02 April 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, April 2, 2004
Sudan, Chad, Visa Waiver Program/biometric passports requirements, US Visit Program, Deputy Secretary Armitage comments/Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remarks on Chairman Arafat, Kuwait/Pakistan/non-NATO ally designation, Israel/Palestinians, Iran, Russia
Deputy State Department Spokesman J. Adam Ereli briefed reporters at the noon briefing April 2.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Washington, DC
April 2, 2004
BRIEFER: J. Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
SUDAN
-- U.S. Condemnation of Atrocities in Darfur
-- United Nations Security Council Meeting on Darfur
-- U.S. Humanitarian Assistance/Diplomacy
-- Issue of Sudan Peace Accords/Negotiations in Naivasha
-- One-Year Anniversary of Rwanda Genocide/Ambassador Prosper at Ceremonies
CHAD
-- Talks Between Government of Sudan and Opposition Groups
DEPARTMENT
-- Visa Waiver Program/Biometrics Passports/US-VISIT Program
-- Request for Two-Year Extension on Biometric Passports Requirements
-- Deputy Secretary Armitage's Comments on Remarks By Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Chairman Arafat
-- Major Non-NATO Ally Designation/Status of Kuwait & Pakistan/Involvement of NATO in Iraq
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Smuggling of Arms in Gaza
-- Query on U.S. Response to Killing of Sheikh Yassin
-- Hadley/Abrams/Burns Meetings in Middle East/Issues Discussed
IRAN
-- Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000
-- U.S. Imposition of Penalties on 13 Companies/Ongoing Discussions with Host Countries
-- IAEA Inspections in Iran
-- Alleged Development of Cruise Missile
RUSSIA
-- Removal of Nonproliferation Penalties
-- Identification of Penalties
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. ERELI: Let me begin with two statements today. The first one concerns the situation in Darfur. The United States views, with grave concern, the deteriorating situation in Darfur in the western Sudan. It's clear to us that government-supported militia groups that are called the "jingaweit," are continuing to burn villages and kill and abuse civilians, and that there's a massive humanitarian crisis going on there.
There was a briefing in the UN Security Council today on Darfur, that we think is important and we welcome. We condemn the atrocities going on in Darfur in the strongest terms, and we call on the Government of Sudan to take immediate steps to stop the jingaweit and to allow outside monitoring of the situation there.
I would also note that talks have begun in Chad between the Government of Sudan and the opposition groups in the presence of officials from the United States and the European Union. We welcome the start of those talks and we urge both the Government of Sudan and the opposition groups to cooperate in negotiating an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that will facilitate unrestricted humanitarian access.
The second announcement concerns the Visa Waiver Program and the US-VISIT Program. The Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security have asked Congress to pass legislation to extend for two years the requirement for the Visa Waiver Program countries to include biometrics in passports issued on or after October 26, 2004.
In the context of requesting this extension, the Department of Homeland Security will also begin enrolling Visa Waiver travelers through the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, which is the US-VISIT Program, at all airports and seaports by September 30th, 2004.
As you all probably know, the US-VISIT system is a fast and easy process that requires two digital index finger scans and a digital photograph from the traveler to verify his identity. We believe that an extension of the Visa Waiver Program will avoid potential disruption to international travel and, at the same time, enrollment in the US-VISIT -- in US-VISIT will help mitigate the security concerns related to extending the deadline for biometric passports.
QUESTION: Does that mean that once the two years are over, and presuming that the Visa Waiver countries meet the requirement for biometrics, that after that they won't have -- their citizens won't have to be fingerprinted when they come in?
MR. ERELI: I think that's an issue that the Department of Homeland Security will review at the time. But it's not a decision, I think, that's been made now.
QUESTION: Have you informed the 27 countries of this?
MR. ERELI: We have been briefing Visa Waiver Program governments on the request to Congress. We've been briefing them today, both through our embassies abroad and together with the Department of Homeland Security through their ambassadors in Washington, and we've also been briefing congressional staff on the initiatives over the past couple of days.
QUESTION: And I'm sure the reaction has been overwhelming joy, yeah?
