Exerpts: November 5 Press Briefing

Mr. Boucher: As we have always said, we are not going to get into political commentary or speculation about other people's governments. The democratic process is unfolding in Israel and obviously we are paying attention, but I'm not going to speculate at this point.

Question: Well, I really wasn't asking what you thought of the prospects of a new Israeli Government, but, no, I just meant will you proceed on course with your roadmap? And it's not exactly a pell-mell race, but, I mean, there has been a series of stops. Mr. Satterfield, apparently, is going to the region soon.

Are you going to follow through or do you think it's wise to wait and see what kind of Israel there will be in January?

Mr. Boucher: We are going to follow through. The issue of peace in the Middle East has been very important to us throughout this Administration, throughout the efforts that we have made. The President's vision on June 24th was not based on a particular government; it was based on the need for security for both sides, an end to the violence, reform in the Palestinian community, and obligations by both sides to get on with the business of creating an environment and a state, a Palestinian state, that can live side by side with the State of Israel.

So those goals remain important. We are going to continue to work this process. And as I said, both parties will have obligations and responsibilities in it not dependent on a particular government.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Satterfield will travel to Amman, Jordan, for meetings on November 14 and 15. These are discussions with counterparts in the International Task Force on Reform; that is, the US, European Union, United Nations, Russia, Norway, Japan, International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Discussions will focus on the Task Force's efforts to advance Palestinian civil and institutional reform that make possible free, fair and credible Palestinian elections in early 2003, in order to help realize the President's vision of a final settlement based on two states living side by side in peace and security. So that is an ongoing part of the process.

Question: You're saying basically a single-purpose trip? I mean, no tour like Mr. Burns just had?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have a complete itinerary, and it is sort of ten days away, so I would leave for -- but the main purpose of the trip is to go to Amman for the Task Force meetings.

Question: Richard, if I can be slightly more specific on this, it looks like the Israelis will, in fact, have elections in late January. You need Israeli approval for your roadmap before things start moving. Can we expect that you will wait until after the Israeli elections before you -- before you expect to get final approval, Israeli approval, of that roadmap, and therefore movement?

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to expect anything one way or the other at this point. I just want to say that the issues, the need for people to move forward, remains. The desire to move forward remains. The importance of moving forward remains. So the United States will continue to pursue this as we can.

Until we see what kind of Israeli government there will be now and in the future after the election, I don't want to start speculating one way or the other. What we do know is that this work has to continue, and we will be continuing it, as appropriate, in the coming months.

Okay, Gene.

Question: Are you still opposed to the January 20th date for the Palestine Authority to move forward, or is this November 14th-15th meeting going to require many more months of preparation before --

Mr. Boucher: We've never tried to pick a specific date for the Palestinians to have elections. We have said we agree that one should look toward the institutional changes and reforms that could lead to free, fair and open elections in early 2003, and that has been the general assumption that the Task Force has been operating under.

Question: A follow-up, please. What are the tic points for reform of the Palestinian Authority so that they can move forward to the January 20th date, supposedly?

Mr. Boucher: I think the specifics of what needs to be done and what we can do to help Palestinians who are interested in reform are the kinds of things that the Task Force will be discussing when they get together.

Question: One, you do -- would you accept the premise, though, to have a Palestinian election and an Israeli election in the same time, within a week or two of each other, might be a bit problematic?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to play around with speculation on things that haven't been set yet. As far as I know there's no final date for the Palestinian election. I'm not quite sure of the status of the Israeli election date. But early 2003. That's as much as we've taken a position on.

Question: But they both looking like they're early 2003. You don't have a position at all on whether these --

Mr. Boucher: No, I'm not taking a position on the conjunction. I'm just saying our position has always been sometime in early 2003. That's a much longer period than a week or so, and we'll see, you know, where we get to on reform and when it can happen.

Question: All right. And has the Secretary been in touch with his new counterpart or is that something that you'll wait to --

Mr. Boucher: I don't think the interim Israeli Government has been formed yet.

Question: Or is that something that you'll wait for --

Mr. Boucher: Until the government is formed?

Question: Yeah, till a swearing-in or some kind of --

Mr. Boucher: I don't know of plans one way or the other. We'll just have to see.

Question: So, has he been in touch with anyone over there since the election, since the announcement of the --

Mr. Boucher: Not directly, no. Not on the phone.

Question: Are there any members of the Palestine Authority expected to be in Amman, or is this going to be a matter of imposing a democratic solution on the Palestine Authority without any negotiation?

