19 July 2004
State Department Noon Briefing, July 19
Iraq, Japan, Iran, Israel/Palestinians, Sudan, Bolivia, Uzbekistan, Under Secretary Bolton Travel, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Greece
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed reporters July 19.
Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, July 19, 2004
12:30 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
IRAQ
-- Reopening of al Sadr's Newspaper
JAPAN
-- Sergeant Charles Jenkins
-- Ambassador Baker Meeting with Foreign Minister Kawaguchi/Delay of Request for Custody
IRAN
-- U.S. Concerns
-- Role in Iraq
-- Iranian Support for Terrorists
-- Little Progress on Issues of Concern
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Palestinian Authority/Need for Security
SUDAN
-- Collecting Information on Darfur
BOLIVIA
-- Successful Referendum on Natural Gas
UZBEKISTAN
-- Reallocation of Assistance Money
DEPARTMENT
-- Under Secretary Bolton Travel
NORTH KOREA
-- Travel of Diplomats to Washington D.C.
IRAQ
-- International Coalition Participating in Security
IRAN
-- Trial on Death of Canadian Journalist Zahraa Kazwemi
GREECE
-- Security of Olympics
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
MONDAY, JULY 17, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:30 p.m. EDT
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements for you today. I'd be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, they have subsided, but there were rumors, reports, horrendous reports that the Prime Minister of Iraq has dispatched, executed opponents, that he's had opponents executed. It's been disputed already by the head of the mission, but I wondered if the U.S. has seen anything like this.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any information like that. I think he, himself, said it was just plain not true on Friday. I haven't, frankly, looked into it much beyond that.
QUESTION: Change the subject?
QUESTION: I was still on Iraq. Do you have any comment on the Iraqi interim government decision to allow newspaper-affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr to resume publication?
MR. BOUCHER: Not a whole lot. It's their decision. It's their decision how to handle questions of publishing, how to handle their laws, in order to maintain security while protecting freedom of speech. Obviously, they're going to have to deal with the political situation and also with the situation related to Mr. al-Sadr in terms of the Iraqi indictment and other things relating to him. But it's their decision now. That's what the transfer of sovereignty was about.
QUESTION: So the U.S. Government had no position on this? I mean, they obviously shut -- you guys shut the paper down.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, the U.S. Government had the authority and had to make a decision; we made that decision. Now it's an Iraqi government decision. If they think this is the right decision now, then we respect that.
QUESTION: And you didn't weigh in on it, with --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know to what extent we might have come up in discussions that we've had with Iraqis. Deputy Secretary was there, as you know, for the last couple of days and we certainly have a good mission out there. But whatever our discussions are, it's ultimately their decision. They have to decide how to run their country.
Sir.
QUESTION: Change of subject --
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- to Sergeant Jenkins. The Japanese Prime Minister has said that it's worth negotiating while he's undergoing medical treatment to see if the United States would consider or make a special consideration for him. Are you involved in negotiations? Are you making a special consideration for him?
MR. BOUCHER: We have had a number of discussions with the Japanese Government about Sergeant Jenkins. As I think you all know, he's now in Japan. He'll be hospitalized. He has to undergo an operation, and then there's further medical treatment expected for a number of ailments.
Part of our continuing discussions on this, on Saturday in Tokyo, Ambassador Baker and members of his team, including representatives of the U.S. forces in Japan and U.S. Army in Japan, met with Foreign Minister Kawaguchi to discuss the issue of Sergeant Jenkins.
Our Ambassador explained that Sergeant Jenkins has been charged with desertion and other serious offenses, under the uniform code of military justice. He stated that Sergeant Jenkins is considered still on active duty as a member of U.S. Armed Forces.
Ambassador Jenkins (sic) explained that once Sergeant Jenkins is in Japan, which occurred Sunday, he's subject to U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. military.
He stated that the United States Government has the right to request custody of Sergeant Jenkins. Now, our Ambassador further explained that the United States will request custody of Sergeant Jenkins at the appropriate time. But he also acknowledged that we might delay the request because of Sergeant Jenkins' medical condition. So that's where we are now.
