Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
State Department Noon Briefing
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4 - 2:00 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: The Secretary Powell says he regrets the loss of life of the
Chinese pilot. Is this an attempt to send a gesture of some sort to
the Chinese to cool things?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if it will cool things or not, in terms of
how the Chinese see it. I think it's a clear statement of what our
policy has been and what our belief is. On Monday, I expressed concern
about the incident, about the loss on the Chinese side. Yesterday on
the airplane, the Secretary said we regretted the loss of life. He
said it again now. As Ari Fleisher just said over at the White House,
this is certainly part of our understanding of the situation; it's a
very unusual situation and an accident which resulted in damage and an
emergency landing for our plane, but which also appears to have caused
a very regrettable loss of life on the Chinese side.
Q: Does expressing regret not amount to an apology?
MR. BOUCHER: I think they are different words. I'd just leave it at
that.
Q: Richard, the Chinese are insisting that they are the injured party
here. Do you, in making this statement of regret that's been made
today, yesterday, or whatever, do you accept that because the Chinese
lost a plane and very likely the pilot that the Chinese are an injured
party?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, clearly there is a loss on the Chinese side, as
well as damage and an emergency on the US side.
Q: Well, but no one to blame?
MR. BOUCHER: This is a tragic accident. This is something that is
regrettable - the event. It is certainly the fact that there is loss
of life on the Chinese side, or appears to be loss of life on the
Chinese side is something we all regret. Nobody wanted this to happen.
In terms of what we need to do, we need to get a chance to talk to the
Chinese, to explain to each other, to understand with each other about
what went on, and we are looking for channels and diplomatic means to
do that.
Q: So you do not accept - that barring anything else, only taking
into account the loss of the plane and the likely loss of life, you
don't accept that as an injury to China?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the point that we are arguing here. There is
clearly a loss --
Q: The Chinese are insisting that they are the injured party, and they
need to be apologized to for this.
MR. BOUCHER: There is clearly a loss on the Chinese side which we all
regret. But at the same time, we don't know what happened and how this
happened. We won't know that until we get a chance to talk to our crew
members in a long and unfettered fashion. We won't know that until we
get a chance to look into the matter ourselves.
So at this point, to try to provide you with an explanation of injury
and what happened is impossible for me because we are not in a
position yet to understand fully what happened. We do think we need to
talk in detail with our pilots and air crew about the events that led
up to the collisions, and we can't really have that kind of thorough
discussion with the Chinese about these details until we know all the
facts. That is what we are looking to do, to get the access, to talk
to our people, certainly to take care of our people, get them home
with us, get the airplane back. But also we want to understand what
happened, the Chinese do as well, and we need to exchange explanations
and have some better understanding of what happened.
Q: Richard, this is somewhat different language, "exchange
explanations", and you say that we are looking for channels to do
that, and that Ambassador Prueher has met with the Foreign Minister,
and that the Ambassador here is coming in for a second time today. Why
aren't these sufficient channels if explanations exchanging is all
that is needed?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, they may be. There are probably various ways of
doing this. The meetings that we have with Ambassador Prueher in
Beijing, with the Chinese Ambassador here are clearly a way of
addressing these issues, and we have been addressing the issues.
But as you know, we have been addressing the immediate issues, the
welfare of our people, the welfare of our pilots, the status of our
airplane, the nature of the events to the extent they have been
discussed as an accident and an emergency. Yes, they have been
discussed in those meetings, but if the Chinese are looking for a more
detailed understanding, and we all want to know what happened, then I
think we do need to have further discussions and explanations.
Q: On (inaudible), are you saying that you still do not think an
apology is required on this, even though you are saying it was an
accident?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has addressed that. It was clearly an
accident, we have --
Q: But an accident doesn't preclude the possibility of apologizing for
it. It's not to say it is intentional if you apologize.
MR. BOUCHER: I would just stick with where the Secretary was on that
yesterday. He has addressed the question, we clearly see it as an
accident, a very regrettable accident, and we are concerned and regret
the loss of life on the Chinese side.
