US Department of State Daily Briefing #36:
Thursday, 3/12/92
Boucher
Source: State Department Deputy Spokesman Richard
Boucher
Description: Washington, DC
Date: Mar, 12 19923/12/92
Category: Briefings
Region: MidEast/North Africa, Eurasia, East Asia,
Subsaharan Africa
Country: Iraq, Israel, USSR (former), Jordan, China, Sudan,
North Korea, Syria
Subject: Military Affairs, Mideast Peace Process,
Science/Technology, Security Assistance and Sales,
Terrorism, State Department
12:41 P. M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I
don't have any statements or announcements today, so I'd be glad
to take your questions.
[Israel: Reported Patriot Technology Transfer to China/
Legal Bars to Transferring US Technology]
Q What can you tell us about Israel's military ties
with China?
MR. BOUCHER: Nothing.
Q Nothing?
Q Let's try the question this way: Can you comment
in one form or another on reports that the Administration is
looking into intelligence reports that indicate that Israel may
have transferred some technology to China?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Barry. I'm aware of those
reports, but I have nothing to say on them.
Q You can't even go as far as Marlin went?
MR. BOUCHER: I have nothing to say on them. I don't
think Marlin said anything in particular.
Q Oh, yes, he did.
Q I think he said that the Administration was
consulting with the Israelis about the report.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I certainly don't have anything to
amplify on Marlin. I don't have any comment on that article.
Q What is the U.S. position on the transfer of
technology to a third power, technology which has originally
been transferred to Israel? Can you restate that for us?
MR. BOUCHER: John, that's in the Arms Export Control
Act. I think I have something about the section in question.
I'm sure that your question, and I'm certain that my answer, are
totally without any reference to any articles that might be
appearing today in the Washington Times or stories elsewhere.
But the law is a matter of public knowledge, and therefore the
gist, as I understand it, is that Section 3a of the Arms Export
Control Act provides that the President may sell defense
articles and services to foreign countries only if certain
conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the foreign
government concerned must agree that any articles or services
furnished will not be transferred to anyone who is not an
officer, employee or agent of that government without the
consent of the United States. So that's basically what the law
says. That's what it says, without reference to any particular
stories that might be out there.
Q And just as a matter of record, has the United
States ever granted to Israel any sort of waiver that would have
made possible the transfer of Patriot missile technology?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not something I have any comment on.
I'm not going to try to deal with those stories out there today
in one way or another.
Q Is that how that normally would have been
undertaken? If Israel wanted to transfer technology, would it
have to come back to the United States and seek a waiver?
MR. BOUCHER: John, I've told you what the law is as it
applies around the world. It's a matter of public record. But
I'm not commenting on the stories that are appearing today. I
just don't want to touch it.
Q I understand it. I'm not asking about the story
that appeared today, of course. I'm just asking about the law.
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. If you want to apply the law
to any specific country or case, then you'll have to do that on
your own.
Q Does the --
Q Richard --
Q Just one more question, please. Does the law
provide for any sort of waiver that would permit the transfer of
technology from Israel to another country?
MR. BOUCHER: That's something -- well, it provides
that what I said -- that the foreign government concerned must
agree that any articles furnished will not be transferred to
anyone who is not an officer, employee or agent of that
government without the consent of the United States.
Q Richard, are there any penalties -- again, without
reference to any story -- any penalties if that section of the
law is violated by a foreign country?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't read that part of the law today,
so I'm sorry, I just don't know.
Q Could you take the question?
Q Richard, in the same vein --
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if I can find it for you, Jan.
Q -- does this law affect the transfer of technology
that may have been developed by a foreign country under contract
with the U.S. Government? In other words, in which the United
States paid for the research, but the research was done there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know, Norm.
Q Could you take that?
MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there are provisions that
deal with that in the publicly available laws of the United
States.
Q In what form and where would that consent be made?
It says "without the consent of the United States." In what
form is that consent? Is there a written waiver? Is there a
public statement?
