30 March 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, March 30, 2004
Uzbekistan, Belgium/Middle East, Powell/travels to Germany/discussions on NATO/Iraq, Iraq, Bangladesh, China/Taiwan, Burma, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestinians, Serbia/Montenegro, Venezuela, terrorism, Georgia, Nigeria, Kenya/Sudan, Zimbabwe
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed the press at the noon briefing March 30.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
12:35 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
UZBEKISTAN
-- Terrorist Attacks and U.S. Assistance
-- Promoting Democracy, Human Rights, and Security
BELGIUM/MIDDLE EAST REGION
-- Senator Lugar's Recent Conclusions on Peace and Reform Initiatives
-- Assistant Secretary Burns Travel and Terrorist Threats
-- Secretary Powell's Discussions on Peace Process and Arab Summit
DEPARTMENT/GERMANY/IRAQ
-- Secretary Powell's Travel to Germany and Discussions on NATO and Iraq
IRAQ
-- Governing Council and International Efforts to Promote Stability
-- Status of Possible United Nations Resolution
-- Senator Hyde's Remarks on the Coalition and Intervention in Iraq
BANGLADESH
-- Statements by Ambassador Thomas
CHINA/TAIWAN
-- U.S. Position on Political Change
BURMA
-- Proposed Constitutional Convention and Political Dissidents
AFGHANISTAN
-- Donor's Conference
-- Progress in Politics, Economics, and Security
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Delegation to Discuss Roadmap
-- Sharon Plan and Palestinians
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO
-- Certification for Assistance
-- Grossman Travel and Discussions
VENEZUELA
-- Carlos Fernandez Address in Miami
TERRORISM
-- Uncovering Recent Terrorists Plots and Coordinating With Allies
GEORGIA
-- Election Outcomes and Prospects for Democracy
NIGERIA
-- Reward and Efforts to Apprehend Charles Taylor
KENYA/SUDAN
-- Peace Talks
ZIMBABWE
-- Elections
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:35 p.m. EST
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't have any announcements. I'll be glad to take your questions.
Mr. Gedda.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the continuing violence in Uzbekistan, and is the U.S. offering them any assistance in their moment of need?
MR. BOUCHER: First on the continuing violence, as you know, the United States and Uzbekistan have been cooperating closely together against terrorism. We have tried to assist them in many different ways over the last few years and we recognize the threat that they have faced and will help them in every way possible as they face that threat.
Certainly, we condemn the violence and the terrorist acts that have occurred and support them in their effort to end terrorism.
The Secretary spoke this morning by phone with Uzbeki Foreign Minister Safayev. He expressed our condolences to the victims' families, he offered U.S. assistance in the investigation, and the Minister expressed appreciation for the offer and our Embassy in Uzbekistan will be following up in more detail with him.
QUESTION: You say you have been trying to help them concerning the threat that they have faced. Could you be more specific?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think that the dominant threat in the past has been the IMU. Now they have suffered because of the action that we've taken in Afghanistan. As you know, I think one of their senior leaders was killed there and there have been other reports of elements of the organization being killed. You'll get an update in our Patterns of Global Terrorism report when we put it out next month.
But I think, generally, it's a recognized threat that they have faced from the IMU. Whether these particular actions are associated with that threat or not, I don't think we quite know yet. We'll have to see how their investigation proceeds.
QUESTION: This may be a little off point, but do you happen to know if the President's democratization program or hopes extend to Uzbekistan?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, in terms of democratization hopes, our efforts on democracy extend throughout the world, to every country. We have many partners in the war on terror with whom we continue to talk in a straightforward and quite forceful manner about democracy and taking steps towards democracy because ultimately we believe the two go together. You can't just fight terrorists. You have to create the kind of stable society that embodies hope, that embodies opportunity. That is the best defense ultimately against terrorist groups gaining a foothold.