QUESTION: So when the Prime Minister says that during his stay in the hospital, there should be negotiations about special consideration, what's he talking about?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, as far as specifically what the Prime Minister might have in mind, you'll have to talk to the Prime Minister about. But I think it's clearly already that we are trying to work this very closely and carefully with our Japanese friends and allies, that we are considerate of the humanitarian situation of Sergeant Jenkins and the family. We're considerate of the medical condition and that while we do expect to present a legal request for custody at the appropriate time, we won't be doing that right away because of his medical condition. We'll keep in touch with the Japanese Government as we proceed in this matter.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say that you're not going to present that request until his treatment, his medical treatment, is done?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I could quite say when his medical treatment might be done or what would constitute it being done, so I'd just say for the moment we acknowledge that we would delay the request in light of his medical condition.
QUESTION: Is it -- have there been past precedents where you have chosen not to request custody of someone charged with desertion because of their medical condition?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
QUESTION: Just a last one. Generally on this, why is it worth prosecuting this guy, considering his age and his health?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a question that the military will have to address at the appropriate time if they decide to -- when they decide to go ahead with this request.
QUESTION: Richard, I have some questions about Iran. Over the weekend it's been said that there are -- the 9/11 attackers actually transited through Iran on their way to attacking the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia. And secondly, today the Council of Foreign Relations issued a report which is saying that it's hurting the United States because there hasn't been sustained contact over the 25 years and they're saying that there should be a change of a selected engagement. I would assume they're referring to the earthquake at the same timeframe that occurred at Bam. What -- do you have any remarks concerning all this?
MR. BOUCHER: On the first question of hijackers having passed through Iran, I think the acting director of Central Intelligence explained it quite well yesterday. I don't have any further information to what he provided.
On the second question of Iran policy and this report that's being presented, obviously, we'll look at the report. It's quite large; I just got a copy this morning. I think there's another one coming out at the same time. So we always look at those things to see what they say, see if there are any useful things we can pick up or implement from them.
I would say, though, that when examining our Iran policy, you have to say right up front, as we do, that we have longstanding differences with Iran, serious issues that need to be resolved for us to have a better relationship with Iran. We've had grave concerns about Iran's support for terrorism, Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its appalling human rights record. The Iranians are well aware of the kind of steps we expect of them to help overcome these concerns, and I'd have to say that, looking at the past year or two, even longer, our concerns are undiminished.
We have had a policy where we have, in the past, and would be willing again in the future, to address these concerns directly with Iran to discuss these issues in an appropriate manner, if and when the President determines it's in our interest to do that.
So, as you know from history, we've been willing to do that in the past, but we still have those concerns, and unfortunately, they're not diminished.
QUESTION: I wonder if there's a shading of difference when you got started, but I guess you came around to the way the policy has been stated for years.
The policy, as I understood it, is the U.S. is willing to talk to Iran, provided these issues are taken up at the table, and then you can't move forward unless something's constructive done about it.
MR. BOUCHER: I'd rather say it the way I said it.
QUESTION: Well, the way you said it --
MR. BOUCHER: The way you said it is not quite the same.
QUESTION: Okay, because the way you said it --
MR. BOUCHER: We have serious issues. We're willing to talk about these issues with Iran if we think it's appropriate and if we think it can be useful to us.
QUESTION: The reason, besides looking for any hint of a change in policy, you -- isn't it a fact that if you talk to Iran at all, that would be universally seen as a step toward a better relationship? Does that bother the U.S. Government?
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked to Iran in the past about these issues, and I don't think it was particularly seen as a step towards a better relationship because we were not able to resolve the issues in those discussions. If you have --
QUESTION: Yeah, but do --
MR. BOUCHER: Well --
QUESTION: -- you want 400 news reporters clogged out in the basement of the UN because you're going to talk to them about Afghanistan? If you talked to them about U.S.-Iranian relations, I think it'll get a little attention.
