09 January 2004
State Department Daily Briefing, January 9, 2004
China/Hong Kong, Haiti, Iran, Israel/Palestinians, United Kingdom, North Korea, China/Taiwan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, China, Singapore
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher conducted the department's daily press briefing January 9. Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 2004
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
CHINA/HONG KONG
-- Democracy through Electoral Reform & Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong
HAITI
-- January 7 Attacks on Political Demonstration in Port au Prince
-- Efforts to Resolve Issues Politically and through Dialogue
IRAN
-- Iran's Commitments to the International Community/U.S. Policy on Engaging Iran on Specific Areas of Concern
-- Issue of Iran's Support of Terrorist Organizations/Transit through Syria
-- Disaster Assistance Relief Teams/High Level U.S. Delegation
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Roadmap to Peace/Two-State Solution
UNITED KINGDOM
-- Briefing by Ambassador Prosper on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay
-- Discussions Regarding Repatriation of Guantanamo Bay Detainees
NORTH KOREA
-- Ongoing Discussions Regarding Six-Party Talks
-- Elimination of Nuclear Program/Security Assurances
CHINA/TAIWAN
-- U.S.-Taiwan Channels of Communication
IRAQ
-- Ambassador Negroponte's January 9 Meeting with U.N. Secretary General
-- Role of United Nations
-- January 19 Meeting/Dialogue between U.N. Secretary General and Iraqi Governing Council
-- Organization & Implementation of Political System/November 15 Plan
SAUDI ARABIA
-- Swearing In of New Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Oberwetter
DEPARTMENT
-- U.S. Views on Freedom of Expression/Right for Journalists to Report
-- U.S. Policy on Latin America
MOROCCO
-- Readout of Visit of Moroccan Prime Minister to the State Department
CHINA
-- Chinese New Year Celebrations
SINGAPORE
-- Under Secretary Bolton Travel
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I'd like to mention two statements that we will be putting out in more detail in writing. The first has to do with recent developments in Hong Kong, and the United States is expressing its strong support for democracy through electoral reform and universal suffrage in Hong Kong.
We believe these will advance economic and social development and are essential to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability within the "one country, two systems" framework.
There's a statement on that, and second of all, there's a statement on January 7th attacks on a political demonstration in Haiti. We're condemning the actions of the Haitian Government in response to the political demonstrations that occurred January 7th in Port au Prince.
Police officers at these -- some police officers at these demonstrations collaborated with heavily armed, hired gangs to attack the demonstrators. We believe these actions contradict the government's own declaration that it seeks compromise and we call on the government to end immediately its efforts to suppress peaceful dissent, so there's a more extensive statement on that available after the briefing, as well.
QUESTION: On your second one, I don't know, but I don't remember clearly. The Secretary said something about a follow-through on Haiti with Aristide --
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, he said we --
QUESTION: Was that in Mexico or --
MR. BOUCHER: No, he'd said generally, we were encouraging the --
QUESTION: Constitutional, yeah --
MR. BOUCHER: -- the parties and the opposition to work with the Bishop, with religious groups, civic groups --
QUESTION: And follow a constitutional path, yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: -- and to resolve the turmoil and difficulties in Haiti through dialogue using Good Offices, or the -- not the Good Offices, but using the assistance of these groups within the context of the OAS resolution as well. So that's an effort that we have had under way for some time, we'll continue to support any good, well meaning -- any, any good efforts to try to resolve this, these issues politically and through dialogue.
QUESTION: May I ask you about whether -- here we go, then, it's a merry-go-round with Iran. Every other day they say something positive.
QUESTION: Could I ask a quick one on Hong Kong, about the statement you read?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
QUESTION: I don't know whether it will be in the statement. But do you -- are you specific about the way -- you talk about electoral reform -- do you -- are you specific about the way that they elect the chief executive? Are you talking about if he should be or she should be elected directly by the people rather than appointed?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, our belief is in democracy. If you look at the basic law for Hong Kong it provides that in the coming years when the term of the present chief executive expires, they need to decide how to choose how to elect the chief executive. We express and have expressed before our support for democracy. And I believe that the Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong Government need to start addressing this issue even though it comes up in a couple of years, but that it's time for fairly wide extensive consultations in Hong Kong so that the Hong Kong people get the chance to design the system that's appropriate for them.
QUESTION: Didn't the Chinese Government just come out a couple days ago and warn the United States and other countries not to interfere in Hong Kong's electoral --
MR. BOUCHER: I suppose they've done that before.
QUESTION: I take it you're --
MR. BOUCHER: I do remember them having done that before. But no, I think, first, there's a couple points to make on that. First of all, this belief in democracy is worldwide; it's not specific to China or Hong Kong or anywhere else. We do believe it's a factor for prosperity and stability, and we care a lot about the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. So there's no -- there shouldn't be any wondering about why we express it with regard to Hong Kong.
