Daily Press Briefing for January 9 -- Transcript

   Daily Press Briefing (Corrected)Richard Boucher, SpokesmanWashington, DCJanuary 9, 2003INDEX:

NORTH KOREA

1-5 Gov. Richardson (D-NM) and Reports of Special Envoy Status/Travel

3-4 Communiqu and Obligations

5-6 UN Secretary Generals Special Envoy to N. Koreas Meetings

6-7 Sequencing of Obligations/Non-Compliance of International Obligations

4, 5, 8 Hostile vs. Aggressive Intent

CHINA/KOREAS

6-7 Denuclearization of the Peninsula

DEPARMENT

7 Secretary Powells Telephone Calls Russia and China

RUSSIA

8 Media Reports of a New Missile Treaty

VENEZUELA/OPEC

8 U.S. Calling for other Oil Producing Countries to Increase Production

8 Bank and Financial Crisis/Fifth Week of Strike

16 Special Advisor Otto Reich

MEXICO

9 Status of Mr. Castaneda

9 Additional Visa Requests for DEA Agents

TURKEY

9-10 Consultations with Turkey on Iraq

10 Reports on Base Agreements and Elements of Cooperation

10-11 Plan Crash and Process of Positive Identification of AmCit

IRAQ

11-12 Dr. Blixs Study of the Declaration and Outstanding Activity

12, 14 Facts of Level of Cooperation/Gaps in Information

12-14 Effort to Interview Scientists

15 Secretary Powells Meeting with Dr. EL Baradei

UNITED KINGDOM

14 Statement on the Iraq Inspectors and Possible Disagreements

IRAQ/N KOREA

15-16 International Communitys Outlook on Inspections and Obligations

CANADA

16-17 Current Relationship with the United States

EGYPT

17-18,19 Extradition of Abu Abbas

KENYA

18-19 Ties to al Qaida

ALGERIA

19-20 Armament and Weapons Support to fight Rebels

INDIA

20 Nuclear Weapons Test

TURKMENISTAN

20 Human Rights Abuses and Assassination AttemptTRANSCRIPT:

1:15 p.m. EST MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I would be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: Do you know anything about Governor Richardson, perhaps, being an envoy to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I would describe it that way at all. We were aware of the meeting, the contacts between the North Koreans and Governor Richardson. We have to approve the travel of North Koreans, approve the travel for them to go down there. The Secretary's been in touch with governor Richardson.

We're aware that the North Koreans talk to a variety of people, different channels, international channels. We coordinate with allies and friends internationally. We make our views known to other people who might have contact. So at this point, the basic position, I think, remains where it was yesterday, that the -- looking to see what, how the North Koreans are going to react, either in public or in private, that the burden remains on North Korea to promptly and verifiably dismantle these programs and meet their international obligations, and we'll be looking to see whether they do that.

Terri.

QUESTION: Have there been visas approved or visas applied for, as far as you know, for a delegation?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not visas. It's travel. Their representatives in New York, when they want to go anywhere beyond New York, have to get permission from the State Department to go, I think it's 25 miles beyond the center of Manhattan.

QUESTION: So it would be people that are already in the US as you understand it traveling?

MR. BOUCHER: We approve travel for those kinds of people.

QUESTION: And has that request been made?

MR. BOUCHER: We approved travel for the people in New York to New Mexico. I don't know.

QUESTION: But has the request been made?

QUESTION: He just said yes.

QUESTION: He said the approval has been given.

QUESTION: Do you know how long Richardson has been talking to the North Koreans? I mean in this --

MR. BOUCHER: You mean how many years? I mean, (laughter)

QUESTION: No, I mean now.

MR. BOUCHER: --this is a man who's had various contacts over a long period of time. How often he talks to them, you know, at this stage, I don't know. But we know about travel, we've been in touch with him.

QUESTION: But how long -- when did you become aware of this most recent round of talks and --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if I can say, "round of talks." We just know the North Koreans are going down to see him and we've been in touch with him.

QUESTION: Do you know when?

MR. BOUCHER: When what?

QUESTION: The North Koreans would go and meet with Richardson?

MR. BOUCHER: That's not -- I'm not going to give that kind of information out.

QUESTION: Well, how about this. When was the --

MR. BOUCHER: Somebody else's meeting I'm not going to talk about.

QUESTION: When did they ask and when did you approve?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into detail on the specifics of meetings or timing.

QUESTION: I'm not asking when the timing -- I'm asking when did you approve the travel of their diplomats?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to get into details as to questions of timing, requests and approvals and things like that. It's not our meeting. It's Governor Richardson's meeting. And we approved the travel of the North Koreans to go there.

