10 June 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, June 10
Global Terrorism Report, Congressman Waxman's letter, Libya/Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, Israel/Palestinians, North Korea
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed reporters June 10.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Thursday, June 10, 2004
1:35 p.m. EDT
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
DEPARTMENT
-- Patterns of Global Terrorism Report
-- Congressman Waxman's Letter to Secretary
LIBYA/SAUDI ARABIA
-- Allegations of a Libyan Plot to Assassinate Prince Abdullah/Investigation
-- U.S.-Libyan Relations/Normalization
-- Libyan Promises to Eliminate Its Weapons of Mass Destruction Program
-- Libyan Support for Terrorism
-- U.S. Sanctions Regime on Libya
-- Pan Am 103 Victim's Families
SYRIA
-- Call for Diplomatic Pressure on Syria to Release Noaisse
-- U.S.-Syria Relations
-- Syrian Relations with Israel/Peace Initiative
-- Support for Terrorism
CHINA
-- Chinese Rail Workers Killed in Afghanistan
-- U.S. Efforts to Address AIDS in China
-- AIDS Activist Hu Jia Detained
-- Secretary's Meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister
-- President Reagan's Legacy
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Next Quartet Meeting/Opportunities to Move Foreword on the Roadmap
NORTH KOREA
-- Six Party Talks
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:35 p.m. EDT
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting and I'm sorry I'm late. If I can, at the start, as the Secretary said, try to give you more information on the problems that we had this year with the Patterns of Global Terrorism report. I want to explain those as best we can now. We'll put out the material that I'm about to give you in a statement, and then we'll get you revised versions of this information as soon as we've had a chance to create the -- find the new numbers and make the revisions. That may -- I'm not sure if that will be days or a week or how long it might take to do that, but we'll do that for you when we can.
In the first week of May, we learned of discrepancies in the data that was published in the 2003 edition of the Patterns of Global Terrorism report. And at that time, we immediately initiated a review with the Department here in this building, as well as with the Terrorist Threat Information Center.
On May 17th, we got a letter from Congressman Waxman that added further impetus to our efforts. The data that we published in the report on April 29th, was -- April 29th, was compiled by the Terrorist Threat Integration, which was established in January 2003. It includes elements from the CIA, the FBI, Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. Based on our review subsequently to all this coming to light, we determined that the data in the report are incomplete and, in some cases, incorrect. When we got the data here at the State Department, I have to say we obviously did not check it thoroughly enough or verify the conclusions that had been reached because of the apparent change in the numbers. And so we got the wrong data and we didn't check it enough. I think that's the simplest explanation for what happened.
As the Secretary said outside, there was no attempt at manipulation or political distortion. But we did walk down a road that was the wrong one.
At our request, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center is revising the statistics for calendar year 2003. We're still, at this point, checking data for accuracy and completeness. I would say that our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published in the Patterns of Global Terrorism report. As soon as we are able to, we will provide you with corrected numbers, with a revised analysis and with revisions to the report.
So I'd be glad to take your questions about this, or when you're ready, move on to other things.
QUESTION: Numbers come about in various ways, and now in the computer age, you should see some of the statements I get about cancellation of my auto insurance. (Laughter.) Are the numbers wrong? Was the analysis wrong? Did the computers screw up?
And secondly, Mr. Black and Mr. Armitage, you know, were extolling the findings as a victory for the Bush Administration's terror -- counterterror policy. Can we expect either or both of them to make statements now about the fact that terrorism is on the increase, instead of on the decline, and what that might say about the President's policies?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, the errors that were made, we're still trying to get to the bottom of; apparently, they were of different types. I think it was several errors that led to significant omissions in the figures. The time period was not -- apparently, they didn't do the full year. There were questions of classifications and definition that what did they count this year; while the objective definition was supposed to be the same, the way they interpreted that apparently was different. And so they undercounted events that in previous years should have been counted -- would have been counted in previous years and should have been counted this year.
So it seems like there were a variety of things like that. And as I said, and over here at State Department, we didn't check it out. We didn't check it or verify it sufficiently. We took the numbers. We did an analysis and we gave you what our assessment was. That analysis and assessment will obviously change with the numbers. We're going to base our assessments on the facts, and we'll tell you what we interpret from the facts as we end up with them finally, once we know they're accurate.
