09 July 2004 Excerpt: State Department Noon Briefing, July 9State Department spokesman Richard Boucher briefed reporters July 9. QUESTION: Yeah. The ICJ ruling has found that the Israel barrier to be illegal and contrary to international law. What's the U.S. position on the ruling? And do you think U.S. foreign policy will change at all towards the wall? MR. BOUCHER: We're just getting the ruling and we will be studying it in coming days. The advisory opinion was issued this morning pursuant to requests that came from the UN General Assembly on the construction of the Israeli security barrier. We would note that the opinion is not legally binding. We did, along with a number of other states, we did not support the General Assembly resolution that referred the matter to the court, and also like a number of other states, we submitted a written statement with the court discouraging it from taking up the General Assembly's request and from taking any actions that would interfere with, or be inconsistent with the peace efforts that we are pursuing in accordance with the roadmap. So it remains our view that this referral to the court was inappropriate and that, in fact, it could impede efforts to achieve progress towards a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. QUESTION: Just to follow up on that. It's not legally binding, but the international law is legally binding that it bases its decision upon. And the court decision also finds that states that are supporting the Israeli war -- the Israeli wall to be in contrary with international law. Are you afraid that this might -- MR. BOUCHER: I think that's kind of a convoluted argument. The International Court of Justice rulings are international law and this piece of international law is not binding. The point, I think, that we have made, again and again, is that the way to resolve the issues between Israelis and Palestinians, the way to create a Palestinian state is through the political process, through the roadmap process. And that's where the United States has placed and continues to place its emphasis. It's not through a court ruling such as this, particularly one that we didn't think was appropriate under international law. QUESTION: Do you trust that this non-binding decision will impede efforts to find a solution? MR. BOUCHER: I think it may complicate the process. It could -- QUESTION: How? MR. BOUCHER: -- distract from the political work at hand. We don't -- I know there has been talk about taking this back to the UN. We don't think there is a need for General Assembly action at this point. We think the efforts of the parties ought to be placed on ceasing the opportunity that can be created for progress on the roadmap. QUESTION: So, primarily, that it's a distraction then or a potential distraction? MR. BOUCHER: That's right. I think there is also a legal question that we addressed in our filing that there is a use of this advisory opinion jurisdiction is a -- creates the appearance that there is a way of circumventing the right of states to determine whether to submit their disputes to judicial settlement. So it also sort of diverts the -- some of the issues into a channel that we don't think they are productively addressed. QUESTION: I'm perplexed why this would be such a distraction when the peace process has had to chug along despite all kinds of other things like the Iraq war or 9/11, enormous world events that siphoned attention elsewhere. I mean, I don't see why this -- MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say this was the only problem that the peace process has faced. But, certainly, with all of the different facts that need to be dealt with, realities that need to be dealt with, we don't need to be creating other things that can be distracting or that can take people's attention away from the matter at hand. QUESTION: But the U.S. has expressed its own displeasure with the barrier, so what -- MR. BOUCHER: We certainly have, and we haven't changed our policy on that. QUESTION: -- so what's the problem with the international -- with an international expression of the same -- MR. BOUCHER: It's not merely an international expression of the same thing. There have been many international expressions of concern, including statements that we have sponsored and worked with our Quartet partners which represent a very broad spectrum of the international community. So, as a political matter, as a political statement of U.S. views and international views, we think that it is appropriate because this ultimately is a political negotiation that has to be resolved between the parties and others have to have views on things. There is a binding court ruling in Israel where the Israeli Supreme Court made a binding decision that directed that significant changes be made in one portion of the barrier and signals that changes might be required every -- elsewhere. As a result of that, the routing of the fence is now under active review within Israeli political, military and legal processes. So the United States hasn't changed its view. There's a binding court decision in Israel and there's also an attempt on our part to seize the opportunities to move forward on the political process. We think that's where the focus should be and that's how people should try to move forward. QUESTION: Could you restate your view of the wall, or the fence, the barrier? MR. BOUCHER: Our concerns have been about the routing of the barrier, the wall, that it not unduly affect the Palestinian population by taking away land or making it hard for them to get to fields or jobs; second of all, that it not try to prejudice the ultimate outcome of negotiations. And I think I'll leave it at that. QUESTION: When the Foreign Minister was here, he said that the barrier has been very important in reducing attacks on Israel. The U.S. wants to see violence down as a way -- actually, as a necessity in order to move ahead. Does the U.S. agree with Israel that the barrier has been effective? MR. BOUCHER: I think the points that we have made about the barrier have not been about its existence or its utility. QUESTION: Right, right. MR. BOUCHER: Or the role it has or might play in resolving security issues. The point that we have made is that the routing of the barrier leads to these complications that I just talked about and, frankly, that's similar to some of the things the Israeli supreme court said the other day. And we have pressed, as you know, for the barrier, the routing of the barrier, to be looked at carefully and to be reconsidered in some places and we have seen some changes, and now the Israeli political, military and legal processes are looking at what further changes might be necessary because of their own court decision. QUESTION: But, Richard, you also looked within U.S. law to determine whether this -- whether certain parts of the fence, the barrier, kind of met U.S. restrictions for governing the aid to Israel; isn't that right? MR. BOUCHER: Oh, you mean the withholding of the loan guarantees? QUESTION: Right. MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, we looked at that. I don't know that I ever gave you a final answer on that one, actually. QUESTION: Well, actually -- MR. BOUCHER: Whether it would constitute part of the future deductions, that's not something I guess we'll answer at the time. QUESTION: So you -- but, I mean, you were looking at -- what I'm saying is that you were looking at the legalities from your point of view. So are you making a distinction between this particular -- MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. law on loan guarantees is very particular law. It's not a -- it's not an attempt to dictate international jurisprudence. QUESTION: Can we ask you about the corporal? Did you -- QUESTION: Can we stay on this subject? MR. BOUCHER: Still on this subject, Teri? QUESTION: Yeah. When Shalom was here, he also asked the U.S. to help make sure that the Palestinians didn't "throw a party at the UN," I think he said. What did he mean? What was he asking you to do, come out and make statements like this urging people not to take this ruling so seriously? MR. BOUCHER: If you want to ask him what he meant by the phrase, I think you'll have to ask him. QUESTION: Well, he said he -- what did he ask you to do or what are you willing to do? MR. BOUCHER: As far as what he might want or say or expect, you can ask him. QUESTION: What are you willing to do? MR. BOUCHER: As far as the United States' position, it's the one that I said a few minutes ago, that we don't think there's any grounds for further action at the United Nations. QUESTION: So that would constitute throwing a party? MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether it would constitute throwing a party at the United Nations. I haven't been to any parties up there.(end excerpt)
|