Daily Press Briefing for January 23 -- Transcript

   Daily Press BriefingRichard Boucher, SpokesmanWashington, DCJanuary 23, 2003INDEX:

ANNOUNCEMENT

1 Peace Talks by Government of Sudan and Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement

DEPARTMENT

1-2 Secretary Powells Attendance at Briefing for Members of the Senate

2 Secretarys Telephone Calls to European Leaders

FRANCE/GERMANY

3 Differences of Opinion with Allies/ Secretary Rumsfelds Comments

5-6 View of Resolution 1441

IRAQ/UNITED NATIONS

4 Inspectors Report/ Next Steps/ No Need for Second Resolution/ Iraqs Defiance

5,11-12 Disarming Iraq/ Credibility of Security Council

6-7 U.S. Officials Meeting in Northern Iraq/ Supporting Inspectors with Information

7 Sharing Information with Security Council Members

12 Unchanged Relationship with Iraqi Opposition

NORTH KOREA

14-15 International Atomic Energy Board of Governors Report

16-17 Pursuing Peaceful Solution/ Willingness to Talk to North Korea

TURKEY

8,10 Summit on Iraq

SAUDI ARABIA

8-9 Prince Bandars Comments Regarding Cooperation with the United States

FRANCE/RUSSIA

9 Commercial Contracts with Iraq

COTE DIVOIRE/FRANCE

17-18 Paris Talks and Renewed Fighting/ Need to Resolve Issues Politically

SWITZERLAND

10-11 Secretary Powells Speech in Davos/ Bilaterals Scheduled

MEXICO

13-14 Migration and Security Issues

VENEZUELA

18-19 OAS Meeting/ Crisis in Venezuela/ President Carters Plan

PANAMA/COLOMBIA

19-20 Three American Citizens Missing TRANSCRIPT:

MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.I guess there are a lot of events today and I'm batting cleanup, so I suppose you've already heard everything you want to know.  But let me make a statement on Sudan and just see if there's any other questions on Sudan -- Sudan, excuse me. The United States applauds the return to peace talks by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement.  The next round of talks, held under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority of Development in Kenya, began today.  However, we are particularly troubled by the Government of Sudan's recent attacks in the West Upper Nile region of Southern Sudan and its continued military buildup. 

We are closely monitoring reports of fighting instigated by the Government of Sudan, and we and the rest of the international community fear that this violation of the spirit and the letter of the October agreement will lead to continued fighting.

It is incumbent on both parties to abide by the October Memorandum of Understanding and to end the fighting.  Both the government and the SPLM have told the United States that they would pursue that course.  Now is the time for them to act.

A slightly longer statement available after the briefing.  I'd be glad to take your questions on this or other matters. 

QUESTION:  If there's nothing on this, can you tell us why the Secretary is going up to the Hill this afternoon? 

MR. BOUCHER:  He's going up to the Hill this afternoon with Secretary Rumsfeld for a closed briefing for Members of the Senate.  These happen from time to time on various subjects, and it's a briefing for all the Members of the Senate, but it is closed and classified.

QUESTION:  Why is it closed?  Is it closed because of the nature of the information or --

MR. BOUCHER:  The nature of the information that's being discussed.  The subject is Iraq.

QUESTION:  I mean, is intelligence being discussed?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't want to describe the information.  But it's so that they can have an open conversation, that it may or may not involve classified information.  Let me put it that way.

QUESTION:  Well, and one last thing, please.  It's suggested that the administration not only has trouble with France and Germany, it has trouble with some Members of Congress, as far as Iraq --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I would conclude that from --

QUESTION:  But that's not the purpose of this, is it, to persuade --

MR. BOUCHER:  No, the purpose of this is to meet our constitutional responsibilities and to do what we regularly do on many, many days and many different issues, and that's to go up and to keep Members of Congress informed on the issues of the day.

Deputy Secretary Armitage was up there last week talking about North Korea.  That didn't presuppose some sort of split between us and Congress.  It was part of the process that we go through to make sure that Members of Congress are well informed.

QUESTION:  Richard, as far as you know, the invitation from the people on the Hill or the offer to go up there was only with Iraq?  It's not on any other subject?

MR. BOUCHER:  My understanding is the subject is Iraq and that's it.

QUESTION:  Richard, other than with Mr. Straw this morning, has the Secretary spoken to any other Europeans in the last 24 hours to mitigate the effects of what Mr. Rumsfeld said yesterday?

 MR. BOUCHER:  The -- we haven't been out mitigating today.  We've been -- the Secretary talked yesterday to Lord Robertson at NATO, to sort of compare notes on the situation, but also to talk a little bit about the announcement of Lord Robertson's retirement at the end of the year, told him we would give him every possible support as he continues his tenure throughout this year.

This morning, I think the only phone call was with Jack Straw before they came, before he came over.