MR. ERELI: Well, I think there's a recognition that, you know, that we're trying to both meet the requirements of security and facilitate travel. And, we all agree that biometric passports are desirable and necessary. There seems to be difficulty in meeting those requirements. An extension is a good idea. And at the same time, the US-VISIT Program, I think, has proven to be a pretty low-hassle way of protecting the traveler and protecting the homeland.
QUESTION: Okay. Just have you guys given any thought to any other measure you could take that could make the United States even more unpopular than it already is right now in the rest of the world?
MR. ERELI: Teri.
QUESTION: You do --
QUESTION: Change of subject?
QUESTION: You do realize that this is -- that this is going to be seen, or is being seen, as a major slap in the face to some of your closest allies?
MR. ERELI: It's not -- certainly, if that's the way it's seen, then it's certainly not intended in that light. We are asking -- we are not requiring visas. We are requesting a two-year extension. I think that is recognition that the program has a value and the program is important.
At the same time, there are security needs. I think everybody recognizes those security needs, and that the US-VISIT Program is a very, very low-hassle, unintrusive way of protecting the public and protecting the United States.
QUESTION: Back to Darfur. Since it's also the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the Rwanda genocide, there are so many people who are saying now that they wish they'd done more and the U.S. should have done more.
At the same time, people on the ground -- NGOs, even officials from other countries -- are saying that Darfur is turning into another genocide like that. You don't want to see a flashback in ten years of you standing at the podium and saying, "We condemn the atrocities."
What else can the U.S. do? We need to do -- to do something else.
MR. ERELI: We've been, I think, very active in calling the world's attention to the problem in Darfur, in recognizing that this is a humanitarian crisis of significant proportions. And that, in itself, I think is a marked difference from Rwanda.
So, in that score, we've been very active, but also in the area of diplomacy and providing humanitarian assistance we've been active. We've been getting aid and working to get aid to the people who have been displaced and to help the victims. Diplomatically, we've been working very assiduously to bring about talks between -- between rebels and government in the area, to pressure the Government of Sudan to control these armed gangs that are marauding helpless and innocent civilian populations.
And I think that we will continue to work very energetically, both with the parties and with the international community, to not only bring attention to this issue, but also to bring the weight of the international community to bear on the parties so that they can resolve the issue and take the kind of measures that allow -- that protect the civilian populations and allow humanitarian assistance to get through to them.
QUESTION: Just this morning, though, one of those rebel groups announced that they're pulling out of talks. The JEM?
MR. ERELI: Right, this is -- you know, if you look at this -- if you look at this on any given day, you will probably be able to find some reason to say things aren't working or things aren't going as they should. I would encourage you to look at it as a process. This is a difficult and intractable problem that involves a number of hostile parties.
The way it's going to be solved is through consistent and -- consistent intervention and involvement over time, that basically leaves the parties with no alternative than to reach a compromise. It's not going to be without setbacks, and it's not going to be without difficulty. But we think that the way to solve this is to bring the parties together, as we've done in Chad and bring the international pressure to bear on sitting together and resolving their differences and paying attention to the needs of innocent populations.
It's not going to happen overnight and not everybody is going to sign up to it right away. But if you keep the pressure on and you keep at it and you maintain and broaden international consensus, then in the end, we're confident that peace will prevail.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can a Sudan peace accord happen without resolving the situation in Darfur?
MR. ERELI: I don't think there is a, you know, one depends on the other. And I don't think it would be accurate to say if there is not peace in Darfur, there is not going to be an agreement between the parties in Naivasha.
That said, clearly, there are important compromises that are going to need to be made in both places, and they both affect the interests of parties to the negotiations. So without making a direct linkage between the two, clearly, there are problems that concern -- there are problems that concern parties are involved in the two disputes.
QUESTION: Why shouldn't they be linked?
MR. ERELI: What do you mean, why shouldn't they be linked? I mean --
QUESTION: Well, the government is -- you can shake hands with the government in one part of the country while they're still bombing refugee camps in another part of the country?
MR. ERELI: Well, the negotiations in Naivasha are between the SPLA and the Government of Sudan to stop a civil war that has bedeviled the country between north and south for over 20 years, and they can sign an agreement and begin to implement that agreement in the territories under their control.