So whether it's Uzbekistan or many other places, we have cooperated on the war of terror, but at the same time, we have tried to make clear that it's no -- shouldn't be found as a reason not to proceed with democratization, in fact, that more democracy is the best antidote to terror.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea who's responsible for the -- for the incident yesterday in Uzbekistan?
MR.BOUCHER: No, we don't, at this point. I think that's being investigated locally.
QUESTION: But given the fact that Uzbekistan had, in fact, been quiet for a relatively long period of time before -- before yesterday and these attacks, do you have any observations about the state of democracy there? As you -- as you just said, it is only through democratization that the real end to terrorism is going to happen, and with the resurgence of this, is that any indication that things aren't going as well as you might like them to be?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's a conclusion that you can draw. We all know that terrorist groups have attacked governments that had democracy, didn't have democracy, were in the process of getting it. These groups seem to be opposed to any kind of organized government, so I don't think the fact of a terrorist attack can be taken as a comment on the state of democracy.
QUESTION: Can you remind us how recently the last time a senior official went out there to complain about the Karimov government's failure to democratize?
MR. BOUCHER: We discuss it in every meeting we have with Uzbeki officials. Our Embassy works on all these issues every day. I'll have to check on when the last high-level discussion was, but it's not a once-in-a-quarter or a once-a-month thing. It's a daily part of the relationship that we have with Uzbekistan. And if you want to see the state of play as regards freedom in Uzbekistan, you see we just put out a Human Rights Report that --
QUESTION: So you don't draw any link between failure to reform, failure of the government to reform, and these latest attacks, even though you say you don't know who was responsible for them --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't know who was responsible, whether that was perhaps one of their motives or not. But second of all, if you made that assumption, then I don't know if you could make the same assumption --
QUESTION: Well, I'm not making that assumption. I just --
MR. BOUCHER: I would not make that assumption in this attack any more than I would make that assumption with regard to the many other attacks that have occurred in any number of countries around the world, including the United States.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary raise democratization in the conversation today, or no?
MR. BOUCHER: This was a fairly simple statement of condolences and offer to help.
QUESTION: So then aren't you saying, in fact, that democratization, given the fact that there were attacks here in the United States or in Spain and attacks elsewhere, really may not have that much to do with antiterrorism?
MR. BOUCHER: Matt, no, I'm not saying that. Let me just put it that way. The logic does not flow. It doesn't work that way. The attacks that occurred in the United States didn't, in that case, originate in the United States; they originated in an undemocratic country ruled by the Taliban. I'll stop at that.
QUESTION: Could I talk about the Greater Middle East initiatives?
MR. BOUCHER: If you want to, go ahead. You want me to talk about it, too?
QUESTION: Yesterday, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, revealed a very comprehensive plan for democratization and reform and so on in the Middle East that would go in tandem with some sort of a trusteeship over the Palestinian-Israeli initiative. Are you aware of the plan to submit it? He wants to submit it for the G-8 summit.
MR. BOUCHER: I had not focused on that particular plan. I don't know if we have any comment on it or not.
QUESTION: Have you had an opportunity to look at it?
MR. BOUCHER: I have not personally had a chance to look at it or check on it. I'll see if there's anything we want to say about it.
QUESTION: Can I just move along a little to the Secretary's going to Germany? One of the -- I guess, I don't know, he may be giving several, but an interview he gave is now on the wire to a German newspaper and he speaks, you know, very positively about relations with Germany, they're being so good, and of course Germany -- complimenting them for their role in Afghanistan.
Will he, do you know, raise the possibility of Germany changing its mind about committing peacekeepers to Iraq, especially if an arrangement can be found to have NATO move in as an alliance?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would predict that in a specific sense. I would note, first of all, that Germany is contributing in Iraq in terms of police training, a number of other areas that I'm sure we'll talk about. We certainly encourage Germany's involvement in Iraq, as best as they see fit. We certainly welcome the German role that they've played, a strong role in Afghanistan. And as NATO continues its role and expands in Afghanistan, Germany is also supporting that.