QUESTION:  Richard, on that same, the same point of the question.  How much damage did Secretary Rumsfeld do yesterday and --

MR. BOUCHER:  I -- I mean, this is the first question I've gotten on it.  Not -- didn't see any cable traffic or any of our morning summaries that said anybody got much of any questions on it.

QUESTION:  You haven't seen any of the comments in France and Germany by --

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm sure there've been a few comments here and there --

QUESTION:  -- the elected members of their parliaments and --

MR. BOUCHER:  -- and I think we all understand, as the Secretary said, that we do have differences from time to time with some of friends and allies.  It's part of the nature of our alliances.  It's part of the nature of working through these issues.  But, fundamentally, these are our allies.  These have been our allies -- France for 200 years, Germany for ever since the war, the current German Government -- and these are the people that we do so many things with every day:  fighting terrorism, cooperating in NATO, economic cooperation, air traffic, everything under the sun.  We have differences on some issues sometimes.  But these are our allies and we are not pulling back from them, nor they from us.

QUESTION:  You're not pulling -- well, let me just keep going on this.  What do you mean, you're not pulling back from them, nor they from us?

MR. BOUCHER:  Not breaking our alliances.

QUESTION:  Right.  What the suggestion behind, or what people took from what Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday, was that you guys have basically written these people off, that you're looking now towards a new Europe, one that is moving further eastward, and you're no longer interested in what the French and the Germans --

MR. BOUCHER:  If you want to ask more about -- if you're going to grow big implications from Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks, I think you're going to have to ask him.  What I can tell you is what the Secretary said this morning; that we are going to work this through with our friends and allies, we're going to work this through with the other members of the Security Council.  We'll see where we end up. 

First, we're going to look for the inspectors' report, and we're going to base our judgments and our decisions on the inspectors' report.  And then we're going to work through the issues with other members of the Security Council, including many of our closest allies who are there and decide on what the next steps are.

QUESTION:  This may be impossible for you to do, but before headlines start speaking of disarray, I wonder if you could tell us if there is an administration position on a second resolution.  I heard the Secretary today.  He seemed open-minded about it.  And Armitage in Moscow says there shouldn't be a second resolution.

MR. BOUCHER:  Do we have the transcript of Armitage in Moscow? 

QUESTION:  At least, that's what I --

MR. BOUCHER:  Is that in it?

QUESTION:  He says there's no need to, that we --

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, that's different, Barry.  Barry, that's different.  That's -- we have said right from the start, the Secretary of State has said right from the start, there doesn't need to be a second resolution.  As a matter of fact, I think the Secretary said so upstairs about an hour ago.

QUESTION:  You wouldn't mind if there was one, though.

MR. BOUCHER:  No, we don't mind if there is one.  The President went to the United Nations to try to get the United Nations, the international community, to deal with the problem of Iraq.  Remember that.  That was a policy choice the President made.  He's been -- worked patiently through the process of the first resolution.  We're working through the process of inspections.

We've seen repeated failures on the part of Iraq, right from the declaration to the way they've treated the inspectors, to the active prevention of certain things the inspectors wanted to do.  The Iraqis have not only failed to disclose and failed to cooperate, but, in fact, they prevented the inspectors from using aerial reconnaissance.  As the Secretary mentioned, they've squirreled away documents in people's houses.  And there are a lot of other things.  Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz just mentioned some of them. 

So it's not like we haven't been patient and working this through the United Nations.  And to the extent we can continue to work it with the other members of the Security Council in the United Nations, we will. 

QUESTION:  But that's just the point.  The point is, having experienced eight weeks, and nearly eight weeks of rough debate, having had to persuade a lot of people who were reluctant, the question -- the question here is whether the administration is willing or is prepared, whatever the word would be, to go through this kind of exercise again, probably a lengthier one because war is the issue, not just harsh language. 

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't -- the issue is Iraq.  The issue is Iraq's defiance. 

QUESTION:  And what to do about it.

MR. BOUCHER:  And what to do about it.  And we will meet and talk with other Council members about that.  We pledged to do that in the resolution.  We don't have a fixed timetable, but we have made clear time is running out and this problem needs to be dealt with.  So I'm not going to say that we'll give you any number of weeks or days that we may or may not want to pursue this. 

QUESTION:  I understand that clearly your position that a second resolution might be desirable but not essential, but as things stand at the moment, is it your intention to actively seeks a second resolution as some --

MR. BOUCHER:  The Secretary was asked upstairs.  I really don't have anything to add to that. 

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  He said we'll hear the inspectors and then we'll decide what the next steps are.

QUESTION:  So you haven't decided yet?

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  I can't say that, no.

QUESTION:  Can I just go back to France and Germany for a second?  Both the Secretary and Foreign Secretary Straw seemed to take great pains upstairs to remind both Paris and Berlin that they had either voted in favor of 1441 or had endorsed it in an alternate forum.  Why did they feel the need to do that? 

MR. BOUCHER:  Because we think there are two issues here.  And the first issue is Iraqi -- is disarming Iraq, either peacefully or, if necessary, with force. 