QUESTION: Well, what about the two senior officials? In other words --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how we'll present it, whether those individuals will do the briefing or not, but we'll give you our assessment, their assessment of the numbers once we are sure we have the right numbers and can do the assessment.
QUESTION: I don't want to beat it to death.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I'm not suggesting that the figures were jiggered --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't --
QUESTION: Well, counterterrorism is one of the two or three leading Bush Administration policies. He's running for President as a successful warrior against terrorism, and these two officials said, see that, it's proved by the figures. Will they now say today that maybe the campaign isn't all that successful?
MR. BOUCHER: They will say whatever is justified by the facts. They will say whatever the new numbers and analysis tell us. They base their previous statements on the facts as we had them at the time. The facts that we had were wrong. When we're sure we have the new facts, the right facts, we will do, prepare an appropriate analysis and give you our assessment at that moment. I can't predict what that assessment will be because I don't know what the numbers will be.
QUESTION: Richard, you did say, when you commented about the numbers (inaudible), that the number of deaths last year and the number of attacks would be up sharply. I want to make sure I understand what that means. The number of attacks was listed at 190 versus 198 the previous year. When you say it will be up sharply, you mean it will actually show a sharp increase over the previous year?
MR. BOUCHER: It will -- yeah, it will show an increase over the previous year, a sharp increase over the previous year. I'm not sure how much, though.
QUESTION: On both attacks and deaths.
MR. BOUCHER: On both, yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Okay. Teri.
QUESTION: You said you found out the first week of May, you learned of the errors then. How did you find out about it?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, actually, we got phone calls from people who were going through our report and who said to themselves, as we should have said to ourselves, this doesn't feel right, this doesn't look right, and then started asking us questions. And as we then started to look into it, we found that, indeed, there were things that needed to be checked into much further than we had.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a small question?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: It's not a small question, but it's a side issue. Congressman Waxman was quoted in the L.A. Times in saying he wrote Secretary Powell and asked for an explanation and didn't get any. I think he also said the errors were found about a month ago, early May. Is there some explanation why we couldn't have gotten, or Mr. Waxman couldn't have gotten some preliminary explanation?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not exactly sure what the date was of Congressman Waxman's letter. The Secretary is certainly aware of the letter. He looks forward to responding to Congressman Waxman. We do want to make sure that we give the Congressman the best and most accurate picture of what we know and what's going on as we can, and I think a reply is under preparation for the Congressman.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: How credible do you think these allegations are about the alleged assassination of --
MR. BOUCHER: Are we ready -- we finished with the numbers? Let's go on to the next topic? Okay.
QUESTION: Okay, so how --
MR. BOUCHER: About the alleged what?
QUESTION: About the alleged assassination attack by Libya against the Saudi Crown Prince?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be in a position to comment on the allegations themselves. I think there are investigations underway that may or may not involve this, but I wouldn't be in a position to comment on either a criminal investigation in the United States or other investigations that might be going on concerning these allegations.
I would say that we did hear reports last year that, late last year, that Libya was in contact with Saudi dissidents who have threatened violence against the Saudi royal family. We raised those concerns directly with Libyan leadership and they assured us that they would not support the use of violence for settling political differences with any state.
So as part of the process of reviewing Libya's overall record in renouncing support for terrorism, we have been monitoring Libya's behavior carefully. We have subsequently reinforced our concerns in various meetings, including meetings at the high levels.
As we have noted before, Libya has taken significant steps to repudiate its past support of terrorism, but we are monitoring this very carefully to make sure that they completely eliminate any ties with the use of violence for political means.
QUESTION: Richard?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this affecting at all the pace of normalizing relations?
MR. BOUCHER: It certainly will affect the pace of how we move forward on some specific -- on some issues like the terrorism sanctions. As you may know, the terrorism sanctions requires a congressional notification period of 45 days, but only after we're able to tell the Congress that for at least six months a nation has not been involved in any way in support for terrorism.
So we follow this situation with regard to Libya very carefully. I think we've noted in the past some of the significant steps we've seen about fulfilling UN requirements, assisting in the global war on terrorism and pledging further cooperation -- pledging cooperation and adopting a policy against terrorism as part of the congressional requirement.
