|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 1, 2002
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
The James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:02 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to
begin with a brief announcement, and then I'll be happy to take your
questions. President Bush will welcome NATO Secretary
General Lord Robertson for a meeting and dinner on April
9th. This visit is an opportunity for the President to
discuss with the leader of NATO our progress in the war against
terrorism and our preparations for the November NATO summit meeting in
Prague. This meeting will mark the fourth time the President
has met with Lord Robertson in just over one year.
With that, I'm more than happy to take your questions.
Q Ari, does the President think that the
Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military
occupation and suppression?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the President believes that a
result of a process that has got to focus on peace between Israel and
the Palestinians. The President was the first to go to the United
Nations and call for a Palestinian state. That remains the
President's hope. That remains the President's
vision. And, obviously, events in the Middle East have grown
very violent. But that is the vision that the President
continues to hold out for.
Q But he does think they have a legitimate
right to fight for their land?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I do not accept the description of
the premise of your question, and the manner that you asked it.
Q Occupation, 35 years.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that there is a
process that can bring the parties together, that he is very dedicated
to. And that he has General Zinni in the region, that he is
involved in this on a very regular basis, to try to find a way to bring
the parties together, so that peace can be achieved, so Israel can live
in security, and so a Palestinian state can be implemented.
Q When he asked Prime Minister Sharon to
leave a pathway for peace, what does -- when he
just said that a moment ago in the photo op, what does the President
mean? What does he want Sharon to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President was saying is just as
he indicated Saturday, with his remarks over the
weekend. The President believes that given the suicide
attacks against Israel, Israel has a right to live in security, and
that Israel has a right to defend herself.
The President also believes, at the end of the day, that Israel has
got to be cognizant of the fact that a path to peace still has to be
the focus of everybody's efforts in the Middle East, and that as Israel
conducts whatever Israel is going to do as a sovereign nation, the
ultimate goal must still be creating circumstances for peace to take
hold in the region.
And the history of the Middle East has been for every step forward,
there's a step backwards. Sometimes it's two steps forward,
one backward. Sometimes it's two backward for one
forward. The President always wants to find a way to keep
the process moving forward, even in times of violence.
Q So what does
that -- what does he want Sharon to do,
considering the amount of military force now being used, that
apparently, they say, will be in place for weeks, if not months?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, he wants to be certain that both
parties can agree to the creation of a security environment that they
have ostensibly agreed to, which is what's called the Tenet
plan. The Tenet plan is a series of specific, on the ground,
real-life security arrangements, that are designed to reduce the level
of violence, if not stop it.
The problem has been in getting to Tenet and making it endure; that
there are people in the region who are opposed to peace no matter
what. These people take out their actions in the form of suicide
attacks that take the lives of innocents. It is terrorism,
pure and simple. The President believes that Israel has a
right to defend herself against those type of attacks.
But the President does not want Israel or the United States or the
Palestinians to be derailed from a path that leads to peace, because
the future cannot be one of one bombing after another after a reprisal
after a bombing after a reprisal. Both parties need to
exercise statesmanship, to find a path to peace, even despite the
violence. That still is the core mission.
Q There are people on both sides, as well as
many observers, who insist that this isn't going to change until the
President of the United States gets more personally
involved. Is there any sign that he will?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is personally involved.
Q More personally involved.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is deeply personally
involved. The President has made numerous phone calls,
spoken directly with the leaders in the region. There have
been a number of entreaties that have been sent out at very high
levels. And that will continue to be what the United States
does.
But, Bill, I think there is -- it's not so
much who takes what role as much as it is the violence on the ground
that is denying people like the President, people who want to bring the
parties together, an opportunity to achieve peace. And that
stems from the terrorist attacks. And, again, the President
will remain deeply involved; that will not change.
Q Ari, can you explain why, then, did we
support -- did the U.S. support the U.N.
Security Council resolution on Friday that called for Israel to
withdraw? And then the President, in a matter of hours,
later said that he supports Sharon. And, essentially, what
he's saying today is that Israel has a right to defend
itself. So I guess I'm confused. Which is it, do
we want Israel to withdraw, or do we support what Sharon is doing?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, you've addressed one small section,
one important, but small, section of 1402.