The second issue, as the President said when he went to the United Nations on September 12th, is the credibility of the Security Council, the credibility of the United Nations and what sort of organization it wants to be.  And we don't want to see the United Nations fall back into the endless inspection regimes that we've seen for 12 years.  We've demonstrated, I think, great patience -- the Security Council has -- perhaps too much, by allowing that to go on that long. 

The Security Council needs to deal with this problem, and there is the issue of showing the effectiveness of the Council, its ability to bring to an end these problems that plague international peace and security, the potentials of a dictator having weapons of mass destruction in a critical region.  The Council needs to show it can do that.  And that's why that is one of the issues.

QUESTION:  Okay.  So are you suggesting -- you're suggesting then that the French and the German positions at the moment are threatening the credibility of the Security Council and the relevancy of the United Nations because they seem to have forgotten somewhere since November that they signed on to this thing?

MR. BOUCHER:  We're not -- I'm not threatening.  The Secretary didn't threaten --

QUESTION:  Well, I know you're not.  You're saying that what they are doing calls this into question.  Do you think they've forgotten that the relevance of the United Nations is at stake?

MR. BOUCHER:  You're using all kinds of phrases that we have not used, and I am not adopting your language.  The fact is, this is one of the issues, the credibility of the Council.  The Council needs to be able to deal with it.

We don't think that slipping back into business as usual in terms of inspections after inspections after inspections is worthwhile.  You have to ask, "What would two months more inspections give you?"  The inspections over 12 years without Iraqi cooperation, Iraq failed to destroy its armaments.  Would two more months without Iraqi cooperation result in disarmament? 

So that's the question.  The Council members have a choice:  dealing with the issue or not dealing with the issue.  We would call on them to deal with the issue.

QUESTION:  Last one on this.

MR. BOUCHER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is it the opinion of the United States -- I won't ask you to speak for Britain, but is it the opinion of the United States that the French and the Germans need to be reminded of their previous support for 1441?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think it's important that everybody remember, everybody remember, what it says in Resolution 1441, what we pledged to do.  Because one of the issues is whether we're going to stand by our commitments that we made in those resolutions and in the statement of the Prague summit.  And that's one of the things we all need to remember and that's the standard by which we should be judged.

Sir.

QUESTION:  The Secretary told us that with the talk with Mr. Straw he discussed about North Korea issues, but could you give us --

QUESTION:  We're on Iraq.

QUESTION:  Iraq, okay.

MR. BOUCHER:  In the back.

QUESTION:  Yes.  Today's Turkish newspaper published some pictures about some U.S. officials, they are meeting in the Northern Iraq and the PKK terrorists, as the new name is the KADEK terrorists.  And why the United States needs this kind of contact with the PKK in the Northern Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know what you're talking about.  I will have to look into it and see if there is any such thing.

QUESTION:  Richard, is the U.S. providing more information on palace sites and are you urging the inspectors to visit more of these palace sites?  Several palaces have been visited, I believe, by the inspectors.  Are you encouraging them to go to other palaces?

MR. BOUCHER:  As you might expect when we're providing intelligence information to the inspectors, we're not able to stand up in public and describe that information to you lest the Iraqis start figuring out what the information is and where we got it and what the inspectors might do.  So there's no way I can answer a question like that.

QUESTION:  Well, I'm not asking what the information is.  I'm asking --

MR. BOUCHER:  You're asking if we're giving them more information about palaces than other places.  I can't answer that question.

QUESTION:  No.  Are you providing information to them to encourage them to visit more of the sites?  Or even without providing more information, are you encouraging them to go to more palaces? 

MR. BOUCHER:  We are supporting the inspectors in many ways.  We are supporting them with information on an ongoing basis to make sure that as they have the capabilities and the desires and the interests and the leads, that they can follow up on these things, that we can help them with information.  We've helped them in many other ways.  Again, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, I think, lays out some of these in his speech today.

Terri.

QUESTION:  Last night, the Secretary said that the other members of the Council either don't have the same information the U.S. has or don't want to pay attention to it, want to ignore it.  Are you presuming that everybody on the Security Council has pretty much the same intelligence as the U.S.?  And if not, why aren't you sharing it with other members of the Council to convince them of the case of Iraq's dangers as greatly as you're convinced?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think, first of all, there are always limits to how much intelligence you can share.  But second of all, other people have their own intelligence and their own information.  But third, look at the public record.  Look at what's going on in the public.  Look at what the inspectors have said. 

This is why we're going to say we want to listen to the inspectors on Monday.  We're not prejudging the outcome.  But we have seen them, first of all, have the United Nations say that Iraq was and is in material breach on November 8th when we passed the resolution.  We have seen the inspectors come forward and say the declaration was deficient in many, many, many respects.  We have seen the inspectors brief us on January 9th that, at best, they were getting superficial cooperation, and to outline a whole series of questions and areas where the inspectors were not getting cooperation. 