MR. BOUCHER: And what is the procedure of it?
Q What is the procedure, and where is it --
MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not sure if that appears in
the law. I'll try to check and see if I can get you the
regulations, again without reference to any stories that might
be out there today.
Q If there is a piece of paper or some form and that
consent is made, then it's a matter of public record, is it not,
whether such consent was given on Patriot missile, or let us say
Arrow missile technology?
MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I'm not going to respond to
questions that deal with the stories out there today.
Q No. I'm asking, where would consent --
MR. BOUCHER: If there is an established procedure that
applies around the world, without reference to any specific
country or case, that is a matter of public record, I'm happy to
share that with you, Saul, and I'll look into it.
Q Richard, does the law make any distinction between
defensive and offensive weapons?
MR. BOUCHER: Jim, I'm not a lawyer. I've read you
what the law says. You can look at it further if you want that.
Q Richard, forgive me if this question has already
been asked. I came in late. I apologize. Did you answer the
question of whether the United States has raised with the
Government of Israel questions about transfer of technology to
China?
MR. BOUCHER: I was asked a question very similar to
that, and I said I was not in a position to answer.
Q Is that your answer to my question as well?
MR. BOUCHER: That's my answer to yours as well.
Q And also can you say whether the United States has
granted consent to Israel for transfer of any technology to
China?
MR. BOUCHER: I was asked that question as well, and I
repeated --
Q I'm sorry.
MR. BOUCHER: -- that any remarks that I make today
have to do with publicly available information on the laws of
the United States that are a matter of public record that I'm
helping you out with and not with any reference to any
particular stories that might be out there today about
countries.
Q So you said "no comment," though, basically?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not saying anything about that.
Q Doesn't the State Department -- doesn't a
department within the State Department administer the Arms
Export Control Act and such things?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we do.
Q You have not checked with them on whether there
were any waivers of any sort or another that are public or
obtainable?
MR. BOUCHER: I am not aware that the waiver process is
a public one. I'll double-check on that and see.
Q I'd appreciate it.
Q Richard, did the State Department demarche the
Government of Iran over the shipment -- the alleged shipment in
a Korean --
Q Could we stay on this --
Q We are on this. Just a minute.
MR. BOUCHER: Over the alleged shipment?
Q The Korean goods that were allegedly shipped --
MR. BOUCHER: Of the reports of Scud missiles?
Q Yes.
MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary, I believe, in Brussels
said that we would raise our concerns, and, yes, we've done
that.
Q Well, my question is, why are you willing to raise
concerns about transfer of technology in that instance and not
in this one?
MR. BOUCHER: We don't do contrasts, Johanna, and I
don't really see the comparison.
Q Well, you are concerned about the transfer of
technology, particularly in the Middle East, is that correct?
MR. BOUCHER: Our views on the transfer of
surface-to-surface and particular missile technology into the
very tense region of the Middle East are something that we've
stated many times. Yes.
Q Richard, I understand your position up there on
the dais, and I know what the situation is --
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you, Joe.
Q -- from your standpoint, but it's very weird that
all these questions suddenly arise without relationship to the
story that appeared today, which makes it appear as, "Look,
Israel's culpable, but you won't say it."
Can you say as a matter of fact that the State
Department is not at this point having anything to do or
accusing Israel or anybody else of such a transfer?
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I am not commenting one way or the
other on stories that are appearing today.
Q Well, can you tell us when you might say something
about this? [Laughter] Can you say something?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry, Joe. We don't have anything
for you at this point. Marlin, the spokesman of the President,
made that clear, I think, in his briefing this morning. He said
we don't have any information or conclusions to share
with people at this point, and I'm not about to go farther than
that.
Q Richard, a follow-up --
Q The U.S. views on transfer of missile technology
into the tense region, you called it, have been often stated.
Do those views also apply to transfer of technology out of the
region?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, look, I know you guys want in 30
different ways for me to say something on this. I'm not going
to start drawing implications or conclusions about the stories
that have appeared today. I certainly could have left you guys
to go out and look up the Arms Export Control Act. It's a
matter of public record. But as far as trying to apply some of
these things to a particular circumstance, I'm not going to do
that.
