State Department Noon Briefing, Wednesday, October 11, 2000
U.S. Department of State
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2000 -- 12:50 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
Q: All right. How about Turkey preparing to tap in full blown to the
Iraqi pipeline? Does that distress the State Department?
BOUCHER: I just saw that. I'll have to do some checking on it. Clearly
we have -- you know we have a lot of common interests with Turkey, and
we talked about that yesterday. There is an Oil-for-Food Program that
essentially doesn't limit the amount of oil that Iraq can pump, but
I'd have to check how this pipeline fits under that program and how
it's being handled.
Q: When you check, if you don't mind, could you ask if the US tried to
dissuade Turkey from doing this?
BOUCHER: Okay, I'll check on that.
Q: Thanks.
Q: More on Iraq?
BOUCHER: More on Iraq. Please, go ahead.
Q: Okay. To start, any reaction at this point to the Government of
Jordan's decision to expel Lloyd's of London from their job of
checking Jordanian exports to Iraq at this point? Some have said this
might be further or more violations of the UN sanctions.
BOUCHER: I'm not sure I know about that. Do I know about that, Phil?
No, I don't know about that. Does Phil know about it? All right,
that's something we're going to have to check on. I hadn't seen that
one.
Q: All right. Question number two then is the Iraqis are being invited
to the next Arab League summit. I guess this is the first time since
the Gulf War. What impact do you think this is going to have on the
peace process and the reaction at this point?
BOUCHER: I hesitate to try to give too broad a reaction. I think
you'll see that these decisions are being made by others for their own
reasons. I think there are two things that are important to remember:
first of all, that sanctions remain effective on Iraq, and these
various disputes and discussions and statements about the status of
sanctions don't change the fact that all members of the Security
Council have called on Iraq to abide by Resolution 1284 and we think
that still remains the common view in the region as well; and, second
of all, that Iraq's position on the peace process is well known, and I
think heavily discounted. The fact is, the parties remain engaged, the
parties keep working with us, and we keep proceeding despite some of
these voices that are trying to tear down the peace process, because
we believe it's the only way and many others agree as well. So, I
wouldn't read too much into this, frankly.
Q: If I could follow up on just the -- but I understand that this
meeting is being called specifically to deal with what's going on in
Israel right now, and the decision to invite Iraq, knowing their
position on the peace process, may indicate that the position in the
region is changing.
BOUCHER: You'll have to ask people in the region why they did it.
Q: On Iraq, the Syrians and your friends from -- now your special
friends from yesterday, the Sudanese, have announced plans to send
planes into Baghdad without -- at least the Sudanese have said they
are going to do it without seeking the Sanctions Committee approval.
What do you make of that?
BOUCHER: There are clearly differences over certain flights and how
they have to be cleared. We have made no secret of our disagreement
with the French and Russian interpretation of things. There are a lot
of these stories out there. Iceland has confirmed that the stories of
the Icelandic flight landing in Baghdad were false. There is an
Iranian flight that is pending. We know flights from Turkey, Algeria,
United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Yemen that were
all approved by the Sanctions Committee. We also know flights by Egypt
and Syria that were not approved by the Sanctions Committee. And even
in those cases, Syria didn't notify the Sanctions Committee of the
flight, was asked to delay by the vice chairman of the Sanctions
Committee, and I guess didn't. Egypt, in fact, did notify the
Sanctions Committee but didn't wait for the approval. So, you have
various situations there.
We do view unapproved flights as inconsistent with the sanctions
regime. We think the Sanctions Committee has been quite clear. We are
pleased that so many countries in the world, when they have these
flights, do follow the procedures and get the approval of the
Sanctions Committee, and we remain in disagreement with those who do
not.
I don't, at the same time, want to draw any conclusions that this
particular dispute over the status of certain kinds of flights has any
implications for the broader regime, because we do think that the
sanctions are effective and that everybody remains behind 1284, which
was a very carefully worked out procedure by which Iraq, with
inspections of its weapons programs, could succeed in obtaining a
suspension of sanctions.
Q: Well, does that mean you think that the Syrians and the Sudanese
are -- and now the Egyptians -- are in violation of the Security
Council resolution?
BOUCHER: We think their actions are inconsistent with the UN sanctions
regime. Leave it at that.
Q: What do you think about -- this morning people in the Department
were going rather further on the Syrian one, saying that they
considered it a violation of the sanctions regime. Now that Egypt has
followed suit, you have amended your language. Would you say it's not
in line or something?
BOUCHER: I don't -- well, tell me who they were and I'll work it out
with them.
Q: So you're not saying that -- you're saying that the Egyptian flight
is not in violation?
Q: He said "inconsistent."
BOUCHER: I'm saying it's inconsistent. If the Sanctions Committee
approves a flight, it's not a violation. I don't frankly think there's
too much of a difference there. A violation of the sanctions regime
and an action that's inconsistent with the sanctions regime both
amount to the same thing; that we think it's not consistent with the
way the UN Sanctions Committee has operated in the past and with the
policies that they have operated under, and we think it's not --
Q: Have you spoken with the Egyptians about this inconsistency?
BOUCHER: I'm sure we will, but I'm not sure if we have at this stage.
Q: And the Syrians, too?
BOUCHER: I'm sure we will, but I'm not sure if we have at this stage.
Q: And the Sudanese? Or are you not speaking with the Sudanese?
BOUCHER: We have ways of talking to them, too, when we need to.
Q: Another topic?
Q: Can we follow up on -- can you say, do non-sanctioned commercial
flights to Iraq represent a security risk to the United States or US
interests in the region? Can you sort of explain why they are
problematic? Or is it just they know they're breaking the rule; it's a
slap, it's technically not in line?
BOUCHER: Well, I think they're breaking the rule and they're doing
things where the international community is not able to know exactly
what's going on, and therefore they can raise potential suspicions.
The point of the sanctions regime on Iraq is to make sure that they
don't import the wherewithal to threaten their people and threaten
their neighbors. That remains the goal. Iraq's posture in the region,
Iraq's threats to its neighbors and to its people, remain active. And
we have made quite clear that if we see activity that we think is
designed to renew its weapons of mass destruction programs or carry
out other things like attacks on neighbors or on the North or on US
forces, that we're prepared to respond.
So, I think the question of these flights is that they provide an area
where the regime is not being -- the sanctions regime is not being
followed, and therefore the international community has a little less
knowledge about what's going in and out.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