The issue of Darfur is a separate conflict, is a -- regarding separate groups, regarding separate issues that has to be resolved, that has to be negotiated, and that has to be compromised on, but it is a separate set of groups, a separate set of issues.
QUESTION: You don't believe the government has any influence on what's happening with these militias in Darfur?
MR. ERELI: Oh, clearly they do.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. ERELI: And clearly they -- clearly, they need to get those militias under control, and they can do more to do that, and they should do more to do that, and we're asking and calling upon them to do more to do that. But at the same time, that's distinct from what's going on in Naivasha.
QUESTION: They'll have more money once the north-south thing is worked out to send arms west?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: A different subject please. Could you comment on Deputy Secretary Armitage this morning about the threat of Ariel Sharon's to assassinate Arafat?
MR. ERELI: I really don't have much more to add to what the Deputy Secretary said, which was a, you know, longstanding -- a reiteration of longstanding U.S. position regarding Chairman Arafat. He said -- you know, and that position is that we do not support either the elimination or the exile of Mr. Arafat. It's not our position, hasn't been, and the Israeli Government knows that.
QUESTION: Did you communicate that to the Israeli Government this time?
MR. ERELI: The Israeli Government is in no doubt as to what our position is.
Yes.
QUESTION: The IDF has gone in below Gaza, literally, to look for tunnels, which are used to smuggle in arms into Gaza. Are you talking to the Mubarak government in Egypt and/or the UN for assistance to block those type tunnels?
MR. ERELI: This is not an issue that we are, you know, specifically involved in. We are, as you know, working with both parties, and particularly the Palestinian Authority, in an effort to get them to act against terrorist infrastructure in territories where the Palestinian Authority has authority, and that certainly includes bomb-making and tunnel activity and all the other things associated with suicide attacks and terrorist attacks.
So that's an ongoing concern. It's an ongoing issue that we're involved in, and but I don't have anything more for you than that.
QUESTION: Is your statement, the last -- Richard Boucher's condemning (inaudible) elimination, where he said that the United States is deeply disturbed by the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, do you think the fact that there was no clear condemnation of the assassination and give sort of a green light to Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to probably try it with Arafat?
MR. ERELI: There is no green light, there has no been green light, there will be no green light. And any suggestion that -- any suggestion to the contrary I think ignores -- ignores important facts, important facts that include the fact -- include the statement that Israel -- that we had no advance knowledge of this, that we are deeply disturbed by it, and that we urge Israel to bear in mind the consequences of its actions.
There was no advance knowledge. There was no advance coordination. So there should be no supposition or presumption of anything remotely resembling a green light.
QUESTION: Well, do you think if it was condemned clearly, it probably would --
MR. ERELI: I think that our position is clear. The Israeli Government knows our position. And there really is -- there should be no doubt on that and there should be no -- nobody should be thinking that anybody has a green light.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yeah. There is, on the 14th of this month, when President Bush is meeting Ariel Sharon. There was talk about a mutual brook of guarantees. Do you think one of the guarantees that will be asked from the Israelis is not to assassinate Chairman Arafat?
MR. ERELI: I'm not going to preview the meeting. And as far as -- again, as far as the issue of Arafat goes, I stated our position and that position is clear, and I don't think there's any need to go beyond that.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the large number of foreign product companies who are being sanctioned based on nonproliferation activities?
MR. ERELI: Pursuant to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, the United States imposed penalties on 13 companies that engaged in providing prohibited items to Iran. Those companies include five Chinese, two Macedonian, two Russian and one of -- one from Belarus, one from North Korea, one from Taiwan, and one from the United Arab Emirates.
The penalties were imposed pursuant to the Act because there was credible information indicating that these companies had transferred to Iran, since January 1st, 1999, either equipment and technology on the export -- multilateral export control lists or items such as those on the list but falling below control list parameters or other items with the potential of making a material contribution to proscribed programs.
I would note that the penalties apply only to the specific entities, not to their respective governments or countries.