Q But it was in there. It was an
important section. Do we support everything else and just
not that one section?
MR. FLEISCHER: The resolution speaks in its entirety,
not just any one section of it isolated. The resolution
speaks in entirety, and of course the President supports that.
Q But that was in the resolution.
MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what the resolution calls on, both
parties to move immediately to a meaningful cease-fire; that's the very
first sentence. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli
troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah. It calls
upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni and others
to implement the Tenet security work plan. It further
reiterates the demand and resolution for immediate cessation of all
acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement
and destruction. So that's perfectly consistent with the
President's view about what needs to happen to create peace in the
region that will allow for Israeli withdrawal and an end to the
incitement, an end to the violence, an end to the terror.
That's, in its totality, what the resolution calls for, and the
United States is proud to play a role in having that be drafted and
voted for.
Q So what the U.S. meant when we were
supporting that resolution is that we want Israel to withdraw once
Sharon does whatever ne needs to do?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the resolution speaks in
its totality. And I don't think you can give a fair interpretation to
a resolution in isolation of any one particular section of it, or
another section. It's a totality of the document and
Security Resolution 1402 represents faithfully the position of the
United States.
Q Ari, you're talking about two steps
forward, every two steps forward there is one step
back. When is enough, enough? When is Tenet and
Mitchell walked away from and serious
intervention -- other than following a standard
peace accord and going another way, as Bill said -- the
President having direct involvement, picking up the phone, meeting with
people face to face, versus talking just to regional leaders, talking
to the leaders, themselves, the two that really matter in this?
MR. FLEISCHER: April, this President will never walk
away. This President will always remain committed to finding
a way to achieve peace in the Middle East, no matter how difficult it
gets. And the President has set in motion a series of events
that create a pathway for peace to be achieved.
But at its core, it remains an issue where no one can force peace
on the region. The Israelis and the Palestinians have to
want peace, seek peace and work to create peace. And in so
doing, they will always have the United States standing at both sides'
shoulders in order to achieve peace.
Q But, Ari, going back to what I said, when
is enough, enough? When will there be -- is
there a line that Tenet and Mitchell are not going to
work? Because it's escalated so
far -- is there a line coming up in the near
future that you will walk away from Tenet and Mitchell and say,
possibly there is another step?
MR. FLEISCHER: Keep in mind what Tenet and Mitchell
are. These are names that get bandied about and I think it's
important to attach a specific definition to what they mean.
Tenet is a series of actual, on the ground, agreed upon security
steps that are taken collaboratively by the Palestinian Authority and
the Israelis at the same table. An example of what is
included in the Tenet, as far as meaningful security, cooperation, is
information exchanges between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. So that if Israel hears of an attack that is
taking place, or about to take place, they can give that information to
the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Authority will act to stop
the attack before it takes place. That's literally what
Tenet is.
Q Ari, there's an information exchange right
now. You have one leader in a room secluded with a cell
phone, and then another one making plans over here, free to do
whatever. There is no information exchange --
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, April, that's not a full
characterization of the facts on the ground. On Wednesday
morning last week, you heard the President directly state how much
progress had been made as a result of General Zinni's efforts in
getting the parties to agree to that security framework of the Tenet
accord. Significant progress had been made Wednesday, until
it was derailed by a suicide bomber who attacked on Passover.
Chairman Arafat does have the ability to communicate. He
has demonstrated that repeatedly on many of your shows over the last
several days. He has the ability to talk to his people in
the field. He has the ability to reach out and tell people
that they need to stop the violence. The President believes Chairman
Arafat has the authority to do so. He believes that there
are people in the Palestinian Authority who will listen to him, and
that it can make a difference to reduce the violence.
So even armed with a cell phone, the President believes that
Chairman Arafat has the power and the responsibility and the authority
to reduce the violence. That's what Tenet addresses.