Second of all, the provisions of China's own, of the basic law that governs the status of Hong Kong, provide that this issue needs to be decided and discussed in coming years.
QUESTION: So you --
MR. BOUCHER: And so we're saying it needs to be addressed.
QUESTION: Right. Okay. So you wouldn't regard your comments as interference at all?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I regard them as entirely appropriate; otherwise, I wouldn't be making them.
QUESTION: Is there an opening here that Iran's Foreign Minister is offering, or is it something you've heard before, or something (inaudible)?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not -- don't quite know which specific --
QUESTION: Oh, it's -- excuse me. Well, I thought somebody had noticed that this is on Iranian television, state television, that, you know, that they're interested in negotiations with the United States. Iran is ready to negotiate with all countries and America is no exception, if it adopts a new approach, and blah, blah, blah.
Are you overwhelmed by this?
MR. BOUCHER: The -- well, as you know, there have been a number of steps, promises, commitments by Iran to deal with issues like the nuclear issue. We've been able to help with the humanitarian situation. The President made clear January 1st that the United States wanted to show the Iranian people that we care, that we've got compassion for human suffering, and he therefore took appropriate steps so that we could allow that, those shipments to go through.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: We've also made clear, as the President did in recent weeks, that there are issues with Iran -- issues like the voices of people in Iran that look for more freedom, issues like the al-Qaida members who are in Iran, issues like Iran's nuclear program, which needs to be resolved in a satisfactory manner consistent with Iran's promises and commitments to the international community, and issues like the support of violent elements that oppose the peace process.
So those things need to be addressed as well. Our policy has been to engage Iran on specific issues of concern in an appropriate manner, and if and when the President determines he wants to do so.
QUESTION: Well, you have ways of doing this already.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you see an opportunity to branch out a little bit and set up new fora for doing this?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if it's branch out or set up new fora. As you know, there have been some contacts where we've discussed these issues in the past. Don't want to speculate at this point at whether there might be such discussions again, but we do think these issues need to be addressed.
QUESTION: Richard, are there follow-up plans? Are there any plans for such talks now?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: But I'm not going to speculate about what might --
QUESTION: To follow up on Iran, there are reports in -- both from a wire service and a paper, a newspaper in Israel that recent Syrian flights to Iran, which took humanitarian supplies for the earthquake victims, returned to Syria with -- armed with munitions for Hizbollah. Are you aware of these reports?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm aware of the wire service report. I, if I remember correctly, that report, and, perhaps, the newspaper one you're referring to was sourced to foreign intelligence services, and I don't think I'm in a position to talk about information that foreign intelligence services may or may not have.
What I would say is that the issue of Iran's support for groups like Hizbollah and Hamas, the transit of support for those groups through Syria -- these have been very important issues to us, issues, which the Secretary has directly addressed with President Assad in his trip there last year; issues that we've followed up on many times, and issues that we follow very closely. So that remains a concern.
As I said, in regard to Iran's behavior, it's support for the violent groups opposed to the peace process, and it remains a concern with regard to Syria, as far as the extent to which they might allow such things to transit their territory or be involved in the re-supply.
QUESTION: Are they subject to interdiction under the new, more aggressive -- and it's not only by sea, it's by air, too -- your new, the program the President inaugurated last May and you've been getting more and more countries joining and supporting, and of course, we had a recent example --
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, the Proliferation Security Initiative is specifically focused on the proliferation --
QUESTION: That's my question, yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: -- of weapons of mass destruction.
QUESTION: Well, how about if the weapons are significant enough to cause great harm to a country like Israel?
MR. BOUCHER: I -- there are many things that we will try to do to prevent armed and violent groups from getting weapons, to prevent terrorists from getting weapons, but that particular program is not --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: -- the way we address this.
QUESTION: Can you say whether you have any reason to believe that these reports are accurate?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't be able to comment.
Yeah. Ma'am.
QUESTION: Can you -- do you think that the proposal by Prime Minister Ahmed Queria, talking about a binational state --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's finish off with Iran, and I'll come back to you if I can. Okay?
QUESTION: I just wanted to know, the -- a delegation, a U.S. delegation, the idea of a U.S. delegation going for -- specifically for humanitarian reasons to Iran for the Bam earthquake, is that now done? Do you now think that the situation there is not -- the situation on the ground in Bam is not -- is no longer -- I don't know the right word.
MR. BOUCHER: Critical, or?
QUESTION: Well, no -- bad enough to warrant such a delegation?
