 | | |
 | |  |
 | ||
| Advanced Search/Archive |
||
 |  |  |  |
Español | Français | Pycckuú | |  | | |
 | | |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
 |
| |
|
27 October 2004 State Department Noon Briefing, October 27North Korea, Iran, China/Taiwan, Iraq, Nigeria, India/Pakistan, Japan, Cyprus, Syria, Israel/Palestinians State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed the media October 27. Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing: (begin transcript) U.S. Department of State Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman NORTH KOREA IRAN CHINA/TAIWAN IRAQ NIGERIA INDIA/PAKISTAN MISCELLANEOUS JAPAN CYPRUS SYRIA ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2004 12:45 p.m. EDT MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be back and see you. I think Adam's taken care of your questions in the meantime, but anything I can do for you today, I'd be glad to, so, turn to Mr. Schweid. QUESTION: Do you think differences between on the other hand South Korea and China, and on the other, United States, and how they handled negotiations with North Korea are being exaggerated? Was the Secretary aware on his trip, I wasn't there, so I can't even read body language from it -- was he aware of the South Korean complaint, if you want to call it that way? MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I don't think I do want to call it that way because that's not the way it was raised with us. I think the differences are being exaggerated, that certainly the focus of the trip was not on the creative and flexible side, that was the point that some of the governments made. And I'll explain that later. The focus of our discussions on the trip was on, how do we get the North Koreans to come back to talk? So you have five parties to the talks who were ready to talk again in September, who were ready to talk again in October, who are ready to talk again now, and are willing to take any issues or proposals they have to the table. You have the United States, supported by these other governments, having put together already a very comprehensive and, I would note, also flexible proposal that did take into account earlier discussions, that does take into account what other governments are prepared to do, and doesn't put everybody under the same strictures. And that proposal is already on the table. Again, five countries ready to go back to talks to discuss it. So we, we do understand the need in negotiations to be creative and flexible. We are prepared to go back in talks and listen to what the North Koreans might have to say about our proposal. And we're prepared to discuss that proposal with other governments at the bargaining table. What, the point the Secretary has made, and I think, some of the other governments have made as well is that's the place to discuss things. You don't sit around modifying or whittling down your proposal or making new offers because one party, because a single party to the six-party talks has been delaying and stalling. If they have stuff they want to raise, let them raise it at the talks. So the thrust of the trip, I think, was, from all of us, how to get them back to the table, how to press forward as soon as possible, and that was one where we and the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Chinese share, I think, a remarkable similarity of views. QUESTION: If these are no more, even, than quibbles, is it hurtful to have this united front appear to be somewhat not that united? MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to comment on the press commentary on this, really. The -- QUESTION: No, no. I don't mean that. I mean the statements that -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, the statements that were made, I think, had everything in the proper perspective. If you read what the Chinese actually said; if you read what the South Koreans actually said; you'll see that their emphasis is in resuming the talks at an early date. That is where the emphasis of the trip was, and that is where the emphasis of the diplomacy has been in terms of what the Japanese said they would raise at a meeting I think they have coming up on -- in early November. That was what the Chinese have been raising and doing in their talks with the North Koreans recently, and that they will continue to do in their diplomacy. So I think the North Koreans have to be quite clear that the statements that all these parties have made and the diplomacy that these parties are conducting is focused on the primary point, which is, "Son, come back to the table, and anything you want to raise can be raised there." QUESTION: And last thing, do you have any hunch, if it's only a hunch, of when that might be? MR. BOUCHER: It would be pure speculation and guesswork on my part to even choose a month, but we think it should be soon. We are ready and have been ready to have these talks and remain ready to have the talks. Yeah. Elise. QUESTION: New subject? On Iran? MR. BOUCHER: Go ahead. Yeah. QUESTION: It looks like the EU-3 and Iran are talking, failed to reach agreement on Iran halting its nuclear program, but they're going to continue talking and Iran says it might