UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military



23 March 2004

State Department Noon Briefing, March 23, 2004

India, Libya, Israel/Palestinians, China/Taiwan, Cyprus, Turkey, Nigeria, Haiti, Pakistan, terrorism

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed reporters at the noon briefing March 23.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
1:08 p.m. EST

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

INDIA
-- Major Non-NATO Status

LIBYA
-- A/S Burns Travel / Meetings with Libyan Officials / Qadhafi
-- Lifting of U.S. Sanctions
-- Libyan Officials/Embassy in United States
-- Announcement of Trip
-- Chargé Bill Eagleton
-- U.S. Health Officials to Libya
-- Pan Am 103 / Acceptance of Responsibility
-- Libyan Opposition
-- British Participation
-- Bilateral Discussions / Issues of Discussion
-- Libyan International Relations
-- Saif al-Islam Qadhafi Statement / Presence of Oil Companies

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- U.S. Reaction to Killing of Sheikh Yassin
-- Achieving Progress in the Peace Process
-- Arms Export Act
-- Israeli Civil Rights Protest Outside State Department / Meeting with Israeli -- Foreign Minister
-- Targeted Killings
-- Sheikh Yassin Immunity
-- Terrorist/Hamas Communication
-- Obligations for Peace
-- UN Resolution Condemning Killing of Sheikh Yassin

CHINA/TAIWAN
-- Human Rights / Assistant Secretary Craner / Talks with China
-- Taiwan's Presidential Election Results / U.S. Role
-- Contact between Secretary Powell and Chinese Foreign Minister

CYPRUS
-- Agreement to Referendum / Switzerland Meeting

TURKEY
-- Political Situation / Ambassador Edelman

NIGERIA
-- Asylum for Former President Aristide

HAITI
-- Location of Former President Aristide / CARICOM

PAKISTAN
-- Comment by Secretary Powell

TERRORISM
-- Testimony of Dr. Rice Before the 9/11 Commission


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

1:08 p.m. EST

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements. I think we've all been watching the Secretary's testimony and that's the principal event of the day, but if you have other questions on other subjects I'd be glad to try to take care of you.

QUESTION: I have a couple, let me, disparate. Let me try one. India, evidently, declining an offer to have what Pakistan was given last week: special status as a non-ally ally or something. It's not -- it was not considering a similar offer for close ties -- for closest ties from Secretary Powell.

Is that -- what is that?

MR. BOUCHER: The major non-NATO ally status is a particular aspect of our relationship with Pakistan. I think the point that we made in the statement yesterday, and that we tried to make repeatedly because it's been ongoing for some time, is that we are, shall we say, de-hyphenating the relationships that we have with India and Pakistan and that we are consigning the hyphen to history so that we have different relationships with Pakistan and with India.

The relationship we have with India is based on a number of factors: economic, strategic, cooperation in a whole variety of areas. The most recent development, in fact, is a major step forward with what's called the next steps in the strategic partnership.

The question of our cooperation with Pakistan is a separate one. It's based on a separate set of activities. Again, economics plays a role, but a different set of circumstances, and also the cooperation against terrorism. And it's in that regard, I think, where the major non-NATO ally status recommends itself in terms of what we do with Pakistan as various military sales and cooperation efforts against terrorism.

So the answer to this is more that the relationships are different and therefore it was appropriate to do it with Pakistan. I take it India is saying they don't see an interest in it, and that's fine.

QUESTION: They didn't say they were offered it. I mean, you have McClellan yesterday saying, "We'd be willing to explore the same possibility of similar cooperation with India. That's something we've made clear." And then the Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman says today, "We have not given any consideration to that kind of relationship with the U.S."

Have they said, "No, thank you," to something?

MR. BOUCHER: We've, I think, made it clear to them that it's available for discussion if they should be interested; but not surprisingly, because we do have a different relationship that it's not surprising that the Indians would say that what we are doing in our U.S.-India relationship is the way forward and the most important way forward.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Sir.

QUESTION: Let's move to another subject. Today, William Burns is in Libya. I just need to ask you how important is his visit, because the Arab media and the Libyans have been saying it's an important visit.

MR. BOUCHER: It certainly is an important visit if you consider it's probably the highest level meeting that the U.S. and Libya have had in -- certainly the first meeting that I know of that we've had with Qadhafi in 24 years, since 1980. So it marks a step in that regard.

What's most important in the U.S.-Libya relationship are all the steps that are being taken through this whole process that's been moving forward, steps as Libya destroys its weapons of mass destruction programs, steps that we can take in order to deal with further development of the relationship. And we've taken a number of those steps recently and need to keep talking to them about that.

So our Assistant Secretary, as you say, William J. Burns, has arrived in Tripoli today from Cairo. His flight was delayed five hours due to fog, but he's there and his schedule has changed. He is presently in meetings. I can't confirm for you at this point that he's meeting with Qadhafi. We would expect that would be part of his visit, but whether it's actually happening at this moment or not, I can't tell you.

QUESTION: Members of the Congress -- sorry.

MR. BOUCHER: Let me -- slow down.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: He has with him other State Department and National Security Council officials. Once he's concluded his meetings, we would expect to have a statement for release. So we'll wait for that to happen.

QUESTION: Today?

MR. BOUCHER: We would -- yes, today is when that should happen, sometime this afternoon in Washington time.

