default header
11/12/2002
State Department Noon Briefing, November 12
Canada, Iraq, Philippines, Cuba, Cyprus, Middle East, Colombia, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Miscellaneous
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:55 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
INDEX:
CANADA
Secretary Powell To Travel to Canada on November 14
Agenda for Secretary Powell's Visit to Canada
US Entry/Exit Registration System and Canadian Concerns
IRAQ
Secretary Powell's Meeting with UN Secretary General Annan
Reported Iraqi Surveillance of US Embassies in the Middle East
Iraqi National Assembly's Discussion of UN Resolution
Timetables in the UN Resolution Regarding Reporting and Inspections
Verification of Iraqi Compliance
Procurement of Atropine and Other Nerve Gas Antidotes
Broad-Based Opposition Conference
US Consultations with UN Security Council
PHILIPPINES
Cancellation of Veterans' Day Ceremony at US Embassy
CUBA
Cuban Airplane Lands in Key West Expulsion of Cuban Diplomats
CYPRUS
Presentation of Cyprus Settlement Proposal
MIDDLE EAST
Travel of Deputy Assistant Secretary Satterfield to Region
COLOMBIA
Abduction of Bishop / Renewal of State of Internal Disturbance
NORTH KOREA
Status of Shipment of Heavy Fuel Oil to North Korea
IRAN
Hashem Aghajari Sentenced to Death
EGYPT
Egyptian TV Station Airing of "Knight without a Horse" Mini-Series
ZIMBABWE
Killing of American Citizen in Eastern Zimbabwe
MISCELLANEOUS
CITES Conference and Proposal on Sale of Ivory
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I would like to start with one brief announcement about the Secretary's travel to Canada. Secretary of State Colin Powell will undertake a one-day trip to Ottowa, Canada on Thursday, November 14th.
QUESTION: Not Panama?
MR. BOUCHER: No -- for the purpose of consulting on a broad range of issues of mutual concern with one of our closest allies and friends.
The Secretary will meet with his counterpart Foreign Minister William Graham and attend a luncheon hosted by the Foreign Minister and attended by other Canadian officials. We will put up the announcement and do the usual checking on the rotation list to fill seats on the airplane.
Okay.
QUESTION: On this, this is Ottowa?
MR. BOUCHER: Ottowa, the 14th, Thursday -- up in the morning, back in the afternoon.
QUESTION: On this can I -- ?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: This is a rather hastily arranged visit, isn't it?
MR. BOUCHER: No. It is a rescheduled visit. It is one that he's wanted to make for some time. He and Minister Graham have talked about it a number of times, and I guess for many months I remember them talking about it in Whistler during the course of the summer, trying to find a date when the Secretary could get up there and they could talk.
QUESTION: One of the topics that they will be discussing, presumably, when they have their wide-ranging talks is this immigration flap which has caused much anger in Canada?
MR. BOUCHER: I am sure they will talk about any number of things, including that.
QUESTION: The Canadians were under the impression earlier last week, or early last week, that their citizens, at least some of them, would be exempted from these rules. And now, that appears not to be the case. Could you explain what exactly --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, we will obviously talk to the Canadians about these issues, if they want to discuss them, and we assume they do. But I think the Immigration Service has put out public statements on its rules and how it handles these cases, so I would refer you to that.
QUESTION: Well, all right. But can you explain why the Embassy in Ottawa had said that there had been an accommodation reached whereby some Canadians wouldn't be subjected to these new procedures and why that does not appear now to be the case, according to Attorney General Ashcroft's comments?
MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the statements that the Immigration Service has made and that the Embassy has repeated, they have said that Canadian citizens won't be subject to scrutiny solely because of the place of birth.
QUESTION: Do you think they'll be discussing the case of the Canadian men from the border town who went to fill up his tank of gas and ended up staying in prison for months? And I wanted to know if --
MR. BOUCHER: I am sure, to the extent that any particular cases come up, the Secretary will be happy to discuss them, but I don't know that they will be discussing any particulars of this matter.
QUESTION: Can we have an answer from you on this?
MR. BOUCHER: You can have an answer from me after we have the meetings, and I'll tell you whether they discussed it or not.
QUESTION: Richard, can I ask you, is this visit to Canada is the first step in a sequential visit to a number of countries in an attempt to -- I'm looking for the parallel for the Gulf War where Baker -- I think he began in Canada and, you know, went all over the world looking for help.
I know we don't have a cookie-cutter foreign policy, but I just wondered. (Laughter.) You always want allies on your side, and I wondered if he's planning, anticipating, similar trips to Europe and the Middle East.