But that being said, we won't be in a position to go forward with the Congress or on the terrorism sanctions until we're very certain that Libya has met the congressional requirement and the statutory requirement and satisfied our policy requirement that they completely eliminate any support for terrorism.
Teri.
QUESTION: Can you tell what Libyans you believed were in touch with the Saudi dissidents, and how then Qadhafi could say that they weren't -- they weren't people working for him?
And also, how will this affect not just the pace, but the credibility of everything that Libya has told you now about its WMD programs, if they -- if Qadhafi knew about this and told you he was no longer supporting terrorism? Doesn't that call everything he's done into question?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as any details of the specific allegations or what may or may not be under investigation, I'm really sorry, I'm just not in a position to do that.
As far as the --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) it wouldn't support these?
MR. BOUCHER: As -- I know. That's the second half of your question.
QUESTION: No -- well, okay.
MR. BOUCHER: That, as far as the question of Libyan credibility, let me deal with the two aspects. The first, on the weapons of mass destruction and what they've told us about that, as you know, we have gone to great lengths to find information, to collect information, not only from Libya but from other sources, about what Libya may have bought and what they might have had, and what they might have developed.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has done a lot of work down there and done its own investigations. The chemical weapons organization has been involved down there as well to, again, to investigate, to verify, to question, to find the full extent of these programs and make sure, with Libyan cooperation, that the international community was indeed carrying out the full extent of Libya's promise to eliminate his programs for weapons of mass destruction.
That has been a very careful process that has involved a lot of collection of information and then the destruction. So I think there is a good substantial basis to say that we believe we are dealing with the full extent of those programs. And we continue, again, to follow that area very closely, collect whatever information we can to ensure that that is the case and that Libya is coming through on its promises to eliminate all its programs for weapons of mass destruction, as it appears to be doing, and as we have repeatedly said it is doing.
What about its credibility on the question of terrorism? We have noted steps in the past for Libya to eliminate contacts, ties or support for specific groups, type of terrorism. They met the requirements of the UN resolutions. But it requires, I think, a much broader and more detailed look in order to ensure that they have eliminated all forms of support for terrorism.
When we questioned them about this late last year, Libyan leaders assured us that they would not support the use of violence for settling political differences with any state. We have heard those assurances repeated, and that is the standard to which we would expect to hold them.
QUESTION: Richard, let me try to sell you a different way. Do you think Libya's turned the corner in its behavior?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that is something that remains to be seen. Libya has taken significant steps over the years to eliminate most of its contacts with terrorism. But we're not at a point to certify, either with regard to these specific allegations or to other things, that Libya has totally eliminated its contacts and support for terrorism. So for us to say definitely they've turned the corner would require, really, meeting the statutory requirements, as well as satisfying our requirements to know that Libya was no longer involved in any way with the use of violence for political ends.
Joel.
QUESTION: Richard, with respect to terrorism and WMDs and such, there are various NGO groups, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other type groups, and they've been criticizing various issues and problems the last year or two and much earlier as well. Is it a question that they look at things differently or more critically than how we either --
MR. BOUCHER: You're talking specifically with regard to Libya?
QUESTION: No, no, not just Libya, but other areas of well. And is it a question of --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: -- even with the Libyans, how you add up these facts and totals?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think so. When it comes to human rights or support for terrorism, I think we're very clear on what we expect. In proceeding with Libya on issues of the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction, lifting some of the economic, some of the restrictions on economic interactions, allowing Americans to travel there and some of the other steps that we've taken, we've been operating in, I think, a very deliberate and careful manner to move forward as the Libyans forward. The President made clear that goodwill will be -- good faith will be rewarded. And we are doing that. We're responding to the good faith that has been shown on these specific issues by the Libyans.
At the same time, that has not, in any way, eliminated other concerns that we have about terrorism, about human rights, about other policies and issues that we will need -- that we are taking up and will need to continue to take up with the Libyan leadership as we develop some kind of relationship.
Charlie.
QUESTION: Richard, would you go back to one of the things you said in your statement, the first statement, and be, perhaps, a little more forthcoming and let us know exactly how this was raised at the highest levels? Was it raised with Colonel Qadhafi himself? Was it raised by Secretary Powell, Assistant Secretary Burns on his trip, or by our diplomats in Libya?
