Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
State Department Noon Briefing
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001 - 12:55 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: Can you say who the Chinese Ambassador met with this morning and if
he brought a response to the letter sent to Qian Qichen last night,
and what the Secretary has been doing on this issue?
Q: And everything else?
Q: And everything else?
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, that's four things. Let me just answer the last
question and dispense with the others.
This morning, the Chinese Ambassador came in. He met with Deputy
Secretary Armitage for about 20 or 30 minutes. This is part of our
continuing discussions with the Chinese. During the night our time,
meaning during Thursday China time, Ambassador Prueher met twice with
the Assistant Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong.
In all these meetings, we are urging the immediate release of all
members of the air crew, full access to the air crew until they are
released, and of course the return of our aircraft.
The Ambassador, during his meetings overnight, provided the Assistant
Foreign Minister with copies of the Secretary's letter to Vice Premier
Qian Qichen, which we had passed to the Chinese, which the Secretary
had handed to Ambassador Yang last night at a meeting that he and
Deputy Secretary Armitage had.
So that is the process, the meetings that were held. In terms of what
we're discussing, I think we continue to make the point that these
people, the air crew, need to be released. We continue to, as
appropriate, express our regret on behalf of the American people for
the loss of the Chinese pilot, or the Chinese pilot who remains
missing. I think I shouldn't get ahead of myself on that. Obviously we
sympathize with the Chinese family, the pilot's family.
The substance of these meetings we're going to keep to ourselves in
some degree. I would describe them, though, as working to resolve the
matter; that we have urged the Chinese to act quickly to resolve the
matter. We do want to get this matter behind us, and we want the
Chinese to work with us toward that end.
Q: Have you made any progress?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize the progress or lack
thereof in one way or another.
Q: Are these negotiations?
MR. BOUCHER: I described them the way I'm going to describe them. I'm
going to not go beyond that. We're having intensive discussions with
the Chinese at this point. We are at a sensitive moment. These
matters, especially the access to and release of our air crew, are
very, very important to us. We want to keep working on this and make
sure we do everything we can to find ways to resolve these issues.
Q: We understand that there is no prospect of our access to the crew
taking place during the nighttime hours in China right now. Does that
slow things down at all?
MR. BOUCHER: It is the middle of the night in China right now. We have
been pressing hard, both in Washington and in Beijing, in these
meetings for free and unfettered access to our crew members. I can't
give you anything specific at this moment, but we are hopeful that
that will occur.
Q: Richard, the Secretary remarkably got up at 2:30. He was at work on
the subject at 2:30 in the morning, which is a little early to get up
on your birthday.
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, that's right, I was - part three.
Q: Unless he was baking a cake, can you give us some details or make
it - fill out the color image that we are getting here, which is a
Secretary very hard at work at a very unusual hour?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me sort of describe the pattern of the last several
days has been that we have been working in Washington during the
daytime, and then in China during the nighttime. Obviously when you
have a situation such as when Ambassador Prueher has a meeting with
the Assistant Vice Minister, and then has another one, it is useful
for him to talk to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary Armitage in
between those.
So I think over the course of the night, maybe starting yesterday
evening to this morning, Deputy Secretary Armitage probably talked to
Ambassador Prueher twice, maybe more. I'm not certain. I think the
Secretary talked to him three times. The Secretary also talked to, I
think, the Deputy Chief of Mission there once between the meetings.
So, as I said, we are in a period of intensive diplomacy. The
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have been working very closely with
our Ambassador, as well as with their colleagues in the White House
and other departments of government. So there has been a lot of
telephone calls going on, and we are working this issue as hard as we
can.
Q: Is there any thought or proposal to bringing military officers from
both sides in, either in Beijing or here, to discuss the details of
what happened?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I'm not going to be able to talk about
thoughts or proposals. Sorry.
Q: Do the Chinese continue to ask for an apology or seek an apology?
And do they - yesterday we went back and forth a little bit about
whether an apology would do it, or whether there are other things they
want in addition. Can you expand on that at all?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't really expand on that. I think you have seen
the Chinese public statements. I don't think I have seen the
Ambassador on TV yet today, but certainly yesterday evening he was
talking about an apology. But I also saw the foreign ministry
statement that expressed some appreciation for our statement yesterday
that we do, in fact, regret the situation of the Chinese pilot.