I would also just note that last year we imposed penalties on four entities and that since the passage of the Act there are 23, a total of 23 entities, which are currently subject to sanctions.
QUESTION: So you're sanctioning the companies even if they fall below the control list parameters?
MR. ERELI: When it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems.
QUESTION: Adam, do you have any words for -- apparently, the IAEA has found bomb-grade uranium in and around some of the nuclear plants in Iran this morning. They announced it.
MR. ERELI: I have seen that report. You know, obviously, it's of concern. It's not the first time we've seen these kinds of reports. What it underscores is really the need for Iran to come clean, to cooperate with the IAEA, to fulfill the terms of the IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, to open up its facilities to the IAEA inspectors who are there, to fully declare all its activities and to stop its enrichment activity.
This is something that they pledged to do. There continue to be new discoveries, which calls into question, I think, the comprehensiveness and credibility of those declarations.
Yes.
QUESTION: Back on the sanctions. While the governments themselves aren't necessarily affected by them, can you confirm that the U.S. has spoken with, at least, governments in Russia and China, urging them to put more controls, to have more surveillance of these companies, before you decided to put sanctions?
MR. ERELI: Sure. The issue of these companies and their activity is something that we have been regularly engaged with the governments involved on. And I would note that, you know, in many cases, the governments have, you know, taken action.
There is always, I think, more that we can all do, in terms of enforcement of regulations and making the regulatory environment more strict and implementing export control, existing export control mechanisms. But it is, to put it simply, an important subject of ongoing discussion with the host countries, and it's something that we really engage on very, very consistently.
QUESTION: Would you say that you've spoken to all of these governments except, perhaps, North Korea, about these companies?
MR. ERELI: I really wouldn't want to give you a sweeping statement like that. I think what's safe to say is that, I mean, we've certainly talked to the Chinese and the Russians. I'm not sure how much detail we've gone in with the other governments. If you'd like, I can try and get you an answer to that question.
QUESTION: I do. It's interesting.
QUESTION: There are reports from Moscow that two Russian companies have been -- have had their sanctions lifted.
MR. ERELI: Actually, there were -- there were six Russian entities that have had their nonproliferation penalties removed. That was done on March 23rd. The penalties were removed because we had determined that there was no evidence that the entities were continuing the activity for which they were originally sanctioned.
The removal of the penalties was announced in the Federal Register and took effect on April 1st. In fact, I'm surprised our Federal Register watcher didn't bring it to our attention.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is that also Iran-related?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Adam, one question.
QUESTION: Can you generalize about the kind of economic ties that these companies had with the U.S., which might be affected? Is it -- I don't know whether you can generalize or not, since there are so many of them.
MR. ERELI: I mean, I can tell you what -- I can tell you what the penalties are.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. ERELI: But I don't have the kind of details of, you know, on each company what their other commercial activity is related to the United States that would be affected by these penalties.
QUESTION: Maybe that's a blessing.
MR. ERELI: But let me -- the penalties are: no department or agency of the U.S. Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, services or technology from these entities; no department or agency of the U.S. Government may provide any assistance to these entities, and these entities shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the U.S. Government; U.S. Government sales of an item on the U.S. munitions list to any of these entities are prohibited, and new licenses are to be denied and existing licenses suspended for transfers to these entities of items controlled under the Export Administration Act of 1979 or Export Administration Regulations.
QUESTION: Is there a time limit, or did you say?
MR. ERELI: No, these sanctions are -- have to be renewed every year. Actually, I take that back. I'm not sure. I know that -- I'll have to check and see what's the duration of the sanctions, whether they have to be renewed every year, or whether they stay in effect until they're explicitly removed. And I'll check and get back to you on that.
Mr. Ota.
QUESTION: Same issue. So I've never heard the Iranian developing a cruise missile. Can you specify more? I mean, what kind of a cruise missile, launching --
MR. ERELI: The law specifies -- I'm not saying that Iran is developing a cruise missile, but the law specifies that if a company is found to be exporting to Iran or providing Iran with equipment and technology that has the potential to contribute to a cruise missile system, that's according to law, then that entity is sanctionable.