MR. BOUCHER: We have had disaster assistance teams in Iran to work with the Iranians, to help the Iranian people, and some of those people, I think, are still there. I'd have to double check. They were there a day or two ago. So we have had teams out there working on the disaster.
QUESTION: Yeah, but -- I know that. I --
MR. BOUCHER: The idea of a high level delegation that, that didn't occur, I don't think there's anything new on that at this point. That's about all I can say.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of anything new one way or the other on it.
Yeah.
Same thing, or changing?
QUESTION: Same.
MR. BOUCHER: Same.
QUESTION: Last week, Richard, I think Foreign Minister Karazi said that he was going to meet with officials from various countries, including Americans who are there for the relief operations. Are you aware of any meetings between the Americans and top officials there?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not heard of any. I think our people who have been out there, though, feel that they have been well treated and that they've been able to do important relief work, and that's what they're there for.
Yeah. Adi.
QUESTION: Change of subject, actually. I'm just going to --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, then, let's let this -- young lady here today.
QUESTION: Do you think that the proposal by the Palestinian Prime Minister of this idea, or whatever you want to call it, of having a binational state, whereby Jews and Arabs can live in the same state instead of having two-state solution will respond to Prime Minister Sharon's proposal of defining the future borders? Do you think, in a way, it's a declaration of -- the idea of the roadmap is no longer viable, and therefore each side is just suggesting different alternatives?
MR. BOUCHER: I really wouldn't want to speculate.
The Secretary addressed this yesterday and made clear the emphasis that we continue to place on the President's vision of two states that can live side by side and that the roadmap is the way to get to those two states, to that kind of two-state solution. That needs to remain the focus of efforts.
It's not time to speculate on what happens if that doesn't work, if we can't get there. It's really time to focus on how to achieve that, and the focus that we think is most important right now is for the new Palestinian Government to take action against terror. That is what has impeded progress. That's where the focus of energy and effort needs to be.
QUESTION: But do you take it seriously, or do you think it's a way of expression -- of expressing frustration with the lack of progress on the roadmap?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't, I don't do political commentary. I'm sorry. I tell you what the facts are and the policy is.
QUESTION: How about book reviews?
MR. BOUCHER: Don't do book reviews either.
(Laughter.)
Adi.
QUESTION: Change of subject. On Ambassador Prosper and his recent comments, I think last night, what exactly is the U.S. policy in reference to detainees from Guantanamo that might be released in ref - in going back to their home countries?
Is there a new link now? Is there -- will they only be released if they are prevented from any -- engaging in any sort of new terrorist activity and prosecuted in their home countries after they are released from, from Guantanamo, et cetera?
MR. BOUCHER: The -- I think the first answer is, Ambassador Prosper did give a fairly extensive briefing on this in London. We have a full transcript now, this morning, and I think we can provide that to you. And I'd encourage everybody to read the transcript of what he actually said rather than some of the press reporting about things that are -- maybe not putting words in his mouth, but drawing conclusions that aren't justified by his statements.
What, what he laid out, as he, in fact, has before in other public statements, is that the United States is looking to resolve the cases of the people at Guantanamo, that we need to look at the individual circumstances of each of the prisoners there, that we need to look at what danger they might present, how they might be handled, what crimes they might have committed, decide which ones need to go to trial, and indeed the Pentagon has identified some of the people who will be put before, identified for the military commissions.
Others that have not -- don't represent anymore any kind of security threat have been released. I think there have been something like 84 releases already; and then there's the people in the middle, as he has explained, that represent some kind of threat, may not require immediate trial and may not represent the same kind of threat as they once did, but who still need to be dealt with appropriately by judicial and law enforcement officials.
The reason this takes some time is because you need to discuss each situation, each case individually, whether people have committed crimes, whether they'd be subject to prosecution or detention or some other sort of arrangement, wherever they were released or not released. And so we have been in discussions with the British Government about the British prisoners.
This has been a process of discussion at the expert level, at the legal level, but also between President Bush and Prime Minister Blair working together on this with the British and trying to resolve these individual cases together, so any sort of assumptions that we would lump this group and that group together and make a package or something, it just really doesn't work that way. We've got to look at each case individually with the British, and, indeed, the President and Prime Minister Blair have been discussing this and it's proceeding at pace.
QUESTION: Richard, I'm trying to figure out if there's some mop-up that some of us have to do, because I see in our story a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in London said The Times, meaning The Times of London, accurately reported Prosper's comments. Were there some reports that were off the mark, some reports that were not quite in sync with what he said?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Yeah, there were reports that said he said seven of nine would be released.
QUESTION: Oh.
MR. BOUCHER: There were reports of a variety of other things that, as far as I've read in the transcript, he just didn't say.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Nicholas.
QUESTION: Different subject. If you want -- yeah.
