Daily Press Briefing for October 28 - Transcript

   Daily Press BriefingRichard Boucher, SpokesmanWashington, DCOctober 28, 2002INDEX:

DEPARTMENT

1-5 USAID Employee Larry Foleys Death in Jordan

20-21 Secretary Powells Phone Calls

BRAZIL

5-7 Lulas Victory in Recent Elections

5-6 Free Trade Area in the Americas

6 Status of Secretary Powell Travel to the Region

MEXICO

7-8 UN Security Council Resolution Voting

7-8 President Bush and Secretary Powells Meetings with Foreign Secretary Castaneda

RUSSIA

9 Russian Relations with Demark

9-14 Status of Hostage Crisis in Moscow

NORTH KOREA

14-19 Status of Nuclear Program

15 Secretary Powells Trip to the Community of Democracies

IRAQ

19-24 Progress on UN Security Council Resolution

23-24 Reaction to Peace Demonstrations

24-25 Potential Cruise Missile Development Assistance

UKRAINE

25 Possible Sanctions Against President Kuchma

KAZAKHSTAN

25-26 Reaction to Alleged Abuse of Journalists

TURKEY Relations with the European Union

26-27

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS

27-29 Arafats Plans for New Cabinet Appointments

27-28, 30 Assistant Secretary Burns Trip to the Region

28 Update on Task Force Progress

30 Secretary Powells Possible Plans to Address the Region TRANSCRIPT:

MR. BOUCHER:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  If we can start out, I have a few words from the Secretary about Larry Foley, our AID employee who was killed in Jordan today.  But first, let me allow Administrator Natsios to say a few words to you about him and then I'll come back and read the Secretary's statement and take your questions on that and other topics.

MR. NATSIOS:  Larry Foley had been serving the USAID mission in Jordan as Executive Officer since August of 2000.  I met him, in fact, in January when I was visiting Jordan.  He was from Boston, I am from Massachusetts, so we had an immediate bond.

Larry was a highly decorated Foreign Service Officer but he will be remembered even more by all those who knew him for his charm, his wit and his friendship.  Our hearts go out to he and his wife, to his wife of 34 years, Virginia, and their children Megan, Jeremy and Michael, and their two grandsons.  Larry had just turned 60.

Larry worked in public service for more than 37 years as a Peace Corps volunteer and later as Peace Corps Associate Director working for the rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders in Contra Costa County, California, and the last 14 years he worked for USAID.

Just yesterday, he received a Meritorious Honor Award for his service in our mission in Jordan.  Larry strove to make the world a better place than he found it.  No one in USAID embodied the spirit of compassion that underpins our efforts more than Larry Foley.  He leaves behind devoted friends and colleagues where he served.  He served in four posts:  in La Paz, Bolivia; Lima, Peru; Harare, Zimbabwe; and Amman, Jordan. 

Our mission to improve the lives of people in the developing world will continue and the message of the life of Larry Foley will continue to be heard.  This is the ultimate tribute that we can pay.  Our deepest condolences go to his wife, Virginia, and their children and grandchildren and all those who grieve in AID.  Our prayers are with his family.

Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER:  We'll have that statement for you in text with, I think, a little more detail about Larry Foley anytime after the briefing. 

On behalf of the Secretary of State, I would like to read the following statement: 

"Early this morning in Amman, Jordan, US Diplomat and USAID Officer Lawrence Foley was shot and killed outside his home.  Personally and on behalf of all the employees of the Department of State, I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Virginia, his three children and his family and friends. 

"Lawrence Foley devoted his own life work to US Government service and to improving the lives of others through his work with the Agency for International Development.  He will be deeply missed."

So at this point, I would be glad to take your questions about this or other topics.

QUESTION:  Well, the obvious question, and I have one that's not that obvious, but the obvious one is, do you folks have any idea what or who, or both, is behind this?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, we don't.  The attack appears to be perpetrated; I mean the actual attacker was a single individual.  He fired multiple shots at close range.  It was as Larry Foley was about to leave his home en route to his work.

At this point, Jordanian authorities are closely cooperating with our Embassy officials, our Embassy security officials, in conducting an investigation.  It's an intensive Jordanian investigation of the crime, and they will seek to apprehend the murderer and ascertain the motive for the crime.

We have enhanced security precautions at our Embassy throughout -- we have enhanced security precautions throughout Amman working with the Jordanians, and they've helped us upgrade security where Americans live and work, have closed the US Embassy.

His Royal Highness, King Abdallah has spoken with our Ambassador, and has expressed his deepest condolences.  He has promised to use every resource available to protect American citizens in Jordan and to apprehend the assailant; but at this time, in terms of outcomes, I can just tell you the investigation continues, and as far as we're aware, no one has claimed responsibility for the action.

QUESTION:   The other question.  You haven't -- the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" hasn't been spoken here.  I guess you have to know more.  And the American Foreign Service, his colleagues, the Foreign Service Association, called this an act of terrorism, and they also say that while the security has improved at embassies and consulates, that so-called soft places, the diplomats' homes, churches even, in Pakistan, are still very vulnerable and suggesting that maybe more attention needs to be paid to them.

Could you comment on all those things?