Q: Richard, does the recent nice handling of the situation present a
shift of policy from Bush Administration about China? I think a shift
in a more positive territory, like it was before elections when China
was to be considered more like a competitor? After these hard words,
is now the situation handled more mildly as it was by our problems
with China during the Clinton Administration? What's the reason?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I would characterize it as a shift in
policy. We clearly have a specific and very serious and difficult
situation to deal with here: an accident that occurred over
international waters and the emergency landing, the consequences
thereof, the loss or potential loss of a Chinese pilot. So it's a very
complicated and serious situation that occurred.
It is, I think, pure speculation to say that this would have been
handled one way or another in some other - at some other moment. This
Administration is quite clear overall that we want to build a
productive relationship with China and we want to encourage an
integration of China into world affairs, into world rules, world
systems. That has been the Secretary's statement, the President's
statements and others.
And in this particular situation, we have been stressing again and
again - in public and with the Chinese - that it is important to
resolve this matter quickly, satisfactorily, to see our crew returned,
to see our airplane returned, so that we can get on with this broader
relationship.
Q: Is the Foreign Minister's statement expressing appreciation enough
to give rise to some of these stories that there's a glimmer of hope,
a little bit of optimism now? And can you explain what reasoning the
Secretary used in bumping this up to Qian Qichen and using a letter as
the mechanism he told us he was looking for?
MR. BOUCHER: Based on my reading of stories over the last few days, I
don't think it takes much reason at all to write stories, so I'm not
going to comment on whether there is sufficient grounds for writing
glimmer-of-hope stories. (Laughter.)
What I will do is not characterize it one way or the other, and you
can write what you want, but I'm not going to try to characterize it
one way or the other.
Q: Wait, and what about the letter?
MR. BOUCHER: Now, why did we write a letter to Qian Qichen, to Vice
Premier Qian Qichen? A number of reasons: he is a responsible leading
official of the Chinese Government; the Secretary talked to him two
weeks ago personally about many, many matters, including the desire to
build an overall relationship and to work on the overall relationship.
So the Secretary thought it was appropriate to write to the Vice
Premier in view of their discussion of the importance of the
relationship and discuss how we could resolve these issues and then
get on with building that kind of relationship.
Q: And a letter is more effective than a phone call?
MR. BOUCHER: He is traveling with President Jiang Zemin at this point.
I think it was a better way to reach him.
Q: You never answered whether you had had any response to the letter.
And secondly, I understand you don't want to go into details, but can
you at least tell us whether there are any sort of, you know,
compromise proposals or resolution proposals that are floating around
out there between you?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to characterize the nature of the
discussions or the topics that are being discussed beyond what I've
done, so I can't talk about --
Q: And you --
MR. BOUCHER: I can't talk about things floating, I can't talk about
responses at this point. We're in discussions. I'll leave it at that .
Q: Richard, is the United States yet prepared to accept China's claim
that it is an injured party, or the injured party, in this? And then
secondly, can you take another stab at your explanation of why this
plane has sovereign immunity?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me do the two things. First of all, I think on the
basic issue, our position remains that it is not possible for us to
provide a detailed explanation or a detailed understanding of what
went on until we have a chance to talk to our air crew in a full and
unfettered manner. So many of these questions that you are asking
about whether we accept this, whether we understand that, whether we
can explain this, really depend on our getting the kind of full and
unfettered access to our air crew that we have been asking for, both
out of the humanitarian need, but also ourselves to understand more
fully what happened.
Now, we can spend 20 minutes reading legal argument, but let me give
you the summary, and if you need more later, I'll talk to you about
that. An aircraft that is legally present in China is entitled to
sovereign immunity under principles of customary international law --
this aircraft.
The aircraft was operating in international air space - that is,
beyond 12 miles from the coastline - when the collision occurred.
Under customary international law, as reflected in the Law of Sea
Convention, it was entitled to operate in the location of the
collision over international waters, and we were engaging in
traditional military activities, which are legally permissible in
international air space.
International law requires that in the exclusive economic zone --
that's beyond 12 but within 200 miles of the coastline - activities
are conducted with due regard to China's rights and duties in the zone
as a coastal state; for example, rights with respect to marine
resources. The activities of our aircraft do not interfere with any
such Chinese rights and duties, so we were doing what we were entitled
to do in international air space.