Mr. Boucher: Our effort throughout this process has been to try to support Palestinian efforts for reform. As you know, there is a lot of movement within the Palestinian community in favor of reform, in favor of changing the institutional arrangements for the Palestinians so that they can support the eventual creation of a state, in order to do other things as well -- to support a new security apparatus that can take responsibility for stopping the violence and support new financial arrangements so that the money that donors give and the money that Palestinians have and the money that's returned to the Palestinians by the Israelis could be spent on real needs and not in a transparent manner. So there has been a lot of push for reform within the Palestinian community, and the international community has looked, in turn, to how they can support that and how they can encourage that. And that is what we will be doing.

Normally, when the Task Force gets together, there are Palestinians. Whether they are actually participating or whether they are just there, I don't know for this particular meeting.

Question: Is the Jordan Government going to be present at these?

Mr. Boucher: I would have to assume so, but I don't have the details of participation by others at this point.

Teri.

Question: On Qatar. What are the implications of the US Government's missile strike yesterday and --

Question: Qatar? You mean Yemen?

Question: I'm sorry. Yemen. I'm sorry, in Yemen. And I'm sure many Israelis are wondering what the difference is between this and in targeted killing. And me, too.

Mr. Boucher: As far as the events in Yemen, I have nothing for you on that.

Question: But can you say that you are against targeted killings?

Mr. Boucher: Our policy on targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context has not changed --

Question: In other contexts?

Mr. Boucher: -- and we've discussed that and explained that many times.

Question: And in other contexts?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to speculate.

Question: Well, so you have one rule for one conflict and another rule for another conflict?

Mr. Boucher: I would say that -- if you look back at what we have said about targeted killings in the Israeli-Palestinian context, you will find that the reasons we have given do not necessarily apply in other circumstances.

Question: If I remember, your opposition, stated opposition at the targeted killings, has not been confined to instances where civilians were victims. I think, basically, it was a flat disapproval of targeted killings.

Mr. Boucher: We have explained our opposition for a number of reasons. Sometimes all apply and sometimes some apply, but they are particular to those circumstances and I don't want to talk about any speculation about other events. But I think we all understand that the situation with regard to Israeli-Palestinian issues and the prospects of peace and the prospects of negotiation and the prospects of the need to create an atmosphere for progress -- a lot of different things come into play there.

Question: And what's special about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that make targeted killings inadvisable?

Mr. Boucher: All the things I just cited to your colleague.

Question: I didn't hear those.

Mr. Boucher: Well, you can look at the transcript.

Sir.

Question: Is there any concern in this building or elsewhere in this town that the reports that imply, that say that you guys had something to do with this incident yesterday, may result in attacks against -- new threats against US facilities, whether these reports are true or --

Mr. Boucher: Whether they're true or not? I guess what I would say is our missions in the Gulf, the Middle East, in Yemen in particular, operate at a very high state of alert, protection, readiness. I'm sure they will continue to do so.

Whenever there are reports of events that could lead to potential security threats, then the embassies review their security postures, and I'm sure they will make any appropriate decisions. I would point out they are already at a very high state of security and therefore I'm not predicting particular steps at this moment. But I'm sure that any embassies that might consider themselves affected would get together with their whole country team and look at what they might do to further improve their security.

Question: I just wondered, yesterday there were officials -- not in this building, but I think at the Pentagon -- who talked about the incident that happened yesterday and said that the person, the main person who was killed, was basically a bad guy and that people shouldn't be sorry to see him go. Do you share that? Can you --

Mr. Boucher: I really have nothing to say on any particular incidents yesterday.

Question: Can you confirm that six people were killed in a car by an explosion?

Mr. Boucher: That wouldn't be for me to confirm. I think the Yemeni authorities have already confirmed that.

Question: Okay, well, I'm just a little confused about the whole thing because it seems to me that either, one, you say that you did have something to do with it and that you're happy about it and you're proud of it, you have the guts to come out and admit it, rather than -- or you say we had nothing to do with it and --

Mr. Boucher: How about I say I have nothing to say about it? Which is true.

Question: Richard, can we --

Mr. Boucher: We have another question back there.

Question: Yeah, one more. The new Foreign Minister of Israel has called for the expulsion of --

Mr. Boucher: First of all, you're changing the subject. But second of all, you're starting your sentence with a premise that I don't think is true. So he was asking me before if I wanted to comment on the new Foreign Minister of Israel, and I said I don't think that Israel actually has a new Foreign Minister quite at this moment. So rather than commenting, let me go back to his question on this subject.