QUESTION: Members of Congress, they raised some issues about human rights --

QUESTION: Can I please stay on Libya? Are you --

QUESTION: Yeah, let's stay on Libya.

QUESTION: It's Libya. It's Libya, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah, it's still Libya, yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: They raised issues about human rights in Libya and political transparency in Libya. Is he going to talk about that or just about the return of some companies to Libya?

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not about the return of some companies to Libya. It's about the return to a more normal relationship between the United States and Libya. As the President made clear in his statement in December, there are still a number of issues between the United States and Libya that we need to work on, that we need to try to clear up: the questions of terrorism; the questions of Libya's support for groups around Africa; the questions of human rights and other things that we need to take up with the Libyans.

But this overall process is based on the very significant and dramatic steps that Libya has taken in deciding to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. And as we proceed on that basis, we do believe we can and should take up the other issues that we have to discuss with the Libyans.

And so that Assistant Secretary Burns is doing that. Whether these precise issues will be raised at this meeting or just as part of the process, I can't say at this point. We'll have to see when we get the readout.

QUESTION: Sorry. Are these issues conditional to lifting sanctions, American sanctions on Libya?

MR. BOUCHER: There are a variety of different sanctions on Libya that stem from different parts of law, and therefore there are some that stem from the terrorism regulations, there are some that stem from weapons of mass destruction proliferation questions. So it kind of gets a little bit complicated to piece through what each issue has to do with each set of sanctions.

But we need to work through these issues if we are to lift the sanctions, meaning we can't lift the terrorism sanctions until the terrorism standards and criteria are met.

QUESTION: This trip --

MR. BOUCHER: The same would apply in other areas as well.

QUESTION: This stop was not announced, and I'm not sure I know why, although NEA often is -- has a code of silence. You're getting these -- a lot of these questions -- that was my second question. We have, you know, an absurdly skimpy story here that he arrived unannounced and now you're filling in -- thank goodness you're filling in some of the gaps.

Can I ask you, are you -- we've dealt with travel before, but let's get to something that's big bucks: oil companies. What would it take for the U.S. to permit American oil companies and other fortune seekers to get to Libya and work with the Libyans on their resources? In other words, if they don't get off the terrorism list, would that be reason enough to prevent that kind of commerce, or is there a way to advance cooperation economically?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't pretend to be the -- have the full scope of sanctions under my thumb here and there are a variety of different sanctions for different reasons. The terrorism sanctions generally deal with the export of dual-use equipment and military equipment, and therefore, to what extent oil operations might be affected by that, I can't say.

But let me start with two or three basic facts. One, when we lifted the restriction on the use of passports to Libya, we also listed two aspects of sanctions. One was to permit transactions by Americans so that when they travel to Libya using their U.S. passports, they could pay for hotel rooms and rent cars and pay taxi drivers and all that sort of thing.

And then the second part of it was we allowed companies to begin discussions with Libya about future economic transactions, future economic engagement, without, at this point, quite lifting the restrictions on deals themselves.

So if you look back at those regulations and the announcements we've made, you see that we've permitted that discussion to start. At what point along the way we'd be in a position to lift the restriction on making the deal and carrying it out, in general terms will depend on the progress that we make, and we do continue to make progress. With regard to the -- just helping Libya destroy its weapons of mass destruction, I think you all know there was a --

QUESTION: Yeah, last week.

MR. BOUCHER: -- ship that arrived last week that essentially the nuclear program has been dismantled. The chemical work has been underway. The missiles, we've been working on. So there's a lot of progress that's been made in that regard. But we still have not yet announced any general lifting of the sanctions.

And then you have, in addition to the general sanctions, you do have specific areas of law like the terrorism sanctions, where they really just need to meet -- they need to meet the criteria of that particular law in order to get those lifted.

So it does get a bit complicated, but I think that the overall direction is clear. The level of cooperation that we've gotten from Libya, the kind of steps that they've taken are clear and consistent with the pledges that they've made. And therefore, as the President has said, that good faith will be returned and that we would expect to move down that road as Libya continues to move down the road that it has chosen.

QUESTION: As far as the weapons front is going, indeed, it's going well, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You want to see it keep going before you make the final move, correct?

MR. BOUCHER: As it proceeds, we too will proceed from our side.

QUESTION: Right. And what about the diplomatic situation?

MR. BOUCHER: We do have these discussions going on. Again, first meeting with Muammar Qadhafi --

QUESTION: And the presence? What kind of presence will there be immediately ahead or --

MR. BOUCHER: We have these discussions going on, first meeting with Muammar Qadhafi in 20-some years, 24 years. We have had a group of diplomats there already. They are working on setting up an interests section. I think we made that announcement too at the time the passport restriction was lifted. So we do have people who are present in Libya representing U.S. interests, and whether formally they've cut the ribbon on the doorway yet, I don't know.

QUESTION: Are they doing comparable things here? Their old embassy is something else now on 22nd Street. It's gone.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. I don't know exactly the status of the Libyan group that was to come here to set up an interests section. I just don't have that.

Teri.

QUESTION: Why was the trip unannounced?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been very careful, as you know, with travel in this part of the world when somebody is in a given location, leaving that location and going to another, and I think it was on those general principles that we didn't announce it.

The second is, as this is a new and noteworthy thing, I think we're being careful about how we handled it, just to make sure it really happened.