QUESTION: But there is -- you don't have any involvement in this at all? You didn't suggest or -- did Governor Richardson contact you -- not you personally, but who initiated this contact?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know whether the Secretary called him or he called the Secretary, but they've talked to each other about the prospect of this meeting.

QUESTION: And who initiated the idea of this meeting? Was this an initiative from Governor Richardson or from the North Koreans?

MR. BOUCHER: I think from the North Koreans, actually.

QUESTION: And have you -- did the Secretary tell the Governor what he would like the Governor to tell them when they come?

MR. BOUCHER: As we do with anybody who has contact with North Koreans, whether they're other governments or other people that we know, we make sure they understand our position. Our position -- you understand it, I think, too -- is the one clearly stated in the trilateral statement the other day.

QUESTION: Can you at least say, Richard, if the North Korean request to travel came after the release of the TCOG statement? Or has it been a standing request for some time? In other words --

MR. BOUCHER: I'll check and see if I can make sure.

QUESTION: What I'm trying to get at is, it your understanding or is it your belief that the North Koreans want to use this channel to react to the TCOG statement? Or is it -- or is this something that could be --

MR. BOUCHER: I guess the answer is we'll see. They may have something to say to him. We'll see.

QUESTION: But in terms of the timing of it, does that lead you to any --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to draw any conclusions at this point.

QUESTION: Richard, there are reports out of Asia today that a compromise might be in the works along the lines of the United States reaffirming the 2000 Joint Communiqu. Is that something that the United States would be willing to do?

MR. BOUCHER: I realize that a particular news agency has reported something like that sourced to diplomats who may or may not have close ties to the North Koreans. Again, we're looking to see what the North Koreans have to say either in public or in private. I made that clear the other day. We're looking to see whether they are going to verifiably and promptly dismantle their nuclear programs and come into compliance with their nuclear obligations. When they have something like that to communicate, I'm sure we'll hear.

QUESTION: Richard --

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? In his interview yesterday, the Secretary was reported to have said that you might be willing to go beyond passing comments on lack of hostile intent. Can you give us any idea of what he envisions in that respect?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary asked Richardson to pass on a specific message or messages?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Richard,

MR. BOUCHER: Terri.

QUESTION: Matt.

QUESTION: Would you regard a communication from the North Koreans to Governor Richardson as being some kind of an official response, in other words, or a more thought out response than the invective that was -- that came out yesterday immediately after the TCOG statement?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we'll see what they have to communicate to Governor Richardson or to some other person that they're talking to, including the internationals. If it is a more thought out response, if it does indicate that they are prepared to promptly and verifiably dismantle their nuclear enrichment program, then it would be interesting. If it's not, it's not. If it is, it is. We'll see when it happens.

QUESTION: But you don't -- you wouldn't take any comment from the North Korean side to Richardson less seriously than a face -- a direct official-to-official comment?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it depends on the content of what they have to say more than the question of who they might say it to.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And my question was -- I didn't give it away to Matt. Are you saying when you say that we're looking to see what they have to say, are you saying that until they have something to say, the issue of security guarantees is completely off the table, nothing will come from the US before you hear something back from the North Koreans since the TCOG statement?

MR. BOUCHER: We have indicated that the North needs to meet its obligations. We've also indicated we have no aggressive intent, vis--vis North Korea. The President's done that many times before. The Secretary has, as well. The -- as the White House spokesman said yesterday, the ball is in the North Korean court at this point.

QUESTION: But since you have done that many times and they're still asking for more, they obviously don't see it as sufficient.

MR. BOUCHER: As the Secretary said, we're not going to go rushing down to negotiate something in order to get them to meet obligations they've taken on before. They need to meet the obligations they've taken on before.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: One or two more down there.

QUESTION: On the UN envoy, the Canadian man who was going to go to North Korea, do you have any message for him? Or is US officials in Beijing is going to meet him before he goes to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've been in touch with the Secretary General's envoy to North Korea, as well. So we keep in touch with people who talk to the North Koreans.

QUESTION: And even before and or after the --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't exactly what meetings or schedules, but he's not -- he's not there yet, is he?

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. He's reported to be going, but we keep in touch with people like that, yes.

QUESTION: Could you help us understand what Secretary said on today's Washington Post that he was asked non-aggression treaty with North Korea, and he said you've just bounded a problem. That's what diplomacy is all about. Is this a indication that if he is not, do not anything recent to ensure North Koreans that we won't invade you.