consider an indefinite freeze. Do you want to -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's more of a readout of the talks than we've gotten so far, and more than I've seen in the wire services. I think I've only seen the briefest of comments at this point from the participants. We will look to hear from the participants from the EU-3 about their discussions today with the Iranians in Vienna. We had talked to them extensively after the first meeting that they had in Vienna, and we look forward to talking to them after this one. So we'll hear more from them, I'm sure, in coming days. As you know, our view has been that Iran's enrichment programs; its past activities justified a referral to the United Nations. That remains our position. At this point, we have not seen anything different, but -- in terms of Iranian commitments or behavior and we, we'll have to see how the meeting went today, but I think it's a little too early to start making judgments based on this particular meeting. QUESTION: Well, can you weigh in on the idea of a freeze of the enrichment program? I mean you've been willing to consider that in North Korea, why wouldn't it be applicable for Iran? MR. BOUCHER: Because they're different places. They're different places, they're different programs. They've been done in different ways. And we have made clear, in North Korea's case; a freeze is merely a step to elimination. In Iran's case, you can ask the Europeans in more detail of what they were asking for. But I think if you look at the Board of Governors resolutions, the Board of Governors, the whole Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency has asked for Iran for an indefinite suspension of all enrichment activities. And that is what, in fact, Iran had previously agreed to, and subsequently gone back on its word. So that doesn't change what the Board of Governors has asked for because that, in the Board of Governors' view, including ours, is the only way that the international community can have some clarity about Iranian intentions, some clarity that Iran is no longer conducting the kind of nuclear weapons programs it has conducted in the past. QUESTION: New subject? MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. QUESTION: On Taiwan. We know Secretary Powell during those two interview mentioned peaceful unification and also declared that Taiwan does not enjoy the sovereignty of a nation. And Taiwan Government just protest this has violated the six assurances that provided by President Reagan. I wonder, do you have any response. MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have anything more to say. We did have some contact with the Taiwan authorities. They asked us what our policy was. We told them our policy has not changed in any way. The United States continues to work for a dialogue between Taiwan and the Mainland, and that we have continued to encourage that dialogue. The Secretary worked hard on that as -- during the course of his discussions in Beijing, and that our goal is to see the two parties reach a peaceful resolution of the issues. That remains our policy. QUESTION: So can we say that Secretary Powell's trip is to promote dialogue not to promote unification? MR. BOUCHER: His trip is to promote dialogue. That's right. It was to promote dialogue, and that's what he was pushing for. QUESTION: When you say contact with Taiwanese officials, can you be more specific? MR. BOUCHER: I think the American Institute in Taiwan talked to people out in Taipei, and I think there were some contacts in Washington, as well, with the CCNA. QUESTION: The tech room. MR. BOUCHER: The tech room, that's right. QUESTION: Does that, Richard, mean that they called you to ask what the Secretary meant and whether the policy has changed, and you're responsible for -- MR. BOUCHER: I think they just called to check and say, hey, is there something new? And we said no. QUESTION: According to the report, it says Mr. Douglas Paul said, State Department corrected the word peaceful unification to peaceful solution. Is that so? MR. BOUCHER: No. I don't know exactly what you're quoting. I don't remember. I didn't see any quotes from Douglas Paul, but the transcript remains the same. We have made clear our policy is to promote a dialogue, a dialogue aimed at a peaceful resolution. That has been our policy, remains our policy. The Secretary said so today again in one of his interview. You'll see the transcript of that later. Okay, Joel. QUESTION: Change of subject. Our election is in roughly a week and there has been a complaint in the BBC World service broadcast that Libya's PR firm has injected $1.2 million into the campaign. Now, I would assume that's somewhat illegal. And also, there have been complaints that the GOP election website has been blocked and people from Sydney, London and Amsterdam have not been able to get into it. Has that been a change in policy? MR. BOUCHER: I would suggest you check with the Federal Election Commission. Yeah. QUESTION: In Iraq, Richard, the prime minister has accused American troops of being responsible for the shootout the other day, which seems to be an unusual comment on his part. Do you have anything