QUESTION: But it was planned before he left? It wasn't that spur of the moment?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, he didn't just decide to take a side trip from Cairo. It was determined before he left that that's where he was headed. But, of course, as this thing evolves very quickly, knowing for sure it was going to happen is a little different than that.

QUESTION: I have a couple on this, Richard. One, who was the last person of Burns' rank or, you know, of that senior level, do you know who it was, to meet with Qadhafi?

MR. BOUCHER: The last meeting that I'm aware of is our -- was he ambassador at the time or chargé? Chargé Bill Eagleton in 1980 when he closed up the embassy, he met with Qadhafi.

QUESTION: All right. And do you happen to know who the last Assistant -- you know, person of Burns' rank?

MR. BOUCHER: Last Assistant Secretary to meet Qadhafi?

QUESTION: No?

MR. BOUCHER: That's a little more complicated, but --

QUESTION: Okay. Who else is Burns supposed to be meeting, can you say, other than Qadhafi?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have a list of meetings.

QUESTION: All right. The joint -- sorry, not joint. The statement is going to be coming out of Tripoli or out of here, or both?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the answer is --

QUESTION: Burns.

QUESTION: He's going to make it?

MR. BOUCHER: He will be releasing the statement there, but I think it will probably get wider distribution back here. We'll make sure we have it as soon as he's ready to issue something.

QUESTION: And the last one is the fog. Was that in Cairo or in Tripoli, or was it in the, you know, the minds of the U.S. diplomats heading over on the intentions of the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it was real, physical fog in North Africa, but exactly where the fog was located, I don't know. I guess I'd have to check the internet.

QUESTION: But it was not a fog related to the policy?

MR. BOUCHER: No, it was a fog related to the airline. And you might ask whoever flies into Tripoli how the fog's been today.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Have there been --

MR. BOUCHER: Charlie.

QUESTION: Assuming fog is not an issue, is he planning to not spend the night there, or is he, since it's already nightfall there, is he staying over? I was a little confused because I thought you said at the end of today he would be releasing a statement. Does that mean the visit's over today?

MR. BOUCHER: The expectation is that he'll be having his meetings today. Whether he then spends the night and leaves in the morning, I don't know.

QUESTION: All right. And a different question related to progress in the relationship. At one point, one of the things that was supposed to happen was a delegation, I think, of health officials from the U.S. going to Libya. Do you know if that's happened?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't think it has.

MR. ERELI: In the works.

MR. BOUCHER: In the works.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Are there any --

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: We got a million back there on the same subject. I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: Oh, all right.

QUESTION: Are there any reciprocal efforts, some officials from Libya coming here any, or is there a visit by Secretary Powell --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any particular reciprocal visits at this point. But again, the whole process of how this evolves, what we do next, this is under discussion right now in Tripoli. So if there's news on that, if there are new developments and things that we're planning on next, I'll let that come out with a statement this afternoon and not try to predict it now and here.

Okay? Elise.

QUESTION: Two questions. First of all, a couple of months ago, or about a month or so ago, there were -- the Libyans had some -- I think it was the Prime Minister or something made some statements, kind of, you know, taking back the responsibility of Pan Am 103. Are you satisfied that this issue is resolved? I know there were some statements following, but is that issue finally put to bed?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we said so at the time, that the Libyan Government position was restated and clarified by the Foreign Ministry statement that indicated that what they had told the Security Council was their definitive acceptance of responsibility.

It's obviously an issue that we'll continue to follow. It remains very important to us that Libya not go back on the commitments and the statements and the steps that it's already taken with regard to Pan Am 103.

QUESTION: Okay, one more. When you lifted some of these -- the sanctions, and you were discussing that you've allowed the discussions to continue, isn't it true that U.S. companies that already have an existing kind of business that was put on halt when the sanctions were implemented, they're allowed to start up now? Or is that --

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to go back to the exact terms. I think those are the discuss -- we're referring to the same thing, that those are the discussions that I was talking about.

No, not yet. Sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just came from a press conference where Dr. Ali Therhony is a Professor of Economics at the University of Washington. And it's the Libyan opposition. They just released something called "A Vision for the Future of Libya". And they are complaining that you will not meet with them and so on. Will you meet with the Libyan opposition?

MR. BOUCHER: I have not come from the same press conference so I'll have to check into it and see if there's anything --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) opposition --

MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see for you if there's anything to say. We keep in touch with a variety of individuals with regard to any country, but whether we've met with this particular group or have expectations of doing so, I don't know.

QUESTION: Do you have a copy of the document, "A Vision for Libya"?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I wasn't at the press conference. I was here.

QUESTION: More on Libya?

QUESTION: Has Qadhafi permitted opposition? That would be one test of his new democracy.

MR. BOUCHER: I suggest you look at our Human Rights Report, which we just released. I think it's a straightforward account of the situation in Libya. We've never claimed that there was any flourishing democracy there or anything like that. Human rights remains an issue for us. It's one of the things we'll need to take up in the U.S.-Libya relationship as we go forward. It's an important issue for us everywhere.

QUESTION: I have a couple of -- two quick, two more quickies. Are the British part of this venture? Probably not; sounds like it's an American presence.

MR. BOUCHER: Not part of this specific trip.

QUESTION: That's right.