MR. BOUCHER: This is a trip to Canada because, as I explained to your colleague moments ago, it's been important for the Secretary to make this trip to Canada, to be up in Ottawa to be able to visit with his counterpart, Minister Graham, as well as other people up there. He has looked forward to this trip and we have finally been able to find a date when the scheduling worked out.
QUESTION: Is there --
MR. BOUCHER: And I don't know of any other plans to go any other places in the world, except for the ones that are scheduled already. And you know we will be in Prague with NATO allies accompanying the President. We have a Binational Commission meeting coming up with the Mexicans. So the Secretary of State always travels, but he is not undertaking any new series of travels to sign people up for this, that or the other.
QUESTION: Richard, on the Iraqis, does the Secretary have a particular purpose in mind when he goes to Ottawa and talks about Iraq? Is he trying to persuade the Canadians of a particular course of action?
MR. BOUCHER: His intention is to consult with one of our closest allies and best friends, and I will leave it at that for the moment.
QUESTION: And on the immigration issue, does the Secretary feel that because of the role of the Justice Department in this that he can nevertheless negotiate arrangements on those immigration which are satisfactory --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to say he's going to negotiate arrangements, but the Secretary has a role in the policy of who comes into this country. He obviously has a chance to talk to his cabinet colleagues. And to the extent that there are diplomatic discussions the Canadians want to conduct with us on these matters, I am sure that he will convey those to his appropriate cabinet colleagues.
Other questions?
QUESTION: The meeting coming up in a few hours with Kofi Annan -- could you give those of us who write before as well as after some idea of what's on the table? Is this a coordination meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's a meeting on the occasion of the Secretary General's visit to Washington for other purposes, which I could let the UN Spokesman explain if he wants to, but the meeting this afternoon is at 4:45. There is no particular agenda except we all know what the subjects are that they will probably discuss. I think the primary topic will be Iraq, specifically the follow-up to the passage of UN resolution 1441.
Other topics might include the Middle East, Cyprus, where the Secretary General has just put down a new initiative that we strongly support, Afghanistan, the Bakassi Peninsula, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all these places where we work with the United Nations. The meeting, obviously, is limited in terms of the amount of time, so how many of these topics we get to will depend on the available time. And we do expect them to come together to the C Street entrance and you will be able to ask them at that point what they talked about.
Okay. Yes.
QUESTION: I think it was reported last night that Iraqi agents have been spotted casing US embassies in the Middle East. Anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really have anything on that. I think I would just have to say that our embassies in the Middle East, especially, but all over the world, are maintaining a very high state of alert. They are very careful about what's going on around them and they want to make sure that they maintain appropriate security measures, but I don't think I can go any farther than that into talking about what may or may not be happening around the embassies.
QUESTION: Can you say on that subject, though, if the Veterans' Day ceremony in Manila was called off for reasons related to the problems specific to the Philippines, i.e. the Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Liberation Front or if it was for some other security reason?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would be able to go beyond what was in the actual warden message that was sent out. I would have to look at that. But I don't think I can go beyond that.
QUESTION: Is the US prepared at all -- the current travel advisories that are out there -- are very, kind-of weighted toward al-Qaida. Is there reason to change that shift? I mean, to shift that emphasis from al-Qaida or not shift, but to add another emphasis to?
MR. BOUCHER: I would agree with you that many of the current warnings we have refer to al-Qaida, but I think we all know there are other threats out there. We have seen threats domestically as well as overseas. And so we all need to be vigilant against threats from whatever the quarter they might come from. I don't know of any current revisions in those warnings, but obviously if we think it appropriate to make that at some, we will.
QUESTION: Iraq. I'm sure you've seen the decision by the Iraqi parliament to reject inspections. What's your comment on that? And have you heard from your various intermediaries like, for example, the Arab League or the Egyptians or whoever what they expect the Iraqis to decide by Friday?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I have nothing much to say about the Iraqi National Assembly's discussion of this. We all know what Iraq is like. We all know who decides and one man decides everything. So the rest of this is pure theater. It is irrelevant to the outcome.
The second point, I think, to make is that the outcome has already been decided. The United Nations resolutions become binding the moment they are passed, and the requirements on Iraq are already there, the obligations of Iraq are already there, and it merely, in the resolution, allowed a chance for Iraq to confirm its intention to comply. But Iraq has no choice but to comply in these matters. It's not a decision. It's just confirming that they intend to comply.