Q Richard, have we approached the Syrians as
possible or presumed end-users of the North Korean Scuds, the
same way you said we've approached the Iranians?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, Howard. I'd have to check.
[Israel: Loan Guarantees]
Q Can I ask on a related subject to this: Is the
markup on the loan guarantees set for next Tuesday --
MR. BOUCHER: That's a question for Congress.
Q -- as some people have suggested?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not a question for me.
Q Do you happen to know whether --
MR. BOUCHER: I do not have that.
Q -- that the Administration has agreed that the
markup can go ahead next Tuesday?
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure we have to agree to
Congressional markups, but that's certainly a question for the
Congress.
Q Do you know of any meetings today between Baker
and Senators Leahy and Kasten?
MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't heard of one. No.
Q Richard, let me go back. The Ministry of Defense
in Israel said that the story that appeared in the media about
the transfer of technology or equipment -- they denied it
flatly. There was no question. And Defense Minister Arens is
coming here. I think he's -- is he having a meeting with the
Secretary or somebody?
MR. BOUCHER: Not that I'm aware of.
Q You don't know.
MR. BOUCHER: He usually meets with Cheney.
Q Well, what I don't understand is this looks like
many other things in the past. Suddenly some anonymous official
says something to the media. Israel is smeared. It takes time,
and then it's forgotten about. It seems to me that this is not
the way to treat an ally and the only democracy in the Middle
East, is it? Come out with it! What is the truth?
[Laughter]
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I appreciate your sentiments. I'm
not going to go any farther than I have already.
Q Since the guarantees were mentioned, let me
mention that the only political condition ever imposed on a
foreign loan guarantee --
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, I'm sorry. Do you have a question?
Q Yes. What I'm saying. $12 billion in loan
guarantees have been given to foreign countries, including
Kuwait and Yemen without a political condition. Why is there a
political condition on Israel, the only country to have a
political condition imposed on it?
MR. BOUCHER: Joe, the Secretary has explained our
policy on this. He's explained the policy of the United States
and our desire to stick to that, and I'm just going to stick
with that.
Q On the same subject, though, Richard -- the loan
guarantees -- I think the Secretary indicated in Hill testimony
the last time he was up there that the U.S. conditions for loan
guarantees -- the U.S. would not have a problem with purely
security or military investment in the West Bank, for instance
-- like radar sites on the hilltops or something.
Rabin, for instance, and the Labor Party historically
have argued that the settlements in the Jordan Valley are
security settlements. How would the U.S. view Israeli
investment in those settlements?
MR. BOUCHER: Howard, the Secretary in his testimony --
at least in the end of February when I remember -- described
various kinds of things that were being discussed. I'm not in a
position to go farther than that. I don't want to take up a
hypothetical statement that you say has not even been made
recently.
Q Do you differentiate between what it calls
"security settlements" and "regular settlements"?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new to say on that
subject. The Secretary addressed the question in testimony.
I'd just have to leave it there.
Q Richard, if I may ask --
MR. BOUCHER: Sorry, Joe. There are others in line.
Pat?
Q On a different subject: What is the U.S. hope or
expectation from this visit with King Hussein?
MR. BOUCHER: The President spoke this morning about
it. There will be a briefing at the White House, since this is
taking place largely there. I think the Secretary has a meeting
with the King this afternoon. I'd really have to leave it to
them, Pat.
Q The lead story in this morning's paper here talks
about Iraq and the U.N. appear headed for a major new
confrontation. How would you assess what the situation is right
now?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I really have to leave that to the
Security Council. I mean, our assessment, as you know, from the
statements of Ambassador Pickering yesterday is that Iraq is not
in compliance. That's not only our assessment. That's been the
assessment of the Security Council as a whole, and that was
clearly stated by the other members.