Q: Richard, can you accept any responsibility for what happened?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, you are kind of asking questions that prejudge the
facts, and until we have a chance to look at the facts, I don't think
I can answer questions like that.
Q: Can you tell us a little bit about what the Secretary plans to
discuss today? Is it to again express regret? Is it to talk about
setting up a process and these channels for communication? Can you
give us a sense of what is likely to be discussed at --
MR. BOUCHER: With whom?
Q: With the Chinese Foreign Minister - sorry - I mean Ambassador.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. The Secretary is not seeing the Chinese Ambassador
today. The meetings that we have here in Washington are a continuation
of meetings we've had here yesterday in Washington, but also the
meetings that Ambassador Prueher had overnight. The discussions that
he had with the Chinese Foreign Minister - he had quite a lengthy
meeting-- so let me tell you about that and just sort of those are the
topics that we will continue our discussions of.
Our Ambassador in Beijing, first of all, requested the immediate
release of our air crew, requested full access to the air crew until
they are released, and he requested return of the aircraft. Ambassador
Prueher urged the Chinese to act quickly to resolve the matter. We
certainly do not want this to turn into an international incident, and
we want the Chinese to work with us to that end.
He also expressed the concern on behalf of the American people for the
Chinese pilot who is a missing as a result of this accident. And we
do, as I mentioned, understand and sympathize with what the Chinese
family is going through.
So, really, those are the topics of discussion: the crew, access to
the crew, the airplane, and the nature of the incident and
understanding what happened and exchanging explanations in that regard
to see if we can do that in enough detail that people understand what
went on.
Q: Since the accident, I was wondering if you could tell us what
progress has been made diplomatically; and then second, at what point
does this become an international incident?
MR. BOUCHER: Those are not questions that have an easy answer. You
can't measure them with miles or kilometers or meters or pounds or
whatever. The progress since the accident, first of all, our crew
landed safely. That, to us, is very important.
Second of all, after working on this, we got access to our crew and
we've been able to verify that they are well, that they are in good
spirits, and that they're being properly cared for. We certainly would
have liked to see them home by now, but we'll keep working on those
things. We'll keep working to take care of them.
We have made the formal request to the Chinese for additional meetings
and visits with our crew. We are trying to provide daily use supplies
and things that they might need in their current situation. But first
and foremost, what we are looking for is the release of our crew and
access to our crew, because those are the people that matter to us
most.
Q: To me, it seems like it's already an international incident. I'm
trying to figure out diplomatically at what point --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to play word games with you. It's an
accident. It's an accident. It's a very regrettable accident, and
we're trying to resolve it in the manner that it should be resolved,
without blowing it into an international incident.
Q: Have you in previous - in other bilateral forums brought up the
approach of Chinese jets to our surveillance planes in international
waters?
MR. BOUCHER: This is something we've talked about with the Chinese
before. We talked about it a couple of times last year. I think we
talked to them as late as late December about these kinds of
intercepts.
Q: Can you characterize those discussions? I mean, has there been any
understanding on this?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I can characterize them beyond saying
we expressed our concern about the way the intercepts were conducted.
Q: Are the Chinese still requesting that this be kept within the
Foreign Ministry, and is there any plans for President Bush to call
President Jiang?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the question about President Bush was properly
asked at the White House, and I'll refer you to the answer that Ari
Fleisher gave or didn't give on that topic.
The question of the foreign ministry. Clearly foreign relations are
conducted through the foreign ministry. This is an issue that involves
us. Clearly it involves a number of people on the US side and on the
Chinese side. How the Chinese choose to coordinate that in the end is
up to them, but the Ambassador saw the Foreign Minister, who just got
back from a trip. He has been seeing the Vice Foreign Minister, one of
the senior people of the ministry, on several occasions. So we expect
to continue to be able to conduct this dialogue with the Chinese and
to continue to discuss how we need to take care of our crew and
resolve the situation.
Q: There are several US Congressional delegations scheduled to go to
China in the next couple of weeks. In light of the situation, should
these trips go forward?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that we have been asked. I would have to
check on that one for you.
