northern Iraq about
surrender following the ceasefire agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: The military has, I think, discussed this to some extent,
I think. From a policy point of view, I want to reiterate what we
said, I think, at our counterterrorism briefing a week or so ago; that
we are committed to ending the Mujahideen-E Khalq terrorist and
military activities in Iraq, committed to ending Iraq as a source of
terrorism. And this is a terrorist group that has been there, that has
operated with the support of the former Iraqi regime. We are not
accepting of some terrorists, and not of others. Any detailed
questions about military operations or discussions in Iraq -- that
would be answered by the CENTCOM military people.
QUESTION: Okay. And to follow up, what about reports that Zalmay
Khalilzad has been involved in negotiations over a swap for al-Qaida
suspects for MEK suspects?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen those reports.
QUESTION: You haven't?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Has the U.S. held meetings recently with Iran in Geneva?
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we have certain channels of communication
that we can use to communicate with Iran either in messages or in
meetings. We have met with them in the context of activities in
Afghanistan, for example, you remember that. So we do have ways of
addressing items and issues of mutual interest with Iranians.
We do not talk in any detail about the specifics of those kinds of
meetings, but we do have those channels and we are in a position to
communicate on issues of mutual concern. We still have some very
serious issues of contention with Iran: their support for terrorism,
their support -- their opposition to the peace process, development of
nuclear weapons, human rights questions. These are all very serious
issues, but we do have ways of communicating on some issues that are
of mutual interest.
QUESTION: But has there been a face-to-face meeting with Zal
Khalilzad?
MR. BOUCHER: I did not -- am not in a position to talk about any
specifics of how we might meet, or talk or discuss with him.
QUESTION: But you're saying that we use other channels, and you didn't
mention face-to-face meeting as one of them.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I said we do meet sometimes. We have met with him in
the context of Afghanistan, for example. So we have ways of
communicating both, you know, through in writing, through
representatives, but also occasionally in meetings in broader context.
QUESTION: Is this something that is on the table?
MR. BOUCHER: What something?
QUESTION: A swap of -- the discussion with Abbas?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything specific like that, no.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Richard, has the U.S. communicated to Iran a desire for the
Iranians to hand over any suspected or alleged al-Qaida members?
MR. BOUCHER: We have communicated to all the countries of the region.
The kind of thing that is, as I said, in this proposed UN resolution,
as well, that would become a Chapter VII requirement on everybody, and
that is that people should not be interfering in Iraq; they should not
be sending armed groups into Iraq; they should be expelling senior
Iraqi officials who might end up on their territory; they should not
be, you know, hospitable to things coming out of Iraq in that fashion.
So that, generally, that message that you saw us communicate in Syria,
that we have worked with other countries on, has also been
communicated to Iran.
QUESTION: Yeah, right. Is it fair to say that among all of the things
you just listed, included in that is to all of Iraq's neighbors, that
they shouldn't harbor al-Qaida terrorists, or suspected al-Qaida
terrorists?
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly, yeah. Certainly, that's been communicated in
our conversations with all of the neighbors.
QUESTION: Thank you
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But would the U.S. consider the Mujahideen to be in their --
to be held by the U.S. in such a way that they could be forcibly
removed and handed over to another country?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not -- I am not -- I don't want to speculate with
you on something. I didn't see the report. I don't know if it's based
on anything or not. But I don't -- I am not going to get any specifics
of -- specific scenarios that one might create. The goal that we have
had is to get the -- is to end the terrorist, the military activities
of this group, and to keep them from continuing that. We talked about
surrender of these people.
QUESTION: If a group disarms and surrenders is it -- would it be
considered that they could no longer commit their terrorist acts, and
they would -- that would, perhaps, be one of the steps to not
considering them a terrorist group anymore?
MR. BOUCHER: That's extraordinarily speculative at this point. If a
particular unit or group of individuals disarms, that may or may not
mean that the group has abandoned terrorism and is no longer a
terrorist group. As we have seen this around the world, I think there
are very few that have actually ended the whole idea of support for
terrorist acts.
Okay, ma'am.
QUESTION: Does it count for anything the Mujahideen E-Khalq were --
handed over accurate information about the Natanz facility in Iran?
MR. BOUCHER: The fact that they disclosed information about Iran is
interesting. But the fact that they have killed people, conducted
terrorist activities, worked in collaboration with the Saddam Hussein
regime, done terrorist training, stockpiled weapons and conducted
attacks is not mitigated by the fact that they made some information
public.
