State Dept. Noon Briefing, Friday, Oct. 6, 2000
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2000 2:30 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: This morning, United States and North Korea released a joint
statement on international terrorism. How meaningful this step is? It
can be a step you needed for North Korea to take?
MR. BOUCHER: We think that this is an important statement because it
puts us and North Korea together in the same mode of trying to address
the terrorism issue seriously, of having similar understandings of
opposition to terrorism and the kind of steps that need to be taken,
and that pledging to work together with the aim of removing the North
Koreans from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. So it puts us in
the process of working together on terrorism issues, having similar
understandings of the situation. It doesn't resolve the issues in and
of itself.
Q: Yesterday, Ambassador Sherman stated that there is no precondition
for Mr. Jo's visit. And yesterday it was a big briefing and today
there is an announcement. Why wasn't the announcement included
yesterday? Was there any significant development between yesterday and
today? And isn't this precondition, or is it kind of red carpeting for
Mr. Jo's visit here?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, before you wind this up into a big theory,
what Ambassador Sherman said yesterday remains true today. Second of
all, this statement --
Q: She said at one point during the briefing that it was Thursday,
Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: It was Thursday. That remains true. When she talked, it
was Thursday. Come on, let's not -- what she said yesterday remains
true today. There is no preconditions.
Second of all, this particular statement results from the most recent
discussions that we've had. You know, frankly, all these things get
put together and get put out according to their own time table. I
wouldn't ascribe any importance at all to the fact that she briefed
yesterday and we have the statement today, other than that we have a
lot of things going on in terms of our relations with North Korea and
we're working on it every single day of the week.
Q: Richard, Churches for Middle East Peace and several other
international organizations have mentioned now -- have charged Israel
with use of excessive force, particularly the use of helicopters. And
the Churches are now calling for the United States to review its
decision to send additional helicopters out there since they are being
used in violation of the military assistance agreement between Israel
and the United States.
Did this subject come up, and are you considering cautioning Israel
concerning her use of both excessive force and US materiel?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of the charges, and I'm not aware the
subject has come up.
Okay, now we're back on North Korea.
Q: A cynic looking at this statement, this joint statement, might say,
well, that's all very well, but do you and the North Koreans in fact
agree on what groups are terrorists and what aren't? I mean, for
example, do they accept that the Japanese Red Army is a terrorist
group, and do they agree to withhold safe haven from these people, as
the statement suggests?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, they do agree that one doesn't provide safe
haven to terrorists. Then you get into the question of definition of
particular people.
Q: I mean, unless you agree on who fits in this --
MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to say that we have ongoing discussions of this
issue. This statement marks a certain stage in our discussions. We
will continue our discussions. We said we will continue our work to
work together in order to address the issues that are necessary to
take them off the terrorism list. I think you are all quite aware of
what we have said in the past is needed to do that. Certainly the
North Koreans are quite aware. So whether that kind of understanding
has been reached at this stage or not, we do know what is necessary
for them to get off the terrorism list.
Q: So, in other words, you're still working towards an agreement on
who falls within the category which --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that. I said whether we -- I spilled my
water, though. I said whether we have reached an understanding on the
issue of who falls as a terrorist group or not, we certainly know what
is necessary as we work forward towards this goal of working in
cooperation to remove them from the terrorism list. So whether we have
it now or later, we're going to have to get there in order if we're
going to take them off the list.
Q: So is there anything very new in the statement?
MR. BOUCHER: The fact that we have lined ourselves up in the same
direction with a common understanding of how to address the issue, I
think is a good -- is a positive development.
Q: Richard, one of the requirements for them to get off the list was
to make a public statement affirming their opposition to terrorism.
And they did that -- not today. They've done that before. Is this, the
release of this statement, yet another step on the road to being
removed? Does this put them any closer to being removed than they
were, say, before, or if this statement had not come out?
And the second thing is that, you know, it's a joint statement. Who
did you write this with, and where was it written? Or was it not done
-- was this done in New York?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it was done in New York. Yeah, we worked on it
together and it resulted from our most recent -- I mean, from our
series of discussions, including our most recent discussions in New
York.
Q: Do you know --
MR. BOUCHER: When? Just the other day.
Q: Right. You mentioned that Matt asked about whether you are any
closer as a result of this statement.
Q: You just talked of the conditions that they have to meet.
MR. BOUCHER: This statement in and of itself does not resolve the
issues of terrorism, does not resolve the issues for which they are on
the list. It marks a step forward in regard of a way of looking at the
issue, a common understanding of the issues involved, and a basis for
which we can go forward and try to work out the specifics and get to
the stage where they can be taken off the list.
Q: It sounds like you are saying there is too much work to be done for
an agreement to be reached during the visit.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that at all. It's quite clear. They know
what they have to do. They have always known. They still know. And
we'll see how quickly that can happen.
Q: So it's within the realm of possibility that this could be resolved
this coming week?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to start predicting that any more than was
done yesterday at the briefing. These are issues that we continue to
work on, and we pledged to address them together. That's all we're
announcing today.
Q: We were promised (inaudible) of Vice Marhsall Jo. Is that coming
through the works? Do you know about that?
MR. BOUCHER: Not by me. Let's schedule afterwards, do scheduling
afterwards.
....
Q: From the joint statement this morning, it is my impression that
both countries are agreed about the Japanese Red Army issues; there is
a full agreement about that. But I don't have any indication that you
had agreed about the kidnapping issues of Japanese women and wives. It
is still an obstacle to resolve?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, again, I refer you to our terrorism report for the
kinds of problems that we see in regard to North Korea's support for
terrorism and the kind of issues that need to be overcome in order to
get to the lifting.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)
10/6/00
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