MR. BOUCHER: At this point -- I was asked before if I could provide any more detail on it or elaborate on it, and no. But the basic phrase means we've said this, they've said they want that and that bounds the problem, whether there is something in between that might be done or not, we'll see. But the issue, as I've said, for us, is North Korea meeting its obligations. We've made that abundantly clear. We've made it clear it's for them to meet their obligations. But that doesn't rule out that some way might be found on the security issues.

QUESTION: Richard.

MR. BOUCHER: George.

QUESTION: The Secretary made specific references to security guarantees offered to the North Koreans as part of the 1994 negotiations on the Agreed Framework, according the The Post, anyway. Does he consider those assurances still to be binding?

MR. BOUCHER: The -- I can't remember the exact phrase that he used. Phil may have the transcript with him. The -- our view of the Agreed Framework has always been that we were willing to abide by it if North Korea did. North Koreans are the ones who said it was nullified. North Korea is the country that failed to live up to its obligations. So, I don't think there's too much more I can say about it or any aspect of it except that they were the ones that said it was nullified.

Okay. Back there.

QUESTION: In the phone call from Secretary to Chinese Foreign Minister, did he ask China to do anything specifically? And also, the Chinese said there should be some flexibility in the ways to start a talk and talk. Do you have any comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see that flexibility statement from the Chinese. I think they have made clear, as others have, they strongly believe in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that's something that unites all the international community in the view that this peninsula cannot be allowed to be nuclearized by these various programs, whether it's the ones, the Yongbyon facility which they've now taken the cameras out of, or this other uranium enrichment program.

In the discussions with the Chinese and others -- the Secretary has talked to Foreign Minister Ivanov, as well, since the trilaterals with Japan and Korea -- the Secretary has made clear the view that we expressed in the trilateral statement. And as we have encouraged all those with contacts with North Korea to make clear that the North needs to dismantle these program and that they should look carefully at the US view and the view of Japan, Korea and the United States as expressed in that trilateral statement.

QUESTION: Richard, was that call with Ivanov today?

MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday was Ivanov. Right? What are you whispering to me, Lynn? She's whispering to me, "Take out the little list and make sure." Well, it depends on what year it is. Phone calls, 2003. Foreign Minister Ivanov was on Wednesday and Foreign Minister Tang was today. I'll double-check on that.

QUESTION: All right. Well, can I change the subject now and ask another Russia -- no?

QUESTION: No. Just a loose end. Maybe you said this in the flurry at the top and I missed it. Do you know how many or did you say how many North Koreans are going to New Mexico?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say how many.

QUESTION: Can you say?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Why not?

QUESTION: Now can I --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's for us to report on other people's meetings and other people's travels. That --

QUESTION: Well, it's your permission, though, for them to go.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, but that's still different than our taking ownership of the meeting and describing who's there.

Mark.

QUESTION: Richard, you mentioned the uranium enrichment and Yongbyon. Is there any particular sequence that you want to see in North Korea's response -- anything that should come first? The dismantling of --

MR. BOUCHER: No, there's no sequencing. Those are both obligations that North Korea needs to meet and there is no question of doing one but not the other until later. They both need to be met. They're both currently issues of noncompliance with North Korea's international obligations and North Korea needs to live up to its international obligations.

QUESTION: All right. Can I move on?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's see. We had more on this, or not?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: More?

QUESTION: Yeah, Richard, a few moments ago you said you had no aggressive intent. Do you make a substantive distinction between aggressive intent and hostile intent, which is what the 2000 communiqu said?

MR. BOUCHER: The President said we have no intention of attacking, we have no intention of invading. I think the Secretary has said those things. The Secretary said we have no hostile intent. The President, I think, or the Secretary has also used the phrase "no aggressive intent." It's all the same thing. It all reflects a general attitude on the part of the United States.

Okay. Different? Okay.

QUESTION: You may have seen the reports out Moscow earlier today that the Russians say that they have proposed a -- some kind of a deal to you guys that would not replace, but would be along the same lines as the ABM Treaty. Are you aware of any such document or proposal coming from the Russians? The reason I ask is that a senior official who, presumably, would be in a position to know about this told us earlier today that -- told some of us that he had no idea what the Russians are talking about. Do you know what they're talking about?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't. I just barely saw the press report. I didn't have a chance to call anybody on it. But no, I don't know anything about that.

QUESTION: I have two questions on Latin America, one on Venezuela. There is a report in the, one of the American papers saying that the United States is pressing other oil producers countries to increase their production to cover defaults from the exports of Venezuelan oil. Can you tell us which countries?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't go into any particular countries. As I said yesterday, our view is that if -- we've seen a number of OPEC countries talk about increasing productions. We think that would be a positive thing. And when we have contacts with people and the subject comes up, that's what we would say. But no, I don't have any particular list. There is not an instruction to go press or lobby or anything like that.