Yeah.
QUESTION: We heard that Secretary Powell talked to Chinese Foreign
Minister Li yesterday. Can you tell us about the substance and the
tone of the conversation?
MR. BOUCHER: They spoke yesterday evening. It was a good conversation,
as the Secretary has called many of his colleagues on the Security
Council and others who are interested in a new resolution. They talked
about the situation in Iraq, about the new resolution. They talked
about the situation with regard to North Korea and the Chinese talks
that were -- U.S., China and North Korea participated in. That's about
all I can remember off the top of my head. I don't have notes handy.
QUESTION: And has Secretary Powell asked China's help, I mean, support
on lifting the sanction in --
MR. BOUCHER: Certainly, we -- the Secretary has indicated in his phone
calls in recent days to people that we would be sharing the full text
of the resolution with them; that we thought it was an important
resolution that accomplished some very necessary goals, at this point;
and said we look forward to working with people and to getting their
support for the resolution.
QUESTION: And in spite of the previous split on the Iraq war, we have
also seen China and the U.S., I mean, cooperating in a number of
issues like SARS, North Korea and lifting the sanction. How does the
Secretary and the United States see the overall U.S.-China
relationship these days?
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, we -- I hesitate to answer this because then we'll go
country by country and have to do this. But we see it as a positive
relationship, a relationship where we do have work to do together,
where we can work together, as you said, despite some of the
disagreements we have over how we proceed in Iraq.
There is an opportunity now for all of the members of the
international community to look at the needs of the people of Iraq, to
do what we can to help them and to cooperate together in building a
better future in this region.
QUESTION: No consequence?
MR. BOUCHER: Everything is taken into account, but where we can
cooperate with others, we will.
Sir.
QUESTION: I want to go country by country --
QUESTION: Still on China?
QUESTION: No, on Germany.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR. BOUCHER: Are we on Iraq, China or Germany?
QUESTION: No, China. China also, apparently -- well, sorry -- in this
conversation last night, they urged that the process of talking with
North Korea continue and indicated that they'd be willing to continue
playing this very active role that they did in the Beijing talks. You
have had a chance to talk with Jim Kelly now. And can you tell us
anything about willingness to continue with more talks with North
Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: There is no decision at this point. We wanted to analyze
what happened in Beijing. We have been looking at all of the
information, including information about what the North Koreans may or
may not be doing. We want to talk with friends and allies, including
the Chinese, but also the Japanese and the South Koreans, whose
leaders will be visiting Washington this month.
So we will go through that process at our own pace. We'll analyze
things carefully and then we'll decide.
Germany?
QUESTION: Can I change the subject now?
MR. BOUCHER: Can we change? Yeah. Sir.
QUESTION: Is the United States encouraged by Germany's moving forward
on the resolution saying it will help the U.S. get -- get it through
the Council? Is it a part of the process?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's part of the, I think, general reaction
that I described as pragmatic. Certainly, we do think that's where the
focus needs to be right now, on people who want to work with the Iraqi
people, who want to help the Iraqi people and try to move -- try to
move forward. That's where our focus is, and to the extent that others
are willing to do that, we appreciate it.
QUESTION: But would you characterize it as the beginning or part of
the healing process to advance this relationship?
MR. BOUCHER: See, I told you, she started something. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, the Secretary's going next week so.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I think I'll really leave it for the Secretary when
he goes out there. Our attitude has been that these differences have
occurred, we all have to understand their significance and their
importance, and I'm sure we'll all be taking them into account as we
go forward. But there is a great deal of work to be done. There is a
great deal of important work to be done that offers opportunities for
countries to participate, for countries to support, for countries
really to focus pragmatically on the needs of the Iraqi people. And if
you look at the speech the Secretary gave in New York the other night,
I think he described pretty well what our attitude is now towards
those opportunities.
QUESTION: Can you confirm if he is going to meet with the Chancellor
when he is there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have scheduled confirmation yet, no.
QUESTION: Well, let me get back to the oil revenue issue on there. And
you say the United States and the coalition, they won't take any money
from the oil revenue. That means are you going to exclude the
possibility that using of a peacekeeping or peace stabilization
operation in the future?
MR. BOUCHER: We have -- the purposes are specified in the resolution,
and you can read them yourself. You'll see quite clearly what it will
be used for.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: Yes --
MR. BOUCHER: I guess, Gene, and then in back.
QUESTION: Oh, sorry.