MR. BOUCHER: They've been heavily involved, as you know, with us and with the international organizations on the whole weapons of mass destruction issue. But the Libyans and the U.K. have pursued their own separate set of discussions about their own relationship.

QUESTION: Considering the situation in the Middle East, considering that this stop was kept secret for the reasons you explained, are there further Burns stops? I mean, are going to wake up tomorrow and he's in, you know, he's in, on the West Bank. I suppose it's possible.

MR. BOUCHER: I am not -- since I'm not announcing his stops in advance, how could I tell you in advance which ones they are?

QUESTION: Well, you could say he's coming right home.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I couldn't say that because I forgot to check.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: To put it simply.

Sir.

QUESTION: Are these meetings in Tripoli going to be based solely on bilateral -- I mean, bilateral issues? Are you going to be discussing other issues like Libya's relations with Israel?

MR. BOUCHER: This is -- how can I say? These are bilateral discussions, but obviously there are broader issues for the region: the process of change in the region; the strategic picture in the region; the process of destruction of Libya's weapons of mass destruction, which is an international venture with the U.S. and the U.K. and then the International Atomic Energy Agency and the chemical weapons organization and other countries involved in helping out with the destruction process.

So there are aspects of these discussions that relate to other governments and countries, yes.

QUESTION: Are you going to be following up on their supposed détente with Israel at all? I mean, is that something that they're going to be pressing?

MR. BOUCHER: I have no idea. I'm not really quite sure what you're referring to.

Yep.

QUESTION: Any steps that you are aware of that Libya has taken to normalize its relations with Israel?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not reporting on Libyan-Israel relations or lack thereof, so it's not for me to say if I know of anything or not.

QUESTION: But are you urging -- are you urging Libya to consider such a relationship?

MR. BOUCHER: I have not fingered that as one of the major issues right now.

QUESTION: But can we broaden the question? You seem --

MR. BOUCHER: Sure. And I'll give you the same answer, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, maybe not. Maybe you can answer generically. Qadhafi, one of the reasons for this, for his turnabout, is that he wants to reenter the international community; that's pretty well established. And the U.S. would like him to, provided he does all these other things.

Would you like him, would you like to see Libya do this by establishing relations with other countries?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm not going to make grand observations and pronouncements. I think we have informed you all along, from the President's speech onward, of the issues that we have with Libya, of the very important progress that's being made in weapons of mass destruction areas, of the things that we do have to take up with Libya, like their support for terrorism or other aspects of their behavior in Africa. We've been quite clear on the issues that we are taking up and that we're proceeding with. I'm not going to go here hypothetically and deal with every issue under the sun and say, "Yeah, wouldn't that be great, too?"

QUESTION: I'll leave it alone, but Israel's a barometer. When Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania established relations, the U.S. cheered, because they like to see amity among countries.

MR. BOUCHER: It's the universal cheer for anybody that does, but I'm not going to apply it to any specific country at this moment.

QUESTION: Can we go to --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we still have more on Libya?

QUESTION: Yeah, one more Libya.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let's go to the back.

QUESTION: As the United States did in Iraq, do you planning to bring some democracy for the Libya or removing from Qadhafi in establishing a democratic system in Libya?

MR. BOUCHER: I've talked about human rights five times already. I don't have anything to add to what I said before.

QUESTION: One more specific question, please. Today, Saif al-Islam Qadhafi, son of Muammar Qadhafi, he gave an interview to a French newspaper in which he said there are three American oil companies now based in Libya. Are you aware of that? Can you confirm that? He mentioned Marathon and Occidental.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure we know. I don't have a list on the top of my head. But as we discussed before, there are U.S. companies who have operations or a presence in Libya.

QUESTION: The White House has put a condition like any contract whatsoever should be agreed by the White House or should be revised by the White House before anything is finalized. Is this --

MR. BOUCHER: Not exactly quite -- that's not quite the way it happens. I don't think that's what the White House has said.

We have said, and you look back at the last announcement we made when we lifted the passport and a few other restrictions, that our companies could engage in discussions with the Libyans about follow-up activities relating to the American presence in their oil industry, but that any conclusion of contracts, deal-making expansions was still subject to the regulations and sanctions and therefore would require the appropriate approvals. I think those approvals actually take place through the Department of Treasury because of the nature of our regulations.

QUESTION: Are they possible without lifting sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER: Some are and some aren't. Depends what they would plan on.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: But people can apply and decisions will be made at the time, depending on the nature of the deal and the nature of the sanctions that exist at that moment.

QUESTION: Richard, I have a question about Taiwan and --

MR. BOUCHER: Are we finished with Libya? Okay. Who was changing first? I can't remember.

QUESTION: The Middle East. Are you at all alarmed by the anti-American nature of the demonstrations protesting the assassination of Sheikh Yassin all across the Arab world and Muslim world, including Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there are a few things to say about that.

First, I think the United States did make its position clear yesterday with regard to this event and we stand by that, and that's been something that we've tried to make other governments understand.

We do look for all governments, all parties, to maintain maximum restraint at this period and not to take any further steps that escalate the tension in the situation.

Certainly, we're aware of the various statements, many of them made by terrorist groups, that threaten the United States and that threaten Americans. We have to take all those threats seriously. Some of these are established groups with patterns of behavior. They may or may not have certain capabilities, but we have to take this seriously.