The Mitchell series of recommendations are a step-by-step
incremental approach to how to achieve peace in the
region. And it's a recognition that in order to achieve a
lasting peace, in order to keep the pathway to peace open, as the
President has called on Prime Minister Sharon to do, there's got to be
a recognition of a political solution. A political solution,
as defined by the Mitchell accords, includes a discussion of the
settlements, includes a discussion of the boundaries.
Those are the vital steps that have to be taken in order to bring
the parties together. So whether you call it Tenet, whether
you call it Mitchell, those actions -- security,
cease-fire, action against terrorists, discussion of political
solutions, settlements, boundaries -- those are the steps
that have to be taken, in the President's judgment, in order for peace
to be brought to the region.
Q Ari, I'd like to ask you two questions
about facts on the ground, one dealing with Israel and one with the
Palestinians. First, on the Israeli
situation. Two weeks ago, from this podium, the President of
the United States said, ongoing Israeli military activity at that time
was not helpful. The military activity has dramatically
increased since then. Does the President believe what the Israeli
government is doing now is helpful, using his words from today, toward
keeping open a pathway to peace?
MR. FLEISCHER: As the President said on Saturday, the
President understands and respects Israel's right to defend herself and
to live in security. What's changed, Major, is the repeated
suicide bombings that are targeting innocents, and that does change
events, because this type of terror stands in opposition to all those
who seek peace. This type of terror is undermining Yasser
Arafat's ability to lead. And that's why the President has
called on Chairman Arafat to do more. But it's a recognition
that any nation that was confronted with the type of violence and
terrorism that targets innocents that Israel has been, the President
understands that nations have a right to self-defense.
Q As my
follow-up -- and you've touched on it a little
bit there -- you just said terrorist factions are
undermining Chairman Arafat. So it's the administration's
contention that he is not completely able, and may only be partially
able to diminish the violence and, therefore, is still a partner with
whom the United States government will continue to negotiate and does
not fall under the Bush doctrine of terror? Is that
correct?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has repeatedly said that he
believes Chairman Arafat can make 100 percent effort, and that's what
he believes.
Q How far short of 100 percent is he?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard any type of definition
of that.
Q Ari, are there any discussions at this
point -- I know this came up this morning, but
are there any discussions at this point about sending Secretary of
State Colin Powell over there possibly? And does it
potentially undermine General Zinni's attempts to have calls from
abroad, as well as Capitol Hill, for sending the Secretary of State
over?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated this morning, the
President has deep faith in General Zinni, his ability, the respect
that the leaders in the region hold for General Zinni is very
helpful. I also indicated this morning that the President
will never rule anything out; there are multiple steps that any day
could possibly be taken.
But the President believes that General Zinni was just that close
last Wednesday to getting an agreement between the Israelis and the
Palestinians toward achieving a cease-fire, until those good efforts
were derailed, as a result of a suicide bombing in
Israel. It's proof that if the parties are willing, General
Zinni can be successful.
Q Ari, you said the President, himself, said
he's been on the phone from the ranch talking to world
leaders. But has he talked at all to Ariel Sharon since the
military action started?
MR. FLEISCHER: As always, we'll keep you informed about
any calls the President makes.
Q So for the time being he has not called
him?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Secretary Powell spoke to Prime
Minister Sharon last week, late last week, and I think over the
weekend. I can tell you the Secretary of State called the
European Foreign Minister Solana. He called Spanish Foreign Minister
Pique. He called Shimon Peres. He called Jack
Straw. All of that was over the weekend. And I
think it was yesterday, as a matter of fact, already this morning
before even the National Security Council meeting here at the White
House. The Secretary of State called Kofi Annan and the
Japanese Foreign Minister. So the
President -- the Secretary of State continues at
the President's direction to be the chief diplomat working the issue
and the President will continue to be involved, himself.
Q I'd like to follow up,
please. As you have heard most of my colleagues say, that
the Mitchell -- the Tenet, Mitchell, the two
plans are out there, both governments have accepted them, but it
doesn't seem to be leading us anywhere.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's not right. It was
leading to almost success Wednesday morning last week, until it was
derailed as a result of a suicide bombing. So I think you do
have to -- you were here, you heard the President
in his own voice talk about -- he was optimistic
last Wednesday.