 

MR. BOUCHER:  I think, first of all, as far as whether or not it's an act of terrorism, I just think we don't quite know enough yet at this point to call it that.  It's not out of any particular reticence.  We all know what kind of action and horrible crime and horrible act this was against an individual who was only seeking to do good in the country where he was posted.

But at this point, we have to know a little more before we start to describe it as terrorism.

In terms of security, I would say that we have done a lot in upgrading security at our embassies.  We have done a lot upgrading security for some of the residences.

But all over the world, we've seen this terrible practice, that when we are able, better able to protect what you might call the hard targets, the places that, you know, some of these guys most want to hit, like US embassies, then they go looking for other things, and so you get, you know, bombs at a night club in Bali, attacks on a theater in Moscow, and maybe -- we can't link it yet, but, you know, maybe they start going after the more vulnerable members of your staff in other places.

That is something that we all have to think about.  This is why the action against terrorism has to be international.  This is why the action against terrorism has to be thorough.  This is why it has to be proactive in finding these networks, arresting these people, taking their financing, destroying their ability to operate; and that's what we've been doing since last September 11th as the United States, but also as the international community, and why we're still going to stay in this, because the only way to protect everything is to eliminate the threat.

QUESTION:  Richard, I think it was about a month ago there was a warning in Jordan based on one source that there would be some sort of terrorist activities.  I don't remember exactly what it was.  Kidnappings.  Is there -- at this point can you say if you're looking into any linkage between the information that came in about that and this particular instance? 

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I can cite any particular connection at this point.  Certainly, we're aware of the dangers of life in Jordan, of the many different things that go on and the difficulties that can exist despite, I have to say, the ongoing and extensive efforts by the government.  We work very, very closely with the government in Jordan.  We've had an awful lot of support from them.  But we recognize, given the region and the location and other things, that it's still a place where a lot of different kinds of threats can exist.  It's a place where you can get threats from al-Qaida but you can also get them from other places.

So in this environment, as far as I know, we didn't have anything specifically related to this kind of attack or this particular employee.  Nonetheless, I think everybody there is aware that it's a dangerous -- potentially dangerous environment. 

QUESTION:  Richard, you haven't yet decided on or haven't come to a conclusion about what the motive is, but have you come to any conclusion about what it wasn't?  What have you ruled out so far?  I understand, for example, there was no indication that there was any robbery involved or any attempt --

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not able to say that at this point.  The Jordanians are conducting the investigation with a lot of -- you know, with our help.  But I'm not able to offer any conclusions one way or the other at this point. 

QUESTION:  Can you describe also -- can you say for the record what you mean by close range? 

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't think I can.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Can you say, then -- can you offer any explanation as to why the Foreign Service Association would call this a brutal, terrorist attack?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'll speak on behalf of the statements that we've issued, not the statements that others issue.

QUESTION:  I'm not asking you to speak on them.  I have them.  I'm just wondering if you are aware of any reason why they would be led down one road as opposed to you guys --

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not trying to diverge with the Foreign Service Association.  I've not seen their statement.  I've not talked to them about their statement.  I'm not going to account for their statement.

QUESTION:  I'm not asking --

MR. BOUCHER:  If you want to her a question about it, ask her then.

QUESTION:  I'm just trying to ask you why -- if you have any idea why they might come to that conclusion. 

MR. BOUCHER:  I just answered 12 questions about whether we're ready to call this a terrorist attack, and I said I'm not ready yet.  I'm going to stay there.  If you want to ask somebody else about their statement, you can. 

Charlie.

QUESTION:  Richard, you said the Embassy is closed.  Is it going to be day to day?  Do you know if it will be open tomorrow or if they're going to close for two or three days and assess?  And what about other embassies in the region?

MR. BOUCHER:  The Embassy is closed for all but emergency business.  A decision regarding Embassy operations will be made based on an assessment of security conditions in Amman.  And at this point, I don't have any information of other embassies in the region. 

QUESTION:  When you say closed, do you mean closed to the public or can nobody actually go in there to work?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think there's actually nobody going in to work when we say closed like this, but I'd have to double-check. 

QUESTION:  Richard, oftentimes in high-threat environments like Jordan, senior officials with the embassy and their personal residence will have a guard at the door.  Do you know if there was any such guard in this case? 

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know. 

QUESTION:  Can you find out?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'll try to check.  A lot of that stuff will have to be looked at by -- as part of the investigation.  Mr. Foley was the Executive Officer of the mission in Jordan so I don't know if that would be one of those positions that might necessarily have a guard.

QUESTION:  Of the (inaudible) mission?

MR. BOUCHER:  Of the USAID mission, yeah.

QUESTION:  And how high up in the hierarchy does that make him? 

MR. BOUCHER:  Fairly high, but not the top guy. 

Sir.  Brazil?

QUESTION:  You guys really have expressed congratulations to Lula for his winning on the elections on Saturday.  How happy are you with his ideas that he doesn't like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, for example?  How are you going to deal with him? 

MR. BOUCHER:  We're going to deal with him up front, as the legitimately elected democratic leader.  We're going to talk to him about his ideas.  We're going to talk about our ideas.  But above all, we're going to deal with him on the basis of our shared interests and concern in combating threats to the hemisphere, promoting good government, extending economic opportunity in the hemisphere.  We've had an excellent relationship with Brazil's leadership in the past and we would expect to work closely with President-elect Ignacio Da Silva.