Iraq is not in compliance with the U.N. Security
Council resolutions. Now this morning Tariq Aziz was to address
the Council at 10:30. There were going to be statements then by
other members, followed up by -- a follow-up on the questions
that were addressed to the Iraqi delegation yesterday.
The Council was going to then hold informal
consultations on how to conclude this session, so we expect
there would be some kind of closing statement today.
[China: Vice Foreign Minister's Meeting at the Department]
Q Richard, do you have anything on the meeting
between Deputy Secretary of State and Chinese Vice Foreign
Minister this morning? What's the nature of the Vice Foreign
Minister's visit?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't bring my information with me.
The Vice Foreign Minister, I think, was in the United States for
a U.N. meeting of some kind, and he was coming to Washington to have
meetings largely
with Under Secretary Kanteto discuss, I think, a full range of issues --
bilateral and
international issues. You, I think, are familiar with our
agenda with China: human rights, non-proliferation, trade, and
other things like that.
I'll double-check on the meeting today with Eagleburger
to see if it had any different agenda on it.
[Sudan: Deputy Asst. Sec. Houdek's Visit to Khartoum and US Concerns
about
Terrorism]
Q Richard, this morning's paper talks about a
Khartoum-Tehran Axis, and it says that Assistant Secretary of
State Robert Houdek -- Deputy Assistant Secretary for African
Affairs -- visited Khartoum in December and warned the
government of grave consequences if terrorist activity could be
traced to Sudan. Do you have something about this?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes. Our Deputy Assistant Secretary for
African Affairs Robert Houdek did go to Khartoum in December.
He, as well as our Ambassador in Khartoum, have raised our
concerns with the Sudanese, and I can describe the situation for
you as regards Sudan and terrorism.
It's clear to us that Sudan has close ties to several
state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq and Libya. These ties
have been repeatedly demonstrated in the past year, including
visits to Khartoum by Colonel Qadhafi in June and President
Rafsanjani in December of 1991.
Sudan also has an unfortunate history of being a state
where terrorists have been able to operate freely. In this
regard, we note the 1973 murder of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in
Khartoum, the 1986 shooting of a U.S. Embassy communicator, and
the 1988 armed attack on the Acropole Hotel and Sudan Club by
the Abu Nidal organization. That attack killed eight persons
and wounded more than 20, including three Americans. The
terrorists in that attack were released after being held for
less than three years.
We also continue to be concerned over disturbing
evidence that Sudan is allowing various terrorist organizations
to increase their presence there. We're also concerned over the
potentially destabilizing effects of expanding links between
Sudan or any other nation with terrorist groups. We're
following the situation closely. We've expressed our views to
senior officials of the Sudanese Government, both here in
Washington and in Khartoum and to the leader of the National
Islamic Front.
Q Sudan is not on the terrorist list, is it?
MR. BOUCHER: Not at this point. We're monitoring the
situation closely.
Q How recently are these developments that have
caused your concern?
MR. BOUCHER: I've cited some of them. The close ties
demonstrated, particularly by visits last year of Qadhafi and
Rafsanjani. The incidents that have occurred in Sudan, of
course, go back some time, to 1973 when our Ambassador was
murdered.
The question of Sudan allowing various terrorist
organizations to increase their presence there is a more recent
phenomenon.
Q I guess I should ask, why isn't Sudan on the
terrorist list if, as you pointed out in your own statement, the
country has a long record, in the mind of the U.S. Government,
of supporting terrorists and ties with terrorist nations?
What's the policy reason for not having them on the terrorist
list at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: At this point, Ralph, we're following the
situation. We have to see if they meet the definition that's in
the act of "state sponsor of terrorism," I think is what they're
called in there. It's not necessarily just a country where
terrorism has occurred. It's to have some form of
state-sponsorship.
There is an annual report that the Commerce Department
sends up in January on the export controls relating to foreign
policy. In conjunction with that, we formally review the
terrorism list at the beginning of each year. We completed that
review, and we've, at this point, concluded that no changes are
warranted.