QUESTION: And in general, of the new situation in the Venezuela crisis with the banks that are going to join the general strike. Do you have any comments on that, or views?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we've seen the situation. We've seen the developments. We do monitor the financial situations as well as the overall situation there. I think our view is that the parties need to sit down and need to work out a peaceful resolution of these fundamental issues using the good offices of Secretary General Gaviria.

The strike is now in its fifth week. People need, I think first of all, to exercise freedoms responsibly, refrain from violence, and the government needs to make sure that people have the ability to peacefully exercise their democratic rights.

We have kept in very close touch with the Secretary General of the OAS as he's down there. Our ambassador meets with him regularly. He met with him twice yesterday. Our embassy is keeping in close touch with the government, talks to the foreign -- the Ambassador's been meeting with the foreign minister, with the vice president and others, as well as people from throughout Venezuelan society.

The Secretary of State has been in close touch with other foreign ministers on the issues of Venezuela. In recent days he's talked to Foreign Minister Castaneda. He's talked to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, kept in touch with the Secretary General on the subject, as well as other interested parties. So it's an issue that's very high on our agenda. We continue to look for ways of finding a peaceful solution, offering Venezuelans the opportunity to resolve this in a peaceful manner.

QUESTION: Some of the other countries in Latin America is Mexico, and especially the case of Castaneda. My question to you is, in the conversation that Secretary Powell talked to -- had with him two days ago, I think, do you know if Mr. Castaneda said goodbye to him as he presented his resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to answer any questions about the status of foreign officials. You have to get those answers in Mexico.

QUESTION: And still on Mexico, Mr. Hutchinson, the DEA Administrator, in the press conference yesterday said that the agency is requesting more visas for DEA agents in Mexico. Do you know how many?

MR. BOUCHER: I think that's a question you can ask them. I'm not -- I don't know.

Sir.

QUESTION: Iraq. I was wondering, do you have a final answer from Ankara? Are they going to cooperate with the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: We have not tried to give anybody else's final answer, and I think at this point we've made clear that the President has not decided that we will need military action, and therefore it's not time for anybody to give a final answer. But we have looked at cooperation with a number of governments. We've looked at ways we might cooperate and things we can do. And as I mentioned yesterday, we've made various requests and had a lot of meetings with the Turkish Government. We think they've been very receptive to our requests and they're working these things as -- through their system.

QUESTION: Is the Turkish press including to send the official Turkish news agency? They claim that the Turkish Government ready to sign for the base agreement which you are asking a long time ago. Did you reach the agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything like that to announce.

QUESTION: On the same subject, Mr. Blix and his --

MR. BOUCHER: Same thing, Charlie?

QUESTION: Yes, sir. Do you know if Turkey has given its approval for the Pentagon's site survey team to go in and put the basic --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to talk about any particular teams or elements of cooperation. We haven't done that with any particular country. I'm not going to start now with Turkey.

QUESTION: Can I stay on Turkey for one second? The crash yesterday, there was, I believe, one American citizen.

MR. BOUCHER: That's right.

QUESTION: Any others?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, we know of one American citizen. We're waiting for positive identification of the individual.

First of all, let me say our sympathies go out to the families and the friends of those persons who lost loved ones in this tragic plane crash, as well as to those persons who lost loved ones in the crash in North Carolina that we had here yesterday.

In terms of the crash in Turkey, we know of at least one American citizen. We don't have final identification of the individual. We have been in touch with the individual's family. In deference to the family, though, we're not releasing the name at this time.

We're using the passenger manifest to try to identify other possible citizens, although positive identification is difficult. Our Embassy in Ankara is working with local authorities and airline officials in an attempt to obtain information that can help us determine the citizenship of the individuals aboard the aircraft.

Five consular officials from our Embassy in Ankara and our Consulate General in Adana are on the ground at the crash site today. So they're down there trying to help any Americans that might have been hurt, or otherwise help the families.

QUESTION: Do you know how many people there are that are -- were victims who are questionably -- that you're not sure of --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a number of people who might be. I don't think -- at this point, it's just really trying to go through the whole list and make sure that this was, indeed, the only American.

QUESTION: So there were no survivors who were Americans?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I've heard of, no.

QUESTION: Can we go on to Blix? I don't know whether you've had time to study his briefing and prepare a response and comment on it. What do you think?

MR. BOUCHER: I, first of all, the discussion today of the Security Council is a continuation of the discussions that they've had before on the Iraqi declaration and the status of the inspections. It's a preliminary discussion leading up to a report from the inspectors on January 27th.