QUESTION: Actually, this subject.
MR. BOUCHER: Same subject.
QUESTION: Is there agreement on any of the specific cases, though, for repatriation?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. This is a matter of -- still under discussion between the two governments, and then we're looking to resolve it as soon as possible.
Nicholas.
QUESTION: Yeah, Richard, can you tell us whether there might be any other stops on the Secretary's trip to the Tbilisi when he goes on the 25th of January?
MR. BOUCHER: If there are, we'll tell you when they are, nothing to announce at this moment.
Sir.
QUESTION: Regarding North Korea, it seems that there's some momentum building towards a resumption of talks. I'm interested to know, what's going to make the new talks happen?
Yesterday, the Secretary said we need the North Koreans to come out and make a clear statement that they'll end their nuclear programs, and then the United States will detail the ideas it's got about security assurances.
Do both of those things have to happen before there are new talks, or is it that the United States wants the Koreans to make the statement and they will, in the talks, give the details of the assurances?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't remember how many options you gave me, but I don't --
QUESTION: Two.
MR. BOUCHER: -- accept any. It's neither the one nor the other. The discussions are kind of ongoing. We've been in very close touch with the Chinese. One of the Chinese officials, the Director General for Asian Affairs Fu Ying is coming next week. She'll be -- we'll be talking to her further. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly and other officials meet with her next Tuesday.
So this is an ongoing process of discussion and dialogue with the Chinese who are trying to bring together these talks, but we've also been in very close touch with the Japanese, South Koreans and Russians, and the other -- all the other participants in the talks. The goal is to try to work towards a meeting, but a meeting that produces an outcome that's valuable for all the parties and that defines some of the -- some of the elements that need to be understood, that need to be understood in order to proceed, move forward, continue to move forward.
We have outlined, I think, already to a fairly great extent the principles by which we would give North Korea some security assurances, and our understanding that if they eliminated their nuclear program, we would be prepared to tell them that in that context they should have nothing to fear because the parties, the multilateral parties to these talks would guarantee their security or give them security assurances.
So we're looking from North Korea, as the Secretary said, for the same kind of statement, that they are willing to eliminate, that they will eliminate this nuclear program, the counterpart to our statements on security. Those two elements need to come together to produce a basis for talks, an outcome for talks, but it's not -- it's not a single process of, you know, agree on this and then we can go. It's -- we're working towards talks by trying to work out these elements, is as best as I can put it, and we will keep in touch with the other parties and we'll keep working towards a new round. As the Secretary said, the indications are from many of the players that they believe that we will soon have a new round of six-party talks and we're working to prepare a good round.
QUESTION: His remarks over two days and your remarks, all are given -- can be interpreted as meaning the next round doesn't necessarily have to produce a decision by North Korea announcement that it will dismantle its program. You're talking about a positive outcome. He talks about positive steps. You know, the Clinton Administration thought they had taken some positive steps with the freeze, and this Administration came in thinking that was insufficient.
MR. BOUCHER: I would not interpret -- I certainly do not interpret anything the Secretary said or anything I just said as meaning that we're going to go back to talks and not expect North Korea to come forward and say they'll eliminate their nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner. That is -- as I think I just told your colleague, that's one of the fundamental elements --
QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: -- that needs to be put in place for there to be productive talks, for there to be talks that will lead to a diplomatic resolution of this issue.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. BOUCHER: We have put the element in place already that we're prepared to provide security assurances and we have outlined those kinds of security assurances. We're also looking for North Korea to put the element in, the other element that needs to be there for these talks to be productive.
QUESTION: That statement that you're looking for is essential for productive talks. But you're not saying the talks can be productive if the next round winds up with something less than a commitment to end its nuclear program, and that there have to be further talks, are you?
Because that's one way of inferring what you and the Secretary are saying.
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at what the Secretary said --
QUESTION: I have.
MR. BOUCHER: -- over the past few days, he said quite frankly that we're not interested in just going to a talk --
QUESTION: That I know.
MR. BOUCHER: -- a round of talks where everybody repeats their existing positions --
QUESTION: Of course. But what if you've got a good, solid, positive --
MR. BOUCHER: -- and you don't make any progress.
QUESTION: I understand that. But what if you get good, solid results in this round, if you get it going, that is, that are short of the -- your ultimate goal? Would that be good going? You see what I'm saying?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure -- no, I don't, really.
QUESTION: All right. I'll let you go on.
MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to explain it this way.
QUESTION: I know what you want them to say.