The discussion of what role NATO might play in Iraq is ongoing. It will be discussed further at the NATO informals on Friday. But at this point, it's hard to discuss what that might mean for any particular member of NATO, since NATO as a whole has not yet decided what it -- what sort of responsibility it might or might not take up there.
Sir.
QUESTION: Thank you, Richard. This is Arshad with the Daily Inquilab. A question on Bangladesh. A constitutional --
QUESTION: Are we still on Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll stay on Iraq for just a minute.
QUESTION: Oh, yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: Just to -- there was a report this morning by the spokesman for the Iraqi National Council as saying that the Council does not want the UN to play a major role in the election, and, in fact, the role was to be only for advice and help. Does this contradict the way the United States wanted the UN to play in Iraq?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on every statement. There are a variety of views within the Governing Council, and I'm sure there will be a variety of those views in discussions in Iraq as we proceed.
I think everybody welcomes some involvement from the United Nations. We certainly look to the United Nations to bring to bear their expertise. I think many parties in Iraq are looking for that as well, and we'll have to try -- I think everybody should try to work with them, but that's about as far as I can go.
QUESTION: The U.S. position, you are talking about major role. Many times, you said that. Now are you talking some involvement?
MR. BOUCHER: No. Vital roles remains the paradigm; "unique expertise," is what it says in the resolution. The UN has a very important role to play.
QUESTION: Have you been in contact --
MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to let them go and work on that role, and we'll see how much they want to do and how much they can do in this situation.
QUESTION: And have you been in consultation with Lakhdar Brahimi, who is going on his way to Iraq now? Is any new things can --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any particular conversations, but I think we have been in touch and will be in touch as as he heads out there. That's about all I can say.
Okay. We're still on Iraq? Tammy.
QUESTION: When do you anticipate a decision on whether to go for another UN resolution? It keeps coming up.
MR. BOUCHER: There's no specific time frame. We're entertaining ideas, listening to others who say they might want one. There's no particular moment that we legally or otherwise need one, that the Resolution 1511 covers the period of transition, I think, fairly adequately. The transitional law in Iraq covers the period of transition. But we -- we've heard various voices say it'd be good to have one, and we're willing to consider it. But at this point, there's no particular time frame for it.
QUESTION: Richard, can I follow up on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Let's come to you in a minute.
QUESTION: Just on the Middle East in general. Do we have a better idea of where Burns, Hadley and Abrams will travel to in terms of the Arab world? Which capitals they'll go to?
MR. BOUCHER: Do I?
MR. CASEY: Yeah, you do.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I do. (Laughter.) Yes. (Laughter.)
Oh, the -- after -- as I said, they're stopping in Brussels for conversations with the Europeans, then they'll be going to Jerusalem for conversations there with Israelis and Palestinians. And then they'll be visiting Amman and Cairo.
QUESTION: Are you aware of the threat that was issued against them by the Aqsa Brigade?
MR. BOUCHER: Aware of the statement by the Aqsa Brigades. Of course, that is a terrorist organization, one that we've always, for a long time, considered to be a terrorist organization. Not surprising they'd be making these threats against people who are merely trying to go and move the process forward, and help the Palestinians achieve their aspirations for a state.
QUESTION: You're not taking it seriously?
MR. BOUCHER: Always take these things seriously.
QUESTION: Richard, just clarifying. They're meeting with the Israelis and Palestinians both in Jerusalem?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have exact locations of the meetings.
QUESTION: Well, the Palestinians have agreed to meet with them in Jerusalem? That's what I'm trying to --
MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not what I'm saying. They're going to Jerusalem, and from -- from thence, will have meetings with both sides. But where exactly those meetings will be, I can't say for you, and probably won't.
QUESTION: Do you know how long they're supposed to stay there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have timetables. We hesitate to give out any details of -- that would indicate where they might be going.
QUESTION: Just a leftover question --
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: -- about whether the Secretary talked to any of the Arab ministers about the summit.