The clock has started ticking on Iraq the moment of the resolution's adoption. They have to declare within 30 days a full and complete declaration of their weapons of mass destructions' programs. Iraq needs to allow inspectors in; inspectors get on the ground within 45 days, probably a lot sooner, as you've heard from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei. And they will report to the Security Council -- the inspectors -- 60 days after that unless there is a further violation, which will be reported immediately.
So they will be out there setting up, I think they have said, on November 18th, and there is no real choice here for Iraq.
Jon.
QUESTION: A couple of questions on Iraq, one just detailed one. That 60-day reporting period, it's not quite clear whether it starts at the end of the 45 days or after the inspectors do their first inspection. Can you clarify that? What are your views on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Inspectors should be on the ground in 45 days, more likely sooner, and report to the Security Council 60 days later.
QUESTION: That's one little point. It's what I say, it's kind of (inaudible) point.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I was going to say this is our write-up of it, which is derived from the resolution. I'll see if we can get you a more precise reading of when 60 days is -- whether it's after the first inspection or whether it's after 45 days.
We assume, I think, that the inspectors will go in and they will have to set up offices, get material together, so November 18th is not the date of the first inspection but it could be between then and 45 days. We'll see.
QUESTION: Indeed, this came up this morning at The Washington Institute and Kay has said that you can't do much in 60 days. He thought it might take years to find out what's going on. He said the inspectors, he was sure, would be able to find what they're looking for if they had enough time.
That sort of would put things in limbo, or are we jumping too far ahead at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: You're jumping way too far ahead, Barry. I think we've talked about this a dozen or so times. How long does it take to verify that Iraq has gotten rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction programs? Yes, probably a very long time. But if you read the UN resolution, you see that Iraq is required, first of all, to fully and completely disclose its programs; second of all, to cooperate and give unrestricted access to people, places and palaces; third of all, to comply in every other way with the other resolutions. The Iraqi requirement is to cooperate with the inspectors. This is why the Secretary and others said again and again it's a question of the intention of Iraq to cooperate.
Now, that intention, if it's violated, if they fail to comply, if they interfere, if they fail to fully disclose, that will be reported immediately. So Iraq's cooperation needs to be verified on an ongoing basis.
Were they to disclose and then ask the inspectors to verify disarmament, that, indeed, could take a long time.
Eli.
QUESTION: Richard, you've discussed before and the CIA has put out unclassified reports. The US has accumulated quite a bit of information already on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, placements, so forth and so on.
If -- and I know you don't like to answer hypotheticals -- but should the Iraqis disclose, as they are required, their itinerary of what they have, and you have information that suggests they're lying, would that be actionable cause to have a UN Security Council meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I think I would have to refer you back to the language of the resolution, which is that failure to disclose the programs shall constitute a further material breach and shall be dealt with according to paragraphs 11 or 12, I think is the way it came out. So it provides that false statements or omissions in the declarations, as well as failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations.
As the Secretary has pointed out, it is the fact of those omissions or the fact of that failure to comply that constitutes a further material breach, and the language of the resolution says the inspectors are to report any discrepancies. And we will obviously make our own conclusions based on what we all know that they have to account for. They have to account for what we all know is left over after previous inspections. They have to account for the procurements that they've made. They have to account for the facilities that they've rebuilt. They have to account for programs that we knew were never fully destroyed. So Iraq has a lot to account for.
QUESTION: Richard, if I can follow up, though, my question, I guess, is would US information alone be grounds for making the case that they have obstructed the process or, as you say, making a false statements? Or would that have to be something from Blix and his inspection team?
MR. BOUCHER: As we have mentioned before, any member of the Council can report anything and bring it to the attention of the Council whenever they want. If you look at the UN resolution, the inspectors, if they find false statements or omissions, they would report the material breach in that form, or others of us if we knew that that had occurred would presumably raise it as well.
QUESTION: So the final question is: Will you raise it if you find false statements?
MR. BOUCHER: That's a hypothetical. (Laughter.) But the answer is yes, we could, if we decided to.
QUESTION: I have two brief ones that I have very slim hopes for an answer on. But what do you make or do you have anything on the report that Iraq is trying to import this nerve gas antidote, if anything?
And two, a couple months ago, I think there was discussion about the State Department hosting or organizing some kind of conference about oil in Iraq. And as I remember, it was postponed. And I was just wondering if you could look into what the status of that is.
MR. BOUCHER: The status of that is I don't remember anything like that, but let me check on it.
On the question of what's called atropine, this is a drug that has wide medical use, including in the treatment of heart conditions and pesticide poisoning. Nonetheless, any Iraqi orders for more atropine than needed to meet normal humanitarian requirements would be of concern since that could indicate preparations to use chemical weapons by preparing to protect their own forces from the consequences of such use.
