| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Richard Boucher, State Department Spokesman
Excerpt from the Daily Press Briefing
Department of State Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC, June 16, 2000
Andrews and Bolling Talks/Troop Withdrawal/
Question: Two quick questions about the talks at Bolling and Andrews. The difficulty with the prisoner release and with the third redeployment were probably discussed with the President. Are those talks continuing in the absence of the Secretary or are they breaking up today, or what is the situation? And I have a follow-up on that.
Prisoner Exchanges/U.S. Political Prisoners in Israel/
Timing of Dennis Ross' Trip/Iraq-No Fly Zones/
Oil-For-Food ProgramMr. Boucher: Okay. The talks at Bolling and Andrews are ongoing. Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Barak both remain committed to working to achieve a peace agreement. We've said the parties have expressed their desire to have American help. We're doing that. President Clinton has made clear that we're willing to do whatever it takes to get there.
As far as the issue of another troop withdrawal, this was an issue that was discussed between the President and Chairman Arafat yesterday, as well as by the Secretary in her lunch with Chairman Arafat. It remains an issue of discussion between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The important thing is that both parties continue constructive discussions on issues like these.
Question: May I have a follow-up on that? You didn't mention the prisoner issue. As you know, they've offered only 3 out of 250, and there are 10 Americans among those 1,500 being held by the Israelis. We have affidavits indicating that there were torture and confessions forced from some of those Americans, and I know that the Secretary raised this with Foreign Minister Levy--am I saying that correctly--last August/September.
Is there any advance on the subject of raising with the Israeli Government the release of Americans who obviously have been committed with torture and false confessions in the background?
Mr. Boucher: I have to check on anything--any update of the Americans.
Question: Thank you.
Question: On the--
Mr. Boucher: I was going to go over here, if I can. I'm going to stand more squarely in the center. George.
Question: Good idea. Did you see the story in the Post about the consequences of the air campaign in the no--
Question: Can we please stay with the Israeli-Palestinian talks?
Question: Go ahead.
Question: You asked yesterday about taking a position on the June 23 deadline for the third withdrawal.
Mr. Boucher: I asked?
Question: You were asked. Can you tell us whether--you didn't have an answer yesterday. Do you have an answer on that one? And why is it that the United States is so reluctant to take a position on implementation of agreements which are, in fact, written down and public?
Mr. Boucher: Jonathan, I think I was just asked about another troop withdrawal, and I just gave you an answer on that.
Question: You didn't take--you didn't say whether you were--whether your position was that the agreement should--that the withdrawal should take place prior to June the 23, which is the question.
Mr. Boucher: I was just asked about what our view is of another troop withdrawal, and I gave you our position on that. Now, I didn't say what you want me to say, but I said what our position is.
Question: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Boucher: I said the important thing is that the both parties continue constructive discussions on issues like these.
Question: You're still not taking a position on whether--
Mr. Boucher: That's our view of the situation.
Question: Why are you so reluctant to take a position on implementation of a written agreement?
Mr. Boucher: I've told you what our position is. Why am I reluctant to take the position that you're advocating for me? Because that's not our position.
Question: Whoa, wait. Well, first, I don't think he's advocating any position. But you haven't--you just said it was discussed. Anyway, that's not my question.
Mr. Boucher: I'm asked a question about this issue. I'll tell you what I can. I'll tell you what our view is. But I can't just go putting words into my own mouth.
Question: Okay, can I ask you this, then? Obviously, you're now deeply engaged in this Israeli-Palestinian thing. Have you yet got to the stage of making your own proposals?
Mr. Boucher: That's a question I'll have to check on, whether we've made any so-called bridging proposals, as they are known in the trade.
Question: You say that the talks at Bolling and Andrews are ongoing. Do you have any kind of idea--I guess the Palestinians are saying that they expect them to be over on Sunday. Is that a likely time frame? And, also, do you have--is Dennis Ross' trip next week contingent on when these talks end? Or has that been set or has it not been set?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have dates yet for Dennis Ross' trip next week. I think we said yesterday we would expect the talks to continue for a few days. That's not inconsistent with what you might have heard elsewhere.
Question: Well, I know it's not. But is his trip out there, is it contingent on when this "few days" is over? I mean, are we looking at early next week, the middle of next week, end of next week, for him to go?
Mr. Boucher: We're looking at next week for him to go. I would expect he would go after the talks in Washington, after the discussions in Washington had concluded and when the negotiators travel back to the region to talk to their leaders. At some point then--
Question: The answer to my question, then, being yes?
Mr. Boucher: I think that's right. "Contingent" is a little strong.
Question: All right, Richard, I have another question on that. Is this partly a result of waiting for the new Barak government, if there is one, or waiting for things to settle down in Israeli politics?
Mr. Boucher: No.
Question: Is that why Ross is being so indeterminate on what she's going to do? She's not going to Damascus this time?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have any specifics on the stops in the Middle East.
Question: You said the talks are ongoing. Can you just be a little more specific? Can you say that both tracks--in both tracks of talks the Israelis and Palestinians sat down together today?