MR. BOUCHER: He did talk to Foreign Minister Muasher this morning. And, as I think I mentioned yesterday, our embassies are also in touch with Arab governments, and we're hearing from them about the Arab summit, Arab reform issues, and what the Arab group may be considering as its next steps.
QUESTION: But Muasher also?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Because it must be relevant to the King coming here, yes?
MR.BOUCHER: Yeah. They talked about the situation in the Arab world, they talked about reform in the Arab world, they talked about the peace process and how to move forward.
Okay. Arshad.
QUESTION: Well, thank you very much, Richard. This is Arshad with the Daily Inquilab from Bangladesh.
A constitutionally elected government in Bangladesh is being threatened to be toppled by April 30th. What is the position of the State Department on this, as Ambassador Harry Thomas made some comment, recent comments? Would you vouch for that? And what is your position on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what Ambassador Thomas might have said, but I can tell you if we agree with him.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll look it up and get you something later on it. I'm sorry. I don't have anything now.
QUESTION: Taiwan's leader, Chen Shui-bian, in his first interview since the presidential election, indicated that he plans to draw up a new constitution to establish Taiwan as an independent sovereign country, separate from China, and also to enact the constitution by 2008. How would the U.S. respond to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, perhaps your description is a little more definitive than what we've seen ourselves. We really don't know what the specifics would be and what President Chen might have in mind. But I'd repeat our basic policy that our interest is in maintaining a peaceful and stable situation in the Taiwan Straits. We would oppose any unilateral steps that change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.
We'd note that in his inaugural address in 2000, President Chen pledged not to declare independence, not to change the name of Taiwan's Government, not to add the state-to-state theory into the constitution, and not to promote a referendum to change the status quo in independence or unification. We appreciate those pledges from 2000 and the subsequent reaffirmations of it, and we still take it very seriously.
QUESTION: And in the run-up to Taiwan presidential election, the U.S. characterized Chen's referendum plan as not necessary; the U.S. did not support. And how would U.S. characterize if he has a plan to write a new constitution?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I said, it's not clear what the plan might be, so it's hard for us to characterize it in any other way. At this point, I would just repeat what our basic policy is that -- what I just told you. That's how we would -- that's the framework through which we would look at anything.
QUESTION: So when President Chen was making plans to have this referendum, if I'm not mistaken -- if I'm not mistaken, you said exactly the same thing as you just said now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you just used the same sheet of paper, but changed the date.
MR. BOUCHER: No, it's a new piece of paper, but it is the same words. Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean exactly. So you don't see that what he said in the interview as any different as what he was originally thinking in his original thoughts for the referendum? You take it the same?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd still -- again, I would not draw that conclusion from what I just said. I would draw the conclusion that our view has not changed, that U.S. policy is remarkably consistent in this matter, that we have been firm and clear in our views. It's not a political analysis of what he is saying or not saying at any given moment. Our policy has been quite clear.
QUESTION: So in terms of China-Taiwan, the policy is a "cookie-cutter" approach; is that what you're saying?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: It's static. It has stayed the same.
MR. BOUCHER: It's remarkably consistent.
QUESTION: There is nothing different. I don't know --
MR. BOUCHER: Matt, I --
QUESTION: I don't know how -- I am trying to get this across to you. Your position on what he said in the interview is exactly the same position of -- that you had as when he was beginning his deliberations about what the referendum was going to say; is that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: The policy is the same. It has been for some time. There is no point in changing it every time somebody says something, if our views are the same. I'm here to express our views, not to comment or give you an analysis on whether somebody else has changed his views or is saying something different. U.S. policy is quite clear on this matter.
QUESTION: Myanmar Burmese State Television says that they're going to resume their constitutional dialogue in May, but it's unclear from their -- from the state TV's announcement whether Aung San Suu Kyi or her party would take part in that. Do you have any information on what their plans are, and do you have anything you want to say about her and her party taking part in it?