But it's important also to take a step back from the events and see
it in the longer context and understand the President's
approach. And that is, no matter what the level of violence,
this President will remain committed to finding a pathway to peace, to
helping the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to achieve
peace.
The Middle East is one of the most difficult, if not the most
difficult, regions in the world. And the President will not
be deterred as a result of violence. He will still try to
find a way to peace.
So it's important not to judge everything just by a 24 hour, by 24
hour, by 24 hour perspective. The events each day count,
they are important. The violence and the taking of any
innocent lives, the loss on the Palestinian side, losses on the Israeli
side, trouble the President deeply.
But the President's approach, still, to work through it all, to
find a way -- as he was that close last
Wednesday -- to achieving peace, and not to allow
setbacks to deter him from that ultimate goal.
Q This was the
most -- what do you
call -- important week or holiest week for many
world religions, including for Hindus it was -- holy; for
the Jews and Christians, Passover and Easter. But many
killings are going on around the world, including in Kashmir over the
weekend, and also in the Middle East. So the President is
saying that Israel has a right to defend herself against terrorism.
So you think President also believes that India also has a right to
defend itself from terrorism, and Musharraf is not doing what he
promised to President Bush and to General -- and
Secretary Colin Powell, according to the Washington Post last
week -- in his editorial? And, also,
finally, why Arabs are not condemning these suicide bombings?
THE PRESIDENT: On your first question, the President
does believe that nations have the right to
self-defense. And consistent with that message, as the
President has said, is the pursuit of peace. And that's why
the President has been working as hard as he has, working with India
and Pakistan, on settlement of any of the disputes that could lead to a
more volatile situation in the region.
The President is consistent in that approach: terrorism
is terrorism is terrorism, and that applies worldwide. The
President, recognizing that, does hope that the world will speak out
and not condone suicide bombings. There can be no peace, in the
President's opinion, if people use suicide bombings as a way to achieve
their political objectives.
Q So, Ari, under what circumstances would
President Bush consider pursuing face to face meetings between Arafat
and Sharon, encouraging meetings between them, or even inviting them to
meet with him? Or is he just closed all together to the idea
of face to face meetings?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President will take whatever steps
that he deems would be constructive. If it becomes the
President's judgment that that is the final step that would achieve
something, that leads to peace, he has never ruled anything
out. But he always will weigh what is constructive, when the
time is right, when it will lead to peace.
Q If I can follow-up the
question. So he is open to, at any point, stepping into this
process, himself, to encourage meetings between Arafat and Sharon?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said at all times that
he will take whatever steps that he deems would be constructive in
achieving that goal. And he has many tools available; he exercises
them on a daily basis, for bringing the parties together.
But I want to remind you again, this issue, at its core, remains an
issue that outside influence, United States' influence, will be and
continue to be applied. But at its core, Israel and the
Palestinian Authority have got to demonstrate the will to work toward
peace.
Q When was the last time the President spoke
with Sharon?
Q How is it that having Arafat on a cell
phone, promoting statesmanship and allowing him to be a
statesman? And, secondly, by the White House not saying
anything about him being penned in, is that not tacit approval for
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, Israel is a democracy, Israel is a
sovereign government, and Israel, as the President said, has the right
to defend herself. The President made clear this morning
that there is a pathway to peace, and he hopes that Israel will
continue to pursue it.
Q You keep going back to what the President
said and what you said about Israel having the right to defend
herself. Does Mr. Arafat have the right to call in help and
defend his compound, which has been under siege now since Friday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I'm not going to get into
hypotheticals. What the President is referring
to -- when suicide bombers take the lives of
innocents, I think it's something that can only be described as an act
of terror. A sovereign nation state has a right to
self-defense. And the President has been consistent and
clear in the application of that principle about combatting
terrorism. That won't change.