As always, the issue is whether or not Iraq is cooperating actively with the disarmament process. And I think what you'll see from the reports that people are issuing is that there is superficial cooperation and inadequate disclosures. The resolution makes clear that Iraq needs to actively cooperate. The declarations that Iraq has made, the information that they have provided, and I'd have to say the further study of that information since it was provided, leads to a lot of holes, a lot of questions outstanding from previous inspections, as well as Iraq's activities since 1998 that just plain haven't been answered. And the failure of Iraq to cooperate is becoming more and more clear.

There is no indication that Iraq has changed its approach from an approach based on deceit and deception. There is no indication that they've made a strategic decision to disarm. There is no evidence of disarmament. There's no active cooperation. And there are a lot of areas where Iraq has failed to come up with any credible evidence, which was the standard the inspectors set, any credible evidence to explain what happened to things like mustard gas shells, empty artillery shells, VX gas, missile fuels and missiles being tested.

The list of personnel that they provided is not complete and current. In fact, much of the information that Iraq has submitted, upon the examination that we and others have now been able to give it, proves to be incomplete, inaccurate and recycled.

The Iraqis have handed over only one document that the UN Special Commission on Iraq has requested and that's the list of personnel, but it stopped in 1991. So far Iraqi minders have been present at interviews to date, and now we have Saddam Hussein calling the inspectors spies. I'm afraid all that indicates a lack of cooperation rather than active cooperation. It's a pattern. It's a deliberate continuation of the pattern of deceit and deception.

Once again, we have to point out Iraq is missing an historic opportunity to comply peacefully and to disarm. If Iraq chooses not to seize this opportunity, Iraq will have to bear the responsibility of its actions.

QUESTION: Richard.

MR. BOUCHER: Betsy.

QUESTION: So, do you think that on a whole that this is enough, you know, sort of non-help from them, that it could lead to a military confrontation?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to say one way or the other what this might lead to. The inspectors report the facts. What we have here is a failure to cooperate. The nations will have to decide when we get the more complete report later this month what the next steps might be.

QUESTION: Do you think without a smoking gun, though, that the rest of the world would follow your lead to military action?

MR. BOUCHER: The UN resolution passed unanimously by 15 members of this UN Security Council requires Iraq to demonstrate active cooperation. The inspectors have said if Iraq is to claim that it doesn't have things anymore, then it needs to provide credible evidence. So the question is whether Iraq has provided credible evidence. The question is whether Iraq has established active cooperation. And unfortunately, none of what Iraq has done would allow us to say yes.

QUESTION: Richard, the list you just went through of all their failures sounds very much like laying the predicate for the argument that you're going to make in two or three weeks. Is that already the argument you are making to the Security Council members?

MR. BOUCHER: I think today's discussion is the facts of cooperation or lack of it. Today's discussion is what have the inspectors seen, not just in terms of what they've seen on their inspections, not just whether or not somebody opened the door when they knocked on it, but have they seen the active cooperation? We'll hear from the inspectors. We're hearing from the inspectors about the superficial aspect of this cooperation. We're hearing from the inspectors about the gaps that they're finding in the Iraqi information and data. And as I've said, unfortunately, the more that we analyze what Iraq provided, the less substantial it seems and the less current it seems.

QUESTION: Richard, do all these failures amount to material breach?

MR. BOUCHER: As we've said, the declaration itself had so many material omissions that those constituted material breaches. Yes.

QUESTION: And the other failures, too, that you've listed?

MR. BOUCHER: We're not -- the other failures are inherent in the previous failures. They of similar in nature and continuation of previous ones.

QUESTION: Among your list of sins, you said that the interviews that have been conducted thus far have -- there've been minders present. It's my understanding that the Iraqi officials involved asked there to be minders. What's the -- is that a problem? I mean, are you actually trying to -- are you wanting to force Iraqis to have it -- do these interviews without any presence?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we want to see people to be in a position to be able to talk freely about what they know about Iraqi programs. Honest Iraqis would talk freely because it's in the interest of their nation to disclose these programs, have the inspectors verify it and have the inspectors destroy that equipment. That's what necessary for a peaceful resolution.

So we want people to feel free and to be able to do that. We all know the circumstances inside Iraq. One can't imagine that an individual who said, you know, he's got to be there, is operating with full freedom to decide whether he wants them there or not. So, as I've said, so far this is the way the interviews have happened. We're dealing with the facts here. What conclusions need to be drawn, what the next steps might be, that will be something for members to discuss in the Council after we get the reports.