MR. BOUCHER: No, we don't have any more information on what they might be intending. It certainly is quite clear to us, as it has been for a long time, that Aung San Suu Kyi and her other leaders of the National League for Democracy need to be released from prison, so that they can participate fully in preparations for national reconciliation and democracy.
For any kind of constitutional convention to be successful, the political opposition and ethnic groups must support it, and they must be involved in preparations for it. They would need to be full participants in a convention that allows for free exchange of views. We've also called for a timetable leading to the full restoration of democracy, and we think that their release and participation in this process is a vital part of that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything more on the Afghan donors conference, and whether you think that the $3 to $4 billion that Afghan is expecting coming out of this conference is a realistic goal?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any predictions at this point. A lot of the effort that went into this conference is not specifically about money; it's about gathering people together to reaffirm their commitments.
As we discussed yesterday, sometimes those commitments manifest themselves in higher amounts down the road, after the conference, or further pledges that are made after the conference.
So it's really an effort now to galvanize the international community to continue its support for Afghanistan, to recognize all the progress that has been made already in Afghanistan, but also to identify the kind of work and projects that need to be undertaken in order to move forward to a place where Afghanistan can be viable and support itself.
QUESTION: This is the first time that they're kind of speaking about not only the reconstruction, but the political and the security altogether. So do you think -- they're going to have this seven-year plan, kind of a seven-year needs assessment. Do you think that there's more of a focus now on the kind of political and institutional building at this conference, as opposed to previous ones? More nation building types?
MR. BOUCHER: No. The last conference in Tokyo, if I remember, was maybe a month after the Bonn conference, which laid out the political agenda. So -- and at that time, security was also an important element. So I think all along, the political process, the security progress and the economic progress have gone together and have always been seen as helping each other and supporting each other. That remains true this time.
But whether it's some new -- and I don't think it's a new situation. I think it's a continuation of what we all know, and that the remarkable progress that has been achieved has sometimes occurred in the face of security threats, but also has contributed to a lessening, in some places, of those threats.
QUESTION: There have been some critics of the U.S., while acknowledging the contributions that you're making now, and last year and next year, say that the U.S. should have kind of front-loaded its security assistance up front, spent more money on securing the country right after the war. How do you respond to those charges?
MR. BOUCHER: I think look at the facts, look at the road, look at the schools, look at the irrigation, look at the hospitals, look at the government up and running from a base of zero, look at the political progress that's being made, look at the elections coming up, and look at the continuing effort to, on the one hand, isolate the security problems and, second, deal with them in an effective manner.
QUESTION: Could we go back to the delegation that's visiting the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: First of all, what is their title? Are they a fact-finding group? Are they envoys? What is the official title under which they function? And I have a couple of follow-ups on that.
MR. BOUCHER: They don't have an official title. They have -- "the team," I think the President called them.
QUESTION: Team?
MR. BOUCHER: So we will call them the -- (laughter).
QUESTION: Okay, my first follow-up. Okay, my first follow-up. What does that do to Ambassador Wolf? I mean, how is he -- how does he fit into this picture now?
MR. BOUCHER: The delegation -- the team that's going out, and has gone back and forth a number of times with the Israeli government and with people in the Middle East on this -- they don't really displace Ambassador Wolf. Ambassador Wolf was our representative on the ground to try to make progress and keep the progress going on the roadmap as long as it looked like that was moving.
This delegation is also looking to see whatever progress can be made, but until we have something on the ground moving, then Ambassador Wolf doesn't need to be present on the scene, the way he was in the past.
So they'll be -- they'll be going out. They'll be talking to, as I said, to people in the region. They're also meeting with Quartet envoys in Brussels, as well as the NATO permanent representatives, so there'll be meetings out there, and then continuing to look with all for ways of making progress.