We've seen the inspectors go to Baghdad, to warn Baghdad of the dangers it was causing by failure to answer their questions.  We've seen Dr. Blix -- I just saw him on television ten minutes ago -- talking about how many unanswered questions there were. 

It's no secret the Iraqis have not complied.  It's no secret the Iraqis have actively frustrated some of the efforts of the inspectors by not permitting the aerial reconnaissance to take place, by not permitting Iraqi scientists to meet privately with the inspectors, by trying to squirrel away documents that the inspectors had to go look in somebody's house to find documents, and, in fact, did find documents. 

So there is not -- you know, there is intelligence information, but the pattern that we've seen before is repeating itself quite openly and in public.

QUESTION:  Richard, what outcome would the United States like to see from the meeting in Istanbul today, and have you contacted the parties to influence the outcome there? 

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, we have been in touch with the parties.  I think I've mentioned that we have been consulting with Turkish authorities as they have been preparing this meeting.  We've cited the fact that Prime Minister Gul has made clear that the onus is on Saddam Hussein for whether or not there is a peaceful solution or military action.  We want a peaceful solution.  We want full Iraqi compliance and disarmament.  We want Iraq to stop threatening its neighborhood with weapons of mass destruction.  I think Turkey shares our concern about the threat that Iraq poses to the region, and we've been in close touch with them as this meeting goes forward.

QUESTION:  Is the disagreement, the open disagreement between the United States and some of its allies, having any impact, do you think, on getting Iraq to disarm? 

MR. BOUCHER:  We'll have to see.   The fact that Iraq was not cooperating and, indeed, trying to frustrate the efforts of the inspectors already before we started discussing this issue in public, it would be hard to conclude that Iraq had gotten more recalcitrant given their behavior over the last six weeks. 

But remember, the Secretary just told you upstairs, this is the beginning of this discussion, not the end of it.  So I would caution people against writing disarray and end-of-alliance stories and the crack in the Western world and, you know, all those other things -- the pictures of globes with big, you know, gashes in them, kind of covers.

Let's work this through.  And as Ari Fleischer said this morning, France is one of our oldest allies, one of our best allies.  Sometimes we come together on these things and sometimes we don't, but we remain allies and we will look at the facts as presented by the inspectors and start talking about them again.

QUESTION:  I'm going to go country by country, but I heard the Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar speak yesterday, in which he said that the United States and Saudi Arabia are happy with the cooperation between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.  And he was asked about, you know, if it's true that Saudi Arabia is not permitting over-flights.  He said don't believe what you read in the newspapers, et cetera, et cetera. 

Are you happy, you know, with this coalition, this invisible coalition that so far hasn't manifested itself much except, you know --

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, it's not very invisible when you talk about aircraft carriers and airplanes and troops on the ground.  We're out there.  The British are out there.  The Australians are out there already.  Because we all understand that, first, you have to be prepared for whatever you might have to do.  But second of all, the only hope of getting peaceful compliance by Saddam Hussein is to make sure he understands the inevitability of force if he doesn't. 

So there are countries that understand that, countries that have made their contribution to peace, to a peaceful solution, be the willingness to use force if necessary.  And I think you've already seen a number of those visibly.  And there are some who may not have quite manifested that in public yet, but certainly those discussions are ongoing.  And I think the Secretary and Secretary Rumsfeld and others have expressed their confidence that if it comes to that, the United States will definitely not be alone.

QUESTION:  Well, you know, you said that Turkey understands the problem, and having heard the Saudi yesterday, I wondered if you wanted to say something about Saudi Arabia, which I haven't -- Turkey and Saudi Arabia are probably more important to any war effort than France and Germany.

MR. BOUCHER:  As I've said, we've had excellent military cooperation over the years with Saudi Arabia.  That cooperation continues.  But I'm not going to try and outline for any other country their issues or their views at this point.

Terri.

QUESTION:  How concerned are you that -- and this has come up before -- but once again, that commercial contracts that France and Iraq -- France and Russia have with Iraq may be influencing their feelings about continuing through to consequences?

MR. BOUCHER:  You'd have to ask them.  I don't -- I'm not going to -- I'm not in a position to try to describe that for you.

QUESTION:  But is it something that you bring up with them.  I know it's been discussed before with Russia particularly.

MR. BOUCHER:  I would say that, you know, in all the discussions that I'm familiar with, having been in on the Secretary's meetings with Foreign Minister de Villepin and Foreign Minister Ivanov -- and we had some of those meetings just over the weekend -- issues of commerce, issues of contracts, have never entered into the discussion of political questions and the need to enforce Security Council resolutions.

Betsy.

QUESTION:  I want to try this again, please.

MR. BOUCHER:  Sure.

QUESTION:  Does the U.S. feel that there are -- that palaces have been adequately looked into by the inspectors and are there others that you would like to see inspected?

MR. BOUCHER:  Again, I'm not in a position to stand here and try to give instructions to the inspectors.  We have always said they have the authority to go anywhere, to talk to anybody, to look in any place.  We want them to be able to do that.  The problem is that the Iraqis have tried to hamper those efforts in various ways.  But we have supported the inspectors and provided a lot of support to the inspectors to exercise their full authorities.

