25 June 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, June 25
North Korea, Sudan, UN Human Rights Commission/investigation into prisoner detainees in Iraq/Afghanistan/Guantanamo
Deputy State Department Spokesman Adam Ereli briefed reports June 25.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, June 25, 2004
12:50 p.m. EDT
BRIEFER: Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
NORTH KOREA
-- Extended Meeting and Six-Party Plenary Session
-- Consideration of Various Proposals
-- Anonymous Official's Comments on the Threat to Test Nuclear Weapon/Characterization of Comment/Conditions for Nuclear Freeze/Impact on Talks -- Scope of Nuclear Program/Proliferation
-- U.S. Policy for a Denuclearized Korean Peninsula
-- Multilateral Diplomatic Effort
-- Combating the Problem of Proliferation
-- Agreed Framework of 1994
SUDAN
-- Interagency Meetings/Diplomatic Activity
-- Reports on President Bashir's Plan to Disarm Militias/Possible Retraction of Plan
-- Status on the Determination of Genocide
-- Humanitarian Crisis
-- Query on Ambassador Prosper/Identification of Individual Militia Members/Sanctions
-- U.S. Message on Darfur
-- Secretary's Upcoming Meetings in Darfur/Individuals Traveling With the Secretary -- Examination of the Issue of Genocide
Miscellaneous
-- UN Human Rights Officials Request to Investigate Prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:50 p.m. EDT
MR. ERELI: Good afternoon. I don't have any announcements, so I'll be happy to take your questions.
QUESTION: An anonymous official is being quoted in Beijing as saying North Korea has threatened to test nuclear weapons unless Washington accepts North Korea's condition for a freeze and that this threat jeopardizes talks, negotiations. There are all sorts of possible reasons for someone going anonymous and running this up the flagpole.
But can you elaborate a bit and tell us, can you verify, because you're speaking on the record, has North Korea threatened this, and why would an American official under a cloak of anonymity say this in the midst of negotiations, if he wants negotiations to succeed?
MR. ERELI: Let me, rather than answer speculative questions, stick to --
QUESTION: That's not a speculative question.
MR. ERELI: -- stick to the --
QUESTION: You brought it up, the anonymous official, not me.
MR. ERELI: -- stick to what happened in Beijing today and try to elaborate a little bit on how we see the talks going.
Today, there was an extended meeting between China and North Korea, followed by a plenary session of the six parties; and then, in the afternoon, their heads of delegation met to consider next steps. We would characterize the overall atmosphere of the talks as constructive. The parties have been earnest in exploring the various proposals put forward.
We expect this process to continue following the closing of the talks tomorrow when delegations return to their capitals and give thoughtful consideration to the proposals that were presented in Beijing. We certainly do not expect immediate answers or responses from the other delegations including the North Koreans.
There has been a lot written about the issue of a threat from the North Koreans to test. There have been a variety of quotes in the press. I would say, on the record, that the remarks that are being reported were not phrased as a threat, number one. It was phrased as a statement that some in Pyongyang wanted to test a nuclear weapon. This is not something new.
We've heard these sort of comments before. It was not phrased or given as an ultimatum, but rather, to the contrary, I think we came away from these -- from this discussion, from this long and involved and engaged discussion with the firm view that the North Koreans are going to give our proposal very serious consideration.
QUESTION: Sounds like a Mutt and Jeff routine. (Laughter.) The North Koreans say, hey, there is a guy back there, Crazy Eddie, you know, and he wants to do horrible things and if you'll deal with us, we'll work something out. But that's just my inference. But I don't know why.
I mean, do you feel -- and thank you that was a solid answer -- but do you feel that this official, this anonymous official -- some of us might not have much of a problem guessing who he is, but this anonymous official was misquoted, or do you think he, the official, misinterpreted -- or she -- misinterpreted what was said at the table, if it was at the table -- or was it at the table?
MR. ERELI: Again, I will limit myself to -- limit myself to on-the-record comments, the comments that I can verify and not engage in speculation, as to why anonymous officials might have said certain things or what they meant. But our view is that these have been constructive talks, that the proposals are getting serious consideration, and that we have a good basis for moving forward.