I can't get into the details of what Iraq may have ordered, but obviously any orders would have to be evaluated.
In terms of discussions with Turkey, I think the only thing I can tell you is that US and Turkey do share a concern about Iraq's intentions and about Iraq's past use of weapons of mass destruction.
QUESTION: Is it a violation? It's not a violation, I take it, to sell this stuff to Iraq, right? It's not on the goods review list?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not on the goods review list because it's a medical commodity. Nonetheless, any attempt to procure large quantities would have to be looked at.
QUESTION: But you don't want to say if there was any attempt to purchase large quantities?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I am able to because of the various sources of information we might have.
QUESTION: Was this a discussion when the -- presumably, you've known about this -- well, if there is something to know about, you knew about it for some time. I'm wondering if this came up in the Secretary's conversation with the new Turkish Chief of Staff.
MR. BOUCHER: I am not in a position to specifically confirm conversations with the Turks on a particular report. So I don't think I can do that at this point.
QUESTION: Well, how about, forgetting about the report, did the idea, did the subject of suspicious transfers to Iraq of any kind come up with the Turks, since they are a trading partner -- in general?
MR. BOUCHER: I have to check. I don't know.
QUESTION: Just Turkey, or Turkey and other countries?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I am not confirming Turkey, so how can I confirm other countries, as well? But if Iraq were trying to buy excessive quantities of this medication with the possible implication that they were going to protect themselves. It would be Turkey and other countries we would be concerned about, wherever they might be trying to buy it.
QUESTION: Well, you'll note that my question didn't include the word Turkey but your answer, very helpfully, did.
MR. BOUCHER: I see. Very good.
Charlie.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, you cannot confirm that the State Department has held discussions with Turkish officials in Ankara about this?
MR. BOUCHER: I can say that we have talked to the Turks about procurements by Iraq. Obviously, Turkey shares our concern about making sure that Iraq doesn't get anything that could further a program of weapons of mass destruction or be possibly involved with making it easier for Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction, as they have before.
But as far as a particular sale on a particular issue with the Turks, I can't get into that.
Betsy.
QUESTION: Even though you can't say whether the sale went through and whether it went through Turkey or some other country, can you say whether a sale was done, whether goods were delivered?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't.
Sir.
QUESTION: On Iraq, still two more. First, one quick one. Can you say anything at this stage about the aid package for Turkey, which is been much discussed in the last few days?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on that at this point.
QUESTION: And the other thing is what have you done so far to ensure that the Iraqi opposition conference on November the 22nd goes ahead smoothly, as it doesn't appear to be going so far?
MR. BOUCHER: I guess that's kind of a change of topic, but if Betsy's okay I'll go through that.
QUESTION: It's Iraq.
MR. BOUCHER: I see. All right, where are we?
QUESTION: You told us last week you would try to do something.
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. As you know, we have been working with leaders of six groups over the past few months to help them organize an event that would involve the broad-based opposition to the Iraqi regime. There are differences among the Iraqi opposition. As far as the composition of the proposed conference, we expect those problems will be worked out in a fair and democratic way.
We are currently still considering how to provide further impetus to this process and we plan to respond to the interested parties shortly with our thoughts on the matter.
I would say they have been working hard over the past few months in preparation for a conference. This is obviously an important event and it is not unusual that there should be differences of opinions, as well as high hopes and expectations.
Nevertheless, we are confident that free Iraqis everywhere will together fashion a common vision for their country's future. We are not unduly concerned by what we view as normal political differences regarding the upcoming conference. We will continue to work together with our friends in the Iraqi opposition as they work to hold a broad-based conference of the free Iraqi community.
QUESTION: Richard, how do you plan to respond? What form would that take? And will anybody be traveling to London?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we'll travel. We do talk to them all the time. We have people here who work with the Iraqi opposition on these conferences and other endeavors, and I am sure they will be in touch.
Eli.
QUESTION: This is a meta -- well, not a meta question. It's the larger point. If the State Department is encouraging a conference of Iraqi opposition to presumably talk about a government after Saddam Hussein, and, at the same time, is holding out the hope that Saddam can hold onto power, do you think that you could, in some ways, as the President said, he thinks that war is a last option, he doesn't want to go to war, that, you could be giving the Iraqis the wrong idea at this point as they have this one final opportunity to forego all of their weapons of mass destruction?
MR. BOUCHER: Is there a question hidden in there somewhere?