Q: If the Secretary is in touch with any of the world leaders or his
counterparts in this connection, or seeking any authoritative
country's help or advice on this matter?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe it that way. Obviously it
is a topical issue, it is an issue that is going on. Even with the
discussions with the Jordanians today at one point they asked, and he
explained a bit about what was going on with China; everybody is
interested. That is the way I would describe it. It comes up in
conversations with his counterparts.
Q: Richard, after Ambassador Prueher's meeting, Foreign Minister Tang
apparently spoke to the press and accused the US of being arrogant.
These were his words: "using lame arguments and making groundless
accusations against China".
Would we have such a pessimistic view of how that meeting went?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we don't see it that way. I have expressed
to you how we saw the meeting. The important matters that we raised
during this meeting, and we would expect the Chinese to treat them
with the importance we attach to them.
Q: Was the tone that negative?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't describe it that way.
Q: Richard, if you can - just one very, very briefly, because I don't
want to belabor this, but isn't this by definition an international
incident?
The second thing is, I want to get back to this idea of sovereign
immunity that you guys keep saying this plane has, or carries. The
Chinese say it doesn't. When Ambassador Prueher goes in to the
Chinese, or when the Chinese come here, are you able - have you been
giving them specific chapter and verse of international law that
specifically says that this-- in this situation, aircraft like this
enjoy sovereign immunity? Because I know a bunch of us have been
looking through all of the documents and treaties that have been
pointed out to us by various officials, and I certainly haven't been
able to find any kind of reference that would make that - that
supports that?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't want to play amateur lawyer either, and I
think it is not a good idea for us to get into a debate here over
international law, that we think quite clearly international law
provides that this kind of aircraft, state aircraft, carry with them
sovereign immunity, including in circumstances like this. And that has
been established, we think, in terms of law and precedent
internationally. I'm not going to try to be the lawyer and give you
the complete argument, but I think for our part we think that is quite
clear and that we have made that clear to the Chinese.
Q: Yes, but we - this question has been raised at the White House,
here, at the Pentagon for the last three days, and no one has been
able to come up with a straight answer. Yesterday, Admiral Quigley
said, well, we'd like them to give back the plane because it would be
the right thing to do.
We're not talking - I mean, obviously it would be nice if the Chinese
-- if they did everything that you asked them to. But where is it in
the body of international law, treaties and precedents that they have
to do it? There is nothing - what is it that legally binds them to do
so?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, Matt, that we think the law is
clear, that there is international law and precedent for this
position, and I will try and see if we want to give you a more
complete legal explanation. I think we've made certainly our point of
view quite clear on this.
Second of all, in addition, this is not a matter of law, completely. I
mean, certainly there is international law that applies in these
situations, and we think it justifies the position we've taken, but
clearly it's within the power of governments to do the right thing if
they choose to do so. And we certainly are interested in seeing this
situation resolved as quickly as possible. We hear from the Chinese
that they are interested in seeing the situation resolved as quickly
as possible. We want them to do that in manner that is satisfactory to
all of us, and for us that means returning our crew and returning our
airplane.
Q: Richard, whether or not this becomes an international incident in
your eyes, one of the things that seems to have changed language-wise
is the word "detainees." Monday, you didn't want to use that word but
Secretary Powell, I believe, used it on the plane yesterday.
Could you clarify that? You now believe the crew members are detained?
And what has changed? Is it just a matter of time?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the circumstances to us are clear. Secretary
Powell used it on the airplane last night. I'm happy to use it again
today. We consider these people detained. They are clearly not free to
go and we don't have free access to them. I think that, by any
definition, is detained.
Q: That wasn't the case on Monday?
MR. BOUCHER: On Monday we didn't know as much about where they were
and what the circumstances were and when we would get access and
whether there would be conditions applied and things like that.
Q: In the discussions both in Beijing at the Foreign Ministry that our
Ambassador has had and the discussions here, so far are these
discussions verbal only or is paperwork or is language being exchanged
as to is this satisfactory, would this be satisfactory as a solution,
or is it all verbal?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to think if I know the answer to that. I think
my answer has to be I don't know of any, but I'd have to check. I
don't know of any paper being exchanged, but I'd have to double-check.