QUESTION: Let me ask a quick one. I'm asking too much. But just to be quick, you say that there's constructive stuff going on, the talks will recess tomorrow. With a live thing going on, do you expect an early resumption of the talks?
MR. ERELI: When talks resume, I think, is something that will be discussed tomorrow. The important point is that the next step is for parties to go back to capitals and give the proposals consideration and follow-on steps will depend on that.
QUESTION: I'm going to pick up on Barry's Mutt and Jeff theme. But I don't think the Mutt and Jeff routine is going on Pyongyang so much as it is here. Does the Administration concede that certain elements within it are trying to, perhaps, sabotage the talks with these kinds of comments? And has anyone been spoken to about saying things that are semi-inflammatory in nature?
MR. ERELI: I will leave it to you to characterize comments made. I think we, as a delegation, have been very firm and consistent in our support of the President's policy, which is that the United States is -- wants to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and we are committed to achieving that end through a diplomatic process. This was a view that was stated very clearly by our head of delegation and was supported by the rest of the delegation and is the directive of the President, and I think that everybody involved in this supports that and follows it and is committed to applying that policy.
QUESTION: Well, perhaps -- and I hesitate to ask this -- but perhaps you might offer some of us advice on whether or not we should actually listen to people in certain quarters of this building or other buildings when they come out with statements like this. I mean, should -- in your view, were the comments expressed by this official or these officials, were they accurate?
MR. ERELI: Actually, this morning I read pretty carefully the reporting that was done on the talks by wire services, by print media, by televised media, and reading through the reporting I thought it was done pretty well, actually, in terms of characterizing what was said and how the talks went and getting a -- conveying a feel for both the tenor and the substance of the talks.
So what was done was taking stock of all that was said and all the information that was out there and putting it together in a fairly accurate and representative way.
QUESTION: I'm not talking about --
MR. ERELI: And rather than focus on some quotes by some officials or some quotes by other officials, the body of reporting, based on the information that was made available to you, was strong.
QUESTION: I'm not talking about the reporting. I'm talking about the characterization of a senior official saying that this threat, if it could be a threat, would jeopardize the talks.
MR. ERELI: Well, the talks are going on and the talks --
QUESTION: Well, is that true or not?
MR. ERELI: I would not concur with that assessment.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Adam, can you explain what you meant when you said the North Korean -- you've got the view that the North Koreans will seriously consider the proposal? Is that because they've directly told you they'll seriously consider this or is it just sort of the atmospherics of the talks?
MR. ERELI: They characterized our proposal as positive and said they would consider it.
QUESTION: In private?
MR. ERELI: Yes.
QUESTION: In what way positive? Positive because you've detailed a proposal or there are positive things in it?
MR. ERELI: I couldn't elaborate more than that for you. For more elaboration, I refer you to the North Koreans.
QUESTION: Would you -- Adam, when you say that we're going to -- all the capitals are going to go back and give thought to the proposals, are you indicating that the U.S. would -- and other parties are willing to consider the North Korean proposal, that it would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for certain compensation?
MR. ERELI: I don't want to speak for other delegations.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. willing to consider those?
MR. ERELI: There are a number of substantive ideas designed to advance the common goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And I think before we -- and there needs to be a period of consideration and reflection based on those proposals before deciding how to move forward.
Yes, the North Koreans have put forth ideas. I think we've made clear fairly consistently our views on what needs to be done, and that's how I would characterize our response to the North Korean ideas.
Yes. Saul.
QUESTION: Is there any parts of the proposal that they said, okay, it's positive in general, but we don't like this, we're not going to seriously consider this? Or are they taking the whole package and saying, we're going to look at every element of it?
MR. ERELI: Let me put it this way. We had a two and half hour meeting with the North Koreans yesterday. There were a -- there were numerous aspects of our proposal and the North Korean views that were discussed. It is a, I would say, multifaceted and complex issue and leave it at that.
QUESTION: In the two-and-a-half hour meeting, are you still calling that a meeting on the margins? Are you actually acknowledging that you're having bilateral meetings with the North Koreans?