QUESTION:  Has there been any contacts already with these people? 

MR. BOUCHER:  We have had contact with him in the past in the run-up to the elections from the Embassy with him and his people.  I don't know if we've had any contacts since the vote came in last night.

QUESTION:  Are you guys afraid that he's from the -- he's bad news for the US market and things like that that the American media have been saying?

MR. BOUCHER:  As I say, we look forward to meeting him.  We look forward to meeting him, to working with him, and working on the basis of our shared concerns and interests.

QUESTION:  You don't expect him to be another Chavez, don't you?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to speculate on things.  We've said we look forward to working with him.  We'll see all the important things that we have to do together.  I think we hope to work well with him.

QUESTION:  Yesterday, President-elect of Brazil said that in terms of the Free Trade Zone in Latin America he would engage in negotiations, but at the same time he said that he would support treaties that the United States is leaving, from Kyoto and International Court of Justice.

Could you give your reading on this approach that on --

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I'm not going to do political analysis or try to run through every position that he may have taken at one point or the other in the campaign.  I let him speak for himself, as I said.  We think there are fundamentally things that unite the United States and Brazil.  It's been on that basis that we have worked together in the past and we would expect to work together in the same manner in the future, but as far as how we'll come out on specific issues, whether we'll agree or we'll differ, whether it will work or not work, that's all speculation about the future.  I won't do that now.

QUESTION:  Is there any intention of the Secretary of State to eventually visit Brazil before the 1st of January?

MR. BOUCHER:  There's nothing scheduled at this point.  Brazil is an important country, and the Secretary has always wanted to go there, but there's nothing scheduled at this point.

In the back.

QUESTION:  Just a follow-up.  In regards to the political transition, considering the -- Mr. Lula is from the left and the government in place right now is to the right, will the example that was given by Mexico after the 71 years of the PRI in Mexico and then Mr. Fox being elected president, do you think Mexico could be a good example for a peaceful, a normal transition for Brazil?

MR. BOUCHER:  I certainly think that any example of peaceful and normal transition is a good one.  That's the kind of thing we would like to see.  I don't want to take Mexico as a particular example, but we have seen in a number of South American countries, Latin American countries, these fairly long transitions, just because of the way they do their dates.  These seem to work in many places.  We, ourselves, have managed to keep in touch with the existing government with whom we continue to do business up until the inauguration of the new president, but also to keep in touch with the newly elected officials to make sure that we're working with them and that we have a firm basis for going ahead once they actually take office, so I would expect we'd want to do that in this case, as well.

But certainly, yes, we support normal transitions, and peaceful ones.

Let's do a couple down here.

QUESTION:  Can you comment on The Washington Post brief front-page statement that Lula's landslide in Brazil's presidential election reflects disenchantment with globalization?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not doing political analysis, no.  Thank you.

Back there we had one.

QUESTION:  North Korea?

QUESTION:   One more Latin America, please.

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.  More Latin America.

QUESTION:  Mr. Boucher, what was wrong with the two compadres in Los Cabos and what is -- how do you read in the position in Mexico and Iraq how you are going to convince Mexico to vote in favor of the US resolution?

MR. BOUCHER:  What are you talking about? 

(Laughter.)

QUESTION:  President Bush and President Fox in Los Cabos.

MR. BOUCHER:  I think there was a White House briefing on that.  We continue to work with Mexico as well as other members of the Council.

QUESTION:  But you aren't going to do anything with Castaneda --

MR. BOUCHER:  We're going plenty with Mexico.

QUESTION:   -- in terms of calling him or doing something like that?

MR. BOUCHER:  We're doing plenty with Mexico all the time.  I think now the action has probably turned to New York.

The Secretary had meetings with Castaneda, with Foreign Secretary Castaneda when they were in Los Cabos.  The President met with President Fox, as I think you noted.

But this is something that's ongoing within the Security Council.  We'll continue to work it in New York.

QUESTION:  So you don't consider it a setback for the US policy?

MR. BOUCHER:  US policy continues to advance.

QUESTION:  Are you concerned that Mexico is using its vote in the Security Council, threatening to vote against the US, as a payback for the lack of progress on the Mexican immigrants issue?

MR. BOUCHER:  No.

QUESTION:   One quick one on Brazil.  Was there any congratulatory phone call from Secretary Powell?

MR. BOUCHER:  From Secretary Powell?

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER:  No.

QUESTION:  From our ambassador?

MR. BOUCHER:  I imagine our ambassador has been in touch.

QUESTION:  A little higher than (inaudible)?

QUESTION:  Armitage?  The President?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'll let the White House brief on any that might have been made from the White House.

QUESTION:  Today there was a Chechen conference that opened in Denmark, and --

MR. BOUCHER:  We'll do this, and then I owe her one on North Korea.

QUESTION:   (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  No, let's just keep going.

QUESTION:   A Chechen conference that opened in Denmark today has prompted the worst dispute between Russia and Denmark since the cold war.   Now, President Putin refuses to go to Denmark to meet with the EU next month, and Denmark, in turn, has moved the meeting to Brussels.

Is there a US position on this dispute, or --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think you've mentioned Denmark, Russia, Brussels, which is Belgium.  No, I don't think the United States would get in the middle of that.  We've taken a clear position on Chechnya all along.  That continues to be our position.