Q I'm not sure I understand how it's a
hypothetical. The siege is a reality that's been going on
since Friday. Does he have the right to defend himself
against an attack on his compound?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to get into hypotheticals
of a Palestinian Authority calling in somebody
else -- I don't know who you have in mind.
Q I rephrased the question, I said, is
he --
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, rephrase it again.
Q Does he have the right to defend against
the attacks on his compound?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President, again, hopes that
this -- as deep as the violence can get, that all
parties will remember that it needs to be followed by peace.
Q The President, Ari, briefly spoke to the
issue that we were all discussing here this morning, which was whether
or not there was an exception carved to the Bush doctrine for
Arafat. And his response, if I understand it right, came to
he's a negotiating partner; we were engaged in serious negotiations
with him until last week, as you said here.
So if we're trying to understand the Bush doctrine now, is it that
the Bush doctrine tolerates no terrorists or people who support them,
but if you support terrorists and you're engaged in peace negotiations,
then there is a category for you?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made clear around the
world, in the wake of the attack against the United States, as he said
in reference to the Taliban harboring al Qaeda, those who harbor
terrorists will be treated like terrorists. And the
President made that clear.
The situation in the Middle East is, indeed,
different. What makes it different is the fact that you have
parties, who themselves have agreed, together, to the Tenet accords, to
the Mitchell accords, which all follows the Oslo peace
process. That was not, is not, the case with al
Qaeda. And I understand you want to compare them, but that's
not a comparison that the President accepts.
Q They may have -- all
that you just said may be true, but he may also be harboring terrorists
at the same time, by virtue of the fact that you've said today you
think he has some control over them. So is your view that he
is a signatory committed to the Oslo accords, but is also harboring
terrorists?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's view is that Chairman
Arafat continues to be the authority for the Palestinian Authority,
that he speaks for the Palestinian Authority, that he is in a position
of command and control and that he has the ability to do more.
The President also believes that Chairman Arafat cares deeply about
the plight of the Palestinian people and that Chairman Arafat knows
that President Bush wants to create an environment for more commerce,
more travel, more business -- job opportunities
for the Palestinian people to travel to where their jobs
are. That's what the President is committed to.
And because of that combination of Chairman Arafat's ability to
influence events on the ground, and the President's stated goals of
creating a Palestinian state and easing the plight of the Palestinian
people, that Chairman Arafat can take action in accordance with
agreements that he has made. And that's not the case with al
Qaeda.
Q Ari, the Middle East News Agency says that
the United States has arranged for political asylum for Yasser Arafat
in Morocco and that Arafat declines to go. Is this report
true or false? Is the U.S. doing what it can to ensure
Arafat's physical safety? Is it making efforts to ensure his
physical safety? And does the President believe that the
path to peace that he wants Israel to leave open goes through Chairman
Arafat?
MR. FLEISCHER: I have not heard the first report, so
that's news to me.
The President does believe that the path to peace goes through
Chairman Arafat. He believes that, as I indicated just
moments ago, Chairman Arafat continues to speak with the authority of
the Palestinian people, that Chairman Arafat has the means and the
ability to reduce the violence; and that Chairman Arafat also has the
ability to enter into productive, fruitful peace talks with
Israel. We were very close last Wednesday.
Q Ari, over and over again you and the
President have come back to the Tenet process. But some of
the discussion coming forward now is that what will stop the terrorism
is the hope, the light at the end of the tunnel of a final
resolution. And so some people are now suggesting that we
sort of leapfrog forward to a final resolution, so that there is a
greater sense of hope about it. What do you all think about
that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think if somebody
could -- if the parties were willing to agree to
leapfrog forward to a final resolution, that's something the President
would welcome. The President will pursue whatever path gets
to a peace settlement, a political peace settlement. That's
what Mitchell entails. And whether they do all of Mitchell
in one day or if Mitchell takes more time, that's something the
President will work with the parties to achieve.
Q So, as a follow-up, are you actively,
yourself, pursuing that as a policy and encouraging a leapfrog?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Mitchell path has always been a path
that has been available to the parties. But I think it's
hard to, at this moment, think that the parties are going to leapfrog
to the end of Mitchell, given the state of the violence, the way it is
today.