MR. BOUCHER: If -- once you agree that they're going to dismantle their program, we need to discuss how to do that in a verifiable and irreversible manner.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: That will require more discussions than just another round of six-party talks in Beijing. So it's not, you know, then, you don't, you don't -- hey, let's wait and go next time to Beijing and wrap everything up in a bow and it's all done.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: There is going to be a process that's going to have to be pursued, that's going to have to continue to work on, continue to produce results. To get that process started, we need to have a basis.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: We need to have something that goes -- that where these talks can produce that kind of -- some kind of outcome that forms a basis for continuing work. And we believe that outcome needs to be based on North Korea's commitment to eliminate in a verifiable manner its nuclear program, as well as the U.S. offer of security assurances.
QUESTION: The reason -- one last thing and I'll give it up. The reason I'm pushing it is they want some kind of simultaneity, and you have used -- the U.S. Government has used other language to suggest there're things you can do for them. I thought I was hearing, they give a little in the next round, we give a little in the next round, and then maybe there's another round and another round.
And I wondered, and I guess I'm wrong, if the Administration wasn't saying, we see a stretched out process where we can test each other, do a little -- I know you want the statement from them. But you're not going to get into the business, I think you're saying, of dismantling their program for some time, not in the next round and maybe not in the round after that. Have I missed something?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. A lot.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: All right.
MR. BOUCHER: A lot.
QUESTION: What he says really --
MR. BOUCHER: Really, if I can't explain this to you, all I can tell is go back to what the Secretary has said over the past few days.
QUESTION: Well, he says a positive step, and ending the nuclear program is more than a positive step.
MR. BOUCHER: He's -- no, he's -- but they didn't say they would end their nuclear program.
QUESTION: No, I say he's looking for a positive step. It's --
MR. BOUCHER: He's looking for a clear indication that they are willing to eliminate their nuclear program in a verifiable and irreversible manner.
QUESTION: I know.
MR. BOUCHER: Right?
QUESTION: Before you have talks?
MR. BOUCHER: As part of the -- as part of getting to talks, as part of the talks, as part of producing an outcome from these talks that's viable.
QUESTION: So is it possible that they don't make that statement and there is still a resumption of talks?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: The point is to have talks that are productive, and that's what we're going for?
QUESTION: But, may I?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You keep saying that you're not setting any preconditions for the talks, but it sounds like a condition for the talks is for you to see some kind of willingness from North Korea, some kind of statement, that it's willing to dismantle its program. So isn't that a condition?
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't call it that. I'd call it an element that needs to make the talks productive. What are you going to talk about unless -- how are you going to talk about resolving this peacefully unless North Korea is willing to eliminate its nuclear program?
QUESTION: Well, maybe they'll say that in the talks. But you sound as if you want to hear that before the talks.
MR. BOUCHER: Maybe they will. We'll see what happens.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: A delegation of Taiwan Government is supposed to come here to communicate with United States on referenda issue was cancelled yesterday, or postponed yesterday. Which side initiated that cancellation? Do you think with this delegation cancelled at this point, the substantial discussion between Taiwan and the U.S. on this issue will be difficult to reach, or it does not matter at all?
MR. BOUCHER: We didn't cancel the delegation. You'd have to check with them about it. Our channels of communication with Taiwan authorities are many and varied and quite substantive, so we have plenty of ways to talk about these things.
QUESTION: A follow-up.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Sir.
QUESTION: Is it possible that U.S. and Taiwan could reach a compromise on that issue? I mean --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't speculate in that manner. I don't know what I would say. The President's made quite clear our view of this in policy terms.
QUESTION: But do you think in which way or with what substantial message from Taiwan will be better or more effective way for the two sides to communicate on this issue of, I mean, referenda issue with this delegation that was cancelled?
MR. BOUCHER: We have, we have talks with Taiwan authorities, with the people in Taiwan all the time. We have people out there who can talk for the United States. They have people here. We have frequent contact at very high -- at high levels, and there is no problem in communicating with Taiwan.
QUESTION: Do you expect more, you know, delegation or more substantial message from Taiwan?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if there -- I don't know if people are going to send delegations or not, but we have plenty of channels to talk.
Okay, let's go over here and come back here.
Michelle.
QUESTION: Ambassador Negroponte is meeting this afternoon with Kofi Annan. I'm wondering, would the Bush Administration like to see Annan weigh in more heavily on some of these crucial decisions about the status of a Kurdish state, about elections next year? What role do you foresee?
MR. BOUCHER: This meeting that Ambassador Negroponte will have with Secretary General Annan this afternoon is a chance to discuss how the United Nations can be involved in the political transition in Iraq. We have said in UN resolutions and elsewhere that the UN needs to have a vital role, that the UN has unique expertise that they can bring to this process. And we have welcomed a role by the Secretary General and his representatives in helping with this political transition that the Iraqi people are going to.