QUESTION:  Listening to the foreign ministers attending to the Istanbul summit today, I did hear that they all say that if a war happens in Iraq, it will only serve to destabilize the region even more.  Why are they wrong in their judgment?

MR. BOUCHER:  You're talking about Turkey?

QUESTION:  I'm not talking about Turkey.  I'm talking about the foreign ministers who attended the Istanbul summit today, the regional --

MR. BOUCHER:  The Istanbul summit?

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. BOUCHER:  I didn't see the quote.  I'm not prepared to say they are wrong in their judgment.  Obviously, the presence of a dictator with nuclear weapons in the region would be quite destabilizing, as well. 

No war is smooth and easy.  It's always a difficult proposition.  But often, things are much better afterwards, and often things are much better for the Iraqi people afterwards.  So I don't -- I don't know what form their statement might have taken.  I'm not sure if they've actually issued any particular statement yet.

QUESTION:  Richard, I'm wondering if I might be so bold as to put together two separate comments that were made yesterday out of this building.  The first was you saying that the Secretary, during his -- on Sunday in Davos -- will be making a major speech; and then the Secretary saying last night that he will be speaking on Sunday in Davos about Iraq. 

I wonder if it's possible to put those -- is this going to be a major speech on Iraq and along the lines of what Deputy Secretary Armitage and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz have been doing and a preview --

MR. BOUCHER:  Only better.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  -- a preview of the President's State of the Union, only a little bit worse?  And also, if you could, at all --

MR. BOUCHER:  The Secretary's speech, I would expect him to talk about Iraq, but not only about Iraq.  This is a broader gathering.  It's a chance to look at the world.  Iraq is, for all of us, a very important issue and piece of the world right now, so Iraq will be part of it.

It is linked to the speeches that we're giving this week -- that Deputy Secretary Armitage gave, that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz gave -- but it's also broader than that.

QUESTION:  Okay.  And in that vein, are you, at the moment, prepared to be able to say from the podium any of the bilats the Secretary might be having this weekend?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I can yet.  We really have not pinned down the schedule, and because of the nature of the event, it's somewhat fluid.

Sir.

QUESTION:  Richard, one of the things that you're not addressing is, and you have in the past is --

MR. BOUCHER:  Just ask.

QUESTION:  -- is the idea of various cultural issues.  If each particular country is trying to quantify what they are trying to say -- they'll do so much and not others, in other words, not, let's say 100 percent effort, but, for instance, the Canadians, this morning, seem to have bailed out, as well, with the Chretien government.  Is this putting you between a rock and a hard place in respect that it's like they are spectators coming to, let's say, the World Series or the Super Bowl, and some will be spectators and others on the field?

MR. BOUCHER:  We stand like a Titan, with one foot on the rock and one on the hard place.  (Laughter.)The fact is, we're all, most -- the allies are all democracies.  Our political culture is based on noise and debate and discussion.  And our interaction is sometimes characterized by public statements because we all have a free press and we all try to answer the questions of the free press as often and as forthcoming as we can.

The other fact is that we have done many things together and continue to do many things together.  So this is a process that I've tried to describe to you that the questions that we need to look at, the questions we need to answer.  Is Iraq disarming?  Is Iraq complying with the resolution?  And what can the Security Council do to take its responsibility to make sure that Iraq does?

It's really not an issue of the allies.  It's not an issue of who might be there and who might not in the end.  We've had different scenarios unfold before and we'll have them again, I'm sure.  So that's really not the big issue.

One way or the other, Iraq is going to be disarmed.  So the question is whether Iraq is disarming or not, and that's where at least our focus is.

QUESTION:  And a follow-up, please.

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  You've had meetings both here and overseas concerning the Iraqi opposition.  In fact, you have a handout now on a meeting that you've had discussing, I guess, a post-Saddam regime:  education, environment, other type agendas.  Is this -- well, obviously, it's a slap in the face at Saddam Hussein, but if there's no interest, shouldn't you be expressing more thoroughly in media approaches as well as with other governments, not just the big European governments and such, but this is what the Iraqi people are missing?  And I know you, perhaps, would want and Don Rumsfeld and the Secretary and others have said -

MR. BOUCHER:  I'll be glad to give you a copy of Rich Armitage's speech from the other day, but he was quite clear that the Iraqis can expect a better future if it becomes necessary to disarm Iraq by force.

QUESTION:  One more on the subject.

MR. BOUCHER:  On this?

QUESTION:  On the Iraqi opposition.  There is a report today, which comes to the conclusion that essentially you've given up on the Iraqi opposition.  Is there any truth in that?  How do you feel about them at the moment?  And are you still planning to facilitate the opposition conference in Salahadin in early February?