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, Secretary Powell hasn't meet with Colonel Qadhafi or other --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) was it raised --
MR. BOUCHER: Oh. This was raised, I think, a number of times by U.S. diplomats in meetings with Libyan officials. It was raised, I think, first, late last year at one of the meetings in London that we had when we had U.S.-U.K. Libyan meetings, even before the President's announcement on weapons of mass destruction. It was raised late last year at one of those meetings. The issue of using violence for political ends was raised directly by Assistant Secretary Burns when he met with Libyan leader Qadhafi earlier this year, and again, received the assurances.
QUESTION: That's when he was in Tripoli?
MR. BOUCHER: When he was in Tripoli, yeah.
Teri.
QUESTION: So until the claims came out again, was the U.S. reassured, as Libya wanted you to be, that this did not -- that this was not truly something that the Libyan leadership was supporting? And you haven't said anything about whether you're concerned about this, whether you -- that you're worried that this will throw either negotiations with Libya off track or that the Administration has been overlooking terrorism, you know, continuing terrorism there.
MR. BOUCHER: First, the Administration has not been overlooking continuing terrorism. We've made very clear all along terrorism was a very important issue as regards our relationship with Libya, that we did not intend to lift the terrorism sanctions until it was clear that Libya's behavior, Libya's record, justified it. And that's what I'm telling you again today.
Second of all, we, I think, have also made clear all along that the pace and progress that we can make with Libya would depend on the things that we could do and that Libya would do. We have made good progress with regard to weapons of mass destruction and we have taken the steps with regards to economic relations and presence of diplomats and travel of Americans that we felt were appropriate in view of Libya's progress in those areas. But as we head towards a more normal relationship, we will continue to raise these other issues and we won't take the steps on the other issues until we believe that it becomes appropriate for them as well.
QUESTION: But did you believe them when you checked into it last time, and are you -- how concerned are you now that this might, in fact, be true?
MR. BOUCHER: Whether it's the truth of the allegations, I think, is something that need to be established by investigation. At this point, I'm not able to comment on any investigations. I'm only able to say that knowing that there were these allegations, we felt it was very important for us to go directly to the Libyans and to make sure that they were not involved in such matters, and to make sure that they had a policy of not being involved in such matters.
QUESTION: Did you believe them when they told you they weren't?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into questions of the truth of the allegations. I'm going to tell you that we went directly to the Libyans. They Libyans have told us that they would not support, that they would not support -- that they would not support the use of violence for settling political differences with any state, and that is a promise and a commitment that we expect to hold them to.
QUESTION: Can you talk about the (inaudible) and Saudi Arabia on this issue? How have you raised it with them?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't actually know to what extent it's been discussed with Saudi Arabia. I'm sure we're in touch with them, but I don't have the details of that.
Arshad.
QUESTION: Richard, there's something that I don't quite understand, and forgive me if I missed something, but I've heard, I think, almost everything you've said. It's not clear to me whether you -- whether these allegations could call into question the relaxing of U.S. sanctions that has already been put into effect by the United States toward Libya. It's a particularly important question because when you relaxed those, when the President relaxed those sanctions, he didn't abolish them by Executive Order; he issued a general license providing for exceptions to the sanctions, which remain on the books.
So my question is, it sounded like, from what you said, that the steps you've taken so far are sort of sacrosanct and you're not going to go back on them. And I wonder if that's the case or if it's possible that you might rethink some of the relaxing of economic sanctions that you have already undertaken.
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's a variation on some of the questions we were just discussing. But I would say that we've, I think, made clear that we are moving carefully and deliberately with regard to Libya, that we have taken these steps in response to specific actions that Libya has already taken.
In terms of destroying weapons of mass destruction, as you remember the President said in December, that Libya's good faith in that regard would create a -- engender a response from the United States, and indeed, we've done so.
So those steps were taken on the basis of what concrete actions that Libya took on specific matters of concern. We felt we took steps that were tantamount, that were sufficiently justified by the steps that they had already taken. In terms of further steps, particularly further steps with regard to the terrorism sanctions, Libya will have to meet the requirement for us to take those steps.