On the issue of the right to land, we had an aircraft that was clearly
in distress once the collision occurred, and it followed standard
international procedures. It broadcast a mayday signal over 121.5
megahertz, the international air distress frequency that is monitored
around the world, and then it diverted to the nearest air field to
save our crewmen's lives. Our aircraft had a right under international
law and under basic humanitarian considerations to make an emergency
landing on Chinese territory.
Our aircraft in China is entitled to sovereign immunity under
principles of customary international law, and at this point I think I
will leave off and we can talk later about the Paris Convention of
1919, especially Article 32. We can talk about the Chicago Convention
and how that may or may not have pertained. We can give you legal
citations from Law and Public Order in Space, and give you a few other
legal citations.
Q: Okay, but all of those - I won't belabor this now, but we'll do if
afterwards - but all of those would relate to the main question,
which is the one that you haven't answered here, because you say we
would be getting into too many details, which is why it has sovereign
immunity once it is on the ground in China. Those, what you just cited
-- Paris, Chicago, Space, whatever - will provide the explanation for
why it is entitled to sovereign immunity on Chinese soil now?
MR. BOUCHER: Both what I said and the additional information pertain
to that because the aircraft was legally operating where it was; it
was entitled to make the emergency landing; and it is an aircraft that
is entitled to sovereign immunity. So the one flows from the other to
the other.
Q: Two questions. One, has there been any kind of diplomatic message
sent to our embassies or to the governments where the Chinese Premier
Jiang Zemin is going to be touring Europe-wide, Chile?
MR. BOUCHER: We are in touch with governments around the world who
have been interested in our position in understanding the issue. We
have made clear our positions and our interests, particularly our
interest in our crew, our regret over the missing Chinese pilot, and
our desire to see this resolved expeditiously.
To what extent other governments may be having discussions with the
Chinese, where it may come up in their conversations, at this point we
don't know.
Q: If Secretary Powell's letter was an attempt to kind of bring it up
to a higher level with his personal involvement, have the Chinese
responded in kind? And should we expect to see a more personal
involvement by Secretary Powell with a commensurate level in China,
perhaps Qian Qichen?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that is a variation on the question of, do we
have an answer to the letter. I am not able to go into that level of
detail of the discussions at this point. We have said there is
intensive diplomacy. There has been a lot of meetings. Whether we get
a letter back, whether we get it conveyed orally from the foreign
ministry, depends on the Chinese.
Q: Well, in the letter --
MR. BOUCHER: And so I don't know exactly what will happen. What I do
expect to happen is that we will continue to have these sort of
intensive meetings and discussions with the Chinese.
Q: Can I follow up? In the letter, did Secretary Powell ask that
further communications might be brought to this higher level between
himself and Qian Qichen for instance?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to characterize the letter, but I don't
think that is a particularly important aspect of the situation. What
is important is that we work through all levels and all means to try
to resolve this quickly.
Q: On what access to the crew, Richard? How troubling is it that the
Chinese imply that the US is not cooperating? That's the word they
use, "You can't see them until you cooperate."
Have you been given any amplification on what they mean by cooperate,
and why they would have a reason to say --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I've seen them say that, so I don't
think I can characterize it. Maybe I missed something, but I think we
have said that we don't see any grounds for impeding our access. We
think there should be full and unfettered access, and we continue to
maintain that that's what we need.
Q: Well, if you haven't heard that, what is their explanation for why
they're not letting you?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess I don't know. I guess I'm not the one to try to
characterize the Chinese position on this. We don't see any reason for
impeding our access.
Q: Richard, you've talked about the need - you said that you couldn't
find out what really happened until you had had access to them. Would
the United States consider some kind of joint investigation of this
incident so that you can find out from both sides what happened?
MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said yesterday, we'd be willing,
interested, in exchanging explanations. I don't think I can go beyond
that at this point.
Q: Richard, is it your understanding that Qian Qichen has received --
this is a yes or no answer. Is it your understanding that the Vice
Premier has received Secretary Powell's missive?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, it's an I-don't-know answer. That's a question
you would have to ask the Chinese. We assume so. I know we've given it
to the Chinese government for transmittal.
Q: So the Ambassador did not tell Deputy Secretary Armitage --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether he did or not, frankly. Personally,
I don't know, and I don't think it's for us to say what the - how
this works within the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government has
the letter. We assume that Vice Premier Qian Qichen has the letter.
Q: Richard, there are a couple of congressional delegations that have
been planning trips to China. Have they asked for any help from the
State Department in whether they should go? Have they asked whether
they should go?