Q At this point it would be fair to say that in the
U.S. Government's view you can't yet conclude that the
government of Sudan sponsors terrorism; you can only conclude
that they allow terrorism to flourish, if you will, in their
country?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a paraphrase of what I
said, that they're not yet on the terrorism list, or not on the
terrorism list, but we have concerns about the situation there.
We have concerns about developments there, and that we've raised
these with the Sudanese Government.
Q Richard, when you say no changes are warranted,
are you speaking only of Sudan or are there to be any changes in
the terrorism list? Syria had, obviously (inaudible) off --
MR. BOUCHER: The nations on the list -- this was done
in January, I think. The nations on the list remain Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. We follow this, obviously,
all the time. Countries can be added to or removed from the
list at any time it's warranted.
Q Would you repeat the list? Iran, Iraq --
MR. BOUCHER: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North
Korea.
Q There have been reports of Iranian training of
Sudanese militias. Do you have anything on that?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't.
Q Do you have anything on the kind of message that
the Deputy Assistant Secretary delivered to the Sudanese?
MR. BOUCHER: I would just say he expressed the
concerns that I've expressed here.
Q Richard, have you heard anything at all from some
of the Arab countries about the continuation of the Middle East
peace process, like venue, timing, and all that?
MR. BOUCHER: "Heard anything at all" -- that's pretty
broad. I'm sure we're still in touch with the various countries
involved. We do that all the time.
Q They suggested --
MR. BOUCHER: Do I have any new date, time, and place
for you? No, I don't.
Q Have any of the Arabs submitted a list of possible
sites that they could live with?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's something for me to
comment on. I think that's something you can ask them.
Q Can we go back to "anything at all"?
MR. BOUCHER: "Anything at all?" I'm sure we're in
touch with these governments. We've been in close touch with
them all the time. As you remember, Ed Djerejian had a meeting
with the Lebanese delegation on Monday, for example.
[Arms Sales: Transfers of Patriots/Israel/US Policy]
Q Can I ask you a question about the shipment of --
alleged shipment -- of Scud-Cs that ended up in Iran? I'm not
sure you're going to be able to deal with this question, but it
struck me, looking back over it, that, first, the U.S.
Government, in effect, leaked information to suggest that the
ship contained Scuds --
MR. BOUCHER: Are you certifying that's the source of
the story? Are you revealing your source?
Q: I'll ask the questions and you can deal
with the way you want to answer them. Okay? That's fine.
That's the way it always works.
Then the U.S. Government talked about shadowing the
ship carefully, keeping a close eye on it, watching it, leaving
the impression that it was every step of the way, and so on.
And then suddenly the ship ends up in an Iranian port and the
U.S. Government says, "Well, we just -- gee, we lost it; we
couldn't keep an eye on it. We couldn't find it." It sounds
like, to me, like a bungle occurred here.
Was there something wrong with the original
information, or did the U.S. just decide for policy reasons you
couldn't go after it? What went wrong here?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, again, I don't know what you're saying
about sources of the original story. I know that I, for one,
and I think my colleagues in the other departments, when these
original stories started about some ship on its way, did not say
much of anything from our podiums. We did not say we were
shadowing it or following it or going to get it, or all these
other things that we saw reported in the press.
I think the Pentagon -- Pete Williams the other day and
General Hoar yesterday on the Hill -- talked about this
situation quite extensively. We have said that we are concerned
about arms transfers, particularly missile transfers into the
Middle East. Those concerns are real, and we have, as the
Secretary has pointed out, we've done some things to try to deal
with that situation.
We have supported things like the Missile Technology
Control Regime and welcomed adherence to that regime by various
countries. So we have efforts underway to deal with this
question of the sale of missiles and weapons of mass destruction
into the Middle East. But I don't think any of us have ever
from here attempted to say anything specific about that ship.
Q Of course, the question wasn't whether you --
MR. BOUCHER: The Pentagon has explained, I think, in a
careful manner the circumstance of their monitoring effort and
how they hail ships, and which ones they found and which ones
they didn't. I'd just leave it to them to explain the situation
there.