Q Ari, isn't a leapfrog what you criticized
President Clinton for trying to do?
Q Ari, some of the senators on the weekend
talk shows expressed the concern that Palestinian terrorists are using
suicide bombings as sort of a testing ground in Israel for a method of
killing that they'd like to see spread to other parts of the
world. Does the President, does the administration share
that concern?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that, obviously, terrorism
anywhere, in whatever form it takes, is something the administration
will always concern itself with and speak out against, and urge nations
around the world to speak out against.
Q Well, they noted that hijackings, for
instance, started in that part of the
world -- violent hijackings started in that part
of the world, and that they see this suicide bombing pattern as
possibly something that could be a threat here, or
elsewhere. I'm specifically asking about that.
MR. FLEISCHER: That's something if you were asking you
might want to address one of the law enforcement officials who are
charged with observing. I can only speak from the
President's point of view, and he believes that terrorism is terrorism
is terrorism. And the United States is committed to stopping
it, wherever it threatens America's interests.
Q Ari, just to follow up on your answer to
David, is it the President's position that Chairman Arafat and the
Palestinian Authority does not encourage terrorism?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that Chairman
Arafat can do much more to stop the terrorism that exists.
Q But he's not encouraging it?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President believes that Chairman
Arafat can do more. I can only tell you what the President
said. I speak for the President, that's what the President
has said.
Q Ari, is there any limit to U.S. tolerance
for Israeli military action? Is there anything Israel can do
in the name of self-defense that would be totally unacceptable to the
United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President, to reiterate what
he said this morning, sees a peace process still, despite the
violence. And he, as he said this morning, hopes that Prime
Minister Sharon will pursue whatever he pursues in a way to keep in
mind the pathway to peace.
Q Can you translate that for
us? What is it he could do that would derail it, in your
mind, given all that's happened so far?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's what the President has said, and
so I can't go beyond what he said.
Q Ari, on this question of terrorism is
terrorism is terrorism, Lev Grinberg is a professor at Ben Gurion
University in Israel. He's written an article in Tikkun
Magazine, called "Israel's State Terrorism." And he asks the
following question, "What is the difference between state terrorism and
individual terrorist acts?"
You argue that when a Palestinian straps a bomb around his waist
and blows it up in a cafeteria, killing innocents, that's
terrorism. He wants to know, what about the Israeli targeted
killing of 100 Palestinians or the 120 Palestinian paramedics
who have been killed, or the 1,200 Palestinians who have
been killed during the last couple of years?
Why doesn't the administration call that terrorism? Why
do they insist that that's self-defense?
MR. FLEISCHER: The administration is always concerned
with and committed to finding ways to create a peaceful environment in
the Middle East for the difficult issues there to be
resolved. What threatens that is acts of terrorism that
target innocent civilians where the whole purpose of the campaign is to
find and kill innocents. And that makes it different in
application. There are times when, in military operations,
innocent lives are lost, and the President decries that. The
President will always look for ways, continuing throughout the
violence, to find ways to bring the parties together. And
I'll leave it at that.
Q Ari, The Jerusalem Post on Good Friday
published former Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement that the
Palestinians', in his words, ultimate objective is our destruction, and
they pursue this objective by the most barbaric means imaginable, so
there is no place for negotiations, no hope for reaching any
sustainable peace agreement. We must, instead, seek a total
military victory.
And my question: considering the number of Palestinian
suicide
bombing through Passover and Easter -- I
believe it's five -- how can the President, who
is leading total war against terrorists in Afghanistan, disagree with
Netanyahu in Israel?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I indicated earlier, no matter what
happens in terms of the level of the violence, this President will not
give up hope and will not stop working to achieve a peaceful resolution
of all the disputes. The President thinks that the
Palestinian people deserve that, the Israeli people deserve that, and
the world deserves that. And that will remain the focus of
his efforts.