to say about it, and who actually -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think first of all, you need to put the prime minister's remarks of yesterday back in the context of which they were said. I don't think he said exactly what you're saying. So I'd look that up. But at the same time, we've seen, I think, further remarks from his national security advisor that made clear that the Iraqi Government does not blame anyone at this point other than the terrorists. They are the ones responsible. They weren't trying to assign any blame to the United States or U.S. forces, and in fact, the matter is still under investigation, so I think we've seen that further explanation from his national security advisor about the quotes. QUESTION: Can I follow up then? QUESTION: He did accuse you guys of neglect, though. MR. BOUCHER: No, he didn't accuse. He said -- QUESTION: He said it was neglect. MR. BOUCHER: Negligence, I think. Gross negligence is the way it was translated. It may have been translated differently in other places. QUESTION: (Inaudible), address that. I mean, do you feel -- MR. BOUCHER: I think I just did. I said his national security advisor himself felt it necessary to go back and address that again and say that, no, that they were not trying to assign blame at this point. They were trying to say the matter is now under investigation. We can certainly understand what a trying and difficult experience this event was for the people involved and for the Iraqi Government. And I'm sure they will try to get to the bottom of it and figure out what factors might have led to the events. And that matter is still under investigation. But I don't think they or anyone else believes that anyone besides the terrorists are most directly responsible for this. QUESTION: But Richard, one of the vice presidents of Iraq yesterday said that, obviously these recruits were not properly protected and he didn't blame them, the U.S. or the coalition for the events that took place, but said that there needs to be more protection for these type of recruits in the future. MR. BOUCHER: That may be. But that'll be something that I'm sure our authorities, and Iraqi authorities, will want to look at. The Iraqi authorities who control more and more security assets will want to look at how they can avoid those and whether there needs to be more assigned to the recruits, and if they don't have it, maybe that's a job that our military can take on in coordination with them. So I'm sure nobody wants to see a repetition of this. Nobody wants to see Iraqi recruits and Iraqi soldiers vulnerable to this kind of attack, but I think we and the Iraqi Government have been very, very clear that people who are responsible for this are the terrorist who carried them out, and these kind of attacks are unconscionable. The recruits, the soldiers, the Iraqi soldiers, are people who are trying to protect their country, trying to stabilize their country and trying to give a better life to their people, and they deserve to be honored, and they deserve to be able to do their jobs with proper protection. So I'm sure that everyone will be looking at how that can be improved after this incident. QUESTION: The issue of the missing 360 tons of explosives: Are you getting any direct assessment from Ambassador Negroponte, or is that strictly a DOD issue? MR. BOUCHER: I really don't have anything new on that. I'm sure our Embassy is coordinating with the military authorities out on the ground just to ensure the flow of information. But in terms of finding out more about the events and circumstances during the period around the war, I think that's being looked at by the Defense Department teams and by the appropriate agencies who might want to do that, and at this point, don't have anything new. Joel. QUESTION: With was a lesser complaint coming from Nigeria, President Obasanjo has been saying that an Islamic Court ruling in a stoning to death trial of a woman who was never married and her -- apparently, her boyfriend was never married either, has just gone way too far. It's a human rights type issue. And in your freedom of religion type reports and also your other reports to Congress, you've mentioned it prior. MR. BOUCHER: I think you'll see from our Human Rights Report that these kinds of trials and punishments have been of serious concern to us in Nigeria. I'm not aware of any recent case. I'll have to look into it and see if there is anything on this particular case that we should say. QUESTION: Can we go back to Iraq for a minute? MR. BOUCHER: Okay. QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you if you could shed some light on the extra $70 billion that the President is requesting for -- MR. BOUCHER: No, I wouldn't be able to do that. Eventually, any supplemental would be a White House request and whether there is or isn't any component from the State Department I think will be decided later. Sir. QUESTION: India, a former colleague of Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has made pretty harsh comments about Secretary Powell and the State Department about an interview that Secretary Powell gave U.S. Today regarding him facilitating a phone call between the Indian -- former Indian Prime Minister and the current Indian -- Pakistani Prime Minister over Kashmir peace talks. He's called it fabricated and baseless, a total concoction, and said: I don't know whether the State Department, in addition to attempting to run U.S. foreign policy as best as it can. There was also a telephone exchange. Do you have any response to that? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly what he said. I guess I sort of heard about these remarks. Just say the Secretary has always -- I think he several times sort of described the efforts that he made to try to support the Indian and Pakistani Government as they made efforts to work together, that this has been a matter that we have long supported with our policy. We have praised the statesmanlike initiatives that have been taken by the Indian and Pakistani leaders and we've tried to support them at every juncture in a variety of ways, including keeping in touch with them. The Secretary has kept in close touch with his colleagues on the telephone and will continue to do so, so I don't want to start commenting on a back and forth on this thing. We've stayed in close touch and always supported them, always recognized the role that Indians and Pakistanis themselves deserve for the remarkable progress that they've made in taking this situation from one of confrontation and with many predicting that war was imminent to a place, now, where we can see prospects of resolving many of these issues peacefully, and where we've already seen concrete progress. That has a lot to do with their statesmanship. And we've tried to help along the way and are proud of what we've done to try to help. QUESTION: His comments seem directly though that, Secretary Powell's comments that he made a phone call to Vajpayee and then to Jamal and got them to talk, is that a -- MR. BOUCHER: No, that's not exactly what the Secretary said, so I'd invite you to read the transcript of the Secretary's remarks. The story as told by the Secretary is the true story. But I'm not sure what version of it or -- others might have been commenting on. Yeah. Elise. QUESTION: An interview yesterday with Mr., Secretary Powell's son, Michael, some comments made by Howard Stern that his son only got the job because of Secretary Powell's connections. Does the Secretary have any feelings about this interview or is it a wash? MR. BOUCHER: I think if you look at the interview the Secretary did this morning, he commented a bit. I'll leave it at that. We'll get you the transcript of those remarks. Yeah. Ma'am. QUESTION: On Iraq, Japanese is kidnapped by terrorist group and they demand Japanese Government to withdraw Self Defense Force within two days. Do you have anything? MR. BOUCHER: Well, we do understand that a Japanese citizen, a private Japanese citizen, has been taken hostage in Iraq. I'd note that the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Machimura last night and the Secretary reiterated our pledge to do whatever we can to assist Japan's efforts to resolve the situation. We also welcome Prime Minister Koizumi's unequivocal statement that Japan would not withdraw Japanese forces from Iraq and that Japan will not yield to terrorism. Japan's Self Defense Forces are carrying out a vital humanitarian effort in Iraq. That effort benefits the Iraqi people as they seek to reconstruct their country. We will remain in close contact with the Japanese Government as this situation evolves. Iraqi security forces, multinational forces and our Embassy in Baghdad continue to coordinate closely in securing the release of all hostages and kidnap victims in Iraq. Yeah. Sir. QUESTION: On Cyprus, Mr. Boucher, any answer to my yesterday's pending question that the United States Agency For International Development, under the auspices of Andrew Natsios, allocated $6.4 million from the DOS annual budget to bribe Greek and Turkish Cypriot politicians, reporters, analysts, professors, organizations, et cetera, et cetera, -- I have the full report, 120 pages -- to campaign for a big "yes" to the Annan plan for the referendum of April 24th, 2004? MR. BOUCHER: Somewhere in that 120 pages, does it actually use the phrase, bribe? QUESTION: I'm using "bribe" -- MR. BOUCHER: That's your summary of the report. I see. QUESTION: -- as Lambros Papantoniou. MR. BOUCHER: Let's just make clear that we have that, Mr. Lambros Papantoniou's -- QUESTION: Correct. MR. BOUCHER: Doing his summary of this 120-page report. But thank you for that information. There is a report by -- that you have, by an independent evaluator. These are the opinion of the evaluators on the bi-communal development program that we've conducted in Iraq/1 with, along with the United Nations. I think the United Nations in Iraq/1 would have more to say on some of these particular projects and efforts, but certainly over the years, we have conducted bi-communal projects with the idea in mind that we can encourage both communities to work with each other. In some of the specific areas they have, you know, whether it's electricity and water and planning and other things, we've already seen some productive results from those projects and we'll have to