MR. BOUCHER: We do briefings normally for congressional delegations
that might be heading out to China, so I'm sure we'll be talking to
these delegations. Obviously the decision on travel is a decision for
individual Members of Congress, as in all cases. We are giving them
full briefings on the accident with the airplane, but you'd have to
check with individual Members on their own plans.
I would say at this point we have not suggested that they not go.
Q: Have they asked you whether they should go?
MR. BOUCHER: It probably varies from Member to Member whether people
have asked or not, but at this point we have not suggested to members
of these delegations that they not go.
Q: Can you give any kind of response at this point to the fact that
there have been credible reports the Chinese have begun interrogating
the crew? Is this a violation the customary international law that
we've just cited?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that - let's just go back to what we know,
that we saw our crew on Monday*, we knew they were in good condition,
we found them in good spirits. They told us they had not been
mistreated. I think we have heard from the Chinese from the beginning
of this that they were interested in interviewing our crew members
about the accident, questioning them about the accident.
I would just come back, I think, ourselves to the importance that we
attach to full and unfettered access so that we can talk to our crew,
so that we can understand what's going on.
Q: But do you have a position on the legitimacy of questioning them?
There are quite a few experts who say that it would be quite
legitimate. Do you have a position on this?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure there are any particular legal aspects to
this. Certainly, as military members, there are certain obligations or
there is a code of conduct that they have that I assume that they are
following.
Q: One more on the CODELs. Do you think it would be helpful for them
to go at this time to show that we want a full relationship; this
should not affect other parts of our relationship?
MR. BOUCHER: Since congressional travel is always a question
individually for the Members, I have to say that it's not at this
point for us to say one way or the other.
Q: Do you perceive the CODELs as another way to enhance this dialogue,
that they may be able to get a point across?
MR. BOUCHER: Isn't that kind of the same question I was just asked?
Q: I'm not sure.
MR. BOUCHER: Do I see it as helpful? Do I see it as a way to enhance
dialogue? We're not going to take a position at this point one way or
the other on that.
Q: And secondly, the letter that Powell sent to Qian Qichen, did that
somehow break the ice here, or was this somehow a turning point or did
it ease things - that letter? How much of - how instrumental was it?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize a particular individual
moment or step for you at this stage. We are in intensive discussions.
The letter was part of a process that had begun with meetings and
discussions back and forth here and in Beijing. It's a very intensive
diplomatic process, but we're at a sensitive moment now. So I don't
think I can make any particular claims for an individual piece of this
process at this point.
*The EP-3 crew was seen on Tuesday.
Q: What is the likelihood of a special envoy, perhaps even the
President's father being sent to exchange explanations?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to guess or give you odds on anything at
this point.
Q: Can you give us an update on what your presence on the island is
right now, the diplomatic presence - who is there and what exactly
they're doing, other than sitting around and waiting?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to think when I last had an update. I didn't
get an update this morning. Yesterday I think there were five, maybe a
few more people down there. Essentially, people from our Consulate
General in Guangzhou, people from our Embassy in Beijing, including
the Defense Attaché.
From the Consulate General in Guangzhou, the head of our consular
section in Guangzhou was down there, and then some of the people that
are working with them and helping with them. They have been obviously
talking to the foreign affairs officials in Hainan Island to try to
gain access to the crew members. I think they were reported out
shopping to buy daily use articles and clothing and things like that,
which I think they have turned over to the Chinese. Until we see our
crew, we won't know what they have gotten.
Q: But there are no --
MR. BOUCHER: But at this point, I don't have a morning update on that.
Q: Okay, but do you know if there are any plans to shift or to change,
raise, lower the number of people that are there?
MR. BOUCHER: I think --
Q: In a normal rotation. It would obviously would depend on events,
but --
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I remember seeing that they were going to add a few
more, but I can't remember if that was from the three to a little
more, or from five to a little more. I'm sure that people may be
rotated in and out, but certainly we are going to maintain a presence
there, we are going to keep working this. When we talked to General
Sealock the other night, he said he was going to stay there and work
there. Ted Gong, the consular section chief, was going there and work
there very moment of every day to do whatever they could to help our
people who are being detained.
Q: Richard, are you still calling the crew "detained"?
MR. BOUCHER: I just did.
Q: Are you willing to call them hostages at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: I just called them detained.