We are really at the point of telling each other our positions on
these issues, of urging the Chinese to return the crew, return the
airplane, saying we regret the loss of Chinese life, sort of making
clear what our position is. At the same time, the Chinese are making
clear what their position is.
Q: Can you, on that point, explain to us how this is evolving, or is
it the same demands, the same requests, in every single exchange? As
you described it, the meeting today between our Ambassador and the
Foreign Ministry was basically the same language of the last couple
days.
Secondly, is there any consideration of having Powell make a call to
anyone if Bush isn't?
And third, do you think --
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say Bush isn't. I said that's a question
properly asked at the White House.
Q: All right, let me ask it straight out then. Is Powell planning to
make any calls himself?
And third, does Jiang Zemin's trip make the diplomacy of this any more
complicated?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I get to choose which one to answer?
(Laughter.)
Q: No.
MR. BOUCHER: I thought I had the choice on three-part questions.
Q: No.
MR. BOUCHER: I can't remember part number one.
Q: How has it changed?
MR. BOUCHER: How has it changed.
Q: The language, the requests, the whatever.
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the way we've conducted this
dialogue with the Chinese on these issues, first of all, don't expect
a change in the significance and importance we attach to our crew; and
until they're out, we're going to keep raising that. Don't
underestimate the significance we attach to full access; and until we
get full access, we're going to keep raising that.
At the same time, I think both sides are saying to each other now that
they are looking for a way to resolve the situation. We are saying
that we think we need to understand the situation; we need to be able
to exchange explanations. And as the fate of the Chinese pilot becomes
clear, we are saying probably more clearly that we understand and
sympathize with the plight of the Chinese family and regret the loss
of life of the Chinese pilot that apparently occurred.
So in some ways there is an evolution, but not a breakthrough. I don't
want to try to claim that positions have been altered dramatically in
these discussions, but we do have discussions.
Q: Wait, wait, the other two.
MR. BOUCHER: I chose the one I wanted.
Q: No, no. Does Powell have any plans to make any calls? And Jiang
Zemin's trip,
MR. BOUCHER: Not at this stage. But again, I don't rule out anything
other than what might happen in the next ten minutes. There is nothing
planned at this stage.
As far as the travel of Jiang Zemin, President Jiang of China, I have
to assume that they have their ways of communicating, just as we do
when we travel. They clearly will stay in touch with him, as we would
with our President, were he traveling. And so I don't see that as
being a significant difficulty.
Q: Richard, this is a follow-up to Eli's question. The Chinese
Ambassador said that China has been demanding an end to the
reconnaissance flights. And even though he admits that the incidents
Saturday was in international air space, and he repeated his demand --
or China's demand for an end to these flights - do you have any
response?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any response to that particular activity
that we carry out around the world in different places. It is in
international air space and international waters. We don't consider it
a threat to anybody, so I don't think we have any particular response
on that. You might check with the Pentagon.
....
Q: Richard, going back to the sovereignty question on the plane, if
you feel you are on firm ground on this, why not just clear it up and
show us some passage or statute in international law that you can cite
to pinpoint it, if that is what you are doing with the Chinese? And
then these questions would stop, wouldn't they?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I know enough to know that international
law is incredibly complicated in terms of status, precedent, accepted
practice. It is not like the US code, where you do an Internet search
on murder, and you find all the laws about murder. So asking all of
our journalists friends to become amateur international lawyers may
not be the most productive way to satisfy everyone's curiosity on this
point.
On the other hand, we do think we are on solid ground, and I am sure
we will provide that as necessary. I will see what I can get you.
Q: Richard, at what point would you call them criminals or hostages?
(Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: Not today.
Q: Some analysts have said that because so far contacts have been with
the Chinese Foreign Ministry, that the bureaucracy there has a way of
coloring these messages. Has there been any talk of trying to demand
to talk to a top-level official in China at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can make any better explanation of that
than to say that the Ambassador has been meeting at very high levels
at the Foreign Ministry. We are meeting with the Chinese Ambassador
here. As you know, ambassadors don't just represent foreign
ministries, they represent governments and the entire leadership. We
would expect that our statements and whatever we say at the foreign
ministry and whatever we say to the Chinese Ambassador here are indeed
conveyed appropriately to the highest leadership of the country.