look at this report and we'll look at the projects and we'll determine how best to go forward with these kinds of programs. QUESTION: May I -- why, besides with the annual $13.5 million from the U.S. Congress to be given on bi-communal development programs use (inaudible), it was necessary for the United States Agency For International Development to spend additional $6.4 million for the campaign on the Annan plan prior to the referendum? MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to look at this particular amount, whether it was part of that annual amount or whether it was separate. I don't, I'm not quite sure it was separate. QUESTION: It was separate. Correct. It was separate. MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'd have to look and that and see, but I think the Agency for International Development will obviously look at this report, look at these programs, and decide how and when to proceed with similar programs in the future. It's always useful to have the views of an independent evaluator, but it is an independent view and not necessarily the final view we might take about these projects. QUESTION: One more question. According to page 5-2 of the Annex 5A, the recipients, actually those who have been bribed, I have emphasized, appeared before the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia and inter alia have been asked to answer the formal question prior to the non-approval code, "If there were a referendum now, based on what you know, would you be strongly in favor, in favor but with a reservation, or not in favor?" Now, who had the list of those who appear and answer those questions? MR. BOUCHER: No. QUESTION: Why not? It's a public document. MR. BOUCHER: It's -- you have a public document. If the list is not there, I don't think it's in our interest or appropriate for us to provide a list of people that we might have interviewed with relation to any project. QUESTION: It's not appropriate? MR. BOUCHER: For us to provide you with a full list of anybody that our Embassy might have talked to. QUESTION: Why it's secret? Excuse me. It's a secret? It's confidential? What? MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not secret or confidential, it's just private. These are not public meetings and I don't think the Embassy has to divulge a list of everybody they might have had a discussion with at some time. QUESTION: But Richard, it's -- is there any -- with background press briefing for this specific report by Andrew Natsios? Cyprus coordinator Laura Kennedy, or the former one, Tom Weston, since there are hundreds of questions, may we have a kind of a deposition of personnel to find out what is going on exactly because -- MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think the places that know the most about this are the UN Operations Project Services, and they have a website that will give you a lot of information on these projects. And second of all, the United Nations Project Offices or our Embassy in Nicosia are probably the best places to find out a little more about these things. But as I stressed at the beginning, this is an independent report from an independent evaluator. The views that are there are from the contract evaluator and their evaluation team. Obviously, they will be taken into account and we will have to consider them, but I wouldn't -- I want to stress again this is not necessarily the final view of these -- this particular set of projects. QUESTION: Allow me the last question, and I will shut up. Do you know if some of these funds, very important, a resource of Greece with the (inaudible) of your Embassy in Athens and your Ambassador Tom Miller to be given to some reporters, analysts, et cetera, et cetera -- it's not necessary to mention the list -- for a big "yes" to Annan Plan. And the reason this question, Mr. Boucher, since a Greek reporter who was screaming on his TV program for a big "yes" to Annan Plan, a week ago visited Washington, I have his name, and had a meeting here at the State Department to this effect, and so on. My question is -- MR. BOUCHER: Are these just questions about you because we talked to you as well? QUESTION: Do you know if some (inaudible) Greece, too? MR. BOUCHER: No, look, I'm not going to -- I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on Greek reporters who might have meetings with us. We have meetings with a lot of people. That doesn't mean that they're either on our payroll or that they agree with us. I think, you know, that's the situation. So let's not start throwing things around like that. Second of all, as far as whether any of this money was spent, or whether there were Greek participants in these activities, I don't really know. I'd suggest you check the UN operations Project Service -- UN Operation Project Services website -- and there you'll find out how they spent the money. We've talked about these projects before. I have said they are very upfront. There is a lot of information available on this website and that will describe to you the kind of projects there were and who participated in them. QUESTION: Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: Okay. QUESTION: Richard, sorry for