QUESTION: Yes, there's a question. It seems to me that either the opposition is getting their hopes up for no good reason or you're --
MR. BOUCHER: I think the only answer to that is to say, as you've seen, we plan for all possibilities. We want to make sure we're ready for all possibilities. We want to make sure we're ready for what experience has led us to believe is the possible outcome. But we are also ready to try to secure Iraqi compliance with resolutions by peaceful means, if we can do that. But there will be a someday after Saddam.
QUESTION: Can I clarify something the Secretary said at the weekend to Wolf Blitzer? He said if Saddam doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the UN to give authorization for all necessary means. That seemed to be a pretty clear statement that you will go for another resolution if you want to use force. I know you say you don't need one, but it's your intention to do that anyway?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can go beyond, at this point, what the Secretary said. I'll just leave it at that. Obviously, we have said the UN, in the resolution it says the Security Council will convene to consider immediately the need for full compliance. All necessary means is clearly one way of getting that.
But as we have said before, if the Council doesn not come to agreement on what to do in that case, then we reserve the right to do what we think is necessary in conjunction with other governments. That has happened before in cases, matters brought before the Security Council, and it could happen again. We'll just have to see.
QUESTION: But you are going to ask the UN for an "all necessary means" resolution? That seems to be what he's saying.
MR. BOUCHER: That's exactly what he said.
Betsy, you had something?
QUESTION: Well, I have a different topic.
MR. BOUCHER: Please.
QUESTION: Okay. There was a plane that landed yesterday in Cuba with Cubans on it, landed in Key West. Is there anything you can say about these people, this plane, and what will happen to them?
MR. BOUCHER: Not very much. Well, you know about the plane. A crop duster flew from Cuba to Key West the morning of November 11th. There were eight passengers and crew on board. They represented three generations of one family. All members of the family wish to go to the United States. The family is being processed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
We would expect to work with the Cuban Government to return the aircraft.
QUESTION: And the pilot will stay here, as well?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, they are all one family, all members wish to come to the United States, and so the Immigration Service is talking to them.
QUESTION: Have the Cubans asked for the aircraft back?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know for sure that they have, but the normal course of business would be that we would work with them to return the airplane.
QUESTION: And also on Cuba, have you heard anything back from the Cubans now on your expulsion of their diplomats, who I believe would have left yesterday?
MR. BOUCHER: The deadline was yesterday, and I think it is safe to assume that they have left, although I can't confirm that for you.
I think just some declarations by the Cubans that they were political reasons. And we have said that is without foundation; they were declared persona non grata, the two from the Interests Section here were declared persona non grata in response to unacceptable Cuban activities for which Anna Belen Montes was arrested and convicted. And we will call on the Cuban Government to make sure that does not happen again.
QUESTION: But as far as you know, the strength, the number of your diplomats at the Interests Section in Havana is still the same as it was prior to October 31st?
MR. BOUCHER: As far as I know, yes.
QUESTION: Richard, you never answered that question on whether those two diplomats in Washington had anything to do with the --
MR. BOUCHER: I think I was asked if I could beyond that, and I said if I could I would put something up. The answer is I can't go beyond what we have said, that this was in response to the matter for which Anna Belen Montes was arrested and convicted, and that is as far as I can go.
A Cyprus question?
QUESTION: Yes, on Cyprus. Mr. Boucher, I read carefully your yesterday's statements on Cyprus, and in it you are saying that the US strongly welcomes --
MR. BOUCHER: Let that be an example to all your colleagues. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, it's not an example. I would rather be clear that US strongly welcomes the UN initiative, fully supports the steps, and encourages the two sides to work urgently.
I am wondering why since this plan leads to the de facto partition of the Island of Cyprus and the destruction of the Republic of Cyprus, as exists today, based on the London-Zurich treaties of 1960.
MR. BOUCHER: Because we have worked long and hard for a settlement that can meet the needs of the parties on Cyprus, that can meet the needs of the region in terms of providing better stability for the region, and we have always supported the effort to reach a settlement. And we think that this is an important effort by the Secretary General that we, as I said, as you said, fully support.
It was drafted by the United Nations, so if you want to ask particulars about does it do this, does it do that, you will have to ask that there. But the United States has always supported the good offices of the Secretary General and we support them in this case as well.
QUESTION: According to the UN document in my possession, it is stating about two distinct national identities and two territorial integrities under a common state with no majority and minority rules, but about political equality with separate component states, as you were saying exactly, Greek and Turkish-run, which simply means confederation.
My question to you is: Do you support the confederated Republic of Cyprus, since, as you said, the US and the England drafted the plan with UN cooperation?