The Secretary said we need to get the UN back in force. We need to get them there on a humanitarian basis and also to play a political role. So today's meeting is a chance to discuss that with the Secretary General. It's part of a continuing dialogue that we've had. I looked it up -- Secretary Powell talked to the Secretary General on the 5th, which was what -- Monday? -- has talked to him five times, essentially, about this issue in the last month or so.
So it's been an ongoing subject of discussion between the Secretary General and the Secretary, always with the U.S. encouraging the United Nations to play a role.
So we would welcome the UN back in Iraq as soon as possible. We'll talk to them about what kind of role they can play, how they can do that, and we'll hear from the Secretary General more about what he thinks their capabilities are and what their security concerns are, and we're trying to work with the United Nations to -- to help the United Nations back to play a role.
QUESTION: Do we know the level of -- is this what this meeting will partly cover -- the level of U.S. representation at the January 19 talks?
MR. BOUCHER: We haven't decided that yet, so --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: -- I don't have any decisions on that.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on this one?
MR. BOUCHER: Adi, same thing or different?
QUESTION: Yeah, same.
QUESTION: Same thing.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, well let's -- ladies first.
QUESTION: As you know, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, who is the head of the Iraqi National Council, after meetings recently he has asked the UN to form a delegation to look into an election in Iraq soon in terms of transferring power. Do you think -- do you see this position as contradictory to the U.S. position or do you welcome it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I don't see a particular contradiction. We'll have to see what the UN feels they're able to do. Certainly, the Secretary General and his representatives are in touch with Iraqis, with Iraqis on the Governing Council. As you know, there will be a meeting in New York next week, January 19th, the week after next, January 19th, between the Governing Council representatives and the Secretary General, and we expect that we'll have representatives there as well.
So we welcome that dialogue between the Governing Council and the Secretary General. I think the Secretary General has written to the Governing Council some of his views on the situation. So as part of encouraging a UN role, we certainly welcome all contact between the Governing Council and Secretary General.
QUESTION: But you know the position of Sistani and the Shiite in the south, basically, one man/one vote. Do you agree with that?
MR. BOUCHER: There are a lot of positions among members of the Governing Council, among the people of Iraq about how they should organize their political system. And what we're trying to do is to help them make these decisions, help them work these things out through a political process. They've made decisions already on the November 15th Plan, and they have reiterated they intend to follow that plan.
There are plenty of discussions going on among Iraqis and with Iraqis about how to implement that fully. That's a process that we will certainly support and be helpful with, and then they get to some of the fundamental issues involved in their constitution. So we expect there will be plenty of discussion by Iraqis about power-sharing, about issues of how elections are held, about the form of government over the year ahead.
All nations have to go through this. We went through this in the earliest part of our history, and we look forward to the Iraqis sitting down together and working some of these issues out.
QUESTION: But clearly there are a lot of problems right now, as you've said, as the Secretary has said, with the Kurds, that they're looking for a more autonomous region. There's the problem with Ayatollah Sistani, who's calling for direct election. How do you think getting the UN back into Iraq could help ease some of these difficulties that are going on? Do you think the UN would side with the U.S.? Do you think they're -- they'd be able to mediate a little bit better? Could you make the linkage between getting the UN back in in the political --
MR. BOUCHER: The -- I think the simple answer is, there's a lot of work to do, and we think the UN has a special expertise and ability to help with that work. They've got experience with this kind of transition in other places. They've got credibility with some of the players. We've got a lot of work to do in helping the Iraqis as they go through this political transition, but we'd welcome a UN role, and we have encouraged a UN role. And that's what we'll be talking to the UN about, is how to make that happen.
That's been a very consistent policy of the United States, and I would say since before the war -- when, when was the Azores meeting when the President and Prime Minister Blair said that there should be a vital role for the United Nations?
We've always felt that and are continuing to work with the United Nations on how that can be manifested.
Adi.
QUESTION: Richard, do you see Kofi Annan as the mediator between these two intractable positions? You have the direct elections, on one hand, obviously, being pushed by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and versus the caucuses. I believe the Grand Ayatollah has, in his recent assertions, said that he might be willing not to be as forceful in pushing forth the idea of direct elections if he heard something more on that subject from Secretary General Annan.
Is it -- would it be fair to say that he is the mediator, the go-between on this issue?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think that's a very good word for it. Obviously, there are some people in Iraq that think the UN does have special expertise. We think the UN has special expertise, and want the UN involved in the process to lend their expertise to this process, so we'll be working with the United Nations.
There is nothing that changes the role the United States has, in terms of our authority and responsibility in Iraq, but we do want to work with -- under the UN resolutions. We want to work with the United Nations and have it as anybody who has something to contribute to be involved and to try to help the Iraqis through these different issues.