Okay.

QUESTION:  How about talking about what prompted this, this little crisis?  What's your understanding of what happened in Moscow with the --

QUESTION:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. BOUCHER:  The raid?

QUESTION:  Because there are several other things that happened in Moscow that you might be commenting on. 

MR. BOUCHER:  What, the raid or the --

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. BOUCHER:  All right.  I think we've made our basic commentary on it, but let me repeat for you; we're relieved that the hostage crisis at the Moscow theater is over.  Obviously, we're deeply saddened by the tragic loss of innocent lives.  We send our condolences to the families of the hostages who were killed in this tragedy and to the Russian people.  We send our hopes for a speedy recovery to those injured during the crisis.

We underscore that this tragedy was caused by an act of terrorism.  The United States condemns terrorist attacks wherever they occur, and no political grievance justifies the taking of hostages and killing of innocent people.

The Russian Government was faced with a difficult dilemma as a result of this cruel terrorist act.  There was no easy way out of this situation in which armed terrorists were threatening the lives of so many people.

As for the Americans, our Embassy in Moscow, by visiting all the hospitals and other locations around the city, has been able to locate and visit one of the US citizens who was inside.  That one US citizen is in stable condition.

We have also been able to identify one permanent resident who has been found, and who is also recuperating from injuries.

We have reason to believe that we've located the remains of one other US citizen.  However, we're waiting for final positive identification of those remains.

We don't have Privacy Act waivers to speak about these US citizens in any detail, and therefore I can't really provide any other information.

Bill.

QUESTION:  Has the US asked the Russians what type of gas they used?

MR. BOUCHER:  We've asked -- we and others in the international community, I think, have asked.  We're waiting for a response at this point. 

Eli.

QUESTION:  Richard, do you have a comment on the fact that the Russians did not even disclose the kind of gas they used to the doctors treating the victims as they were coming out?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any comment at this point on matters like that and how it was conducted.  We all know the Russians were faced with a very difficult situation.  These things didn't have easy answers.  I know there are a lot of specifics that we would all like to know.  We've asked some of those questions of the Russians.  But at this point, I don't have answers back from them yet. 

Teri.

QUESTION:  Richard, an American is among those killed by the gas then.  Can you confirm that?

MR. BOUCHER:  I can't confirm that in particular detail other than to say I think what I've seen Russian authorities say was that all the deaths were as a result of the gas. 

Okay, we had people in the back.

QUESTION:  It was reported that the Russians asked to -- asked from the US to review their contacts and presence of the Chechen representatives.  Is this issue was raised or discussed? 

MR. BOUCHER:  We kept the Russians informed during the crisis situation about the contact that we had had and the people that had called us or that we had been in touch with.  So I'm not sure what you're saying about review the contacts, but we kept them --

QUESTION:  No, not -- the crisis --

MR. BOUCHER:  As this was going on --

QUESTION:  No, not during the crisis.  I mean, I'm talking about in general.

MR. BOUCHER:  You mean look back at our policy of who we talked to on the Chechen side?

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. BOUCHER:  I'd have to check on that.  I think our view has always been that Chechen leaders -- first of all, this crisis needs a political settlement and that both sides need to be willing to discuss it and to resolve it in a political manner.  There is no military solution in Chechnya for either side and there's certainly no solution from terrorism, there's certainly no justification for this kind of terrorism. 

So we think Chechen leaders have to firmly renounce all terrorist acts and commit themselves to a political settlement.  But beyond that, I don't think -- you know, that's the policy we've always had.  I don't know if we've been asked to look at the kinds of contacts we've had or the individuals we've had contacts with. 

Sir.

QUESTION:  The First Foreign Minister -- this is an Iraq -- 

MR. BOUCHER:  Let's finish with this, then.  Elise.

QUESTION:  Did you know that the Russians were going to use this gas before they did?  Did they inform you of the action they were going to be taking?

MR. BOUCHER:  The Russians acted on their own in devising the rescue plan and carrying it out.  As I said, we know the difficulty that they faced.  But no, we did not know about that in advance. 

QUESTION:  Richard, I'm going to ask this question and you might think it's unfair, but by not criticizing the use of this gas, which killed so many people, are you saying that the US believes that it's appropriate to use this tactic or method in defusing hostage situations in the future?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not saying one way or the other at this point.  We're waiting for more --

QUESTION:  Well, I think it's a fair question to ask.

MR. BOUCHER:  It's a fair question but it's not an answer that one can give at this point.  We're waiting for more information.  We need to know what it was, how it was used, more things like that.  Ultimately, if there's anything to say about it, we will.  At this point, we just recognize how difficult the situation was and how difficult were the choices that they had to make.  But as far as saying one way or the other what we thought, I think we need more information and we've asked them for that information, along with many other governments. 

QUESTION:  Richard, it's just the facts of the matter that more than twice as many of the hostage-takers died from this gas than by the --

MR. BOUCHER:  The hostages.

QUESTION:  The hostages, right.  Than the hostage-takers killed.  You're not concerned about a rescue operation that kills so many of those who are intended to be rescued?

QUESTION:  Richard, actually, they all could have died of the gas.

MR. BOUCHER:  You don't know that.