Q: When - is there any --
MR. BOUCHER: Thirteen seconds ago.
Q: - benchmark that you will be willing to call them hostages at any
point? Is the lack of calling them hostages because they haven't asked
for anything in return?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into word games with you. I will
give you the same answer I gave you yesterday.
Q: Richard, do you expect that the Chinese Ambassador might be back
here today, or can you rule that out?
MR. BOUCHER: I certainly can't rule it out. I don't know of any
particular meetings scheduled at this point, but I can't rule it out.
Q: With all these conversations and all these exchanges, is there
anything that has come from the Chinese you can share with us so far
as the personal conditions of this crew? They have been in Chinese
hands in one form or another for five days now. We see pictures in the
paper of American officials going and buying supplies. We have no way
of knowing.
I mean, I think this great human interest in whether they are being
treated well, courteously, not so well. Don't the Chinese say
anything, like we are getting this stuff to them, they are fine, they
are getting fed right? I mean, don't the Chinese tell you anything
about how they are treating Americans in captivity? No, I'm serious,
it's - they're the part - they are as important as the airplane. Or
maybe even more.
MR. BOUCHER: My turn?
Q: Sure.
MR. BOUCHER: We have made quite clear all along that our first
priority is the welfare of our air crew. The President made that clear
in his statements right from the beginning. He has issued several
statements, and each of those statements by the President is
principally about the welfare of our air crew. So this is the matter
that is foremost on our mind.
We met with them on Monday. At that point, the Chinese had told us
that they were being well taken care of. We found that to be true. We
talked to them directly ourselves; they were in good health, they were
in good spirits. They said they had not been mistreated. Their living
conditions were quite adequate. They appeared to be sort of in good,
clean places where they were staying.
But in the end, for us they are not free to go. And that remains a
matter of great concern. And the second matter of great concern is
that we don't have unfettered access to them, even while they are
being held. And so that is something that we have consistently pressed
for.
And there is, as you say, enormous concern in the United States on
behalf of their families, certainly on behalf of the government, on
behalf of the American people, about their status and their welfare,
and we would look for the reassurance of actually seeing them, of
actually meeting with them, of actually hearing from them in order to
be able to reassure people that they are in good health and they're
being well cared for.
Q: But you have no reason at this point to think that --
MR. BOUCHER: I have no reason to think otherwise. The Chinese told us
that they were being well treated. That turned out to be true on
Monday. I have no reason to doubt it at this point, but there is
nothing like seeing them ourselves.
Q: (Inaudible) any members of the first Bush administration who have
extensive experience dealing with China in times of crisis, such as
President Bush, Sr., --
MR. BOUCHER: Rich Armitage, Dick Cheney --
Q: Outside the administration, such as Scowcroft, Eagleburger.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I am sure he has been in touch with a
variety of people, but I don't have a list for you.
Q: You keep talking about unfettered access, but it doesn't seem that
there is much access at all. Did you get any indication on when you
might be able to see the crew? You know, a couple days ago, the
Chinese had given you a few days - they said in a few days. Have they
said you can see them on Saturday, you can see them in a couple of
days?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said before, we are hopeful that we will have access
soon, and that's about all I can report to you at this moment.
Q: In the question about regarding the interrogations - or, as you
put it, the interviews - you said that the crew members as military
personnel would have certain protocols that they would follow. Could
you describe those a little bit? Is that like name, rank and serial
number, and no more?
MR. BOUCHER: I can't do that. I'm not the Pentagon. I wouldn't have
all the rules on that and what they teach their servicemen.
Q: Following up on that question, has it come up --
MR. BOUCHER: And I'll follow up on my answer. (Laughter.)
Q: Anyway, has that come up in the many discussions that we've had
with their foreign ministry? And at this point, I mean, what is the US
position on this? Do we think it's appropriate that they even have
these interviews at all, considering that they won't let us look at
the plane or get any kind of access to the information that we want?
So, I mean --
MR. BOUCHER: What we think is appropriate, what we think is important,
is for us to have the access that we need to our people, to see to
their welfare and to understand the circumstances.
Q: So does that mean that you don't have a particular opinion whether
or not, now that we don't have access to our people, that they are
being interviewed by Chinese officials at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I don't think I have anything to express
on that.
Q: In considerations about the interrogation, the protocols that you
cite, that type of thing, are you referring to the Geneva Convention?
MR. BOUCHER: Not particularly.