MR. BOUCHER: We've acknowledged that we've had discussions with Iran in the past about some of these issues, including terrorism in the region, and other things affecting the region. Unfortunately, unless we see progress in some of these areas, if we see Iran stop supporting the terrorists who have tried to undermine the hopes and dreams of the Palestinians, if we see Iran starting to comply with its nuclear commitments, with the requirements of the international community, if we see Iran improve its appalling human rights record, that's the time for people to start thinking that there's a prospect for something better in our relationship.
QUESTION: May I pursue it a minute? We had, the Associated Press, had the head of the Iraq mission in the office for an interview this morning, and she does not -- quite the opposite -- she does not think Iran is trying to foment instability in the region. She says she thinks they want stability in Iraq and she just doesn't accuse them of being behind these insurgents -- she mentions terrorist groups like Zarqawi and all, but she does not jump on Iran.
Does the U.S. share that view that Iran is not a force for unrest in -- well, I know you'd have to see her words, but that's -- she was quite clear about it, about her position.
MR. BOUCHER: I think you've been quite unclear about her position.
QUESTION: You do?
MR. BOUCHER: So I'd rather wait until I see what she actually said.
QUESTION: I wasn't clear? She --
MR. BOUCHER: She has said that they were not fomenting violence but they were supporting terrorists?
QUESTION: No, I didn't say that.
MR. BOUCHER: I got that wrong, then.
QUESTION: She said that Iran is not trying to foment instability, promote instability, in Iraq; they have as much reason as Iraq does for stability. When it got to terrorism, instead of citing Iran, she cited some well known terror groups, like the Zarqawi group.
MR. BOUCHER: All right. Let's --
QUESTION: By contrast.
MR. BOUCHER: I think it sounds like you asked her or she was talking about the situation in Iraq. We have been clear we think Iran, like all the neighbors, has an obligation to try to support stability and peaceful development of democracy in Iraq. At times we've expressed concerns about what some Iranian groups were doing inside Iraq, but we've also said that at various moments that they have been helpful and we have, in fact, talked to them. If you'll remember, there was an Iranian delegation that visited Iraq a couple months ago where the U.S. and UK representatives sat down with them and talked about how Iran could help promote stability inside Iraq.
At the same time, we all know that Iran continues to support and supply terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, that they are funneling weapons and money into the groups that are trying to sabotage the creation of a Palestinian state and sabotage the creation of the peace process. So our view is you can't have it two ways, you can't say, you know, we want stability but we're going to support terrorists.
QUESTION: Including Iraqi-supported terrorism in the West Bank?
MR. BOUCHER: That support terrorists anywhere.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BOUCHER: So I think that's -- any appraisal of Iran and terrorism and violence in the region, all that stuff needs to take into account all these factors.
QUESTION: One more question. I'm sorry. But she was -- she had a lot of information. She says there's a meeting being hosted by Egypt on Wednesday, the neighbors of Iraq, including Iran, and, of course, she thinks it's a positive development. Is the State Department in support of such a meeting? Can you confirm there's such a meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I can confirm the date and place of the meeting. I know that Iraq is having meetings with its neighbors, has had them in the past. We've always supported that. And I leave it to the Iraqis to talk about any travel plans and meetings that they might have at this moment.
QUESTION: Could you refer to the meetings that the United States has had in the past with Iranian officials? When were the last such meetings, or when was the last such meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to check and see. I'm not -- but as far I remember, we didn't confirm many of the particular meetings. I'll have to check and see. But I think it's also important to remember, we also have other ways of communicating, other than face to face. So, as I said, I think, at the beginning of all this, we think Iran is quite clear on our positions of these things and what we expect of them.
QUESTION: Could -- if you could check when it was and if you could tell us when it was, that would be helpful.
MR. BOUCHER: I'll check to see when it was and find out if I can tell you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Andrea.
QUESTION: Richard, just another follow on that, how many of those different criteria that you outlined there -- one, some or all -- would Iran have to meet in order for the U.S. to agree to have another meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: We have talked to Iran about particular issues. If we felt it was appropriate or possible to make progress on a particular issue that was of concern to us, the presence of al-Qaida in Iran, or this question of stability in Iraq, we have been willing to sit down and talk to Iran. So it hasn't been an unwillingness of our part to take up the issues. It's been -- the problems have been partly due to the fact that we really haven't seen that much progress. We've done that before, we've managed to find other ways of communication, but we haven't really seen much progress on the issues themselves.