MR. BOUCHER: We support the effort of the Secretary General, and if you want to ask about the particulars in the document, you will have to ask the United Nations.
QUESTION: One more?
MR. BOUCHER: One more. Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. Since it's a lot of US officials are talking about the UN plan means federation, I am asking how could coexist in a confederated Cyprus the territorial integrity or the national integrity, according to the plan?
MR. BOUCHER: We support the good offices of the Secretary General, and if you want to ask particulars about this document, you will have to ask the United Nations.
QUESTION: But you have taken a position with your statement yesterday. That means you know what's going on and you know the plan. You know what this plan --
MR. BOUCHER: We know what's going on, we know the plan, and it is for the people who wrote it to present it and to explain it.
Okay, sir.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Middle East?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. I think the answer is yes.
QUESTION: Can you tell us about Mr. Satterfield's visit thus far?
MR. BOUCHER: I have to find out where he is.
QUESTION: Israel.
MR. BOUCHER: No, let me say that. That may be the only thing I can tell you.
He is on his way to Amman, Jordan for meetings of the Task Force on the 14th and the 15th. And I don't think I know where he is today.
So no, I can't tell you anything about his travels so far. Simple answer.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, maybe you can react to what Pat Robertson had to say about Mr. Satterfield on his television show last night, which is that he is anti-Israeli and pro-Arab and that he is, from all indications, very much pro-Arab, anti-Israel. He has said and acted in the past in a way to lead one to believe that he is not in favor of what the Jews want to do." Then he went on to say, "I must say I am not a great fan of the State Department and he", meaning Satterfield, "is another one that I am not a fan of."
(Laughter.)
He also said that Mr. Satterfield --
MR. BOUCHER: Let's not go on. I'm not here to respond to everything that anybody might say on any television show. Our diplomats serve the President of the United States. They carry out his vision of peace in the Middle East as he expressed on June 24th. Every single one of us is committed to serving the President and carrying out his policy. That's what we do. Stop at that. Anybody who wants to say anything else, that's for them.
QUESTION: Well, there was an accusation there. I just want this as a factual thing. The Syria Accountability Act -- it was alleged that Mr. Satterfield was the one who personally stopped this in Congress. Can you say that that's not true?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't know what the Syria Accountability Act was. But, in any case, when dealing with our Congress, we, again, further the President's position, the administration's position on legislation. Who it is that conveyed that on any particular piece of legislation, I don't know, but it doesn't matter. It's a matter of taking the administration's position and conveying that to the Congress.
QUESTION: Okay. In addition to going after Mr. Satterfield on his show last night, Pat Robertson also made some very critical statements of Muslims, calling them worse than Nazis and saying that they are out to exterminate the Jews and other things along those lines.
I am wondering, given the fact that this program has an international audience, including in the Middle East -- Lebanon, they broadcast from Lebanon, it goes into Egypt and other places -- and the fact that you have expressed concern to the Egyptian Government about what might be construed to be anti-Semitic broadcasts on their television, Egypt and other Arab governments, I am wondering if you would express the same concerns about this kind of speech.
MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to get into particulars of individual speeches and statements, Matt. I think it's clear to all of us that there's a difference when there's a government broadcaster involved. I don't think your question is in any way implying that these remarks were sponsored or supported or subsidized by the US Government. If anybody wants to know what the US Government thinks on these matters, I think there are abundant statements by the President, a statement in connection with the Iftaar Dinner that the President gave, and I am sure many other occasions the US Government's view and policy on these matters has been clearly expressed.
QUESTION: Okay. So you would not take to heart a request from Arab-Americans or others in the Arab world to, for the sake of consistency, to try and get broadcasters, US broadcasters -- and I realize that you support freedom of speech, but in this particular case, with broadcasts to the Middle East, where you have said that this kind of thing is inflammatory, you would not take on board those suggestions?
MR. BOUCHER: I will stick with what I said and just leave it at that.
The gentleman in the back.
QUESTION: On Colombia. Yesterday, there was kidnappings in a large city in Colombia, this time was a bishop and a priest. And I would like your comments on this. They were allegedly done by the FARC. And also, your comments on the extension of the state of emergency by the government of President Uribe for 90 more days in Colombia?
MR. BOUCHER: The US Government deplores the kidnapping campaign by illegal armed groups against religious and government figures. Yesterday's cowardly abduction of both Monsignor Jorge Enrique Jimenez, the bishop of Zipaquira, and the president of Latin American Bishops Conference, and a parish priest demonstrate once again the lack of regard for the most basic human rights by these groups.