Q: Too bad. (Laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: Too bad. You guys - trick questions. I caught it.
(Laughter.)
Q: Can I go back to this cooperation issue? In fact, the foreign
ministry spokesman in Beijing did actually say that another visit
would be considered with the crew, but only if the United States
showed a cooperative approach. I know you said you weren't aware he
had said that, but do you regard as an unhelpful statement?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we don't think there should be any bar to our
having the access. We have not in any way accepted that there needs to
be some criteria for our access. We believe that in these
circumstances, an air crew that's landing in an emergency, should be
in contact with our government and with our government officials. We
have made very clear from the start that that was our position, and
that full and unfettered access remains our requirement, without any
qualification.
Q: Gao Zhan. Today, George Allen is introducing legislation to make
her a citizen. Do we have any more feedback from China on this issue,
and have you been able to ascertain whether we're bringing this up in
parallel with our discussions on the plane incident?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I guess I don't have anything new on that today. I'm
sorry.
Q: Do you have any remarks on Israeli plans to auction off more West
Bank land to build more houses? And also, any comment on the latest
political assassination, which was particularly ingenious - this
exploding phone one.
MR. BOUCHER: The stories of exploding phones, we don't know anything
beyond what's in the press reports.
As far as the new permits that have been issued for construction
activity, I would say that continuing settlement activity by Israel
does risk further inflaming an already volatile situation in the
region. This is provocative, and we have consistently encouraged both
sides to refrain from provocative acts.
Q: And can you tell us any readout on the security meeting yesterday
-- who attended from the US side, what part did he play in it and --
Q: And the convoy that was fired on as it left the talks --
Q: Interesting negotiating tactic.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let me do the meeting first and then we'll talk
about the situation at the crossing point and the Secretary's phone
calls with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat during the course
of the late evening.
The Israelis and Palestinians did meet last night for high-level
security discussions in Israel. A US representative attended those
meetings to facilitate, to monitor, and to report back any
developments to the Secretary. We think they had a positive and useful
exchange, but I'm not in a position to go into detail on that
particular meeting.
We have encouraged the parties, as you know, to resume their bilateral
security cooperation as a means of halting the violence. We are
pleased to see that the parties agreed to attend the meeting. As the
President said last week, we remain fully engaged with all the parties
and our agreement to host this security meeting is part of that
engagement.
As far as the crossing point, the firing at the convoy last night we
see as a very serious incident. When he heard about it, the Secretary
immediately telephoned Prime Minister Sharon. He also spoke with
Chairman Arafat to discuss what happened. We wanted to ensure that
escalation would not ensue. We understand that Prime Minister Sharon
and Chairman Arafat were also in contact directly during last night as
well.
Israel does have a responsibility to provide for the safety and
security of Palestinian officials traveling to and from the security
meetings. Prior to these meetings, we had been assured by Israeli
officials that this would be the case.
At this point, the details and the circumstances of the incident are
not entirely clear, but I would point out the Secretary did receive
assurances from Prime Minister Sharon that there was no plan and no
intent to attack this convoy.
Prime Minister Sharon also told the Secretary that his office would be
looking into the incident further. We hope there will be a thorough
investigation of the incident so that these kinds of incidents can be
prevented in the future.
We note that it is a sensitive and a volatile time in the Middle East.
Public statements from both sides should highlight the need for utmost
restraint to prevent deterioration of the serious situation on the
ground.
Q: Richard, does this incident increase your sense that the US should
perhaps step up its involvement in security cooperation right now?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure what we're stepping up from. Last
night, we were able to help them have direct talks. We've said we want
to facilitate their discussions, we want to encourage them to talk
directly. And we would note that in this incident, not only did we
talk to Prime Minister Sharon and we talked to Chairman Arafat, but
also apparently Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat talked to
each other about it, and we would encourage that kind of cooperation.
Q: Okay, but beyond facilitating and phone calls, you don't have any
plans right now for involvement in negotiations, mediation, in
security issues right now?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I would continue to describe our role the way I
described it today. That is what we see as the useful role that we can
play by our engagement, is to facilitate their direct bilateral
discussions.
Q: You mentioned that the people in attendance at the meeting were
high-level Palestinian and Israeli security officials. In the report
released this week to Congress on PLO compliance, you targeted or said
that there were some Palestinian security officials, such as in
Tanzim, and Palestinian police officers who were involved directly in
anti-Israeli violence.