QUESTION: And your comments to this effect are based on the fact -- based on the inspectors saying that they did not believe they got the truth out of these scientists? Or you're making that assumption yourself?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have always made that instruction. We have made that assumption, and the Council made that assumption when it put in to the resolution the authority to talk to scientists --

QUESTION: I'm not aware of the extent -- or maybe they have and I'm just not aware of it. Have the inspectors said --

MR. BOUCHER: Iraq is obligated to provide immediate, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons at a time and place of the inspectors' choosing. The inspectors have made clear that Iraq needs to instruct its officials to cooperate with the interviews. That's the kind of cooperation that we're expecting and the inspectors are expecting.

QUESTION: And the inspectors there have told you that they are not -- that these officials are not cooperating with them in their interviews?

MR. BOUCHER: The inspectors have told us and, I think, told you that there have been minders present.

QUESTION: That's not the same thing.

MR. BOUCHER: Under those circumstances -- you'll have to ask the inspectors what their conclusions are about that. But I think if you look at what the Security Council concluded in the resolution is that something more was necessary for people to be talking freely.

Terri.

QUESTION: Time has a story out that says that the effort to get the scientists out of the country for interviews is stepping up now and in conjunction with that an American offer to help protect them will also be ramped up. Can you confirm that?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. I can't go into any of the details about our discussions with the inspectors about how their interview system can work and how we can help them. But I think I can say that in this, as in many other areas, we're helping them out in every way we can.

QUESTION: Do you know if the efforts are picking up steam, though?

MR. BOUCHER: I'd leave them to characterize their efforts.

Carl.

QUESTION: Just to follow-up again on your bill of particulars and list of all these failures and omissions to cooperate. Given all of that, is there any point in the inspectors continuing their efforts beyond January 27th?

MR. BOUCHER: That's a question you can ask us on January 28th. But no, at this point the inspectors -- this is a discussion today with the inspectors. As I said, they are providing more information about their analysis and others like us are providing information about our analysis of the Iraqi declarations. They're providing information for us to the Council about the cooperation, lack there of, what's happened, and they'll provide a report as required at the end of January and at that point, the inspectors will provide us with the facts and the Council members will be free to determine what they want to do next.

QUESTION: Can you take a question for January 28th, then?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, sure. Okay, we had more back here.

Mark, did you have one?

QUESTION: There were official statements that came out of Britain indicating that Britain was prepared to allow the inspections to continue for some time. Is there any disagreement between the United States and Great Britain about the duration of inspections?

MR. BOUCHER: For what time? Sometime?

QUESTION: Beyond January 27th.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know what the statement was, I'd have to see what it is before I could comment on it.

George.

Okay, Nicholas.

QUESTION: The IAEA Director General has said that he's coming here tomorrow to talk to the Secretary and Miss -- Dr. Rice. Can you confirm that he's meeting with the Secretary and what other points, obviously North Korea and Iraq, but in more detail if you can? As much as you can?

As much as you can.

MR. BOUCHER: I hate it when people give all my information away in the question. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr. El Baradei, will be coming to Washington tomorrow. He will have meetings here with the Secretary of State and they will discuss Iraq and North Korea, I'm sure.

As you know, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Directors just passed a very significant resolution on the subject of North Korea and the Director General will be following up on that -- has, I think, already started to follow up on that with the North Koreans and so it's a good time for us all to talk to him and to talk about the situations in North Korea as well as the work that he and his inspectors are doing in Iraq.

QUESTION: Richard, Mr. Wolfe met Dr. Blix in New York earlier this week. What, specifically, did he propose or request that the inspectorate start doing?

MR. BOUCHER: The Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation John Wolfe, meets with Dr. Blix very frequently, often several times a week. We offer our support and we offer information, compare notes on issues, but again, I'm not in a position to go into any particular meeting.

Sir.

QUESTION: I understand that yesterday, he said that he might be visit to Baghdad and see the Saddam Hussein. Do you think he is preparing to Saddam safe passage to, you know, escape to country?

MR. BOUCHER: You can go ask him if you want. I don't know.

QUESTION: Richard, can you describe for us the difference between Iraq and North Korea insofar as inspection and taking it to the Security Council? You're not taking this to the Security Council on the North Korean situation.

MR. BOUCHER: I really do think that we've dealt with that question about a dozen times over the last 12 days, so if you can I'll give you the short version.

The international community has made clear that both Iraq and North Korea need to live up to their obligations. We've made clear, the United States and others, that we're looking for a peaceful resolution of these issues. The international community has dealt with Iraq for 12 years now, with various resolutions, been communicating, dialoguing, making clear what it was required, making offers of what Iraq could achieve in terms of sanctions lifting, in status of the world if they complied. And Iraq has not only consistently failed to comply, but has consistently tried to deceive and defy the international community. That continues. That's what I'm pointing out today.