QUESTION: Now, considering --
QUESTION: So the Quartet meetings haven't happened yet, so --
MR. BOUCHER: No. They're in --
QUESTION: I'm talking about the Quartet meeting, and the -- and the -- I'm talking about the Brussels meeting.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. They're in Brussels today. I don't know if precisely, at this hour, whether that meeting is taking place or not.
QUESTION: Richard, now, considering that this is their third visit, they must have covered a lot of ground. Do you guys have any kind of progress report for where they are?
MR. BOUCHER: No. Nope.
QUESTION: Okay, now --
MR. BOUCHER: I declined yesterday to characterize the state of our -- state of play, and I won't do it today.
QUESTION: Okay. Lastly, Senator Lugar, in his speech yesterday on his plan, or initiative, called to expand the Quartet into a sextet, maybe adding Saudi Arabia and Egypt. How would you --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any response to proposals I haven't seen at this point.
Elise.
QUESTION: Secretary Powell had said that there were a lot of unanswered questions about this Sharon plan. In your discussions with the Palestinians, how much of a -- and the Israelis -- how much of a factor is coordinating with the Palestinians this plan taking shape?
I mean, is it something that's going to kind of be imposed on the Palestinians, in terms of we're withdrawing? Or are the Palestinians going to be involved in the kind of machinations and discussions that will lead to this taking place?
MR. BOUCHER: They're all interesting questions, but I'm not in a position to characterize where we stand on these ideas with one party or the other or another. So, as I did with him, I'm afraid I'm just not in position to characterize the state of play right now.
QUESTION: Well, but, obviously, you've been traveling to Israel. The conversations with the Israelis have been far -- on this plan, have been far more intensive, obviously, because it's an Israeli plan. But I mean, how much are the Palestinians involved in your discussions about this?
MR. BOUCHER: As I pointed out before, we've had regular discussions about how to make progress with people in the Middle East, including Palestinians, with Arab foreign ministers during the Secretary's meetings and discussions, and in terms of various meetings that we've had in this part of the world.
So we're always looking for opportunities to make progress. We're discussing the state of play as regards to different ideas that are being put forward, including the Prime Minister Sharon's proposals about disengagement from Gaza. But I'm not going to characterize exactly where we stand in those discussions at this moment.
MR. BOUCHER: Let's get some of the people in the back.
Sir.
QUESTION: Yes, sir. The position of Senator Lugar makes it really very important for us to get a feel of the State Department about his initiative. I know you said you didn't read it, but if I could get your opinion on a few principles.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not giving out opinions on something I haven't seen. I have promised that I would look for it, look at it, and decide if there is anything we have to say. That's as far as I can go for the moment.
QUESTION: Okay. But if I can say this. But he seemed to agree with many leaders in the Middle East that there can be no success for any initiatives for the Middle East unless the Israeli-Arab conflicts is resolved, and he also agreed that there could be no success for any initiative that would put reform over stability in the area.
In principles, how does the State Department feel about this? And what is the possibility that this initiative would have serious look from the State Department? Or how much would it affect the policy of the State Department in the future with his position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations?
MR. BOUCHER: We, obviously, take anything that the Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee puts forward very seriously. I'm sure we'll look at it carefully. How much those ideas might be integrated into what we're doing or adopted, I don't know. I can't predict. I haven't seen it.
In terms of the principles involved of reform and peace, we have made very clear our view, again and again, that neither one is a substitute for the other; in fact, we recognize that people in the region want both reform and peace, and that those two items remain high on the U.S. agenda. We're looking to support reform. We're looking to support peace in any way we can because we believe the two are mutually reinforcing.
QUESTION: Richard, on the subject of taking things seriously of chairman of committees up on the Hill, I'm wondering if I could ask you to respond, or at least address two sentences spoken this morning by Congressman Hyde in the hearing that Under Secretary Bolton is testifying to right now.
He said: "The fact that we went into Iraq virtually alone, not only without the sanction of the international community, but in blunt defiance of its strenuous efforts to stop us, is far from the ruinous negative it is often portrayed as. In fact, it's to the good, for it is unambiguous proof that absolutely nothing will deter us, that the entire world arrayed us cannot stop us -- arrayed against us cannot stop us."