QUESTION:  Well, they didn't.  But so, can you just comment to the facts, as they exist?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, because I don't think we know enough of the facts, as they exist.  That's all I'm trying to say.

QUESTION:  Well, there are 115 people dead.

MR. BOUCHER:  Obviously, we think it's terrible that all these people lost their lives.  We don't -- we would remind you, however, that it started as a result of a terrorist action.  And to suddenly turn on the Russians as they -- and given the dilemmas that they were facing at the time and the difficult choices they had to make, I certainly don't think you can do that without more information.  We've asked for more information.  And if we have any further evaluation, we will give that to you.

Jonathan.

QUESTION:  Richard, you said that the Chechnya dispute could only be solved by a political solution and by dialogue, presumably, and yet it seems to be it's the Russians who are resisting that dialogue whereas the Chechens have been advocating dialogue continually. 

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know that I can agree with that conclusion at this point. 

QUESTION:  Do the Russians bear some responsibility for the continuation of the -- do they bear the moral responsibility for the continuation of the conflict?  Is this not -- I mean, are they not partly at fault here?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know that -- I don't think I can give you that kind of assessment at this moment.  Yes, they are party to the conflict but if the question seems -- implies in any way that the Russians were somehow responsible for this action and for this terrorist act in Moscow, I don't think you or I intend to imply that at all.  So I just don't think I can get into that kind of question today. 

QUESTION:  Richard, back on the gas question.  You've asked the Russians for what kind of gas they've used.  Presumably, this is not going to require a fact-finding commission; it's information that they would have available at the time.  Americans could very well have died because of this gas.  Can you comment on the fact that you did not get an immediate answer to your question? 

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I can't.

QUESTION:  Well, how about --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think we addressed our questions to the Foreign Ministry, who didn't have the information.  We were going to -- we were checking then with the Ministry of Interior.  But we are trying to get at that information.  And as somebody pointed out, that knowledge is also needed by the doctors.  We are awaiting a response but at this point we just don't have the response.

QUESTION:  Is it fair to say you're reserving judgment at this point?

MR. BOUCHER:  It's fair to say I didn't offer a judgment at this point, yes.

Dave.

QUESTION:  Can you comment on reports that many of the hostage-takers died of bullet wounds to the head, apparently while they were incapacitated by the gas?

MR. BOUCHER:  Of what?

QUESTION:  Being shot in the head.

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't -- I haven't seen any information like that. 

QUESTION:  Richard, are you at all concerned that the Russians haven't answered your questions or that they haven't told the people, the doctors who are treating these people?  I just don't understand --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think we're asking the same question again and again and again.  That was a question that others have asked, and I don't have any answer now.

QUESTION:  But you don't have any reaction to the lack of forthcomingness on the part of the Russians about what exactly they did?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any more now than I had five minutes ago.

QUESTION:  Richard, can you say whether the American who died at the theater or died in the hospital?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I can't.

QUESTION:  Do you know that?

MR. BOUCHER:  I personally don't know.  I know we don't have a Privacy Act waiver and there's a point at which personal medical details, even without the name, can't be given.

QUESTION:  Don't you think that's significant, though?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm sure it is, but I'm not here to brief on the investigation or to offer you any suppositions about how things happened.

QUESTION:   Can we move on?

MR. BOUCHER:  Ma'am?

QUESTION:  North Korea.

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.  We had -- the first chance at North Korea belongs in the back, then.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER:  No, she's got North Korea right there.

QUESTION:  Oh.

MR. BOUCHER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Can you confirm the report that China provided information that North Korea might have five -- I mean material for five nuclear weapons?

And secondly, could you provide more details on the Secretary's trip to Seoul next month, and will he consider the non-aggression treaty with the North?

MR. BOUCHER:  As far as whether China provided any information, no, I can't confirm it.  I'd suggest you might want to ask the Chinese, if it's them who are supposed to have provided information.

On the Secretary's trip to the Community of Democracies next month to Seoul, no, I don't have any more information at this point.  It's still -- well, it's still two weeks away.  As you know, we never do these things until it's too late, or right about time.

And the third part, that I thought I actually might be able to answer, I can't remember what it was now.

Oh, the non-aggression pact question.  I do think we've answered that question several times, and you see also in the joint statement that we issued with the Japanese and the Korean governments on Saturday after the President's meeting, we made quite clear that for there to be any serious progress in relationships and North Korea's aspirations with regard to the world, there needs to be a prompt and verifiable dismantling of these nuclear programs.

It's not a question of non-aggression or non-aggression pacts.  When the President was in Korea, he made quite clear that we have no intention of attacking the North, of attacking North Korea.  It's a question, really, of the immediate, verifiable dismantlement of these nuclear programs, that's what we're all looking for, and without that, North Korea should not expect any progress in its relations with the rest of the world.

Yes.

QUESTION:  When Assistant Secretary Kelly confronted the North Koreans with some of the evidence that the US had about their nuclear program, and they admitted it, have you, at this point, verified through the North Koreans or perhaps the Chinese what you think they have, or have they admitted to more than you think they have or less, or at this point, are you both on the same page in terms of what North Korea's nuclear program constitutes?