North Korea is a different situation. We deal with it differently. We're also looking for a peaceful resolution. We and a number of other countries are looking to see an end to these nuclear programs on the peninsula and, you know, we're making that point to North Korea. Just because we have problems in two different places doesn't mean we will handle them exactly the same. I think we're bringing to bear the tools of diplomacy, the tools of the international community that are appropriate for each situation and that could try to resolve these situations.

Ma'am

QUESTION: Back to Venezuela?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay, I just want to be more clear, the resignation of Mr. Otto Reich at the National Security Council will introduce any change in the policy toward Venezuela? Or you are continue to support the --

MR. BOUCHER: That's a White House announcement, so I'd have to leave it to the White House to explain it a little more. But remember, Mr. Reich has been -- since he was Acting Assistant Secretary, he's been a special advisor on the hemisphere for the Secretary of State. So his views have been part of the policy process. So I wouldn't expect his views in another position to change nor to their -- the involvement of -- I doubt it would expect the policy to change because he's changing chairs.

QUESTION: Yes, but I mean that he leaves the State Department. Then the State Department will be more active toward Venezuela or not?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I went through how active we are already. Not only our Embassy down there, our Ambassador to the Organization of American States, Roger Noriega, and the Secretary of State have been very active on the subject of Venezuela. We are looking for the parties to try to resolve these issues peacefully, to try to work out the political difficulties that are in Venezuela. The parties need to commit themselves to doing that more actively and seriously, and that's what we are trying to achieve.

Okay, back in here.

QUESTION: Canada. I'm not expecting any great news here, but with the, with the small disputes that we've been having with Canada and given the statements coming out of Mexico, our other continental neighbor, how would you characterize the relationship right now with our northern neighbor? You got a question earlier this week about Canada's -- how Canada's responding to requests for more help from the US, more defense spending.

MR. BOUCHER: And I give the same answer I gave when I was asked about Turkey.

QUESTION: I was going to ask in the Turkey section, but I figured I'd get -- wouldn't get to cover it as the same subject.

MR. BOUCHER: And I think it's the same answer I've given in about a few other places, as well, recently.

How would I characterize the status of relations with Canada? Excellent. The United States and Canada have an enormous relationship -- its people, its government, its diplomacy, its economics. And we always -- I don't know what these current difficulties are, but I think at any given moment you can find maple syrup or wooden shingles or some foreign policy view or some operation that we are or are not undertaking together that constitutes a dispute in the relationship.

The fact is, we go on pretty well with them and we go a lot of places with them. We're cooperating on places like Afghanistan. We're working together on terrorism, on security for both our governments. Before two months ago, you would have asked me the same question or referred to the visa problems and the questions are travel, and we've managed, I think, to substantially solve those. So at any given moment, yeah, there are always disputes in our relationship with Canada and at any given moment, a few months from now, there will be other ones and we'll probably have solved these.

QUESTION: Richard, are you meaning to suggest that there's some --

QUESTION: The colleague for whom I had to ask that question, would be most grateful.

MR. BOUCHER: What?

QUESTION: The colleague for whom I had to ask that question is grateful.

QUESTION: Is there some current dispute over maple syrup?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we solved the stuffed molasses question or not. I can't remember.

QUESTION: Is there? No, I'm serious. I realize it's kind of a --

MR. BOUCHER: I think -- I don't know the exact status of softwood lumber and stuffed molasses, I think it's called, but I'll leave those to the appropriate trade officials to address whether those have been solved and some others have come forward instead.

QUESTION: Richard, has the United States asked Egypt to extradite Abu Abbas? There are rumors to that effect.

MR. BOUCHER: I know, there's a lot of rumors and let me tell you what I know. And I think this is one of these cases you have to keep in mind what we do know and what we don't know.

We have been in touch with senior levels of the governments involved, meaning the Egyptian Government, that are concerned with this issue and others who are concerned about Abu Abbas. We take the matter very seriously. But I have to say, we're still trying to establish whether or not the press reports are accurate or not.

QUESTION: Of his presence in Egypt?

MR. BOUCHER: Of his presence in Egypt, yeah.

QUESTION: And have they told you that he is -- one version of whether he is in Egypt or not?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we've been in touch with governments. We're still trying to establish whether the press reports are accurate or not. That's as far as I can go.

QUESTION: Governments?

MR. BOUCHER: Egypt and others.