QUESTION: The reason I -- if I may have one follow-up. The thing that perplexes me about it is that, as you well know, most of the sanctions which the President decided to relax earlier this year were imposed directly in response to terrorist acts by the Libyan Government under Colonel Qadhafi.
So it seems a bit odd if it turns out that Colonel Qadhafi is trying to assassinate other foreign leaders, which would seem to fit your definition of terrorism, that you wouldn't rethink relaxing those sanctions which are -- you know, which are there because of past Libyan terrorism.
MR. BOUCHER: The sanctions were imposed for a variety of reasons, often related directly to actions that Libya had taken with regard to terrorism. I think we've noted that Libya has taken some actions in the other direction with regard to terrorism. But for us to proceed any further, with regard to terrorism sanctions, it will be important to know that they've met our requirements and the legal requirements.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about something else?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Okay. I can't? (Laughter.) I can take no for an answer.
MR. BOUCHER: George.
QUESTION: A compensation question. It seems to me there's same sort of deadline next month by which sanctions must be lifted; otherwise, compensation payments to families of the victims of Pan Am 103 don't get the next tranche. What was your understanding of that?
MR. BOUCHER: Our understanding of that is there is something like that that I'm sure the lawyers and the families will be able to explain to you. It's in the agreement that they concluded.
QUESTION: But you have more than a passing interest in this because compensation has got to be --
MR. BOUCHER: We have a strong interest on behalf of our families in making sure that they get what was promised to them, but also in making sure that Libya is never again involved in any acts of terrorism. And I think all our families, whose loved ones perished on Pan Am 103, more than anything else, they want to make sure that that never happens to another family.
And I think we all went into this with our -- working with the families and the arrangements that they have worked out, knowing that the U.S. Government was not in any position to make any promises with regard to lifting of the pressure on Libya to end any association with terror, and that, therefore, the, sort of, the various ESCOW clauses would only be triggered by changes in Libyan behavior, not by some decision by the U.S. Government at an arbitrary date.
And I have to say the families, and we, were quite both very comfortable knowing that because, as I said, our view is that their primary goal is to make sure that Libya is not involved in any acts of terrorism that might create the same tragedy for other families.
QUESTION: When you raised your concerns with the Libyans, and they said they would not use political violence against other states, did they actually deny that there had been a Libyan plot to assassinate Abdullah?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be able to speak for the Libyans in this matter.
QUESTION: So you're saying they assured you, you are speaking for what they said they would not do?
MR. BOUCHER: Because that is what they promised us, and that's the promise to which we expect to hold them.
QUESTION: But did you ask them specifically about the plot?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not able to say, on their behalf, whether they say they were involved or not.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On this allegation, is that the reason you raised it with the Libyans? Can you confirm that at least?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. I said, in response to reports last year that Libya was in contact with Saudi dissidents who have threatened violence against the Saudi royal family in the past. That was the allegation that first surfaced with us, and we went to them to say, we want to make sure that you're not involved in the use of violence for political means.
QUESTION: And was it raised directly with Qadhafi?
MR. BOUCHER: I answered that question five minutes ago. I'll stick with my answer.
QUESTION: Now can I change the subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Sure.
QUESTION: Congressman Engel of the Bronx and 11 other members of the House press -- are asking the State Department to pressure Syria to release -- I'm sure I'll mess the name up, but it looks like Noaisse. He's supposed to be the president, a human rights leader, the head of a human rights group in Syria.
Is there anything on that that you can --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll have to check on it. I haven't seen the letter.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, okay. Sir.
QUESTION: President Bush yesterday, in his meeting with the new President of Iraq, Mr. al-Yawar, according to Reuters, he discussed Syria and the possibility or prospects of new and better maybe opening in the relations between United States and Syria, and obtaining the cooperation of Syria on issues of security and the sovereignty of Iraq and, you know, the future of Iraq.
This took place last night in parallel with a similar letter from Mr. Blair, the Prime Minister of Britain, to the President of Syria promising new partnership and new cooperation in many others ways. Is the State Department aware of any new activities, diplomatic activities, where maybe President Bush and President Assad might arrange a meeting next -- during the NATO conference in the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate. I'm not going to encourage any speculation. But everything you've asked me is about the White House and Sea Island and all the things taking place down there, and I have to leave it to the people in the White House and at Sea Island to brief on anything that's been discussed down there.