MR. ERELI: These are meetings between delegations in the context of six-party talks. They are not separate negotiations. They are part of a multilateral diplomatic effort to reach a solution on this issue.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Elise's question? Your -- were you seeking to comment on what North Korea said this morning in the statement or today in the statement that they read outside their embassy in Beijing, where they made a bunch of specific demands, including fuel oil from the United States?
MR. ERELI: No, I have not seen that statement.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. ERELI: Yes, Teri.
QUESTION: Could I change the subject?
MR. ERELI: North Korea?
QUESTION: North Korea. Are the North Koreans playing a bit of a shell game? And the focus has been in the upcoming months on having peace talks to deactivate their nuclear reactor programs. But if they've been shipping, for instance, components and other technologies, for instance, to Iran or Libya earlier, has anyone spoken to them concerning the proliferation, shifting that technology and expertise elsewhere as well?
MR. ERELI: The full -- we remain concerned by the full scope of North Korea's nuclear program, not only its activity in North Korea, but also its proliferation activity. We have made clear that concern, and I would point to the very active and intensive efforts in support of the Proliferation Security Initiative that are directed in that -- directed toward that issue.
QUESTION: Just one more on this one. If you could speak on the bigger issue of proliferation, in general -- and here you have two members of the so-called "axis of evil," Iran, North Korea, both big concerns about nuclear weapons there, is there a concern -- I mean, this Administration came on board saying it was going to try and curb proliferation. Are you afraid that this is getting out of control or that there's actually more of a spread of nuclear weapons than you feared?
MR. ERELI: To the contrary. I think that in the last three years we've seen significant progress in combating the problem of proliferation. First and foremost, you have the breakup of the Abdul Qadeer Khan network, which brought to light a host of activities that had long been suspected or had been documented in part but had not been understood in all the interconnected complexity. That was a breakthrough -- that was one breakthrough.
Another breakthrough, frankly, was the work with Libya in getting Libya to foreswear its WMD programs. Another breakthrough was, as I just said, the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is a landmark undertaking between countries working together to identify and intervene and stop proliferation activities.
The third -- or the fourth significant, I think, development is the President's speech at, I believe, the War College and call for the United Nations to act to stop proliferation and the steps that have been taken in that direction.
So I think if you go to the specific cases that you mentioned, North Korea and Iran, you also see us ahead of the game of where we were a number of years ago. With respect to Iran, as early as three years ago, the international community had not bought into the premise that we had long contended that Iraq* had a clandestine nuclear program that represented a threat to international peace and security. I think now, as a result of our diplomacy and our persistent efforts to work through multilateral institutions, that it is -- that that premise is now widely accepted, number one; and number two, there has been collective action to do something about it.
With respect to North Korea, again, their nuclear programs have long been recognized and long been of concern but that dealing with that concern has been a frustrating exercise. And we look back to the Agreed Framework in 1994 where you had a freeze, but that freeze they cheated and not only continued activity but expanded activity. So now we're back at it again but in a very different way and we believe a much more effective way: (a) because it's multilateral; and (b) because it presents as its goal not a freeze but the verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of all of North Korea's nuclear programs.
So I think if you ask the question, "Are we better off or worse off than we were, I think the evidence is quite compelling that there's been significant progress made, both in terms of collective action against proliferation, as well as concentrating on and achieving progress on specific cases.
QUESTION: I'd just like to congratulate you on the longest answer ever from the podium and ask if you took lessons from Strom Thurmond in filibustering. That was quite impressive. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay, now on Sudan.
MR. ERELI: On North Korea.
QUESTION: North Korea is still denying uranium enrichment program. Can you go ahead with your proposal or can you consider the North Korean proposal without the admission of uranium enrichment program?
MR. ERELI: Our proposal is based on complete disarmament and that means all nuclear activity, including enrichment activity.
Yes, Iran.
QUESTION: Has there been any talk that you know of about contingency planning for a possible military intervention on behalf of humanitarian aid deliveries and can you tell us anything about a high-level meeting yesterday at the NSC on Sudan where State Department officials were present?