Can you be a little bit more specific on who these officials are, and
are you making it a point not to work with folks that we know or we
suspect to be involved directly in terrorist activities?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can draw - I wouldn't want to draw a
conclusion or a link or a parallel between the meeting and the report
that we submit to Congress. We do this report on a regular basis. The
report we submitted on March 30th covered a period from June 16th to
December 15th of the year 2000. It is a congressionally mandated
report. It assesses the status of PLO's compliance with its
commitments. It fulfills the congressional mandate, provides the
information necessary to our Congress. So I will just leave it at
that.
Q: Richard, was Ambassador Indyk in the room during the meeting, and
did he in any way speak during the meeting? Was he asked --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think he was personally present, actually.
Q: Who was it that was in the room, then?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.
Q: Was the State Department --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. We had - there were people from our
Embassy who were there, as I said, to facilitate, to monitor and to
report.
Q: What does "facilitate" mean?
MR. BOUCHER: To help them get together and talk to each other. That is
what we are doing. That is, we think, the most useful thing for us to
do right now.
Q: And so - but just on the discussion part, do you know if these
people who were facilitating themselves spoke during the meeting, or
were they just sitting there silently?
MR. BOUCHER: I doubt if they sat there completely silently. We
obviously have an engagement. We have a role in this to play. The
Secretary talks to people, the President talks to people, our
Ambassador talks to people, and our Embassy officers talk to people.
And I am sure they know all the participants in these things and
participate to some extent, but the forum is primarily a venue for
them to talk to each other.
We all know that we have a role to play. Our engagement can be
helpful. We are quite willing to try to facilitate direct discussions,
willing to try to help things happen. But ultimately, as we have said
many, many times, the parties themselves make the decisions, the
parties themselves have to deal with each other, and the parties
themselves have to be able to speak to each other and resolve issues
for us to bring calm and make some progress here.
Q: I want to go back to China for a minute. Do you have Middle East?
Q: Did the officials in any way have any US proposals, frameworks, any
piece of paper at this point? I mean, you said it was not like
previous types of engagement yesterday.
MR. BOUCHER: I would violate my rule of not going into any further
details about the meeting, but from what I have described as our role,
and what we did, I would not anticipate that to have been the case.
Q: Richard, can you confirm these reports in Russia that the four
American diplomats who the Russians had told to leave have now
actually left?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to double-check on that. I think we both said
that they were given 10 days.
Q: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: So I am sure that --
Q: They said that - these reports say that they left last - they
left Moscow last night.
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to double-check on that one. It seems to be
about 10 days, if I remember correctly.
Q: And the other thing is, the Secretary met this morning with the
Foreign Minister of Poland, and in light of that, I'm wondering if you
can say whether the grand US-Polish cooperation on last year's
Community of Democracies thing is going to continue. Is this
Administration as committed to that financially and on moral support
terms as the last one?
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary, I think, has expressed our support for the
Community of Democracies, and certainly his commitment and the
President's commitment to freedom and democracy around the world is
very, very strong. And you have seen it in the meetings he has said
and the discussions he has had and the way he has spoken in public
about freedom and democracy.
In terms of the particular meeting this morning, it didn't come up
because I think the Community of Democracy is really shifting towards
the next set of hosts, which I believe is South Korea. And I do
remember when the Secretary met with the South Korean Foreign Minister
a month, six weeks ago, it was discussed there.
Q: Did they talk about sales of F-16 fighter jets to Poland at all, or
would that not be something that would come up with them?
MR. BOUCHER: That would be something that might come up.
Q: And it did?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
Q: Can you tell us more?
MR. BOUCHER: We had a very sensitive discussion, first of all, on a
number of issues at the end of the meeting. The Secretary supported a
fine American aircraft.
Q: The Secretary did what?
MR. BOUCHER: Supported the sale of fine American aircraft.
Q: And did he urge the Polish Foreign Minister not to buy any
not-so-fine European aircraft?
MR. BOUCHER: If I remember correctly, what he said is he encouraged
him to buy the best airplane. He said that was ours.
Q: The Polish were among those most concerned about these reports of
nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Did they discuss that, and did the
Polish Foreign Minister bring any more reports?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, that didn't come up in specifics. Let me give you
a sense of what did come up, since I have said several things that
didn't and only one that did.