The kidnapping of these two clergymen is the latest in a series of terrorist attacks against Colombia's Roman Catholic bishops and priests. The campaign by terrorists against Roman Catholic clergymen includes the March 2002 assassination of the Archbishop of Cali and most recently, in October, the FARC gunned down a parish priest as he was leaving his residence in Chalan Sucre.
Our US Embassy in Bogota will continue to closely monitor developments in this case. As far as who was responsible, I think I have to leave you with the Colombian authorities for that. They will have to determine through their investigation.
As far as the renewal of the state of internal disturbance, the first 90-day period was carried out with full respect for Colombia's constitution and the rule of law. As President Uribe has said, the Government of Colombia will ensure that the 90-day extension of its August 12th declaration of a state of internal disturbance will continue to be implemented in accordance with the rule of law and democratic norms. As provided for under the 1991 constitution, a state of internal disturbance may last a maximum of 270 days and allows for the president to issue decree laws, declare curfews, make searches without warrant while guaranteeing the protection of human rights and civil liberties.
I think that is about all we have to say on the matter.
Yes.
QUESTION: There is a plane deal between Brazil and Colombia, $247 million I believe that the US is trying to get the Colombians to change their mind on. Is that true?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard about it. I will have to check.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) who in the Palestinian Authority did he meet with?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I was asked if I had any whereabouts and updates on his travel and I said no.
QUESTION: Can you take that as a question?
MR. BOUCHER: I will see if I have anything to update you on his travel. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. So Assistant Secretary Jim Kelly just conclude the consultation with Japanese and Korean Governments and right now he is in Beijing right now, I think. And next Thursday the KEDO will hold a executive board as my understanding. Is the heavy oil issue is still up in the air or can we expect a final decision before the KEDO's executive board?
MR. BOUCHER: I just hate it when you give all my news in your questions. (Laughter.) Jim Kelly's in Beijing right now. He's had consultations with the Japanese and the Korean Governments. Ther is a meeting of the KEDO, Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, executive board November 14th in New York. At that point, the executive board members, South Korea, Japan, the European Union and United States will get together and they'll look -- that's Thursday and/or Friday, depending on how much they have to do -- they'll get together in New York and they will discuss at that time how to proceed with the oil shipment, so I would not expect a decision before then. I would expect us to go and continue our consultations with our counterparts on the board and then for the board to look at this issue on Thursday or Friday.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. George had a question.
QUESTION: I know that South Korea said they want the shipments to continue. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we are discussing this with out counterparts on the board. We've been consulting with other governments on it through the trilateral coordination mechanism as well as through Mr. Kelly's talks. And we would expect to discuss this further in the executive board meeting on Thursday or Friday.
QUESTION: Richard --
MR. BOUCHER: Sir. You had one?
QUESTION: And you said there would be no decision before then, but do you expect a decision to emerge from that?
MR. BOUCHER: We'll have to see what the board decides to do. It's a matter for them to decide.
QUESTION: Richard, same subject. It is a slightly technical one but it seems quite relevant in the circumstances. The vessel is on its way and must be quite close to North Korea by now. Do you know, I mean how does this, how does it look on the timing of this at the moment? I mean is it due to arrive and you are --
MR. BOUCHER: I think we said last week there is time to decide and there still is.
Yes. Sir.
QUESTION: No instructions have been given to -- even if -- (laughter.)
MR. BOUCHER: You asked me all these same questions last Friday. The answers haven't changed. Thursday, I guess it was.
QUESTION: Okay. Yes. Ten days ago.
QUESTION: Do you have anything by chance on the jailing in Iran of three people who were involved in taking a survey on Iranian attitudes toward the United States?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me see if I do. Let's see who this person is that I have something on. No, it's not. No. I will have to look into that other one.
The trial and the extraordinarily harsh sentence against Iranian reformist Hashem Aghajari merely for exercising his right of free expression represent a breach of accepted international standards of due process. We're gravely concerned about the case which indicates a deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. Public executions, stonings, punitive amputations and the persecution of reformers and the press have increased over the last several months.
The United States stands with the people of Iran in their quest for greater freedom, prosperity, judicial due process and the rule of law.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: I think we had that last week, but since then there have been several demonstrations and some more arrests. Do you express solidarity with the people demonstrating for the release of Mr. Aghajari?
MR. BOUCHER: I would say that we stand with the people of Iran in their quest for greater freedom, prosperity, judicial due process and the rule of law.
QUESTION: This is on Iran. You don't have anything about a decision by the Iranian Government to ban advertising of American products, do you? I don't know how many American products there are.