And fourth, back to the basic point that we tried to make yesterday that whatever these events that do take place, whatever the need of the parties to take steps that they believe is in their own interest or in the interest of their own security, it's important for us that we remain focused and that all parties remain focused on how to achieve progress in the peace process.

And the United States remains determined to do that as much as we can. Assistant Secretary Burns met with the Quartet members yesterday and discussed various ideas about how one can -- how we can try to keep moving forward, and we continue to look for ways to move this process forward. And that does, first and foremost, involve the Palestinians themselves getting a handle on the violence and stopping the activities of violent groups that are threatening more violence, and establishing the kind of authority that can take responsibility in areas like Gaza and other places.

So we continue to talk to the Israelis and Palestinians about their obligations, continue to look for ways to move forward. We're having discussions, more discussions today with an Israeli team that's come to town to talk about the various issues involved in the Gaza pullout to see what sort of opportunity there might be there to move forward.

But the United States remains very committed to working with both sides and with other parties like the Arabs, who put forward their own proposals, to try to find ways to move forward in the peace process. We're committed to that, and you'll see us continue to do that.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. Are you aware of any active investigation that Israel had broken the Arms Export Act? You said yesterday that you --

MR. BOUCHER: This is never the -- you don't open investigations, we never have, and that's not the way it does it. We're aware of the law. We collect -- we look at the facts that come in on specific events. If there's something that triggers a question or a more formal review, then that would happen at the appropriate time.

QUESTION: Several civil rights organizations that demonstrated or made a press conference in front of the State Department today about two or three hours ago in which they said that they will start litigation and be the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the American Government for that Export Act, and they will -- they say that Israel does not follow not only the international law but also the American law.

And the other point that they raised was that they don't believe that the assertion that the United States did not know of the action even though the Foreign Minister of Israel was here. I mean, they can't imagine how they sit, the Foreign Minister of Israel would sit with the Foreign Minister -- Foreign -- I mean the State Department officials, and in a few hours this action will happen and they wouldn't tell them.

Can you assert --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, let's go -- let's not imagine things. Let's stick with the facts. The facts are the meeting here with the Secretary was hours after the death of Sheikh Yassin. So I can't imagine how one could tell somebody something in advance after the meeting -- after the event. So the facts are that the meetings here were after the event, so certainly there was no discussion of it in the meetings here.

The facts are further and more broadly that the Israeli Government did not tell the U.S. Government in advance that they were going to carry out this action. They did not tell us. They did not seek our approval. We did not approve of it. We did not comment in one way or the other in advance because they didn't tell us in advance. We didn't know about it in advance.

So that's what the facts are, and the only way I can deal with the question is to say that's what the facts are.

QUESTION: Most people find trouble also saying that the United States pay $15 million for Israel every single month, and if Israel receives such support how could she not at least inform the United States of doing that.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think the money is tied in any way. If you look at the legislation that's passed every year when these matters are debated, discussed and funded by our Congress, I've never seen any requirement in there one way or the other that Israel inform us of what they are about to do the next day.

Israel is a sovereign nation. We recognize they have to take steps to defend themselves. We have made comments about our concern about the implications of these actions, about the consequences of these actions in terms of the tensions, in terms of the fact that they do not help this effort that we have underway, that we continue to have underway, of trying to move forward on peace. But I can't think that it's proper to make other assumptions that are just not true.

QUESTION: One last question. Would such litigation by these groups help you start investigating the application of the Export Control Act?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we just discussed the question of investigating here. If there is litigation on the subject, I'm sure we would respond under the law, as appropriate, in court. But at this point, I'm not going to speculate on who might present what and what the answers might be.

I think if you look at the law, there are requirements on us that we follow and we believe -- we understand, we follow them carefully. But they have not occasioned the kind of report to Congress that's required under certain circumstances.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: Well, you said that you made clear yesterday your position. I wasn't here yesterday, but I presume that's the "deeply troubled" line?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you said just now that you have made clear that Israel has to -- or that both sides have to take into account the ramifications of whatever they do and you just mentioned detentions. Can you say that again, but saying targeted killings?

MR. BOUCHER: Huh? Did I say "detentions"?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: You did use the word, yes.

MR. BOUCHER: Oh. Good for me.

QUESTION: Can you say it again, please, restating the U.S. opposition to --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say detentions. I said escalated tensions.

QUESTION: Escalating tensions.

MR. BOUCHER: Escalating tensions.

QUESTION: Right. Well, you didn't use the word "escalated," but it's tensions you were talking about.

QUESTION: Well, I heard --

MR. BOUCHER: Isn't that what I said?

QUESTION: -- I thought you said detentions. Anyway, can you please just for the record restate the U.S. position on --

MR. BOUCHER: We'll look at the transcript. I suppose I should know what I said, but in this case, I don't. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, can you just restate, please, for the record --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I won't. I will --

QUESTION: -- what the U.S. position is on targeted killings?

MR. BOUCHER: It's the same one that I said yesterday, which is the same one that I've said before. I'm not here --

QUESTION: Richard, from yesterday, you actually said what it was?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: No. Okay, well, can you please do that?

MR. BOUCHER: It has not changed since yesterday and yesterday it had not changed from before.

QUESTION: Well, I'd like to know what it is, actually. I've been gone for about a month and a half --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the words in --

QUESTION: -- so, you know, I don't know, Richard.