MR. BOUCHER:  I hesitate to accept any question that has us both on the same page with the North Koreans, but I'll see if they offered any more detail.  I think basically, since Assistant Secretary Kelly had said to them the day before, "We know you're conducting a program of uranium enrichment in order to build nuclear weapons," and the next day that's basically what they admitted to, I don't think there was any extensive discussion from our side of the details of what we knew, nor from their side of the details of what they were doing.

QUESTION:  I guess I'm just trying to see if, do you think that they could be over-inflating what you believe them to have or at the same -- or underplaying?  Do you believe --

MR. BOUCHER:  There's no reason to enrich uranium in this manner, except to make bombs, and since we knew they had a program, we know they had a program to enrich uranium, and the only purpose is to make bombs, then we knew they were violating the agreements they had signed before.

So it's a question both of their intentions to develop nuclear weapons and of the violations of the Agreed Framework and all the other commitments, including North-South commitments and international commitments that they had issued, and that's what we told them.

Teri?

QUESTION:   In Mexico, or on the way to Mexico, a White House official briefed, and in that admitted or acknowledged that we do know now that they did not succeed in enriching any significant degree of uranium.

Is that something you can also confirm?

MR. BOUCHER:  I had not known about that.  I'm not in a position to confirm that on the record, though.

QUESTION:  Can we move on?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, we've got a lot more in the back.

QUESTION:  APEC meeting in Mexico, US and Japan and South Korea, they meet to pressure North Korea.  But what is the content of diplomat pressure to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER:  I guess the way I would put it, and I think it's noted quite clearly in the joint statement that we issued with the Japanese and the South Koreans, that North Korea's aspirations with regard to normalization with Japan or progress in its other relationships with South Korea, or progress more broadly with important countries like China, Russia, the United States; our understanding is that nobody is interested in having that progress occur if North Korea is still threatening the peninsula with nuclear weapons; and therefore, that everybody wants to make sure that North Korea understands that all their aspirations in terms of opening up to the world and development with the world cannot be realized unless they stop these programs, and that's why we and others have asked them to promptly and verifiably dismantle those programs.

The Secretary, I think, talked about this on Saturday, based on his conversations, but you also see it in the trilateral statement that we issued.

Sir.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible).

QUESTION:  No, no.

MR. BOUCHER:  We'll finish up with Korea and then somebody else was going to change topics.  Korea.

QUESTION:  Richard, I don't want to try and take away anything from the joint statement that was released on Saturday, or in fact what President Jiang said on Friday, but what are you -- have you gotten the same kind of commitment to isolate the North Koreans from the Russians as you have from -- have you gotten the same kind of commitments that those four or three have?  And have you -- are you looking -- what have you heard from the Europeans, like the Italians or even the Canadian people that have opened diplomatic relations with the North Koreans in the last 18 months or so?

MR. BOUCHER:  On the Russians, the Chinese, people like that, I think if you remember when the Secretary spoke about it on Saturday, he said that what he had heard from the Chinese and Russians was very much along the lines of what we had heard and put out in terms of the statement with the Japanese and the South Koreans.  So I think, as I said, that there is more or less a fairly common approach among all these countries to make clear to North Korea that what it aspires to in those relationships can't be achieved as long as they have these nuclear programs.

As far as the Europeans go, I don't really have anything new.  But let me double-check.  As you know, Under Secretary Bolton was just out in Europe consulting.  And I'll check to see what we've got from that.

QUESTION:  When you talk about the Russians basically agreeing with you, are you pointing to something other than private conversation?  Are you pointing to some kind of public statement of concern?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think the first thing I would point you to would probably be the APEC statement that was issued on Saturday or Sunday.  I'm not exactly sure which day.  But that was worked with the Russians, and the Russians fully supported it as a member of APEC -- as did the other members of APEC.

QUESTION:  Okay, but right at this moment in terms of bilaterally, pressure bilaterally from countries that have opened up diplomatic relations with the North Koreans in the last two years, you don't know of anything?  Not that there is anything.  But you're not aware --

MR. BOUCHER:  I just don't have a report on what others might have done in their relationships at this point.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Also, I just want to ask you a question about this idea of isolating North Korea.  Is there a country that is not more isolated?  I mean, is there any country that is more isolated on the globe right now than North Korea?  And how --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I've used the word isolated.

QUESTION:  Okay.  No, you haven't.  But let me just --

MR. BOUCHER:  Because we all know that --

QUESTION:  Are you looking for people not to expand existing relationships?  Or possibly take away from existing relationships?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think as I have said -- well, let's go back to what you said first.  As you point, correctly, that North Korea's self-imposed isolation from the world has lasted for many decades.  At this point we know from their behavior that they aspire to break out of that isolation.  They aspire to relationships; they aspire to economic development; they aspire to trade; they aspire to a lot of other things in terms of their relationships in the world.  And I think the world is making back -- making a response in return that they're not going to achieve those aspirations, they're not going to achieve that kind of progress in their relationships unless they dismantle these programs.

So we are talking about the fact that North Korea will not be able to break out of its isolation -- if you want me to use the word in a sentence.

QUESTION:  Well, okay, then I just want to -- are you looking for people that already have made some progress in this to pull back from where they are now?  Or are you just -- just wanting them to stop where they are now?

MR. BOUCHER:  Without going into any particular detail, because there are, indeed, things that we're all involved in that have to be looked at and evaluated -- as we've said -- like those of us involved in KEDO and the various aspects of that.  So I'm sure there will be aspects of things that are going on now that need to be evaluated carefully.  And we're doing a lot of that in conjunction with friends and allies.