MR. BOUCHER: Go ahead, Gene.
QUESTION: Could I ask a quick question about marketing of Iraq oil?
You say that marketing, setting the prices and so on, will be done by
Iraqis, so this is the same old situation. Is Iraq going to be --
continue her membership in OPEC and setting a level of distribution?
MR. BOUCHER: That is for Iraqis to decide. The Iraqi State Oil and
Marketing Organization is part of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, which is
in the -- under the authority now of Mr. Ghadhban, I think it is. He
has responsibility for deciding Iraq's oil sales policy for marketing
and sales of Iraqi oil and he will perform those functions and make
those decisions as appropriate for Iraq and for the people of Iraq,
until further Iraqi authority comes along, until we have another
government that may or may not wish to appoint somebody else.
QUESTION: Sorry. I am going to follow up. So you are neutral with
regard to their participation in Iraq in OPEC?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we are neutral, in that sense, but it's a
decision for them to decide. And I am sure they have -- they do have
international advisors that will give them the best advice on these
things, but it will be in Iraqi hands for deciding.
Okay, Ma'am.
QUESTION: Can you spell Mr. Ghadhban? I guess we ought to check the
name.
MR. BOUCHER: G-h-a-d-h-b-a-n, Tamir Ghadhban is the senior official in
charge of the Iraqi oil sector. This news was reported out of Baghdad
about a week ago.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just want to go back to Germany for a second. Do you
have any details about what the talks in Berlin will focus on? And
also, Chancellor Schroeder gave a speech in which he really focused on
how vital the relationships between the U.S. and Germany are, and that
both countries have a friendship which is founded on a solid basis of
common experiences and common values. And is this sort of a foundation
of -- of groundwork of the meetings for next week?
MR. BOUCHER: It's a foundation of everything we do every day with our
allies in Germany, France, Europe and elsewhere. The President said it
quite simply the other day. He just said, "We are allies." That means
we work together. That means we do things together every day. We have
cooperated many days.
Even with these disputes going on, we have worked against terrorism
together. We have worked on force protection issues in Germany
together during the war. We work on international financial questions,
be it the health of our economies or pursuing terrorist finance. So
there is an abundance of examples with each of these countries of
cooperation as allies on a daily basis.
The question is how we can cooperate in the tasks that lie before us,
and that's what we will be discussing in Berlin and in the capitals,
as we move forward: what needs to be done, how can we help the Iraqi
people, how can we achieve stability in the region, how can we pursue
Middle East peace, how can we solve some of the other issues on our
agenda, whether it's the issues of AIDS and development, or other
things that we have before us like trade negotiations. There is always
a great deal of things, topics for the allies to address when they get
together.
QUESTION: Under Secretary Armitage just visited both India --
MR. BOUCHER: Deputy.
QUESTION: Or Deputy --
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
QUESTION: -- Secretary Armitage just visited both India and Pakistan.
And yet, the Indians just tested this morning an air-to-air missile.
The Pakistanis want -- or have offered to end nuclear weapons, or to
dismantle them, and the Indians in the last day or so say, "Well, we
need them because perhaps there are other countries, which include
China, are threatening." Anything to add to --
MR. BOUCHER: No, but a bit to subtract. I think, first of all, we have
been very pleased with some of the developments in India and Pakistan
relations over the last several weeks, the statements that started
with the statement of Prime Minister Vajpayee, the phone call, the
intention to return ambassadors, open up air corridors and to look at
other possibilities and how they could move forward have been very
welcome.
The Secretary expressed that this morning to the Indian National
Security Advisor, Mr. Mishra, who is in Washington. He has come to
visit with -- to talk to now our National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice, who he met yesterday, be seeing other U.S. officials. So they
had a very good meeting today of a broad range of issues in U.S.-India
relations, but also about the question of India's relations with
Pakistan.
Deputy Secretary Armitage has been in Islamabad. He has, I think, just
arrived in New Delhi. He had been in Kabul between the two. And so he
looks forward to also including a broad range of topics in his talks
with the Indian Government and see what we can do, hear from them on
the state of play and see what we can do to, if necessary, to help the
process along.
QUESTION: Is the missile test troubling, then?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything specifically on the missile test.
I'd have to look into it and see exactly what it was and whether it
was important or not.
QUESTION: They said they plan to do another one in the next couple of
days.
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to see what it was before I could tell you if
it's important or not.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, thanks. I guess that's it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(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
|
|
|