As far as the basic policy goes on this, I would make clear that we have repeatedly and continuously said to the Syrians that they need to adjust to the new circumstances in the region, they need to take more responsibility in terms of supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people to create a democratic, peaceful and independent state; they need to support those aspirations by better protecting their borders, keeping foreign terrorists from crossing, returning money from the old regime to the Iraqi people and in a variety of other ways. And so if Syria were to change its behavior on those points, we would be happy to see that. But at this point, I don't have anything to say as far as whether Syria's, in fact, changed its behavior on those points.
QUESTION: But President Bush positive statement yesterday is actually prompting new discussion in the Middle East, but whether the -- I mean, the American presidents in the past, like Mr. President Nixon, President Carter, President --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to join you or encourage any kind of speculation like that. I don't think it's warranted. But I'll leave it to the White House to discuss it.
QUESTION: But I do have two questions on Syria, as a matter of fact, if I may. The Syrian Ambassador has launched what I think you could call a peace offensive. There's at least one published report reflecting a new willingness, maybe a renewed willingness, to reach an agreement with Israel. So number one, have you heard any such emanations in Damascus? Secondly, Zalman Shoval is an advisor and a former ambassador, advisor to Sharon, Israel; said yesterday that Syria has moved from being just a conduit of weapons shipments to folks like Hezbollah to actually providing them with the weapons. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure what the difference is in the second part. But we've been very concerned about Syrian support, materiel support, and other support, financial and otherwise, for groups that engage in terrorism, in particular, Hezbollah. I don't think I've ever been in a position to go into too much detail about what we knew, but we know that there is certainly such support and we would expect it to end.
As far as the first thing goes and emanations from Damascus --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: Well, from the --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) You're right, yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you do look back at the last few months, you've seen a number of statements from the Syrian leadership about wanting to pursue peace, to be included in the peace process. And I think every time we have made clear that we do continue to see the process as a comprehensive one. We would certainly welcome any real willingness to move forward on peace with Israel and peace in the region, but again, made clear that it's hard to reconcile those kind of statements with the support for violent groups that are trying to kill the dreams of the Palestinians and undermine any hopes for peace. So at some point, we say, yes, we're willing to move forward on those things, but we want to see something from Syria other than the periodic statements.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Earlier today, 11 Chinese rail workers were killed in, I believe, a terrorist attack in Afghan. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm afraid I don't. I don't know anything about that. That would have to come out of the region, I think.
QUESTION: Recently, also, the U.S. Ambassador visited Hunan Province in China, one of the provinces suffered most from AIDS problem. I'm just wondering, do you have any detail to share with us about U.S. plan to help China on this battle?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that. I'll see if there's anything we can get you.
QUESTION: Also, an AIDS activist was detained and beaten up, abused recently, because of his view on the Tiananmen massacre.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. We've been concerned about reports that Mr. Hu Jia, who has worked to support victims of HIV and AIDS, that he was placed under house arrest last week, was beaten -- and was beaten by police when he tried to leave his home. We don't have any further information on the incident itself, but we have raised our concerns about these reports and about the possibility that Mr. Hu might be detained with Chinese authorities through our Embassy in Beijing.
Saul.
QUESTION: More on China stories?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: One, do you have a schedule for Secretary to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary will meet with the Chinese Foreign Minister tomorrow morning early. I think it's 8:30. We'll get back and we'll confirm the time once we know it's (inaudible).
QUESTION: Another thing is, since we're doing President Reagan's story, any thinking about Mr. Reagan's August 17th joint communiqué with China that U.S. will still keep on holding on the principles in the communiqué?
MR. BOUCHER: The communiqué that President Reagan signed is one of the three communiqués that is part of our One China policy, along with the Taiwan Relations Act. So it's something that, as you know, we've reiterated our adherence to repeatedly. It forms a part of our basic structure of the relationship with China.
Okay, Saul.
QUESTION: Can you tell us at what level the next Quartet meeting will be?
MR. BOUCHER: The announcement today in Georgia was that the Quartet would be meeting -- that will be at the envoy level -- during the course of the month. And as stated in Georgia, the goal is to look for the opportunities to move forward on the roadmap and with other efforts to develop peace in the region.