QUESTION:  Richard, I think I heard you say that no one wants progress to occur unless the program is dismantled.  But my reading of the trilateral statement on Saturday was that, at least, the Japanese intended to proceed towards normalization, but wouldn't conclude unless the program was dismantled, which suggested some progress could take place along that.  When you say that --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think that's -- I mean, that's quite too literal a reading of it.  It makes clear you don't have normalization until you've concluded it.  So I don't think you can make progress towards normalizing without concluding it -- the end result of normalization.

QUESTION:  It seems -- because a lot of people in the administration have used the word "isolate" and yet this statement does not -- does not indicate isolation at all.  How do you reconcile these two?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to try to reconcile what you say you're getting from anonymous sources with what we're saying here.

QUESTION:  Have you talked to North Korean delegation last week --

MR. BOUCHER:  You mean in New York?

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. BOUCHER:  The channel remains open for any kind of communications they might want to send to us.  But at this point, no, we haven't had any contact since -- since the revelations.  Put it that way.

QUESTION:  On to the Iraq resolution?

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay, who is going to move on to Iraq?  I forget whom I promised, but it wasn't you.  Sir.

QUESTION:  Yes, the French Foreign Minister is suggesting a meeting of foreign ministers of the Permanent Members of the Security Council to break the impasse.  Is that anything -- have they received a response in that idea?  Is that something that is likely to be favored by the US?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know if I could say if it's likely or not.  We keep it under consideration to see if it's appropriate and useful in these circumstances.  Meanwhile, the Secretary has continued to work closely with his counterparts, his ministerial counterparts on the Security Council, kept in touch over the weekend with Foreign Minister Villepin, Jack Straw, Foreign Minister Ivanov, on Saturday, I guess.  Not on Sunday.  Today he's already talked to Foreign Secretary Straw and Foreign Minister Villepin.  So he's continued to work these issues in some detail with his counterpart foreign ministers. 

Meanwhile, our people in New York have continued to work, and, indeed, the Security Council is meeting today with Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei on the issues involved in this resolution.  So we think we're making progress.  We think we've narrowed down the differences to a few key issues.  And I think there's general agreement in the Council that there needs to be a strong resolution, that the stronger the resolution the more chance we are to get some sort of compliance from the Iraqis.

We've made progress, but we're not there yet.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  No.

QUESTION:  Kazakhstan?

MR. BOUCHER:  Oh, Kazakhstan.  Let's finish -- let's do the Iraq resolution now.  I'm sorry to keep you waiting.  Iraq resolution questions.

QUESTION:  You presented language last week -- your second formal language, and now you're saying we're making progress, narrowed the differences to a few key issues.  Have you changed any of that language over the weekend?

MR. BOUCHER:  We haven't changed any of our language.  The resolution is in blue, as they say at the UN, which means it has been formally tabled for the Security Council.  But even at that stage, we are talking to others.  Even at that stage, resolutions can be modified with the agreement of us and the others that are working on it.  So if we continue to talk to people, about how to get them to -- about if they think changes in the text are necessary, but we think we've got a good resolution.  We talk to them about supporting it.

QUESTION:  Where is the progress, though?  Are they coming towards your position?

MR. BOUCHER:  Oh, absolutely, all the time.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  Can I just throw one out?  The French -- the French also have their language, too.  What do you think of what they have --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think the French have tabled any resolutions.  We heard -- we've heard a considerable amount of what they've been talking about.  And some of it is close and parallels what we've put forward as a resolution.  Some of it is not.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER:  But, no, the question of the resolution on the table, the resolution under discussion, is the US proposal based on the US-UK draft.  That's what we're all working from.  Not something else at this point.

QUESTION:  So are you at all frustrated?  Well, what is your reaction to the fact that they have passed this round?  Is it helpful for other countries, other than Perm Five members to be throwing language out?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not --

QUESTION:  Alternative language out to yours?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to -- I'm sure that other people have other ideas.  And part of the process of consultation that we said we started with the President's speech was to listen to those ideas and to hear from them.  How they want to make those ideas known is up to them.  What I would point out, though, is that we're working -- we think on the basis of, first of all, common understanding that a strong resolution is needed, and second of all, based on a draft put forward by the United States.

QUESTION:  And did the Secretary have any calls today on this?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think I said Jack Straw and Foreign Minister Villepin. 

QUESTION:  And on Sunday?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, over the weekend -- Saturday was Foreign Minister Villepin, Foreign Secretary Straw, Foreign Minister Ivanov.  Sunday there weren't any foreign ministers calls.  And today -- Monday -- got it, Foreign Secretary Straw and Foreign Minister Villepin. 

QUESTION:  Hmm, you didn't say that.

MR. BOUCHER:  I thought I did.  But we'll check the record. 

QUESTION:  I think you'll probably say this is going into the idea of hypothetical, but let's try it.  Some pretty tough talk out of the White House about wanting to put this to a vote very soon and some comments by Secretary Powell over the weekend, saying that you don't know if you're going to get the votes, and that the US might need to take a coalition of willing states to solve the problem.  But at the same time, some of the other member-states still seem intent on putting the inspectors back in.  The French, like Jonathan said, just introduced this resolution, so --

MR. BOUCHER:  No, they didn't introduce a resolution.