MR. BOUCHER: I have not --

QUESTION: I think there may be people out in the Middle East who would like to hear a restatement of the U.S. policy on that.

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is not changed. You can look it up in previous briefings and find it.

QUESTION: Are you aware that when you say that and do not repeat the policy that it sends a different message than when you do repeat the policy?

MR. BOUCHER: I've been standing up here for some time and I know what I'm doing.

QUESTION: So you are aware that you're sending less of a message --

MR. BOUCHER: Matt, I realize people would like me gratuitously to repeat words every day but --

QUESTION: Well, it's not gratuitous.

MR. BOUCHER: But I have to say that this is an issue we've covered many times before and the position is what it was.

Elise.

QUESTION: I have one for you. On Yassin, there are reports that have been surfacing in the Arab press and now they're in the Israeli press, that the U.S. actually, through intermediaries, offered Sheikh Yassin immunity from any targeted killings by Israel or the U.S. if Yassin would order Hamas to stop undertaking suicide bombs against Israel.

Do you have anything to say on this?

MR. BOUCHER: There is no truth to this account whatsoever. Seen it. We did not offer immunity to Sheikh Yassin.

Okay, sir.

QUESTION: Do you -- let me do a follow-up. Does the U.S. ever, through intermediaries or directly, talk with these terrorist groups in an effort to get them to stop?

MR. BOUCHER: We don't talk to terrorists. We don't talk to Hamas.

QUESTION: Sir, you just counted the number that you believe are the obligations of the Palestinians that they need to implement. Could you please help us explain to our Arab audience what you think today are the obligations of the Israelis in details? What do you think today the Israelis' obligations are?

MR. BOUCHER: I think simply put, both sides have the obligations that they undertook when they committed themselves to the roadmap. And we would like to see that process move forward. We have recognized that, at this juncture, the most important next step is for the Palestinians to take steps that would end the violence and end the activities of violent groups such as Hamas that have been operating contrary to the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

At the same time, both sides have obligations, and in the roadmap Israel is called upon to take steps that ease Palestinian life, that make travel easier for Palestinians, that curtail settlement activity, that end settlement activity, and a variety of other things.

So those are the steps that we continue to pursue with both sides to try to move forward on the basic aspects of the roadmap, try to move forward towards achieving the President's vision.

In doing so, we're not -- we follow the roadmap; it remains the primary document, the primary statement of what needs to be done. But we're also interested in taking advantage of other opportunities that might exist for the sides to take up their responsibilities and take steps that could move the process forward.

Okay. Do you have another one or not?

QUESTION: Well, I just -- I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I want to ask you about the Arms Export Act. I mean, how do you conduct it, honestly? Educate us. How does it -- do you have a committee, do you have a department within this Department that says, okay, I want to look at these violations and see if they are -- you know, we don't understand. What is the mechanism?

MR. BOUCHER: The mechanism is that we have people who are responsible for policy and people who are responsible for the Arms Export Control Act who are very, very familiar with the terms of the Act. And if there is anything that arises in either one of those areas or somewhere else in this Department that requires a review, requires a look, then the appropriate policy and legal experts would get together and look at the situation.

But it's not an investigation. It's not the convening of a board or anything like that. It's people who are responsible for these policy areas that maintain an active understanding of what the law requires, and where the law requires some further action, they would take it.

QUESTION: Okay, well, if the U.S. -- if Israel used these, as it appears and as they've said, used Apaches to assassinate Sheikh Yassin, and you're officially -- even if you won't restate the policy, some of us remember that you've said that you're against targeted killings. So wouldn't this be a kind of violation of the Arms Export --

MR. BOUCHER: Read the law. Before one goes grand on this one and speculates about,
"Wouldn't this be, shouldn't this be, why don't you do this, why don't you do that," read the law.

The law and the terms of the law, the terms of U.S. exports of arms, are very clear. They're very clearly stated. They're available on the Web, and those would be the things in the law that would trigger some sort of notification to Congress, not other actions.

QUESTION: In fact, they're not -- they're deliberately ambiguous. I think that you would probably admit to that in another setting. Anyway, can I --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, they're at least clearer than some of the discussion here. Let me put it that way.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject, if it's all right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Chinese have reacted a bit angrily to your announcement yesterday that you're going to go sponsor a resolution condemning them in Geneva. They have suspended the human rights dialogue that you had reopened with great fanfare some time ago.

I'm wondering what your reaction to that is.

MR. BOUCHER: I think our simple reaction is we have been willing to talk to the Chinese about the human rights situation, but it's not talk for the sake of talk. It's talk in order to find ways to improve China's observance of universal human rights that China has committed to and adhered to.

We have had discussions with our Assistant Secretary Craner recently in Beijing twice -- in March, once in March, once in October -- looking to advance human rights cooperation. And despite moments when we've had these discussions and moments when we haven't had these discussions, that the human rights situation has deteriorated in China in the last year.

In fact, since we had dialogue, discussions in December 2002, China made a number of commitments there, and those commitments had not been fulfilled by -- through the year of 2003.

So we are willing to sit down and talk, but the talk is only good if it creates some progress, and unfortunately, the last several instances of talk have not produced any kind of progress. So we think it's more important to try to move forward in Geneva, try to use that as a way to press for positive and concrete steps by China to meet its international obligations and to stand up in that way for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Chinese people.