Q Ari, there are 10 corporations, such as
Aetna and Fleet Boston who are being sued for unspecified damages in
black reparations, which presidential candidate Al Sharpton says would
be good for America.
The President does not agree with Sharpton, does he,
Ari? And I know you won't evade, because that would suggest
that he does. (Laughter.)
MR. FLEISCHER: On the question of
reparations -- this is a discussion that we've
had before in the context of a meeting that was taking place under the
aegis of the United Nations. And what the President said at
that time is that the complexity with the reparation issue is, there
are many West African, African nations that participated in the slave
trade, and so the question quickly becomes, to whom should pay
reparations to whom, given the tangled web that was part of our history
that, of course, thank goodness, is long gone.
Q That's not an evasion, Ari. I
think that's splendid. Thank you very much.
Q When you say that the President will never
rule anything out in the Middle East, will he rule out the use of
American troops to patrol or keep peace between Israelis and
Palestinians?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think Secretary Powell addressed this
several months ago, and the position remains in place, that if the
parties enter into an agreement that requires monitors, that is
something the United States will consider.
Q At the Arab League Summit last week, two
resolutions were passed unanimously. One, supporting the
Saudi peace proposal. The other, using language almost
precisely the same as Article 5 of the NATO Charter -- said
that any attack on Iraq would be considered by Arab nations as an
attack on them.
This administration has
argued -- implausibly, I would
suggest -- that one of those resolutions matters, the one
supporting the Saudi peace plan; the one saying there would be a common
defense of Iraq doesn't. Could you explain that to me?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, I'm not going to
speculate about plans that the President has said that he has made no
decisions on and have not crossed his desk.
Q That wasn't my question.
MR. FLEISCHER: You're asking about an attack on Iraq,
and the President has said repeatedly that he has no plans and nothing
has crossed his desk. So that enters into the area of
hypothetical.
Q No, it doesn't. The resolution
is not hypothetical. The pledge of common defense among Arab
nations, the first time that's ever happened. And the question of
anything that might happen to Iraq isn't a hypothetical. And
this administration says that simply doesn't matter, it's not a policy
position that the administration considers serious. I'm
trying to find out why you don't think that is an important policy
development.
MR. FLEISCHER: Given the fact that the President has
said that he has made no decisions, no plans have crossed his desk,
it's not something that I can go down.
Q Ari, yesterday, it was Senator Specter, I
believe, who indicated that General Zinni had told him that the U.S.
was prepared to send in some small number of forces as peacekeepers
into the Middle East. This was deemed as somewhat
newsworthy. I'm wondering, is
it -- should it be newsworthy? Is this
a change in policy? And, if not, when does the U.S.
consider it the right time to perhaps send in some peacekeeping?
MR. FLEISCHER: Let me go back and review what Senator
Specter said on that show. I hadn't seen that. So
let me take a look at that and see if we have anything to offer on it.
Q Is there any consideration in the U.S.
administration of the Arabic -- of the Arab
street, reaction to the humiliation of President
Arafat? When Arafat is humiliated like that, the Arab street
is actually enraged and actually some people
are -- are actually thinking, is the United
States taking notice at all of the Arab anger and will the United
States take care of that, because of the American interests in the
region?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is that one of
the reasons he has pushed for a Palestinian state and called for the
parties to work together and has General Zinni in the region, asked the
Vice President to travel to the region, is because of his concern about
the plight of the Palestinian people. I don't think it's a
small accomplishment for a sitting United States President to go to the
United Nations and call for a Palestinian state.
And that's why the President wants to make certain that the leaders
in the area exercise the statesmanship required so that that vision of
a Palestinian state can become a reality that's based on peace and
based on Israel living in secure borders. And so the
President does hear that message. The President is sensitive
to that call. And the President believes that's why it's so
important for the parties to work productively with the United States
to achieve that peace because the plight of the Palestinian people is
something that's on the President's mind.