The Europeans have met frequently with Iran on the nuclear issue, and Iran seems to be telling the Europeans they're not going to cooperate anymore. So, I think across the board, if you look at the international community as a whole, they're finding that there's not a lot of progress with Iran on these issues that are of concern not just to us, but more broadly, to the international community.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the U.S. would like Iran to make some progress on any of the issues in order for there to be justification for continued dialogue?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not what I said either, no. What I said is we're willing to sit down if the President determines it's in our interest to do so and if we think there's the opportunity for progress on some or any or more of these issues.
Yeah. Nadia.
QUESTION: On Iraq. I don't know if you did Iraq or not.
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You did?
MR. BOUCHER: Part of it.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask you about the Muqtada al-Sadr paper?
MR. BOUCHER: We --
QUESTION: You've done that?
MR. BOUCHER: That's the part we did. Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. Fine.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Sir.
QUESTION: Change subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.
QUESTION: What's your comment on the events in the Palestinian territories?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the simple comment is we're watching it closely. We've made clear, for our part, again and again, how important it is that the Palestinian Authority be able to consolidate its security services, have a single responsible security authority for two reasons: one is to get a hold of the terrorism problem, to the stop the terrorism and the violence; and second of all, to establish the kind of authority that can build the institutions of a state.
That's, we think, a key element in resolving the current situation. So we're watching the situation closely and we'll see how it evolves.
QUESTION: Has Mr. Arafat been working to support? Is he neutral or is he trying to undermine those goals?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any new characterization of Mr. Arafat's role, and we have not found his role to be helpful in the past. I don't think that's changed.
QUESTION: Well the events over the last several days have certainly hurt the Prime Minister, he tried to resign. Do you find that an impediment to your --
MR. BOUCHER: As I've said before, we think that the security services need to be consolidated; that the governmental authority, the prime minister in the government, needs to have authority over the security services as well as the other institutions of government. And that's a process that Chairman Arafat has hampered and appears to be continuing to hamper to this day.
QUESTION: Do you have an opinion on the security chief who was restored? Is that a good thing?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not trying to deal with this on the level of specific individuals. I think we've tried to deal with the institutional questions. The most important thing is that the institutions of government, the institutions of responsibility, be created. But as I said, we're watching this very closely.
Nadia.
QUESTION: Do you think it was a good idea for Abu Alaa to resign since that he's being --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not taking positions on individuals and what they decide to do about their political futures.
QUESTION: Well, he's not an individual. He represent the Palestinian Authority as the Prime Minister and he decided that he's unable to carry on with his tasks, therefore he decided to resign. So do you welcome his resignation?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I'm not commenting one way or the other on his plans.
QUESTION: Well, when the last prime minister resigned, either the Secretary or you or both saw that as a setback, as an indication that Arafat won't let new leaders emerge. Now the successor seems to be in the same bind but you're not jumping on it.
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, he has presented a resignation. It's not clear that he's resigned or gone. We'll see if he -- if that happens, we'll see if we want to say something at that point.
Second of all, both of these prime ministers have had difficulties in exercising the kind of authority and control that we think they need, therefore it's not a matter of commenting on individuals. It's a matter of looking at the institutional arrangements and going back to what I said in the beginning: The Palestinian Authority needs to establish the institutions that can run a state, including a consolidated, responsible security service that can curb the violence and that can take responsibility in Gaza as we look to end the Israeli presence there.
QUESTION: Richard, when Prime Minister Qureia resigned, he said he's just plain frustrated with the chaos and lawlessness. And what do you make of the either militants or people at large burning their own government buildings? Is it that the --
MR. BOUCHER: We're against that.
QUESTION: -- it's a case that they don't want the old guard or?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what it means. I can't -- I'm not going to speculate. As I say, we're watching it. We know our basic interests in this situation. But as far as, you know, who's doing what to whom, I'll leave that to the people there.
QUESTION: Do you have any message for Israel amid all this?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I've expressed our view of the situation. I'm sure the Israelis are following it closely as well.
Sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Boucher, anything with today's visit by the new President of Serbia here in Washington?
MR. BOUCHER: Not right now. The Secretary will have something to say after he meets with him tomorrow. Right?
QUESTION: Also, according to the Reuter News Agency, masked gunmen opened fire in Serbia's Presevo Valley and wounded four ethnic Albanians from the same family, including a pregnant woman. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I'll have to look into and see what we have to say.
Sir.
QUESTION: The Secretary, in his interview with Charlie Rose on Friday, said that he has a team of experts both in Darfur and across the border in Chad and that they'd report to him this week on whether what is taking place there legally constitutes genocide. Has he gotten that report yet?
MR. BOUCHER: The process is one of collecting information at this point. I don't know that anything specific has come back from our team that we sent out to the border areas. We will be collecting that perhaps for a little bit longer. Our goal is to try to collect as much information as we can and then to do the appropriate factual and legal analysis, so I wouldn't expect anything right away.
QUESTION: But I understood him to say that he would get a report this week on whether it constituted --
MR. BOUCHER: I think we expect the reporting to start coming in this week, but that doesn't mean we're going to have answers, recommendations, determinations, right away.
QUESTION: A different subject?
MR. BOUCHER: Yep.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the referendum yesterday in Bolivia changing or modifying the status of the gas companies, foreign gas companies, operating in this country?
MR. BOUCHER: We think the referendum was successfully conducted, congratulate the people and Government of Bolivia of conducting this referendum in a successful manner. The process demonstrated that Bolivian democracy can work despite calls from anti-democratic groups for a boycott. The people participated actively. It's up to the people and the Government of Bolivia to determine how to structure their energy sector and to exploit its hydrocarbon resources for the benefit of the country.
QUESTION: Do you have any -- just to follow up on that, do you have any concerns for the American companies working there?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I think we'll have to see how things work out now that they've been approved in the referendum.
Cam.
QUESTION: Richard, I'm sorry, I was out last week when this came out. You may have said it. But given the Secretary's decision on Uzbekistan that they did not make continuing and substantial process and won't get the direct foreign aid this year, have you guys said how you're going to reprogram that $18 million? Is there any thought to reprogramming it to NGOs in that same country?
MR. BOUCHER: I think we're looking at that now. We have to consult with Congress. There is some of it that goes to medical and other needs, so exactly how it will break down I don't know at this point.
QUESTION: But is there a good --
MR. BOUCHER: But we're talking to Congress about how to use that money best.
QUESTION: Is it the goal in this building to keep that money in Uzbekistan and just --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I can't say all of it will be. I can't say how much of it might be.
Sir.
QUESTION: Under Secretary Bolton arrived in Seoul today. Can you describe where else he's going in the region and what is the primary purpose of his trip, whether it's North Korea or other things?
MR. BOUCHER: He's in Seoul today, I think for two days; leaves on the 22nd for Tokyo. He's in Seoul to meet with senior South Korean officials, including the Deputy Foreign Minister, and he'll be there talking about proliferation issues generally, including, of course, North Korea.
QUESTION: Is PSI -- can you -- is PSI a particular focus or is it --
MR. BOUCHER: Proliferation issues, generally -- PSI, Proliferation Security Initiative, is always one of the main focuses of his travels, yeah.
Sir.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: Last week you gave permission to North Korean Ambassador to visit in Washington.
MR. BOUCHER: Last Friday, yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any plan to have contact with him?
MR. BOUCHER: They're here for meetings, I think, at a -- organized by the nonprofit organizations, including the Korea Society. It's a conference on the Korean Peninsula. We gave approval for the travel of the permanent representative and the deputy permanent representatives from the North Korean Mission to the United Nations in New York.
There will be, probably, members of Congress, or at least people from the Hill, participating in this event, but not officials of the Executive Branch, and we don't have any plans for meetings.
Sir.