Q The question wasn't so much about what was said at
the podiums. As you know, U.S. officials speak on Background a
lot about things that the U.S. Government doesn't wish to do
from the podium. The stories, for the most part, don't come out
of thin air.
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we don't stand up here and
take responsibility or try to comment on things that unnamed
officials say.
Q You don't take responsibility for it. That's
true. Can you tell me whether the Missile Technology Control
Regime -- I just don't remember -- is Israel a signatory to
that? Has the U.S. had discussions with Israel on the subject
of the Missile Technology Control Regime?
MR. BOUCHER: It's something that I'd have to look up.
I know we've had discussions. I'm not sure what their exact
status is.
Q And do you know whether that regime encompasses
the type of weapons such as the Patriot?
MR. BOUCHER: Ralph, I'm not going to comment on the
stories that appeared this morning.
Q I wasn't asking about it. I was asking whether
the Patriot missile is the type of missile that falls under the
scope of the Missile Technology Control Regime?
MR. BOUCHER: It's not a question I can answer for you
today, Ralph.
Q Can you take that? That's a valid question?
MR. BOUCHER: I think that question really, solely
relates to specifics that are in an article this morning, and
I'm not going to comment on it.
Q The question could be asked in this way: Does
anti-missile technology fall under the Missile Technology
Control Regime?
MR. BOUCHER: My understanding is that the Missile
Technology Control Regime deals with missiles that are able to
send a 500-kilogram payload to a distance of 300 kilometers, and
I believe it deals with surface-to-surface missiles.
Q It would seem to exclude Patriots?
Q You keep casting the questions that are asked you
about this subject in terms of the stories that appeared this
morning. Those were not the original questions that were asked.
They were whether or not the United States is investigating a
transfer of technology to Israel. Can you answer that specific
question?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
Q From Israel to China?
MR. BOUCHER: That's not a question that I'm able to
answer for you at this point.
Q Can you explain why you can't answer it?
MR. BOUCHER: Speaking very hypothetically, John, if
there were information or reports of that sort, they would
relate to intelligence matters that we would probably not be
able to comment on.
Q Can you say whether the subject is a subject of
discussion between the U.S. and the Israeli Governments?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm afraid not.
Q Richard, why can't you say from the podium what
your colleague at the White House has said, which is, "There are
reports and they're being looked into?" That's all he said, but
at least he said that there are reports and they're being looked
into.
MR. BOUCHER: Jan, I don't understand why, if that was,
in fact, exactly what was said at the White House, why you need
me to say it.
Q It's not why I need you to say it. What I'm
concerned about is why you can't say it?
MR. BOUCHER: I have no embellishments or additions to
what Marlin (Fitzwater) said. I have no subtractions from them
either. He is the spokesman for the President and the whole
Administration. I'm not going to go any further, or any less of
him. I don't have his transcript with me, so I'm not going to
repeat what he said.
Q If I might, Richard. The State Department, as
we've said earlier, administers the law under which such
transfers would be illegal unless the United States consents.
You won't discuss whether your Department is looking into this.
You won't discuss whether there's anything on the record showing
any kind of waiver or consent on missile technology. It would
seem to me that it's within the purview of this Department to
give the answer and not necessarily the White House.
The White House is going to ask you to look into it, I
assume.
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think Marlin said anything like
that today.
Q No, but this is where you would find out about it
-- or not learn about it, perhaps, because of the intelligence
that you wouldn't look into it.
MR. BOUCHER: The allegations -- the information that
appears in the reports that are appearing today, I think, are
made with reference to intelligence information. You know it's
our practice that we don't comment on intelligence information.
I'm not prepared to go into any specific report of a specific
transfer because of the information that we might have around
the world on those types of activities.
You asked me if the process of getting the consent of
the United States for re-transfers is a public one, I offered to
look into that. I recognize that from there if the answer is,
yes, it is, then the question follows, "What about a particular
case such as this?" I'll look into that as well.