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes, even if I can't pronounce it.  First, on our relationship with the Iraqi opposition, our relationship with Iraqi opposition has not changed.  We've continued to work very closely with the Iraqi opposition as part of our efforts to support the prospect of regime change in Iraq.  As you know, we've worked both with the groups that your colleague referred to, the ones that are planning the future of Iraq in various areas, and had a number of meetings like that.  We've also tried to support and work with the political conference that was held in London and the committee that was set after that. 

The issue of the next conference for that group, the advisory committee that was formed in December, we understand is still under discussion.  They're discussing convening sometime in the near future to follow up on the issues addressed in London.  So that's a matter of ongoing discussion.  We'll work with them but they'll have to decide time and venue, and then we would expect to send an appropriate delegation to the event.

QUESTION:  But just to follow up on that, the problem was, at least the way they expressed it, was that the United States was not prepared to provide security for this meeting, which they felt they needed because of the fear that the Iraqi Government would try to disrupt the meeting.

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not --

QUESTION:  Is that --

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I would leave it to them to explain what the issue is.  I've seen other things said as well.  But I would think we have made clear that as far as security in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, that that was one of the factors that we'd always said; any military invasion of that area by Saddam Hussein would be one of the reasons that we might undertake military action ourselves at a time and place of our choosing.  So that is a security guarantee that we've given for those areas, the Kurdish areas of Iraq.

QUESTION:  But don't you think this would be more -- could be more of an incitement or, I mean, there would be all the leaders of the opposition in one place.  Don't you think perhaps a little bit more security might be -- and more reassurance from you might be in order?

MR. BOUCHER:  We've been quite clear, I think.  The Iraqis are certainly under no doubts about the so-called redlines.  They've been stated regularly and often, and this is one of them.

QUESTION:  Can I just change the subject?

MR. BOUCHER:  Please.  Go ahead.  We can come back.  Let's change the subject for a while.

QUESTION:  From time to time, the State Department and the Homeland Security had warned Americans of possible terrorist attacks, especially since 9/11.  And also, you have expressed your concern of -- for this situation to happen the closer the possibility of a war with Iraq, you know, gets even closer. 

Mexican officials were here this week talking to Mr. Tom Ridge, and they were talking about security in the border and other issues, immigration.  But I also understand that they talk about intelligence and for what I understand, the U.S. had asked the Mexican Government to remain vigilant for possible attacks there against U.S. interests or U.S. citizens considering how popular is Mexico for -- I mean for American tourists. 

Do we know anything about this?  Can you tell me about it a little bit?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not the spokesman for Tom Ridge.

QUESTION:  I understand, but this is something that concerns the United States Government.

MR. BOUCHER:  And I don't talk about intelligence.  What I would tell you is that security cooperation with our neighbors is very important to us.  And when the Secretary talked to Foreign Secretary Derbez, they talked about migration and security issues and how to make sure that we helped each other in being secure.  So that's been an active area of cooperation with our neighbors, with Canada and with Mexico. 

If we had any specific warnings about attacks against Americans that we could not counter, we would put out public statements.  But we also cooperate with authorities in other countries, particularly with our neighbors, to make sure those kind of problems don't occur.

QUESTION:  Can I just follow up, please?

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  There's a chart of colors that we became very familiar of a warning of danger that we became very familiar after 9/11.  I mean, it was orange, sometimes yellow.

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  If we have to use this charter in Mexico, and this is just a hypothetical, but we saw a situation, pretty bad situation in Bali.  You know, so how bad it could be?  You know, it's just a hypothetical, but it's better to be aware --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't answer hypotheticals, I'm sorry.  But the point is it's not just a matter of warning your citizens.  It's a matter of creating a secure environment so that you're not vulnerable, so that neither Mexicans nor Americans are vulnerable, so that those of us who live side by side in the same neighborhood can help protect each other, can work together so that I'm safer and the Mexicans are safer, too. 

And it's that kind of cooperation, that kind of intelligence cooperation, law enforcement cooperation, Homeland Security cooperation, as well as, you know, cooperation diplomatically, that makes us all safer in living here.  That's the goal.  So it's not -- it's trying to prevent the attacks.  It's trying to prevent the terrorists from coming in or getting near us or doing anything so that we don't have to start ratcheting up the warnings.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Can you wrap up what's going on about North Korea to this morning, particularly (inaudible) about North Korea?  It seem that IAEA postponed their executive board.  China is reluctant about -- to bring this issue to the north, to the UN Security Council.  What is the current situation right now?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think it's quite the moment to try to wrap it all up.  We do think the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors needs to report the issue to the Security Council.  That's one of their responsibilities under their charter, and certainly the issue, as it affects international peace and security, is something the Security Council needs to have on its plate. 

There was no meeting specifically scheduled.  There was discussion of having a meeting soon.  We still expect there will be one.  But it was not postponed because it wasn't -- nothing was agreed on or scheduled at any point. 