MR. ERELI: On the military contingencies and military support for assistance, let me look into that and get back to you. I'll take the question.
QUESTION: You're working with USAID on that.
MR. ERELI: Right. Right. Let me see what we have available.
On the meeting yesterday, there was a meeting yesterday, I believe -- if it wasn't yesterday, it was the day before -- but I would put it this way. There are regular interagency meetings on Sudan. I think that as we -- as you know, we've been very active diplomatically to address the crisis in Sudan. That level of activity requires pretty consistent meeting, planning, coordination. It's -- at an interagency level. So yeah, there was a meeting in the last couple days, but there are meetings very regularly.
QUESTION: And you don't know anything about whether the agenda of this last meeting may have --
MR. ERELI: Well, the agenda covers the issues that you'd expect.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. ERELI: You know, what steps are we taking, what's the Sudanese response, what steps do we need to take looking ahead, what government agency needs to do what in order to get this taken care of.
So if you look at what we're doing, both in terms of getting aid there, supporting the African Union, working through the UN, all of those activities go -- walk back from that, require different parts of this government to do different things, and these meetings coordinate that.
QUESTION: And one more. Are you aware of press reports out of Khartoum that after the Sudanese Government said it was going to disarm the Jingaweit, they came back with an explanation a couple days later saying, we weren't really talking about the government-armed militias, we thought we would start with the rebels, and then some of the other armed groups in the area.
MR. ERELI: Yeah, we -- we've seen, on the one hand, President Bashir's declaration that the militias will be disarmed. We haven't seen any real follow-through on that. And then on the other hand, we've also heard reports that he may be retracting that statement. Once again, our position is that we strongly urge the Government of Sudan to fulfill President Bashir's declaration and immediately disarm the militias and provide unfettered humanitarian access.
QUESTION: Do you imagine that Secretary Powell will come back with a clarification on this?
MR. ERELI: I would imagine.
QUESTION: Yesterday, up on the Hill, Ambassador Prosper said that there were -- that there was evidence of -- some evidence that a genocide might be occurring and that things were pointing in that direction, said that the determination hadn't yet been made. He also named seven Sudanese, I presume, officials or people who are affiliated with the Jingaweit and said that those people should be investigated and brought to justice.
In your -- first of all, is the genocide review still underway, is it still going on, has any determination been reached? And secondly, these seven people, are these people who would be -- he specifically talked about them being tried for war crimes -- and I'm wondering your talk last week about sanctions, targeted sanctions against specific individuals -- are these seven people that he mentioned yesterday going to be punished? Are these sanctions going to be imposed on them?
MR. ERELI: Let me make a couple points here. I did not see the text of Ambassador Prosper's remarks, so I don't want to respond to them exactly since I don't know exactly what they were. Let me say the following. Number one, the issue of, is what is happening in Darfur -- does what is happening in Darfur constitute genocide as Ambassador Prosper said is under review. That review is looking at the evidence that we have now. A determination has yet to be made. As Ambassador Boucher said, it's important that we get all the information we can in order to make informed and legally defensible decision.
That said, whether you call it genocide, or whether you call it ethnic cleansing, clearly there are atrocities being committed. The United States views with the greatest degree of concern the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and we are acting accordingly. There is nothing holding us -- the determination of whether it's genocide or not is not holding us back in any way in terms of our response to the crisis and our -- the energy which we're putting into marshaling an international response to the crisis.
With respect to the individuals mentioned by Ambassador Prosper, I don't know which individuals he mentioned. What I can tell you is, we have said we are going to identify individual members of the militia, the Jingaweit for sanctions, based on their involvement in ethnic cleansing.
QUESTION: But you don't know if his identification of them yesterday on the Hill means that they are going to be sanctioned?
MR. ERELI: Well, we are going to sanction Jingaweit members. Which Jingaweit members of the Jingaweit -- which Jingaweit leaders precisely I couldn't tell you.
QUESTION: Can you find out if that -- I mean, he said -- he named these people and then said that they need to be investigated and brought to justice for what he said were war crimes, atrocities that might amount to war crimes. And I just want to know if, I mean, if it's possible to take the question, whether these seven people are like the first on a list of people who are going to be --
MR. ERELI: Well, let's -- let me see if I can clarify for you what individuals we're talking about and what actions are going to be taken against them.