Q Richard, relations between this country and Israel
have now been thrust into the political arena. And for you to
stand there and blandly say that you will not comment on this
because this may or may not have something to do with
intelligence begs the fact that if Israel has transferred
technology to another country, that casts Israel in a very bad
light politically.
It sounds as if you are refusing to comment on this
story because it might further tighten relations between Israel
and the United States. I suppose that may just be a
conspiratorial turn of mind, but one wonders if you're not
ducking the question in order not to bring up that embarrassing
political possibility?
MR. BOUCHER: John, I have given you my reasons for not
commenting on these stories -- for not responding to questions
on whether there is information, allegations, or something to
look into involving possible transfers of Patriot technology
from Israel to China -- it was your question -- and I have said
that my reasons for that are that any information we might have
about possible transfers of U.S. technology from one country
that receives it to another country that hasn't, by and large,
is intelligence information. And, as you know, we don't comment
on intelligence information. I'm not prepared to confirm any of
these stories for you.
Q I understand your reasoning, and I have no reason
to suspect the purity of your motives. I remain skeptical,
however, about the State Department's purity of motives.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Your views are on the record.
Your skepticism is recorded, John.
Q But by saying that it is an intelligence matter --
and you cannot really comment on it -- you tacitly admit that
the United States did not give Israel a waiver because it
wouldn't be an intelligence matter then because we would know
about it?
MR. BOUCHER: Frank, again, I'm not in a position to do
that. I was not trying to imply that. I was trying to explain
my reasons for not commenting on the story.
Q If the United States and China -- Secretary Baker
went to China last Fall for a meeting to discuss, among other
things -- among many other things -- China's role in arms
proliferation to the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, and
at the time the United States spoke specifically about its
concerns, about Chinese shipments of a certain type of missile,
a certain type of technology.
Has the United States raised the question of obtaining
missile technology from Israel with the Chinese Government?
MR. BOUCHER: That's the other side of the coin --
Q Yes, it is.
MR. BOUCHER: -- of the question that I was asked, and
I'm afraid I'm not able to answer that one either.
Q Richard, let me ask it a different way --
Q The two situations are different in some way? One
had to do with intelligence information and one didn't, or --
MR. BOUCHER: Our desire to see countries around the
world adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime, the fact
that we welcome Chinese adherence to that is certainly something
that's a matter of policy that I can speak on very easily.
Q Let me ask you a different way, if I could. The
Patriot missile is a very sophisticated weapon, as we all know.
The Administration, over the last year, has repeatedly said that
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missiles, etc., is
one of the highest if not highest priorities. Would we view it
with alarm -- if such a transfer had taken place -- that China
had acquired this capability?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can answer the second
half of your question. I would point out that the Patriot
missile is a defensive system which has been used and which we
are, in fact, selling ourselves to some countries. I think the
Defense Department announced yesterday that we were selling some
Patriots to Kuwait.
Q Would we sell it to China?
MR. BOUCHER: As you know, we don't sell weapons to
China right now.
Q Can you tell us, what countries, besides Israel --
what country besides Israel has Patriot launchers and missiles?
MR. BOUCHER: Off the top of my head, there are some in
Europe, I think the Netherlands, Turkey, among NATO countries.
I know we've announced sales to Saudi Arabia and just yesterday
a sale to Kuwait; and, of course, the ones that went to Israel.
So those are the ones that I can think of. I think that's the
whole list but I'm not positive.
Q There were two that went to Israel during the war.
Have you already been asked about whether Israel has purchased
or requested to purchase an additional battery of Patriot
missiles?
MR. BOUCHER: There are more than the ones that went
during the war, and I'm just not sure of the exact status of
that, Ralph. I think that's probably a matter of record.
Q Does Japan have Patriots?
MR. BOUCHER: Frankly I don't know. It might. As I
said, I'm not sure my list is exhausted.
Q Thank you.
MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.
(Press briefing concluded at 1:15 p.m.)