I don't want to try to characterize positions of other governments, but I would remind you that Under Secretary Bolton, when he came out of Beijing, said that he heard no objection to moving from the IAEA to the Security Council with this.  Obviously, there are many more members of the IAEA Board of Governors, and we're in consultation with the others, with other members of the Board of Governors, both out there and directly through capitals.  And we'll continue to work on that and move forward.  We want to see a meeting soon that can move it -- report it from the Board of Governors to the Security Council.

QUESTION:  Are you in contact at all with the Board of Governors --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know that we're in contact with every single one, but certainly we're in touch with many.

QUESTION:  The Iranians?

MR. BOUCHER:  Not that I know of in any particular sense, although I'm sure our mission in Vienna is having contacts with a variety of governments.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Deputy Secretary Armitage, in Moscow, he once again brought up the idea of a less than formal treaty non-aggression pact.  And just in quest of the elusive answer on this, he said -- is it correct that Washington would be prepared to "document" such a statement, such a promise, in the context of having less than a treaty?

MR. BOUCHER:  That's what he said.

QUESTION:  I know.

MR. BOUCHER:  And that's what the Secretary said before, I think.

QUESTION:  So the answer is yes?

MR. BOUCHER:  The answer is yes, that's what he said. 

QUESTION:  Now, what does that mean?  Does that mean you put it down in like -- write him a letter or --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think if you read what Deputy Secretary Armitage said, he said there might be ways to document this that we would be prepared to do so, but neither he nor the Secretary have tried to specify how that might be done.

QUESTION:  Are you actively exploring that through your partners?

MR. BOUCHER:  What we're exploring is how to get, first, North Korea to understand it needs to take -- needs to dismantle these programs and return the seals and the monitors and reverse its course with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We're exploring how to pursue a peaceful solution on that basis.  We're in touch with members of the Security Council, P-5, other interested countries like Japan, Korea, Australia, the European Union, the United Nations.  We've been getting the readouts from their meetings.  We've -- I think I mentioned the other day the Secretary has talked to Kofi Annan about Maurice Strong's meetings.  He's talked to Alexander Downer about the meetings that the Australian team had when they were out there.  So we're keeping up on those.

The South Koreans are now having meetings as well, and I'm sure we'll be talking to them and getting rundowns from what the North Koreans say. 

We'll look at all that.  We're interested in pursuing a peaceful solution.  But we need to make sure that North Korea will dismantle these programs and reverse course with the IAEA. 

QUESTION:  But what I'm wondering is, Under Secretary Bolton also discussed this idea the other day in Beijing and used the phrase of putting it on paper.  You know, "If we want to put it on paper, I'm sure we can find some way.  Diplomacy can find a way to do that."  And I'm wondering if this is one of the elements of the talks with your allies on it, if you're actually discussing this possibility with them?

MR. BOUCHER:  We're not negotiating with our allies.  We're talking to our allies about how to get North Korea to dismantle these programs, about how to get North Korea to reverse course with the IAEA. 

Terri.

QUESTION:  Change of subject?

QUESTION:  Can I follow up on North Korea? 

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.

QUESTION:  The Chinese Foreign Ministry said though, hinted that the most important party is the other state.  They actually used the phrase that there is only one key to one lock, or something like that. 

Why don't you agree on one-on-one negotiations?

MR. BOUCHER:  We have made clear we are prepared to talk to North Korea.  We have -- we know people who are talking to them and reporting back to us.  We also have a New York channel that remains open.  So it's not a matter of talking to North Korea.  We're willing to talk to North Korea.

But North Korea needs to understand, as well, that we're not the only ones.  The international community has expressed itself.  The Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the Koreans, the European Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors have expressed themselves on North Korea's withdrawal from the Nonproliferation Treaty, on North Korea's breaking the seals and expulsion of the monitors, on North Korea's nuclear enrichment programs. 

So these are things of concern to the entire international community, and we do not intend to substitute ourselves for the entire community.  But we do, at the same time, recognize we're willing to talk to North Korea.

The Secretary, I think in an interview the other day, mentioned that you can have bilateral discussions, multilateral discussions, or bilateral discussions in a multilateral context.  I mean there are certainly ways of doing both.  But I think, first of all, we're willing to talk, but, second, North Korea has to understand that this a matter -- these are matters of serious concern to a lot of people in the international community that need to be resolved.

Sir.  In the back.

QUESTION:  Can we change the subject for few minutes? 

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  All right.  It's about Africa -- Ivory Coast.  Since the last September 19, I just want find out what has been so far the clear position of the U.S. vis--vis of the rebellion that has divided completely the country in three? 

Right now in Paris, there is a negotiation with the different opposition party to try to find out the key issue to reach peace, but it seems like the country itself is in a deep crisis.  And the question is that what is the U.S. position, the clear position to be able to face the problem in this country and also to find the resolution?

MR. BOUCHER:  The clear position of the United States is that the parties to this conflict need to stop the fighting and need to resolve these issues politically.  And therefore, we have supported the ceasefire.  When there were other rebel groups that entered into the fighting, we've supported again, called on them to enter into cease-fires, and they did.