bouncing back and forth, but one more question on the explosives. Russia has actually asked that the United Nations investigate that. Is the United States going to agree with that? MR. BOUCHER: I think we saw that there was a suggestion in the Security Council that -- by the Russians -- there be some kind of Security Council session on this. Every member of the Council, obviously, is free to propose various things. I don't know of anything scheduled at this point. I would say that we agree that it's important to ascertain the facts and to find out as quickly as possible what happened with regard to these explosives, and that the multinational force and the Iraq Survey Group are the appropriate bodies to do that; and, indeed, that they have had the matter -- they have been looking into the matter since they were instructed to do so by the Pentagon around -- shortly after October 15th when we received the notice from the IAEA. I'd note as well that I think the Security Council members have received a communication from the agency's director general on October 25th, informing them of the matter so that the Council members are being kept informed. QUESTION: In some interviews, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, said he never received such a request. MR. BOUCHER: That's my understanding of what the Pentagon did. I'm not sure whom the Pentagon might have contacted. You'd have to ask them exactly. QUESTION: Do you want to expand on Deputy Secretary Armitage's comments that the Pentagon -- the military didn't have its eye on the ball and kind of wasn't keeping enough tabs on this? MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think so. I think the Pentagon will be explaining what they were able to do at that time during the war, especially, when they had some priorities that were much more dangerous and severe at that moment. Yeah. Sir. QUESTION: On Syria. The New York Post alleges that at least on two occasions in the last two months, U.S.-Iraqi delegations went into Damascus and bluntly charged the Syrian President of not only aiding and abetting the insurgency, but actually running it from there, you know, that the Syrians are really involved in running this. Do you know anything about this, or how would you characterize the situation today with Syria? MR. BOUCHER: I would say what we've said before. We have had direct discussions. You remember, Assistant Secretary Burns went into Damascus. The Secretary met with the Foreign Minister at the United Nations. And our Embassy in Damascus continues to pursue all of these questions on a daily basis. In addition, the Iraqis have had several direct meetings with the Syrians where they talked about the problem of infiltration, the problems for Iraqi security that are being caused by people coming out of Syria, and some of the other issues that they've had. I would say that we have had some useful discussions on some of these issues and we've seen some -- I'd say, some steps on issues like finance, on issues like border control. They're not perfect yet. There is a lot more to do -- that they -- issues of groups, Palestinian groups operating out of Damascus and individuals still being able to operate there, remains a very open question, one that we've not seen very much happen on. And the overall issue of Syrian support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that have been carrying out terrorist attacks, we have not seen much change on. And furthermore, that the issue of Syrian interference in Lebanon is one that we've, unfortunately, seen nothing on. QUESTION: But there is a world of -- MR. BOUCHER: So there is a lot of things going on in the U.S.-Syria relationship. There are a lot of issues that we have raised that we have pressed on. To what extent the infiltration coming out of Syria, that the Syrian Government knows about it or is involved is not something that I can talk about at this point, but we do think it's -- the Syrian Government needs to do everything possible to prevent that kind of activity across its border and we expect them to do so. And that's why we've addressed those issues directly with Damascus. QUESTION: But if I may follow up, Richard, but that is restricted only to border infiltration and not -- I mean, there is a world of difference between infiltration and running the insurgency. MR. BOUCHER: I would say just that we expect the Syrians to do everything possible to prevent the use of their territory, their borders by groups that are causing violence in Iraq. QUESTION: But, Richard, you're not -- I mean, are you saying that you don't believe that Syria is running the insurgency or that you don't know? I mean, can you -- MR. BOUCHER: I'm not saying one way or the other. I'm saying that any activities inside Syria that can lead to further violence in Iraq need to be stopped and that we think it's the responsibility of the Syrian Government to stop those activities. Yeah. Sir. QUESTION: I have some follow up on the Japanese hostage. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. QUESTION: Do you have any information as to the whereabout of the victim? And the Japanese Foreign Ministry seems to think that the kidnappers are al-Qaida group. Do you show the observation? And if you can, could you also elaborate on the kind of cooperation you are offering to the Japanese Government? Thanks. MR. BOUCHER: The answer, unfortunately, because this is a very sensitive situation, because we want to make sure we're very careful about doing everything we can to see that this man is released safely, that I'm not in a position to answer questions about who it might be and where he might be and what's going on in regard to our cooperation there. We know the Japanese Government will be pursuing efforts to secure his safe release. And we will be supporting them as we can. And we'll be coordinating with them, as we have in all cases where there are foreign citizens that are -- or people in Iraq that are being held hostage or kidnapped. QUESTION: Do you have -- MR. BOUCHER: Sorry? QUESTION: Can you talk about the Middle East? MR. BOUCHER: Sure. Do you want me to just start, or do you want to ask a question? (Laughter.) QUESTION: Now that the Israeli Parliament agreed with Mr. Sharon's plan, there are sources in Israel that say, you know, once they leave Gaza, there is a plan to destroy all of the homes, although the settlers are being compensated to the tune of $200-$250,000, you know, which is money that, more than likely, will come out taxpayers', American taxpayers' money. Are you recommending or saying anything about this, about keeping the homes or not destroying them or anything, or is that a topic that you can't discuss? MR. BOUCHER: Well, first, let me say that we certainly welcome the steps that move towards the implementation of this plan. We think it's -- it offers an opportunity and we've long expressed our support for the disengagement plan that involves settlements in Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank that we think could represent a real opportunity for progress, for the Palestinians and progress along the lines of the roadmap. As we've said before, the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, if done in a way that's consistent with the roadmap, has the potential to move both parties closer to the realization of the President's two-state vision, of the realization of a Palestinian state. So the Palestinians need to control the violence. They need to take real steps to control the violence and organize themselves to take advantage of this opportunity in a peaceful way. We have supported the efforts that other governments have been making to try to help the Palestinians in that regard, but the Palestinians need to focus on this and they need to do what is necessary to ensure a peaceful transfer in Gaza and to ensure that the violence that's undermined all the peace discussions in the past is not perpetrated and kept going from after this. The issue of what happens to the property itself has been a subject of some discussion in the past. I think you've seen in the past, some discussion of trusts and other ways of transferring the property. But, again, the Palestinians need to get organized to be able to have this transfer proceed smoothly overall in Gaza, to be able to have a situation where it's not a source of violence. Exactly where those plans stand at the moment, I don't think I have any updates for you, but certainly there have been discussions about things like that before. QUESTION: Could I follow up on Arafat's health, just very quick? QUESTION: But can we just -- MR. BOUCHER: If that's a follow-up, yeah. QUESTION: I understand about the Palestinian need to focus on the transfer, but why would the issue of what happens to those homes have anything to do with whether the Palestinians are ready or not? I mean, whether -- even if they're not ready now, they're certainly going to have a lot more to do if Israel demolishes everything in their way before they leave. MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's a question of trying to make this work smoothly. It's not going to do anybody any good to leave home standing if all that happens is, you know, looting and destruction afterwards. Somebody has got to be ready to -- you've got to have somebody to transfer them to so they can be used and are organized in a peaceful manner. But as far as final decisions on that matter, I'm not sure anything has jelled at this point. QUESTION: But does the U.S. have an opinion on whether Israel should demolish everything before it left, or should it give it back? MR. BOUCHER: This has been a subject of discussion in the past. All the parties involved, all the international players, including the United States, as well as the Israelis, have been looking for a mechanism that can result in the peaceful transfer of the property and the housing so that people can live there. That's, in our view, the best way to handle it. And that's what we've been, I think, talking to people about in the past. I'm not sure if there is any final plan. QUESTION: I just want to say thank you as soon as possible. Thank you. MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me reply. Thank you. ------------------- (end transcript) (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)  |
||
Page Tools: 
Print this article 
E-mail this article |