Q Ari, on another subject, believe it or
not, in the past when the President has made major announcements about
New York, he has surrounded himself with the congressional
delegation. I'm wondering why at least the New York City
delegation or the two senators were not with him this morning when he
announced the hand-over of Governor's Island?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the short answer is, Congress is in
recess. The announcement was made today. But the
President has made other announcements about New York that don't have
every single member of the New York delegation there. So the
President is very pleased to be able to make the announcement today
about giving Governor's Island to the people of New York.
Q Did you choose a Monday because Congress
wasn't around? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Congress was out all of last week,
Congress is out all of this week.
Q Don't you think a lot of those people
would have liked to have been there, given the opportunity?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they'll be delighted with the
news that's made.
Q Ari, the President has been meeting with
the National Security Council. The Middle East has been on
top of it ever since the problems started and before
that. Is he considering calling the leaders of Congress when
they return, or before, to talk with them about this strategic region
to the United States?
MR. FLEISCHER: This is a topic that you can imagine does
come up with different leaders. As you know, the President
met in the Oval Office just a couple of weeks ago with the Chairman and
ranking members of the Foreign Relations Committees. And
this was one of the issues that was raised at the time.
I heard a follow-up in the back. Who had a New York
follow-up?
Q -- the Governors
Island. What is the nominal cost that's associated with this
transfer? And why is now the administration agreeing to give
it to New York, when last year they were planning on using its proceeds
to pay off the deficit?
MR. FLEISCHER: The nominal cost is to be
determined. Those assessments are being made to determine
the precise dollar amount --
nominal -- it's fair to say that nobody knows
what that is with precision now.
Q Much less than $300 million, which I
assume --
MR. FLEISCHER: Correct, much less than $300
million -- nominal. Even in Washington, $300
million is not always nominal. But --
Q Will it be --
MR. FLEISCHER: Again, nobody knows what the precise
figure will be. That will be determined.
But as to the timing, I think it is fair to say that September 11th
changed a lot. September 11th has left New York, especially
the downtown area, in a very difficult situation economically, and the
President wants to make certain that our nation's city, New York, is
revitalized, and revitalized fully; New York being a beacon to the
world, not only a wonderful city to the United States. So
the President is helping New York to recover from the damage of
September 11th, and he's very pleased to be able to take this action.
Q My understanding is that the Governor
wanted to use Governor's Island for parks, not so much
development. Is that what this agreement is going to be, as
well?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as you heard Governor Pataki talk
in the Oval Office about using it for education. So I can't
speak for Governor Pataki, but that's what he said.
Q Okay, Ari, real quick. Back on
the reparations issue, you say it's a tangled web, but the United
States did participate in the issue of slavery and they were permitting
it. I mean, how can the United States not justify their
involvement in allowing slavery that goes into the issue of
reparations, and leave the African nations out, because the United
States did have a hand in it. So give me, if you will, a
separation for the United States versus the African
nations. I want to hear your --
MR. FLEISCHER: I really have nothing to add beyond what
I said before. That's the stated policy of the United States
government, and I can't --
Q But leave out the African nations, the
United States was involved. It allowed slavery, the slavery
trade in the United States. What is the United States' responsibility
to dealing with the issue of reparations?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the stated position of the
government. I can't go beyond it.
Q Moving to China, Hu Jintao's visit
scheduled here to Washington, his first visit to
Washington -- what's on the agenda? Do
you foresee greater cooperation between China and the U.S. on terrorism
issues, in particular?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Let me go back to any of
the visits that we've announced. Let me take a look at that,
because I'm not certain that we've made any such announcement, so let
me take a look and -- at a time any announcement
is made about potential trips, we can provide the information then.
Q Ari, the
terrorism in the Middle East is
the same terrorism elsewhere in the
world -- Taliban. Now, my question is,
if the U.S. is ready, or the President to remove its campaign against
terrorism from Afghanistan to the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, is the President --
Q If U.S. is ready to move its campaign
against terrorism from Afghanistan to the Middle East?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think as the President made clear
on March 11th, in a speech to the nation, he said at that time that we
already have entered the second phase of the war against terrorism, and
that is denying sanctuary to terrorists.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END 12:42
P.M. EST
Return to this article at:
/news/releases/2002/04/20020401-6.html