Question: Can we just go back, actually, on the last topic?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: When you draw a distinction between the Israeli-Palestinian context and other contexts, are you saying that targeted killing might be a legitimate practice in other contexts?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not drawing a distinction between anything and anything else; I'm just saying that if you look carefully, if you look at what we have said about targeted killings in the question of the Israeli-Palestinian disputes, you will see, first of all, as I said today, that our position has not changed, and, second of all, that the factors that we cited for our opposition to targeted killings were particular to that set of circumstances.

Question: So, in other circumstances, it might be legitimate? That's a natural corollary of what you're saying.

Mr. Boucher: Well, I'm not comparing and contrasting; I'm just saying that we've made our position clear and we stick by it.

Question: So I take it they didn't --

Question: -- tell us about this UAE agreement is?

Question: I'm sorry, I have another one on --

Question: You want to keep on that? Sure.

Mr. Boucher: We have another one back there, too.

Question: Has the US Embassy in Sanaa taken any unusual measures?

Mr. Boucher: As I said, they already operate at a very high state of alert. They will constantly review their security posture. If they take any measures that we could talk about, we would tell you about them. At this point, I don't have anything to say.

Mark.

Question: Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the State Department Annual Human Rights Report have a category of extrajudicial killings, which are widely viewed among human rights groups as being against international humanitarian law?

Mr. Boucher: You can look at the State Department Human Rights Report to see what categories there are and how they are defined.

Question: And does the United States have a position on extrajudicial killing?

Mr. Boucher: We have taken positions on various things that have happened around the world. As far as the events in Yemen, I'm not here to try to take a position on that.

Question: Is the opposition to targeted killings solely in the Israeli-Palestinian context, or is it a broader American opposition to extrajudicial killings?

Mr. Boucher: Extrajudicial -- I can't even say it. Extrajudicial killings -- I think if you look in the Human Rights Reports you will find how those things are defined. And certainly it is one of the concerns that we have had in many countries in terms of human rights violations. But again, I think you can find the actual definition and the reasons for which the United States is opposed and the kind of offense we are talking about and not to -- I wouldn't take one particular definition and try to stretch it over every event, presumed or confirmed.

Question: Given the importance of what happened yesterday in Yemen, why do you have absolutely nothing to say about it?

Mr. Boucher: It is not an event that I am here to talk about. I am sorry but we are just not in a position to talk about it for a variety of reasons.

Question: Well, can you talk about -- how about talking about the reasons why you're not in a position to talk about it?

Mr. Boucher: No. Can't do that, either.

Question: Did the Embassy -- has the Embassy -- the Ambassador -- there were some reports yesterday saying that these people may have been involved in a plot to kill the Ambassador there. Are you aware of any -- of any new threat or any threat to the Ambassador in Yemen?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything on that.

Question: Well, that's a bit different than -- that's not a no. So you say -- we're supposed to write, "The State Department doesn't have any information on whether there was a threat against its Ambassador in Yemen," or, "The State Department doesn't want to talk about any possible threat"?

Mr. Boucher: You could say the State Department Spokesman didn't have anything to say when asked the question. And if there is something -- I'll check on it. I did not check on that specific element this morning and so I don't have a particular, specific answer to that specific question. If I can get one, I will give you one.

Question: -- tell us about the UAE meeting?

Mr. Boucher: I know. I'm glad somebody cares about something we can actually talk about.

Question: I mean, by the way, more than two sentences would be superfluous.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Boucher: Oh, but I have so many wonderful sentences here. All right.

First of all, the Secretary has been very pleased to welcome Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Sheikh Hamdan Bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates. Meetings this morning included a meeting with the Secretary and then the inaugural meeting of the US-United Arab Emirate Strategic Dialogue.

The United Arab Emirates have been a trusted friend in the region and critical partner in our efforts to promote regional stability and to advance the campaign against international terrorism. We appreciate their solid efforts in this regard and the Strategic Dialogue demonstrates our mutual commitment at the highest levels of our governments to advancing our already extensive bilateral relationship.

The Dialogue included participation from a broad, interagency group, including senior representatives from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Economic and Business Affairs and Political-Military Affairs.

The Secretary and Sheikh Hamdan focused on the discussion of the regional security, counterterrorism cooperation, export controls, proliferation questions. Basically, they talked about the issues of comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis based on UN resolutions and the Arab League Summit communiqué, things like that.

And they talked about the status of the UN resolution and the excellent cooperation that we have bilaterally with United Arab Emirates.