QUESTION: So you don't see this as any loss, the Chinese saying that they're not willing to talk to you because it's just --

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we've had periods -- we've had discussions before. They didn't lead to the kind of improvements; rather, they led, unfortunately, to a deterioration and a failure by China to meet its commitments. So it's not -- I'm not able to say that there's some repercussions for human rights of not having this dialogue. Unfortunately, there were not enough repercussions for human rights of our having had the dialogue.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean that you're not longer interested -- I mean if they --

MR. BOUCHER: I said we'd be interested in talking to China if there's some possibility that there would be a positive outcome for the human rights situation.

QUESTION: So your assessment of the previous two years of talks is basically that they were kind of pointless because they didn't lead to anything?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, since December 2002, the commitments were made but not carried out, and so those talks failed to provide the kind of positive movement on human rights that we had hoped for, and subsequent discussions failed, as well, to produce that kind of outcome. So it's -- it doesn't bother us too much not to have another round like that.

If there were prospects of positive results and positive progress, then obviously we'd be willing to talk.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, can I make --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on human rights, please. Stay on? Can I --

MR. BOUCHER: Go.

QUESTION: Do you think this issue could be resolved before the UN Commission concludes in April, bilaterally?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's a bilateral issue. It's a matter of China living up to its international obligations. Certainly we would welcome that, but don't think we're holding out great promise for that.

QUESTION: And one more. What could China do, or who will resume or initiate the resumption of the talks next time, next year, or when?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, as I said, that there have been a number of incidents throughout last year that I think have demonstrated that China is failing to live up to the commitments it made and failing to respect international human rights the way China had pledged to do.

I went through some of the cases yesterday, but there's any number of situations that they could reverse and rectify if they wanted to improve the international recognition of their behavior.

QUESTION: So they have to, say, release some of the prisoners or meet some of the requirements?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, the -- I'm not trying to put up criteria for talks because our goal is not talks.

If China wanted to sit down and have a serious discussion about making improvements in its human rights situation, we'd be willing to do so. The fact that they have canceled the -- that they don't want to have another round of discussions doesn't bother us quite so much since the last three or four rounds of discussions we had didn't lead anywhere. So we'll see.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Richard, after Dr. Douglas Paal's meeting with the leader of the two camps, each of the camps seems to release different information. The blue camp said, you know, Douglas Paal urged a recount, representing the U.S. position, and the other camp said Douglas Paal urged, you know, group blue camp to dismiss their, you know, demonstration outside of the presidential office.

I don't know. Could you clarify, you know, what's U.S. role during --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the only thing I can clarify is what I did yesterday, that we think people should maintain calm and not -- they should maintain calm and allow the legal procedures in Taiwan to work this out, that between the election commission and the courts, whatever else, we think there is a prospect of the judicial process in Taiwan resolving questions about the election results, and people should -- both parties should allow that to happen.

QUESTION: So what was U.S. role here? Just basically collecting information or trying to breach the, you know, differences?

MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. role is to keep in touch with the parties, to watch the -- follow the situation, to urge people and parties to maintain a certain level of calm and to watch the process, legal process unfold. But no, we don't have any direct role in resolving it.

QUESTION: And you told us on Saturday, Secretary Powell had talked to Chinese Foreign Minister on Taiwan. Could you give more detail what's the content or any other contact after that? Because one condition China said it will have a military intervention is that there is chaos in Taiwan. We want to know, is there any unusual movements or concern from Beijing?

MR. BOUCHER: I think if you want to know about Beijing's policy, you'll have to ask Beijing. I think if you look around the world, Foreign Minister Li might have made a number of phone calls about the events of the day. The Taiwan election was discussed. That's about all I can tell you about the phone call at this point.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: It was really a phone call from the Chinese about the election.

QUESTION: Are you in a position now to say that the last conversation that the Secretary had with the Foreign Minister was to tell them that you would sponsor a resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I didn't say that yesterday. I'm not saying it today because it wouldn't be true.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday --

MR. BOUCHER: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- and you probably knew that. Can I --

MR. BOUCHER: Sir.

QUESTION: About Cyprus issue.

QUESTION: Can we follow up on Taiwan, just --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. The U.S. role, you said, is it just purely observing or does it play anything constructive, any suggestion, anything?

MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. role is always constructive, even if we're only observing. I described it to your colleague here; I don't have anything to add to that.

Sir.

QUESTION: Would you characterize -- do you think, does the United States think the election, the whole process and everything related, was this -- was it a fair election with so many invalid ballots?

MR. BOUCHER: As I mentioned yesterday, we are -- and again today, we're confident that there is a process in Taiwan to resolve all those issues and we'll watch it play out.

QUESTION: About the Cyprus issue. In the island, the two sides agree for nothing and the, I think, is the meeting moved to Switzerland right now. Do you expect some solution in Switzerland, or do you waiting for at the end of the referendum for the solution?

MR. BOUCHER: Both. We're looking for the parties to reach agreement and we're looking for the parties to submit the agreement to referendum by -- in time for the May 1st accession of a united Cyprus to the European Union. The talks have indeed moved to Switzerland. We remain very supportive of the Secretary General's effort, and we look to the parties to show up and to do serious business in terms of trying to reach agreement.