Mr. Boucher: The meetings at Bolling and Andrews are ongoing.
Question: Did you hear anything after the meeting yesterday between Chairman Arafat and Shlomo Ben Ami? The two met briefly at Andrews as Arafat was leaving. Did you hear anything out of that meeting?
Mr. Boucher: I don't have a readout of their meeting. I knew that the parties were going to meet yesterday and have discussions. I don't really exactly know who, and I certainly don't have a readout of their meeting.
Question: Same issue? When you say "ongoing," of course, that leaves two things out: whether they actually met today and whether it's the Americans meeting with either or both groups separately or they meeting with each other. It's not an academic question; it goes to the Palestinians having broken off part of the talks and demanding now, through an anonymous negotiator, that the prisoners issue and the withdrawal issue be resolved within 10 days or--because they don't know her schedule either, any more than we do--before Albright gets there.
So can you tell us if they actually had face-to-face talks today? And I guess that's the point. Did they meet today, and are they between Israelis and Palestinians as well as between Americans and either or both sides?
Mr. Boucher: I think it's fairly clear, at least to me, to say that the talks are ongoing at Bolling and Andrews is to say that they are having meetings at both locations between the parties. To say that we are participating means that some of those meetings involve us as well.
I'm not sure I'll ever be able to give you a precise schedule of meetings and say that they have met as of this moment. But there are ongoing talks between the parties at both locations.
Question: You may have seen the story in The Post this morning about the attacks over the past 18 months in the no-fly zones and the toll on the civilian population in Iraq. Is that State Department or Pentagon business?
Mr. Boucher: Well, I think, first of all, the Pentagon will give you more information and operational details. But I do want to take the opportunity to talk about some of the basic facts of the no-fly zones.
They were established under UN Security Council Resolution 688 following the Iraqi regime's brutal action against its own citizens in the south and the threat against Iraqi citizens in the north. The American and British flights in the no-fly zones are there to maintain protection for Iraqi citizens in those regions. There is no relationship between enforcement of the no-fly zones and the United States regime change policy for Iraq.
Coalition aircraft act in response to Iraqi threats. They never target civilians or civilian facilities. If Iraq would stop targeting these aircraft that are carrying out a humanitarian mission of protection, there would be no need for pilots to respond in self-defense. Since the no-fly zones were established, they have succeeded in preventing the Iraqi regime from using air power to threaten citizens in the south and the north as they have done in the past.
Under this protection and with UN supervision in the region, Iraqi citizens in the north live in far better conditions than Iraqis who live under the rule of Saddam Hussein. We look forward to the day when these protective flights are no longer needed and to an Iraqi Government that respects and protects its own people.
Question: (Inaudible)--just a minor question. Are the French part of one of the no-fly zone operations, as they have been? They were balking--if you happen to know?
Mr. Boucher: I'd have to check on that, Barry. I don't remember.
Question: On the same topic. You know, this ongoing public relations problem that the Administration and the State Department have over Iraq. Pickering was heckled loudly with a group of Arab-Americans last week and that was over Oil-For-Food and now this Washington Post article got a great deal of prominence and led with the death of a 13-year-old innocent civilian.
So in terms of just the public relations of the U.S. policy toward Iraq, including Great Britain in the no-fly zones as well, but what are your concerns in terms of how other Security Council members have become increasingly distanced from US policy?
Mr. Boucher: I think the first thing to say is that these resolutions continue in effect. The policies continue in place because they are the right policies and they are the best policies for all of us. Naturally, any time innocent civilians are killed, it's a very regrettable incident. These facts are very regrettable. The suffering of the Iraqi people is very regrettable.
But we follow policies which we think and firmly believe are in the best interests of the Iraqi people. We remember the use of aircraft by Saddam Hussein to bomb and kill his people in the south and in the north. And we think that the kind of protection afforded by the no-fly zones is what's preventing that from happening again. We remember and note the cruelties with which Saddam Hussein's regime has handled his own people. We know that they are the major impediment to full implementation of the Oil-For-Food Program. Where the Iraqi Government is not in the way, in the north, UNICEF and other reports show that the health and welfare of the population is much better.
So we try to make these programs work. We try to help the Iraqi people where we can, whether it's protection of the no-fly zones or the Oil-For-Food Program and helping get them the kind of food and medicines that they need to survive. But in the end, the fact that the Saddam Hussein regime maintains a kind of cruelty against its own people that it's always had, is really the best argument in favor of maintaining the kind of sanctions regimes and UN resolutions that we still do have, so that they do not again become the kind of threat to the neighborhood and to their own people that they were in the past.
Question: Would it be a fair and accurate paraphrasal of your remarks to say that these civilian casualties are a regrettable but acceptable collateral damage for a good policy, or at least a well-intentioned policy?
Mr. Boucher: No.
[end of excerpt]
Full transcript of Daily Press Briefing on 6/16/00
Peace Process | Iraq Remarks | Near Eastern Affairs | Department of State | Secretary of State