QUESTION: At Burns' level?
MR. BOUCHER: Burns' level, yeah. The envoy level.
QUESTION: Did it --
MR. BOUCHER: It'll be in the region. I'm not able at this point to be too precise about the date and the place. That's still being set up.
QUESTION: Envoy is like a Burns' level?
MR. BOUCHER: Bill Burns, yeah. Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns. William J. Burns II.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, still on the legacy by President Reagan, maybe. I think he also wrote a letter to the President of Taiwan following the communiqué, and later that letter was made public, the sixth assurance. Maybe, I guess, maybe you want to share with us the impact of that as the legacy?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not prepared to make grand historic statements, I'm sorry, today. I think we'll leave that to historians to talk about President Reagan's legacy more than I can at this moment.
Sir.
QUESTION: Any news on the six-party talks today?
MR. BOUCHER: If you ask the question that way, the answer, I think, is no. Well, the answer to news on the six-party talks is, no, I don't have any news on the six-party talks. We've made clear our willingness to attend meetings the week of June 21st. We're waiting to hear back now from the Chinese on their contacts with the North Koreans.
As your colleague noted, the Secretary will be meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister tomorrow morning. They have the opportunity to do that. I'm sure they'll talk about the situation with North Korea and the six-party talks.
We'll also be having meetings with South Korean and Japanese counterparts. Assistant Secretary Kelly will meet with them in Washington, June 13 and 14th, for informal consultations on North Korea. The idea here is to coordinate positions for a six-party working group that might be held, and we're, as I said, we're prepared to participate in such meetings in the week of June 21st.
There will be bilateral meetings with each of the delegations from South Korea and Japan on Sunday afternoon. We understand they'll meet bilaterally on Monday, and then there will be a trilateral discussion.
QUESTION: You cannot comment on the speculations among the Korean and Japanese diplomatic community that United States might give up the term "CVID," if it's helpful to proceed with --
MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't want to speculate. I think we've made clear the substance of this right from the start. There needs to be a complete elimination of programs to develop nuclear weapons, of all nuclear programs. It needs to be done in such a way that we don't have to worry about this kind of crisis again. It needs to be done in such a way that we don't pay again for something that North Korea never should have done.
And so whatever the words are, the fundamental substance of this is that North Korea needs to give up its nuclear programs in a way that's not going to threaten its neighborhood ever again; everybody has recognized that in terms of the discussions that we've had.
I think the Chinese had after one of the rounds indicated, in fact, that there was consensus, that the goal had to be denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and what we need to do now is to sit down in the working groups in the further plenary sessions and discuss how that can be achieved.
Yeah, ma'am.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the U.S.? And how about the trilateral discussion you mentioned?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I said --
QUESTION: When? When is that?
MR. BOUCHER: Monday.
QUESTION: And at the Foreign Minister level?
MR. BOUCHER: No, this is Assistant Secretary Kelly's level, if I didn't make it that clear. The meetings on Sunday and Monday will be Assistant Secretary Kelly and his counterparts from Japan and South Korea.
Okay, sir.
QUESTION: Given the doubts that the Chinese cast on North Korea's uranium enrichment program, will the Secretary tomorrow be talking to the Chinese Foreign Minister about that?
MR. BOUCHER: I expect we'll be interested in seeing what the Chinese Foreign Minister might have to say on that.
QUESTION: Do you understand that the Chinese position is that they don't believe that North Korea has a --
MR. BOUCHER: I understand that we'll have a chance to hear from the Chinese tomorrow as to what their actual position is.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Tomorrow's meeting, just as a follow-up --
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you also expect to raise the previously mentioned house detention and beating of the AIDS activist --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, this is a meeting that provides an opportunity to talk with the Chinese Foreign Minister, who's made the trip all this way in order to be present at the funeral tomorrow of President Reagan. As you know, the Secretary has been very busy these past few days with world events.
But also, in terms of the Department, and getting ready for these events tomorrow, there is not a lot of time for discussion of other issues around this service that's being held tomorrow, but he is taking the opportunity to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister in the morning. How many topics, or to what extent they'll be able to discuss some of these things, I don't know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 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 |
|
|
|