I'm just wondering, since he is a friend of the Administration and a supporter of this Administration's policy in Iraq, I'm a little curious as to if you share this, because I was under the impression from the White House and the State Department that, far from going into Iraq virtually alone, you had a robust coalition of the willing behind you and that, in fact, far from wanting to do things with the entire world arrayed against you and in defiance of that world, that you wanted to do things multilaterally and with the support of others.
Can you talk to what Congressman Hyde had to say?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Those would be his -- you're saying --
MR. BOUCHER: I was not at the hearing. I did not hear what he said. I accept your version of it, but I'm not in a position to comment. It was a hearing with Administration witnesses and I'm sure they spoke eloquently on the matter, and I'll leave it at that for the moment.
QUESTION: But you would -- my question -- you would still say that you entered -- you did not go into Iraq virtually alone, that you did have this coalition of the willing behind you, and you would still deny allegations that the Administration is unilateral in nature; is that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: It is true that we went in with a considerable number of nations to Iraq and that we remain there with a number of nations supporting and working with us.
QUESTION: And you would reject the notion of unilateralism, as the Secretary, as everyone else has?
MR. BOUCHER: We always have.
Okay, ma'am.
QUESTION: On Serbia and Montenegro. One of my colleagues asked you yesterday about financial assistance. The decision was to be made by tomorrow, March 31st. Is it possible that it will be postponed?
MR. BOUCHER: The way the law works is that if the Secretary doesn't certify that Serbia meets the requirements of the Act, the Foreign Operations Export Financing and Related Programs Act, after March 31st, new obligations of assistance to Serbia will stop.
As we've seen in previous years, it is our hope to have sufficient basis to make this decision by March 31st. If we don't make the certification by March 31st, assistance stops until such a time as we are able to make that certification. So it -- the decision could be made at any moment that we think we have sufficient grounds for certification. If we don't have it on March 31st, we'll just have to see when we do have sufficient basis to do that.
QUESTION: And if the decision is not reached, what happens with U.S. voting in international financial institutions?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that at this moment.
QUESTION: Can you tell us something about Mr. Grossman's visit to the region, and is the financial assistance also a topic?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that the issue of cooperation with the tribunal will be one of the topics of discussion. He also wanted to discuss with people in the region the situation in Kosovo and to compare notes, to discuss that with people in Belgrade as well.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Can you just clarify, because last year the decision was postponed until June about the certification?
MR. BOUCHER: That was because of an act of Congress, where they stood with the budget. The point that they specified this year was March 31st.
QUESTION: And how much money would be stopped?
MR. BOUCHER: The assistance package in fiscal year '04 is approximately $100 million of support from the East European and Democracy Act. There's about one quarter of that that has not yet been obligated that would be affected by this.
QUESTION: The Spanish has named the group that's, they think, behind the bombing in Madrid as the Islamic Fighting Group. Do you know anything about them and whether they are linked directly to al-Qaida?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on them. I'm sorry.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: On Venezuela, one of the leader of the oil strike in Venezuela, Carlos Fernandez, is wanted in Venezuela, charged with rebellion. He is now in Miami. He addressed a political rally in Miami this weekend and the Government of Venezuela is complain about this type of action.
The United States will stop Mr. Fernandez from this participation in other rallies, or what is the position of the United States when there can be an act in a way that he can -- he's broken the term of the asylum in this country?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if I am able to comment on the specific case, but I'll look into it and see if I can. I'm not -- I don't have anything.