Obviously, I think, Iran has an active missile program, but I'm not saying that these entities were involved in providing equipment for that program. It's just what the law says.
QUESTION: Also -- sorry. In the case of the North Korean company, this is the, a state-run company. It's possible to give the name of the company?
MR. ERELI: The North Korean company is the Changgwang Sinyong Corporation. And I would note that it had been previously sanctioned under the Act in January and June of 2001 and June of 2003.
Teri.
QUESTION: One more on Rwanda. Is the U.S. planning to send any representative to the ceremonies next week?
MR. ERELI: I believe that our Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Pierre Prosper will be in Rwanda for the ceremonies. I believe he left today or is leaving today.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. ERELI: I don't have the exact date.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: On the five Chinese and the one Taiwan companies, you mentioned the North Korea one was previously sanctioned. How about both the Chinese and the Taiwan one? Can you tell us on that?
MR. ERELI: The companies that had been previously sanctioned include one Chinese company, Chinese North Industries Corporation, NORINCO, as well as -- they had been sanctioned in 2003. The China Precision Machinery Import/Export Corporation had been sanctioned in -- also in 2002 and 2003. And the Zibo Equipment Plant, also a Chinese entity, had been sanctioned in 2002 and 2003.
QUESTION: How about the Taiwan one?
MR. ERELI: The Taiwan Corporation is Goodly Industrial Company, Ltd. That is a new designation.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: I have a question on the Middle East, if I may, please. Yesterday, there was a meeting between two official, it's been reported, two officials from the White House, I think it's Stephen Hadley and Elliot Abrams and Deputy Secretary -- Foreign Secretary William Burns, and they met with Qureia, the Prime Minister.
MR. ERELI: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: And then Sharon.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Could you tell us what's the objectives of this, of these talks, and are you sort of trying to get something ready for the summit in Washington?
MR. ERELI: We spoke to this in our briefing yesterday. As you know, the three officials were in Israel to continue their discussions, which they've been having with the Israelis and Palestinians on the situation in the region. I think they talked about a number of issues, including the recent Israeli proposals regarding withdrawal from Gaza, practical steps to reengage the parties and ways to move forward with the President's vision for -- the two-state vision for the region.
They also talked about ideas regarding economic and political and education reform. I think they had -- we would characterize their conversations as constructive and would note that they will -- we will continue with them.
I wouldn't tie them to a particular event. I would say that they are part of an ongoing effort to try to bring about a resolution to the ongoing conflict or the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: Adam, could you kindly talk to -- about the NATO status affecting now Kuwait, Pakistan? And would it also apply to Cyprus if it's solved by May 1st?
MR. ERELI: This is a subject I think we've dealt with pretty extensively. I spoke to it yesterday in terms of what major non-NATO ally status means, how it's conferred and what it involves, as well as the countries that enjoy that designation.
As you know, we -- the President plans to designate Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. That designation has not happened yet.
And Cyprus, there's no discussion of such a designation. The designation comes as a result of, I think, significant and longstanding partnership and commitment with the United States and a desire to recognize that and to establish a basis for the future. So we're not there with Cyprus.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction, Adam, to NATO not showing much interest as a group in going into Iraq?
MR. ERELI: I don't know if I'd agree with that characterization. I think that, as the Secretary said, this is -- we are having a discussion about NATO getting involved in Iraq after transition -- after transition of sovereignty. I would note that there are already 17 members of NATO involved in Iraq, not necessarily in a NATO context, but as NATO -- as NATO members, I think that's noteworthy and it's significant.
And as we look ahead to a post-coalition, post-CPA Iraq, our expectation is that NATO will -- that it would be appropriate and desirable for NATO to be involved. Obviously, how and in what context, and to what extent is a subject for discussion among the NATO membership, and there are different views on that.
So that's how I would characterize the situation.
QUESTION: And you're not discouraged by initial reactions?
MR. ERELI: I've seen reaction from some members. I wouldn't call it a tidal wave or a consensus. I would call it a -- individual expressions of opinion, and they are not so categorical as to discourage us from pushing ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. ERELI: Thank you.
(The briefing ending at 1:30 p.m.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