QUESTION: Okay. And the other thing is that he said that he had tried for -- been trying for some time unsuccessfully to get permission to go to Darfur. Do you know if he will be accompanying Secretary Powell next week?
MR. ERELI: I don't think so. I don't think so.
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But will part of the Secretary's -- in his discussions will he seek to try and open up Darfur to people like Ambassador Prosper and other officials and investigators of possible war crimes?
MR. ERELI: Our message is going to be clear and I think -- is going to be clear: Stop the violence and let humanitarian aid workers and humanitarian supplies into Darfur; and the world needs to know what is going on there.
QUESTION: But given the difficulties on access that you have -- you and other senior officials have complained about for weeks, probably months at this point, why not take -- and Ambassador Prosper yesterday said, and I realize you don't -- haven't seen the text yet, but he said that they needed to have people on the ground to help figure out whether they can get the evidence to make a judgment on genocide. And are you or are you not -- is the Secretary originally taking any people like Mr. Prosper or other people in his office who can make those kinds of evidentiary determination? And if not, why not? You're getting access. You might as well bring some people along.
MR. ERELI: This is -- the Secretary is taking with him USAID Administrator Natsios. There are -- there is a DART, Disaster Assistance Relief Team, on the ground. Clearly it's important that we get a full understanding of the situation both from -- in Darfur both from a humanitarian aspect as well as a war crimes or crimes against humanity aspect. And I think that that will be something we continue to push.
Right now, the idea was for the Secretary to go, have himself get a view of the situation and an assessment and understanding of how aid is getting through, what the conditions are, and in due course, I think, we will work to get additional assets there.
QUESTION: Just to follow up. Why not take some lawyers now? I mean, the reason is we're not talking about some -- we're talking about something that is deadly serious, and that is the question of whether genocide is being perpetrated against a group of people. Why not take some lawyers right now?
MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that lawyers have said we want to go right now.
QUESTION: Well, look at Prosper's testimony and, you know --
MR. ERELI: I don't think Ambassador Prosper said, "I want to go to Iraq -- I want to go to Sudan tomorrow."
QUESTION: Yeah, he did, actually. (Laughter.) He said I wanted to go to Sudan yesterday, in fact.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: It's a serious question, though. You're talking about genocide and you have the Secretary of State going there. Why not take some people who can make legal evidentiary determinations along?
MR. ERELI: I think that we are looking seriously at the issue of genocide. That examination is a careful, deliberative process that people are working on and that there will be no obstacles from our end put in the way of people doing the work that they need to do to make a timely conclusion to this examination.
Whether or not lawyers go on this trip I do not think is something that is going to impede the examination of the issue.
QUESTION: So, Adam, does it follow -- it seems to follow to me but I would ask your confirmation -- certainly no determination of genocide will happen before the Secretary returns, from what you're saying?
MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that a decision is imminent.
QUESTION: How long has this been under review?
MR. ERELI: I couldn't tell you.
QUESTION: On the issue of sanctions, so you're definitely going to put sanctions on individual members of the Jingaweit.
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What about the government?
MR. ERELI: That's something we're looking at.
QUESTION: Still looking at that?
MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But you've made the decision definitely Jingaweit and you're not ruling it out but maybe some members of the government?
MR. ERELI: Right. Yes.
QUESTION: Adam, what are you feelings -- United Nations human rights officials have said that they would like investigations of -- about prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo to examine torture, independence of judges and lawyers and they want that particular project to begin as soon as possible. They are also, I suppose, irritated with your '98 agreements.
MR. ERELI: Who is making this request?
QUESTION: United Nations investigators. What are your feelings concerning that?
MR. ERELI: Well, the acting chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva has done a number of -- made a number of trips and his organization's people have made a number of trips to Iraq and to Afghanistan. They have issued reports. We certainly respect and value the work of the United Nations and the relevant officials and I think have been fairly cooperative in supportive of their efforts.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:25 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 |
|
|
|