There are different views in Iraq. I wouldn't describe them as, "intractable." I think everybody knows that when you have political systems, people take positions and express their opinions, and the political system is supposed to help them work this out. And that's what we want to do with the Iraqis is help them find a political system that can help them work this out.
Tammy.
QUESTION: Slightly different topic. Is there --
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
QUESTION: There are some new allegations that Iraq transferred WMD to Syria in the two months, I think, leading up to the war, put them in ambulances. There are some claims that they are actually in three sites in Syria. Is there any evidence at this point that there was such a transfer?
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen those reports. I haven't been able to check it, and I don't think we've been in a position to confirm that sort of thing in the past.
QUESTION: I mean, but even more broadly, about moving stuff to --
MR. BOUCHER: I haven't checked on it recently, I'll have to see.
Sir.
QUESTION: Richard, has the U.S. Government asked Turkey for permission to use its air bases, ground facilities or ports for the transfer of U.S. troops to and from Iraq as part of a major redeployment of forces there? And if you have asked, have you reached any agreement with the Turks on this?
MR. BOUCHER: The rotation, you're talking about the rotation, not redeployment, not the global posture of redeployment type thing?
QUESTION: Correct, the rotation of U.S. forces out of Iraq.
MR. BOUCHER: The rotation of forces out of Iraq. That's really been a Pentagon responsibility; it clearly is. We certainly coordinate with other governments but I'm not quite sure we're in a position to indicate how those rotations take place.
QUESTION: Don't you guys lead those negotiations though? Isn't that a State thing?
MR. BOUCHER: We often do.
QUESTION: Are you not, in this case?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see if there's anything like that to say in this case.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Wait a second.
MR. BOUCHER: We've got 15 people with their hands, Barry. Sorry.
QUESTION: I understand. Well --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm here as long as anybody wants me. If you want to leave, go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm just -- am I correct in thinking that your new Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was sworn in by the Secretary yesterday? And if I am correct in thinking that, when will he actually take up his post and how long has it been vacant?
MR. BOUCHER: The -- I'll just forget about -- forget the questions I don't know the answers to. (Laughter.) He was sworn in yesterday by the Secretary of State Ambassador Oberwetter, and the Secretary praised his expertise, his responsibility, his role he's played in his community. He looks forward to him taking up his responsibilities in Saudi Arabia, believes he can make a very important contribution to our nation.
The question of when he will go, I'll have to check on. And how long it's been vacant, I'll have to check that.
QUESTION: Would you expect him to go there soon?
MR. BOUCHER: Soon. Yeah.
Carl.
QUESTION: Speaking of the Saudis, Richard, have you heard from the Swiss about those arrests that they have made, I think today or yesterday or recently, of several people suspected of taking part in the May 12th attacks in Riyadh?
MR. BOUCHER: I really don't know, but I think for any particular information on that, you'd have to check with the Swiss anyway.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: In Guangzhou, on China. A couple of days ago, seven reporters were detained for their independent coverage of the SARS cases. And now we see more SARS cases in Guangzhou. And here in this town, four of my colleagues, including myself, had our Chinese passport denied for renewal or replacement by the Chinese Embassy because of our independent coverage of the news from China, especially on the human rights and religious persecution side. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have anything on those in Guangzhou or those here. I would say, generally, we always stand for freedom of expression, we stand for the right to report, and we believe journalists ought to be allowed to do their work without a government causing them problems.
Sir.
QUESTION: Yes. Would you excuse me for going back to North Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: Go right ahead.
QUESTION: I know this question was asked before but I would appreciate if you could clarify again.
MR. BOUCHER: Just want to see if I remember the answer.
QUESTION: Okay. You have been saying these days that North Korean statement to freeze their nuclear program is a positive first step towards the future elimination of the nuclear programs. But you never said that in December of last year when North Koreans first announced that statement. Why are you saying it only now?
MR. BOUCHER: I still haven't sat down particularly to do the analysis myself, but I think there were some new elements in the more recent statement. But in any case, to say it's interesting and positive as we head towards talks, I think is just a statement of fact. They talk about eliminating nuclear programs, not just the nuclear weapons programs but the rest of their programs which they consider to be peaceful or power programs.
That's an important goal because it has to be clear that North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, nuclear programs will be eliminated in a verifiable and irreversible manner and that it will be done in such a way that we won't have these crises and problems again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On the eve of President Bush's trip down to Mexico, there was this report by Council on Foreign Relations that described U.S. policy in the Andes as myopic, too focused on security, not enough on development, these kind of issues. I wonder how you respond to such criticism and if you're taking any of these policy recommendations into consideration.
MR. BOUCHER: I have not seen this particular report. I think there was a briefing on the trip and some of the issues involving Latin America at the White House today. So I don't know if this question came up there.