QUESTION: Any U.S. official will be attending the Switzerland meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, but I don't know exactly who at this point.

QUESTION: And also, another subject about Turkey. Ambassador Edelman in Ankara, he called the Turkish political experts in the embassy and they tried to evaluate the Erbakan -- not Erbakan -- the Erdogan's government as the future. Is it the normal procedure? Is the U.S. policy to evaluate any other foreign governments?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not my normal procedure to talk about conversations within the embassy. But second of all, its normal practice of all our embassies all over the world to follow the political situation, to follow what's being said and reported about the political situation, so that we know what's going on in the country where we're living.

QUESTION: Richard, the Nigerian Government has said today that it's willing to give asylum, or is willing to host former president Aristide. I'm wondering if you guys have any -- had any role in this -- or if you care anymore, and if you think that it doesn't really matter where Aristide is as long as he's not in Haiti.

And also on that, can you say anything about what looks to be Nigeria becoming kind of a dumping group for deposed presidents? (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think one can go quite that far at this point and I certainly would never describe Nigeria as a dumping ground for anything.

But, you know, Nigeria's been a partner in regional peace efforts. Nigeria's been a partner in many ways with a lot of important things going on. We're aware that the Government of Nigeria has invited Mr. Aristide into that country as a visitor on a temporary basis. The Nigerians have stated that they made this offer in response to a request from the Caribbean Community. We certainly see it as positive. But as far as where Mr. Aristide wishes to go, at this point, that's not a matter that directly -- that we're directly working on. We're aware of these things.

The Secretary had talked -- kept in touch with the Jamaicans. He talked again with the Jamaican Foreign Minister K.D. Knight today about the situation with CARICOM and about the meetings that CARICOM has coming up and these kinds of things about Mr. Aristide's location and people who have offered him a place to stay have come up.

But as I said, the focus right now, I think, is on the CARICOM meeting coming up and on the work that we're doing with the Haitian Government, new Haitian Government to get itself established and to bring the benefits of stable, fair government to the people of Haiti.

QUESTION: Would you prefer to see former president Aristide further away from Haiti than Jamaica?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, it's not an active element in our effort right now. We have said that we did not think it was a good idea for him to go to Jamaica, but as far as where else he might want to go, that's not something that we're working on right now.

QUESTION: Okay, so as long as he is not in Haiti, you don't really care anymore where he is.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't put it that way. I'd just say it's not at the top of our agenda right now.

QUESTION: What do you make of this meeting at the UN, the Security Council and CARICOM, about calling for an investigation into the circumstances in which Aristide left?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what meeting you're talking about. There was some discussion of that a week or so ago. I'm not sure there's anything going on now. I don't know. I hadn't heard about it. Sorry.

Sir.

QUESTION: Yes, Richard, do you know every time the word "crusade" is mentioned, it raises concerns in the minds of the Arabs and Muslims because of the history about the Crusades. And it has been mentioned before by President Bush but then was reconciliated somehow.

Today, Secretary Powell said that he wants Pakistan to be a partner in a crusade. Is the United States in a crusade against the Arabs and Muslims?

MR. BOUCHER: No. And I don't remember quite what context the Secretary used it, but I'm sure it wasn't in that context. As you know, it doesn't always have its historical meaning attached to it. It's a word that's in general use in English.

But there is absolutely no effort directed at Arabs and Muslims. There is an effort that we and many Arab and Muslim governments and countries have directed against terrorists who have tried to undermine not only our society but theirs as well. And there is an effort on the behalf of all civilized society to defend itself against these people who seek only to destroy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: After an hour and a half or more of testimony there, I'm not sure there's anything for me to supplement.

QUESTION: Today, or yesterday, a group of Senators asked the President to allow the National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, to testify in the open, like Secretary of State did. Does the State Department -- or is it in the habit of advising on this matter?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not a matter that I speak to or that we have any control over. These are matters that involve a history of law involving the Executive Branch and the advice that's given to the President and that I think the White House has to explain that more than anything else.

The Administration as a whole is up there for hours on end. Even Dr. Rice has talked to the commission members in circumstances that I think the lawyers felt was appropriate. But this has a very important legal history to it and I'd leave it to the White House to explain her personal -- the White House position on this.

QUESTION: There's another meeting at the UN, actually, today on the Middle East. And there's going to be a debate on whether there should be a resolution kind of condemning Israel's action against Sheikh Yassin and calling on Israel to stop any further killings.

Is the U.S. prepared to support such a resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: The problem is such: I don't believe there's any resolution at this point that's been proposed. Certainly, the matter of the events in Gaza, the killing of Sheikh Yassin, has been brought to the Council and there's a lot of discussion going on in the Council. It's likely there might be a meeting of the council later in the day, but exactly what will be put forward and what position we might take on that, I can't predict at this point.

Certainly, I think I've been clear here, and the White House has as well, on fundamentally what our position is on this issue.

QUESTION: Right, but in the past, you've said that such matters between Israel and the Palestinians shouldn't be just through the UN but through the parties. Considering that you have made your views on this issue clear, do you think that this is a matter for the international community to be addressing?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we're participating in discussions in New York with other delegations. We're talking to other members of the Council. I'm sure there will be more discussion in the Council throughout the day. But what exactly the Council proposes to do in the end, I don't know at this point.

Okay? Yes.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 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