QUESTION: Can you take the question?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
QUESTION: Just back to the bombings for a second. Given -- given those tragic events of yesterday, and then the discovery of the breaking up of two apparent large-scale plots, both in London and the Philippines, I'm just wondering if you -- is there -- are you guys getting any indication of a big spike or a plan for a concerted simultaneously attacks -- simultaneous attacks worldwide? Or is there no reason to think that any of these --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I'd better check on that and see what -- what my experts say. I don't want to just jump to a conclusion.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a related question? That is whether, following the bombings in Spain, you now think that some of your closest allies in the war on terrorism -- Philippines, Britain, Uzbekistan -- are being sort of singled out for targeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I think what we've seen remains true, that the terrorists are willing to strike at anybody. Some of them are close allies, some of them are other countries, some of them are Muslim countries, some of them are Arab countries.
But what we've seen from various terrorist groups, in particular from al-Qaida, is the indiscriminate use of violence against innocents in whatever society they might live in. And I'm afraid that's the pattern that's been established for the last several years, if you look at all the different places. I'm not sure there's any change in that pattern at this point.
The guy in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have any reports on Georgia?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing new to say about Georgia this morning, no.
QUESTION: One more question, please. President of Georgia, Saakashvili, announced in Washington it will be very difficult for a new government without opposition. But now, we see that opposition parties -- main opposition parties -- couldn't win. How do you think how will be the future democracy of Georgia after the elections?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's a little too early to draw conclusions until we see the final outcome of the election.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Oh, a while ago, and I think this was addressed from the podium, perhaps by Adam or someone else, but this involves that whole -- the mysterious planeload of miners, or whoever -- mercenary miners, who were stopped in Zimbabwe.
And it turns out, at least first reportedly, were going to Equatorial Guinea to stage a coup there. But now that there's -- there have been, at least in the last week, some reports that, in fact, they weren't going to stage a coup in Equatorial Guinea; they were, in fact, going to -- on their way to Nigeria to try and capture Charles Taylor and bring him before the tribunal to take advantage of the reward that the United States so generously offered for the movement of former President Taylor to the tribunal.
One, do you know anything about that -- those reports? And, two, what ever happened to the status of that, which you were not -- the State Department was not in favor of, but I don't believe you were able to get it out of the budget bill? So I think it still sits there. Can you clarify what happened there?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check on the exact status of the funding, which I think was given in a general sense for purposes that might include the apprehension of Taylor. But I'll double-check on where exactly that might stand.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I'll double check. And on the -- whatever these people were doing on this airplane, don't know. We had nothing to do with them. And so I really -- and I don't really have any information on what they might have been up to.
Sir.
QUESTION: Do you have a new U.S. team going to Kenya for -- to participate, or to urge the parties in the Sudan peace talks anytime soon? Do you know who's going? And if a team is going, the fact that they are, does it reflect any sort of intensification of U.S. involvement, particularly ahead of the President's mid-to-late April decision under the Sudan Peace Act to decide whether or not the parties are negotiating in good faith?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, we've been intensely involved and remain intensely involved. This is a regular issue for the Secretary. He's kept in close touch -- the President's kept in close touch on this, and we're all trying to make sure the United States is doing everything it can to encourage the parties and help the parties along.
We've had several teams go out, high-level teams go out. It's likely that another team might go in the next week, or within the next week or so. Don't have precise dates or composition at this point, but I think it's clear the Secretary's committed, the United States is committed, to doing everything we can to try to help the parties reach agreement as soon as they can.
QUESTION: When you say high-level, are you thinking sort of the Acting Assistant Secretary level, or higher or lower than that?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not in a position to specify at this point.
Yes. Okay, sir.
QUESTION: A question about the Middle East. Could you tell us if the visit of the Prime Minister of Israel is still on April the 14th?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a White House question. I'm not aware that there has been any change in what they announced, though.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask you about this bi-election in Zimbabwe.
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR. BOUCHER: Can you ask me? Sure, you may ask.
QUESTION: May I ask you what your reaction is to the bi-election in Zimbabwe --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any --
QUESTION: -- that your Embassy in Harare seemed to have a bit of a problem with?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on it and see what we have to say about it.
(The briefing ended at 1:15 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 |
|
|
|