As far as our policy in Latin America, particularly in the Andes, I would say that throughout the effort of Plan Colombia, and, more broadly, in this Administration with the Andean Regional Initiative, a considerable amount of energy, assets and money has always been focused on the social and economic needs of the population there on helping Colombia and other governments in the region with their plans for development and helping them with opportunities for trade through Free Trade Agreement of the Americas or the Andean Trade Preferences; and, therefore, I don't think it's right to say that we're solely focused on security.
In fact, we've done an awful lot and continue to do an awful lot outside the area of security in order to give farmers alternate crops, in order to give people alternate ways of earning their livelihood and give these nations as a whole opportunities to trade and opportunities to grow and prosper as healthy and stable nations without the sale of drugs.
QUESTION: Yeah, I was wondering if you had a thorough but yet brief readout of the Secretary's meeting with the Moroccan Prime Minister.
MR. BOUCHER: That's truly a challenge, but let me try. First, let me say we've been very pleased to meet, to welcome the Moroccan Prime Minister to the State Department today. He met this morning with Secretary Powell and he was having lunch with Deputy Secretary Armitage upstairs. It was very wide-ranging, and, I would say, very friendly and positive discussion between the Secretary and the Prime Minister, both noted the long, long friendship, 200 years, between Morocco and the United States, and the fact that we were acting on that friendship today in many, many areas.
Among the areas that came up were: The Arab-Israeli issues; questions of Iraq; the UN role of reconstruction efforts there, obviously, the Western Sahara where we're all looking for the opportunity to make progress towards resolving that dispute; U.S.-Moroccan cooperation in the fight against terrorism and our common commitment to ending terrorism as a threat to both our societies; talked briefly about the Leila-Perejil Island, the situation now as regards Moroccan-Spanish cooperation, which I think has been going fairly well; discussed the recent steps with Libya, which we both see as very important to the region in offering, as Libya carries through on its commitments, offering opportunity for more stability in the region.
So that was a pretty broad-ranging and extensive discussion as befits two long friends and close partners.
QUESTION: There was no discussion of the Free Trade Agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, Free Trade Agreement, sorry. Don't know why I didn't write that one. Oh, wait, there it is. I skipped over it.
QUESTION: In your effort to be brief.
MR. BOUCHER: Free Trade -- in my effort to be brief, I wasn't thorough -- also talked about Free Trade Agreement. I'd also note they talked about some of the developments inside Morocco, the Secretary expressing his support for some of the process of change that's under way there and ongoing dialogue about human rights issues.
QUESTION: And then just one thing on the -- on the island dispute, which, thank you for jogging my memory about that. Is the situation on the island still the status quo ante that it was? Are you still pleased with the results of the Secretary's --
MR. BOUCHER: Still pleased that the outcome seems to be leading to more positive Spanish-Moroccan cooperation in many areas.
QUESTION: What process of change? What about human rights? Does he find, the Secretary, some lack of commitment to human rights in Morocco or you're talking about the issue generally, universally?
MR. BOUCHER: No. There has been some discussion, continuing discussion with the Moroccan Government about some of the issues in Morocco that we've been concerned about, but we've also praised some of the steps the King has taken, for example, the new family law that they are proposing there. We've praised the elections that they've held. Morocco recently released some journalists, pardoned 33 people sentenced to prison. The pardons came through earlier this week, including two journalists who had been imprisoned and four other journalists convicted of violating the anti-terrorism law. And then, you know, that's a development we see as extremely positive. So there have been a number of steps in that regard that we've tried to encourage and continue to work with Morocco on.
QUESTION: That's the process of change you -- that you were talking about.
MR. BOUCHER: That's the process of change underway in Morocco with the support of the King and Moroccan Government.
Yeah.
QUESTION: The Chinese New Year is coming around, coming up on January 22nd and there will be a global Chinese New Year gala in New York to showcase the traditional Chinese culture and express Chinese people's wish, New Year wish, for more freedom and peace in China as well as in the rest of the world. Do you have anything to say on this?
MR. BOUCHER: Not on any particular event. I'm sure there will be all kinds of celebrations of Chinese New Year in various ways and we wish anybody who's celebrating a Happy New Year.
QUESTION: Yes, just a quick question. Is it true that the Deputy Secretary Armitage is going to Japan later this month?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything to announce, don't know.
QUESTION: How about Secretary Bolton's trip to Singapore and to Kuala Lumpur next week, anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: This week.
QUESTION: He's in Singapore now.
QUESTION: I think he's --
MR. BOUCHER: Do you know exactly where it is? Do you know the -- I think he's there now.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: And Malaysia's next, right?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to get that for you to make sure.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:30 p.m.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