Q: If I could follow up, is there any consideration at this point of
trying to send a high-level emissary to Beijing on this issue?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to be able to deal with every possibility,
every speculative question about, is there any consideration to
putting on beanies and dancing. I just can't deal with every
possibility that way.
Q: Just so I can understand this completely, are you not giving us
details of the legal argument because it hasn't been completed, or
because you don't have them?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not giving you details of the legal argument because
it hasn't been completed in terms of our ability to make a
presentation to you, and I'm not that sure it is a really good idea.
But we will try to satisfy your hunger.
Q: But you don't have them? That's the truth.
MR. BOUCHER: We have it, we know it. We know the law. We have some of
the best international lawyers around, and I trust their judgment.
Q: Can I just ask, have you guys been told specifically by the Chinese
that an apology ends this, or have you been told that an apology would
go a long way toward ending it, and they would also want - as George
and Elaine were talking about before - they also want these flights
to be stopped? Or right now --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to characterize the Chinese
position. You've seen them ask for an apology in public. I think we've
answered that question and dealt with it, but I'm not going to try to
explain their position.
Q: Right, but you seemed to say before that the reason that you hadn't
called them detainees on Monday but now were - the reason that you
didn't do it on Monday was because you had no idea of demands. And
since then, the Chinese have demanded --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I said conditions for access.
Q: Or conditions for access. What - when you said - you said --
MR. BOUCHER: That's different.
Q: You did say demands, but anyway --
MR. BOUCHER: All right.
Q: You can't say that the Chinese have told you that an apology ends
this?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to characterize the Chinese
position. It's not my job.
Q: Can you explain to us what the difference is between somebody who
is being detained and somebody who is being held hostage?
MR. BOUCHER: No, you can look it up in the dictionary yourself.
Q: Can I just ask one more on China? Do you have anything new about
access to the crew? I gather a second meeting was being requested, and
as far as I know it's not been settled yet.
MR. BOUCHER: That's right. We've made a - let me get the exact status
of that.
At our Embassy in Beijing and our Consulate General in Guangzhou we
have submitted the formal request for full access to the crew. The
Chinese have our request but have not yet responded, so we don't at
this point have another meeting with the crew scheduled.
Q: And that's the top topic in the meeting this afternoon with
Armitage and the Chinese Ambassador?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that release of the crew and access to the
crew have been the top topics in every meeting we've had.
Q: Richard, when you're making these requests, these formal requests,
what is that under? Is that under a consular visit to what would
normally be a person who is in jail? Or is it not something like - is
there no form that you follow?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've categorized it that way. We have
requested the access - as you know, earlier when the access was
provided in Haikou the other day, the Chinese foreign affairs
officials at that time said that if we wanted further meetings we
would have to make a request for further meetings through the
diplomatic channel, which is either the Embassy in Beijing or the
Consulate General in Guangzhou. So we've done it in both places.
It doesn't have - it's not like we fill out a form that says, you
know, access to detained people or access to people in jail. We submit
a diplomatic note that says there are 24 of our air crew down in
Haikou and we want to see them.
....
Q: Although we have such limited contact with them, do you have any
information about their daily activities, what they are doing with the
hours of their day, if they have reading material or are allowed to
exercise or shop or see sites, anything?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we have enough information like that from
our initial meeting. The living conditions were described as like a
hostel, h-o-s-t-e-l. (Laughter.) I think they're two to a room there.
We have pointed out to the Chinese and encouraged the Chinese that
these are military people; they are used to exercising, things like
that. We've noted that they have been in the same pair of clothes, at
least when we saw them, had been in the same clothes for a couple
days. So we were looking to get them additional clothes and supplies
and daily necessities and things like that which we'll be providing to
the Chinese to pass on to them.
So we are concerned about their welfare and their conditions, but the
conditions were described as, you know, good, clean and basic, I think
was the way it was.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