QUESTION: I think it is past time for -- under the Bush Administration to give them permission to visit Washington, D.C. Is it any implication which indicates that your policy toward North Korea might change?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if it's the first time for Washington. I know that we've certainly issued permission for travel in a number of other places around the country. They've been out to California; they've been to other parts of the nation. So it's not that unusual for us to issue permission for them to travel from time to time. How long it's been since they've come to Washington, I don't know.
Yeah, Andrea.
QUESTION: One of your favorite questions now. With the expedited departure now of the Philippine forces from Iraq, is this really still an international coalition? Obviously, there are other members of the coalition that are under pressure with all the kidnappings and various other security issues. And why is it important, in U.S. -- the United States opinion, that this remain an international coalition?
MR. BOUCHER: This is very much an international coalition. It's a group of countries, something like 30 countries, at this point, who are involved, with boots on the ground, to help the Iraqi government. And why it's important is because the Iraqis are sovereign in their own nation, but they're not in a position yet to control the security of that nation, and they need our help, they need the help of others in the coalition to do that.
And many countries have found particular ways that they can contribute. You've heard from Iraqi leaders themselves about how they want people to participate there as they build up their forces. You've heard them identify their needs in terms of training of their own forces. And that's why they went to NATO and asked. And NATO agreed to come and help them with training, and that process is well underway.
And you've also see that the Iraqi government has approached a number of nations about providing forces that can help protect the United Nations, as the United Nations gears up to take a larger presence there in preparation for elections.
And so those are issues that are being worked. In any coalition, any assignment of forces, you have people rotate in, people rotate out. Some go on a particular mission and may decide that the circumstances no longer fit that mission. But I think it's important to remember that this a coalition, it's an active coalition, and it's a coalition that's trying to adapt and support the Iraqis in a number of different ways.
QUESTION: One small one, and I don't know if you'll have an opinion on this, since it doesn't directly concern a U.S. citizen, but as you know, there's a trial ongoing in the death -- in Iran, in the death of Canadian journalist who died while in custody there. And the Canadian Government, and I believe also the Iranian Government, has said that they believe that the Iranian judiciary have arrested the wrong person and are trying the wrong person. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. BOUCHER: Our view, I think, has been expressed before about this because we do see it as a matter of human rights and a matter of proper judicial procedures. At the time of the death of the Iranian-Canadian journalist Zahraa Kazwemi, we expressed our condolences, we joined in the demand for a full investigation, and we've continued to call for a transparent trial and a full investigation. We're also concerned that Tehran has refused to allow the European and other diplomats in Tehran full access to the court proceedings.
We note, as you did, that the Iranian Government publicly sided with Canadian officials and defense lawyers to accuse the judiciary of charging the wrong man with the killing of this Canadian journalist.
So we've expressed ourselves on this, and I would say, we also have expressed ourselves in terms of -- we've expressed concern about the continuing arrests and detentions of activists and journalists, simply for peacefully demonstrating, voicing political views, and reporting information. So we've been quite clear on those issues.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Got one or two more.
QUESTION: According to a story in New York Times about (inaudible) your Ambassador to Greece Tom Miller was forced to recuse himself from any discussion about the conduct of SAIC, for the security of the Olympics, $325 million. After the Ambassador accused by SAC officials of favoring another American company in the competition without disclosing the amount of money. I'm wondering if Tom Miller was instructed by the Department of State to do so.
MR. BOUCHER: That was a decision the Ambassador made. He felt it was important for the overall fairness of the process. Our Ambassador has been very supportive of American companies, in terms of working with the Greek Government, as we have been working with the Greek Government to ensure the safety of the Olympics.
QUESTION: Mixed favors, his favor --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I think that's not true.
QUESTION: And I'm sure it was reported that Ambassador Tom Miller, prior to his visit here in the U.S. last week, visit the Greek Minister of Defense and demanded that the company of his desire to take the contract for the security of the Olympic will be alliance. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that. I really think you can ask our Embassy anything you want to about Ambassador Miller, but I'm afraid I don't track him on a day-to-day basis from here.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, do you have anything in the case of an American woman who was sentenced to death by a tribunal in Oman for the murder of her husband?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to look into that and see what I can get you.
QUESTION: Where?
MR. BOUCHER: Oman. Okay, thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:05 p.m.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