QUESTION: That would mean you have not asked for extradition if you don't even know he's there. That would be a logical --

MR. BOUCHER: That would be a very logical assumption.

QUESTION: What other governments?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position to give a list. I think there are other governments who would be concerned if Abu Abbas was traveling in this region.

QUESTION: On Kenya. Do you remember the attacks in Mombasa and the Israeli-owned places? Down there, there seems to be a surprising realization that while al-Qaida might have masterminded the attacks, there's a lot of Kenyan involvement, suggesting Islamic fundamentalism has made great inroads in Kenya. I wonder if the State Department has an assessment of that.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any new assessment of that. To the extent we might address groups and their ties, that would be addressed in our Patterns of Global Terrorism Report.

QUESTION: Just to bundle this up, would the United States like to see Abu Abbas extradited from wherever he may be?

MR. BOUCHER: That's a legal question and I'd have to refer you to Department of Justice.

QUESTION: That's not a legal question. The actual extradition. Would you like to see him extradited is not a legal question.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: Exactly how --

MR. BOUCHER: The extradition, the whole issue of extradition, is a legal matter. He can't ask --

QUESTION: Is he under indictment?

MR. BOUCHER: That's a legal question which you can ask the Department of Justice. A question involving extradition, indictments, things like that, need to be asked to the appropriate law enforcement officials.

QUESTION: Richard, Algerian media say that advanced weaponry from the United States is on its way to help them fight their rebels. Do you know anything about that? I seem to get the impression that it's mainly, might be some night-vision goggles, which don't quite constitute advanced weaponry. Perhaps you can sort it out for us.

MR. BOUCHER: Let me run down this question. I think you'll remember that during Assistant Secretary Burns' visit in December we talked about the -- not only the counterterrorism cooperation but how we could expand our counterterrorism cooperation with governments around the world, the Government of Algeria.

Counterterrorism cooperation with Algeria has been excellent. We don't provide foreign military financing for the purchase of any military equipment. We have, for a number of years, provided Algeria with a program of international military education and training, consisting of English language training and officer education at US military schools. Funding for these training programs for Algeria in 2001 was $121,000 for five students. We increased this amount to $550,000 in Fiscal Year 2003's budget. That will allow us to train 41 students from Algeria. We think that this kind of military education and training provides a boost to military relations, enhances security cooperation, and above all, exposes military officers to American concepts of government and military behavior.

Algeria has also on occasion asked to purchase military equipment from the United States. We evaluate those requests on a case-by-case basis in light of US interests. In recent years, we have approved Algerian purchase of ground control radars for civil aviation, small aircraft for border security, spare parts for C-130 aircraft, radios and Humvee military vehicles.

We have permitted a US company to sell Algeria night-vision devices for use by security forces. Those devices have not yet been delivered. No exports of lethal equipment have been approved.

QUESTION: That's what you said a month ago. But do you know whether those --

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not.

QUESTION: -- that night-vision equipment is now on its way, perhaps?

MR. BOUCHER: These devices have not yet been delivered.

QUESTION: You don't know any more about it?

MR. BOUCHER: That's the status. They haven't been delivered.

QUESTION: Does the State Department have a view about India's test-firing now of a ballistic missile?

MR. BOUCHER: As we've said before, we're disappointed when we see ballistic missile tests in this region. India did issue a public notice that this test would occur. Nonetheless, we think tests like this contribute to a charged atmosphere, make it harder to prevent to a costly and destabilizing nuclear and missile arms race.

We continue to urge both India and Pakistan to take steps to restrain their nuclear weapon and missile programs, including no operational deployment of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and we've urged them to begin a dialogue on confidence-building measures that could reduce the likelihood that such weapons might be used. This, obviously, could be part of a broader dialogue to help reduce tensions.

In this context, we'd also say it would be helpful if both sides reduced their recent rhetoric about the potential for conflict because that, too, heightens tensions in the area.

QUESTION: Is there any -- I understand. Very clear. But is there any sense here that India's hand sort of was forced by Pakistan's behavior?

MR. BOUCHER: Our view is that it's not a question of one or the other. It's not productive to start asking is he doing this because he did that and vice versa. The point is both sides need to exercise restraint. Both sides need to lower the tone of the rhetoric, and that these kind of missile tests do contribute to the charged atmosphere and the sides need to consider that.

Okay, Matt.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the rather strident comments made in the -- about your colleague, Mr. Reeker, in the pages of the press in Turkmenistan yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm on Phil's side. I'm with him. No, I don't want to get or do any kind of back and forth. Obviously our comments here represents the views of the United States Government and I stand with solidarity with my government and my colleague.

Okay.