We've supported the efforts of the French to organize a conference on this.  They are hosting a conference now in Paris among the parties.  We've supported, expressed our strong support through that effort.  And then, there's a regional conference being hosted in Paris coming up on the 25th and we'll be sending one of our deputy assistant secretaries out to that.

U.S. diplomacy has tried to encourage all the parties to use this opportunity in Paris to reach a peaceful solution to these difficulties.

QUESTION:  Is the U.S. supported the Government of President Gbagbo?

MR. BOUCHER:  We have certainly recognized the government's role in all this, but also made clear that all the parties need to do what they can to solve these issues politically. 

QUESTION:  Richard, there's a meeting tomorrow of the Friends of the OAS Secretary General.  What ideas will the United States take to this meeting and do you feel that the crisis in Venezuela has somewhat diminished in intensity in the last week or so?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think we consider the situation in Venezuela still to be very tense, to be very difficult, and that the urgency of reaching a peaceful resolution remains.  We look forward to the meeting tomorrow of the Organization of American States, of the Friends of the Secretary General of the OAS.  The Secretary will attend this meeting.  It's the inaugural meeting of the group of friends tomorrow afternoon.

Organization of American States Secretary General Gaviria will chair the meeting.  In preparations for the meeting, we have been in close contact with other members of the group, other Organization of American States members and with Secretary General Gaviria.  But at this point, I don't have any ideas to share with you.

Terri.

QUESTION:  That was my question.  But the Venezuelan Foreign Minister will be there.  Does Secretary Powell have any plans to meet separately with him?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware of any separate bilateral meetings.  They have been on the phone at least once, maybe more, during the course of these events.  I'm not sure if they'll have a chance to talk tomorrow or not.

QUESTION:  Richard, Jimmy Carter was in Venezuela, may still be there, I'm not sure, and he had some proposals of his own.  Does the United States Government endorse his proposals or have any views on them?

MR. BOUCHER:  The Carter Center has been one of the three participants in the effort that's been headed by the Secretary General, and certainly we've welcomed their involvement.  President Carter was down there.  He offered, I think, two options.  One was for a constitutional amendment that would shorten terms of President and National Assembly to be followed by elections.  He put forward a second option that calls for a referendum in August, which could trigger Presidential elections in September.

We think these options offer both sides in Venezuela an excellent basis to craft a solution to the immediate impasse with international support for implementation of the agreement.  So we'll see if they will pick those up.  We do think the government and the opposition should consider these options very carefully.

Betsy.

QUESTION:  Journalists, three journalists missing in Panama, from Panama.

QUESTION:  Could we do another one on Venezuela?

MR. BOUCHER:  Sure, George.

QUESTION:  We have a possible war with Iraq looming, and does this drive U.S. policy in any way with respect to Venezuela?

MR. BOUCHER:  No.  Does that require a longer answer?  I don't think so.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. BOUCHER:  Betsy.

 QUESTION:  The Panama journalists.  Three.

MR. BOUCHER:  Our embassies in Panama City and Bogot are in contact with relevant parties regarding three American citizens.  We don't have a Privacy Act Waiver, and I can't discuss the individuals any further.

I have to see.  These are the people that were abducted by the AUC.  Those are the journalists, right?

QUESTION:  Right.

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not talking about three others at this point?  Okay.  No, I don't know of three others.  I just want to make sure I had the right ones.

QUESTION:  Are you confirming they were abducted by the AUC?

MR. BOUCHER:  No.  There are stories of Los Angeles Times journalists lost.  That's two, though.

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.  Let's start with the three.  Panama City and Bogot.  We've been in touch with relevant parties.  We have not been in touch with the AUC.  We've been in touch with the humanitarian organization in Colombia that has been contacted by the AUC, which has, I think, admitted publicly that it's holding these Americans.

We've seen the wire reports that indicate they plan to release them.  Obviously, we think they should do so immediately.

As far as the reports of two journalists affiliated with The Los Angeles Times being missing in Colombia, we're attempting to check the names and confirm the citizenship.  We don't have a Privacy Act Waiver, obviously.  There are conflicting reports as to whether they've been taken captive by terrorist organizations in Colombia, or that they might be in the process of obtaining interviews with those organizations.  So we're really not sure on this but we're working with -- our Embassy down there is working with Colombian authorities and other contacts to obtain information.

QUESTION:  I seem to remember this as coming up before, but how is it you go about getting --

MR. BOUCHER:  See, at the bottom it says, "Not to be confused with the three journalists in Panama."  (Laughter.)  Thank you, Phil.  Should have read that one first.

QUESTION:  How is it that you go about seeking or getting Privacy Act Waivers from people who are abducted and missing?

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, we don't. 

QUESTION:  Why?

MR. BOUCHER:  We don't until they come back.

QUESTION:  Okay, so why are even mention that?

MR. BOUCHER:  Because absent a Privacy Act Waiver, even as it is impossible to get one, I can't talk about the individuals.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  No.

QUESTION:  Okay, thank you.

MR. BOUCHER:  Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)