They talked first about the importance of our relationship, the
excellent state of our relationship. There was a bit of discussion of
bilateral issues towards the end. They talked about NATO and NATO
enlargement, how NATO should work on that with countries that might
meet the standards, how the decision is one to be made by NATO
countries, not others.
They talked about the situation in Russia, the situation in the
Ukraine. They talked about the Balkans a bit and, as I said, some of
the bilateral and economic issues as well.
Q: Can I go back to China?
Q: Richard, on the economic situation, the US is hoping that China
will join the WTO. Have there been discussions that were to take place
on their accession to WTO that are not taking place because of this
current crisis?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any. The nexus of discussions on WTO
issues is a discussion between the Chinese and the WTO itself. So
those are not necessarily bilateral discussions with the United
States, although obviously we talked to them bilaterally as that
process proceeds in Geneva. So I wouldn't know exactly whether they
are having discussions at this moment in Geneva or not. But it
wouldn't - I'm not aware of any US discussions that would be held at
this moment that might be postponed.
Q: There is talk on the Hill of congressmen yanking their permanent
trade status, their altering their trade status with this country,
their ability to trade. And I was wondering if talk like that is
helpful at this time.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to characterize congressional
comments one way or the other. Individual Members are free to say
anything they wish. I think we have made quite clear the importance --
we have made quite clear to the Chinese the importance of resolving
these issues so that it does not become an impediment in our broader
relationship that we want to build, which includes very importantly
the economic component.
So I think I will just leave it at that at the moment. That is our
view, and we have stated it before.
Q: Richard, the Chinese press has reported the expressions of regret
that Secretary Powell gave yesterday. Does the State Department find
that encouraging that the other side of the story is being reflected
by the Chinese media?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can characterize it one way or the other.
I would say that we always think it is important that the full extent
of the comments that we make, the full extent of the truth be reported
widely. That is why we stand up here and answer all these questions.
Q: Right, but I mean, you know that if they didn't feel that they --
perhaps that the situation was beginning to improve a little bit, they
wouldn't have included the - I mean, for four days, they didn't say
that there was --
MR. BOUCHER: That would be very speculative on my part to start
interpreting those things.
Q: New subject?
Q: Can I move to Russia, the one that we started on? You mentioned in
your statement that you were concerned about media freedoms, and you
didn't want NTV to have its independence disturbed.
Do you think then that Gazprom's imposition of a new management is a
threat to its independence, or do they need to start selling share to
Ted Turner to make it independent?
MR. BOUCHER: I think there are two issues in play right now at this
moment. The first is that the questions of ownership and voting
rights, these very complex questions, need to be resolved through a
transparent legal process. So we are, first of all, concerned that
that is not happening.
But as important, and perhaps more important for the issue of freedom
of press, is our belief that the editorial staff need to continue to
exercise full control over news and information programming at NTV,
and we would note that many inside Russia share that view.
Q: New subject?
Q: Some time ago you said we would be hearing a lot more about the
Quebec summit from you. We haven't heard anything, and it is two weeks
away now. Who is going? What does the United States want to get out of
it? There are all kinds of reports that there is going to be trouble
up there like there was in Seattle. And what's up?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we don't - there have been other things going on,
so we haven't tried to preoccupy you of the issues.
Q: I know.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that as the summit gets even closer that we will
have much more to say. Obviously the President is going, the Secretary
of State is going. I believe some of the Cabinet members are going as
well. The United States is going to be there to work with our partners
in the hemisphere on very, very important issues. I think the main
topics will be democracy in the hemisphere, progress on education in
the Hemisphere, and progress on free trade in the hemisphere. And we
will do more detail as we go on.
Q: Well, could I just follow up on that? President Chavez of Venezuela
has been down talking with Cardoso in Brazil, and has stated that the
two of them are going to do a lot to determine the future strategy of
the hemisphere. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. BOUCHER: No. We have been talking to President Cardoso of Brazil
up here.
Q: Any reaction to arrests today in Italy and in Germany of reputed
members of Usama bin Laden's gang, who apparently were targeting the
US Embassy in Rome in January?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me see what I can say about that. We have been in
touch with the Italian authorities concerning the arrest of five men
yesterday in Lombardi. We have been in regular and close contact with
the Government of Italy on matters relating to the security of
American citizens and to US interests in Italy.
I can't comment to particular reports that the individuals might have
had a connection to the events that led to the Embassy closing in
January because it is an ongoing investigation.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:45 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