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
QUESTION: Can I get back to the Middle East for just one second? Two things, briefly. One, on Friday people, the Embassy in Cairo had been reporting back to you guys that the show, "Knight Without a Horse" or "Horseman Without a Horse" did not -- at least the first episode of it -- didn't contain anything objectionable. I believe that several more episodes have run now -- is that still the case?
MR. BOUCHER: It's a 41-part series. The first six episodes have aired. Initial reports indicate that there were no references in the program to the protocols of the Elder of Zion Tsarist Forgery designed to incite violence against Jews. We also welcome the public assurances by the Egyptian Government that the program contains no anti-Semitic material. We are following the issue closely. We will continue to monitor the programs as they air.
QUESTION: Okay. And then further to the east -- do you have anything to say, or can you say anything about this report in the Christian Science Monitor that the Yemenis are very upset with your ambassador there for going out into the field and doing deals with the tribes people on intelligence matters specifically related to the incident or event that happened last week?
MR. BOUCHER: We read the report, but I don't have anything to say on that.
QUESTION: Okay. I've got a couple other ones. I'll be very quick. The daughter of the Kazakh journalist who was arrested, beaten up and went on a hunger strike and was stopped is here today, apparently meeting with officials.
You guys have expressed concern about the general condition in Kazakhstan, but until now, even at the OSCE last week, I don't think you've actually said anything specifically about this case. You said you still needed more facts. Do you have more information about this case now?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, first of all, we have noted our concerns about the state of the media, the apparent harassment of independent media. This is the same journalist as was brutally beaten by unknown assailants in August, so we frequently raise those concerns with the Kazakhstani authorities. In this particular situation, we do know the charges filed against Mr. Duvanov are very serious. Our primary concern is that any legal process against him be carried out in a fair, transparent and open manner.
We understand he has agreed to end his hunger strike and we remain concerned about the state of his health. We have raised those concerns with Kazakhstani authorities.
QUESTION: Have you complained at all to the Government of Zimbabwe about their police shooting and killing an American citizen at a checkpoint yesterday, I believe?
MR. BOUCHER: For those who didn't know, our embassy in Harari, Zimbabwe has confirmed the death of an American citizen, Mr. Richard Gilman, age 58, near the city of Mutare in eastern Zimbabwe. According to a report in a Government of Zimbabwe-owned newspaper, he was shot by police.
First, we express our deepest condolences to Mr. Gilman's family and friends. Consular officers are in touch with Mr. Gilman's family and they are providing assistance. The circumstances of Mr. Gilman's death remain unclear. Embassy officials have gone to Mutare to determine what happened. We have conveyed our concerns to the Government of Zimbabwe. We have called for a thorough investigation into this tragedy.
QUESTION: Concerns about what?
MR. BOUCHER: About the circumstances of his death and what actually happened, since we think it is unclear.
QUESTION: Okay. On the same issue, in Nepal, one of your Embassy guards was murdered over the weekend. The Embassy has put out a Warden message reminding everyone there to be careful.
I am wondering if there has been any determination that this was conducted, this murder was done, by the Maoists.
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I know of at this point. I'll check and see.
QUESTION: All right. Have you been in touch or have you received any communication from the Pakistani Government itself, not any communication from Pakistan, about the scheduled execution Thursday of the suspect or the man who was convicted of killing the CIA officers?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check on that. I don't know.
QUESTION: Okay, I've got two more and they'll be really quick.
What's your reaction to the decision by the CITES committee in Santiago to drop the ban on ivory sales for limited countries? Or do you have a view?
MR. BOUCHER: Why can't I find what I think I can find on this? Oh, because it's in Africa.
We put forward our delegation to the conference of the parties on the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna. We put forward an alternative proposal in their debate over allowing southern African states to sell their ivory stocks. The US amendment was to a proposal from Botswana, and our amendment would allow a one-time sale no earlier than 2005. Before the one-time sale would be allowed, the US is seeking to ensure improved import-export and domestic market law enforcement, as well as to ensure that a one-time sale would not undermine ongoing monitoring programs for elephant populations.
The proposal is consistent with the US longstanding role as a major supporter of African and Asian elephant conservation. The proposal recognizes the progress southern African nations have made in conserving and restoring their elephant populations while ensuring that any trade will not lead to an increase in poaching of elephants.
Any more details have to come from the Department of the Interior. So I don't have a final decision on that one.
QUESTION: And the last one is have you decided yet on what you're doing to do with this $3 million that was supposed to go to the World Health Organization that is in jeopardy because of the RU-486 research?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I am aware of. But if we do, I am sure you will be the first to know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