QUESTION:  Well, or are talking about language on a resolution. 

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  Had their language -- however you want to say it.  But is the United States going to send a coalition of willing states into Iraq to disarm inspectors -- to disarm Iraq while the rest of the Security Council is sending inspectors back into the country?

MR. BOUCHER:  The point that we have made, the point the President has made again and again and again, is that the issue is the danger posed by Iraq through its development of these weapons of mass destruction.  The issue is the disarmament of Iraq and stopping these programs of weapons of mass destruction.  One way or the other we have to deal with this.  We have asked the United Nations and the Security Council to deal with it.  The President did that in his speech in New York.  The Secretary General did it on the same day in New York, said the Council needs to face up those responsibilities.  So we do think the Council needs to deal with this.

The President has also made clear -- and we have made clear repeatedly -- if the Council doesn't deal with it, that we need to deal with those dangers one way or the other.  And that's been our position.  That's been the position of other governments, as well.

QUESTION:  Can I follow that up?

MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  I know you've said that the US wants to wrap this up as soon as possible.  But it's very hard to wrap up.  Obviously, you have problems.  And I'm wondering -- I can't -- frankly, I can't put together the US's statement that this is a very dangerous situation with the idea that people like the French want to go ahead with inspections right away and defer until then aggressive action against Iraq.  Might it not take the US that long to get the resolution into some sort of shape?  Isn't it an alternative approach -- doesnt it make sense to have the inspections --

MR. BOUCHER:  You lost me -- you lost me when you started saying that long.  How long is that long?

QUESTION:  Well, I don't know how long you're going to have to deal with the French and the Russians --

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I don't know, either.  So I can't deal with the question.

QUESTION:  But they more than a month ago wanted to send inspectors back in, get their report, and then ponder what to do next.  And you would think that's a faster scenario than the US scenario has turned out to be.

MR. BOUCHER:  I think you know from the discussions that we have had here all along, you know from the statements of the administration going back some time, you know from the speech the Vice President gave this summer that we have always said sending inspectors back under the old rules really doesn't prove a whole lot; and therefore, the inspectors need to go back when they have the authority, when they have the wherewithal, when they have the rules and instructions and authorities from the Security Council to do a thorough job.  It's only in that way that we can get any kind of satisfaction on the issue of disarmament -- which fundamentally is the issue we're trying to deal with.

QUESTION:  I understand.  But I don't think the argument is over rules.  I think --

MR. BOUCHER:  No, but you're saying, well, we could have sent the inspectors a month ago --

QUESTION:  No, no, no --

MR. BOUCHER:  -- which would have been under the old rules.

QUESTION:  There seems to be a consensus for stronger rules.  The argument is over warning them, consequences.  Can't you strengthen the rules, send them in, they come back and by that time, under the current scenario, the US might still be trying to convince Russia and France to support the US resolution.  Isn't this an easier way?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know if you're making a prediction about what would have happened or what might happen.  I'm dealing with what we have today.  I don't know how to relate that to the hypotheticals and suppositions in your questions.

QUESTION:  I just asked where the US sees alarm and the need for quick action with a lengthy procedure that doesn't seem to be bearing fruit when others have suggested, at least send inspectors in.

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, I guess what you're doing then is declaring the whole effort a failure --

QUESTION:  No, I'm not.

MR. BOUCHER:  -- or at least interminable.  And we think it's neither the one, nor the other.  So I can't take the premise.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay, in the back.  We're still on Iraq?

QUESTION:  New subject?

MR. BOUCHER:  No, we're going to go to Kazakhstan next time we change. 

Mark, Iraq?

QUESTION:  Does the US intend that a resolution should be voted on this week?

MR. BOUCHER:  We would hope to see a vote as soon as possible.  I can't give you an exact timetable yet because we don't do it from the UN.  But I believe Ambassador Cunningham said he would like to -- he would hope that this would all be concluded this week.  Stick with that.

QUESTION:  And one more.  In the past, Americans have suggested that if there were not a UN resolution acceptable to the United States, then the United States would thwart the return of inspectors.  Is that still the American position?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think those remarks were made in a different context, if you look back.  And I don't think the inspectors have gone back until they have -- or know that they want to go back until they have the instructions and the authority of the Security Council.  But you may hear more from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei on that today.

Okay.  Still, on Iraq, Joel?

QUESTION:  Yes, partly.  Do the peace demonstrations that occurred both here in the United States and elsewhere have any bearing on your policy?  And there were both pro and con demonstrations, not just the anti --

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any particular comment.  That's domestic freedom of expression.  And I'm always in support of it.

QUESTION:  It also occurred in other countries, as well.

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm always in support of freedom of expression. 

Okay, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Partly Iraq.  According to published reports, the US Ambassador to Belgrade is accusing Yugoslavia of assisting Iraq in building cruise missiles.  Is this true?  And are those missiles now operational?

MR. BOUCHER:  The specifics of the questions that you ask in terms of missiles and operational are not things that I would be in a position to answer, but I can tell you that -- I think we mentioned some of this last week -- that we have clear evidence that Yugoslav and Bosnian defense companies have been involved in arms transfers and sensitive assistance to Iraq.  We've presented that information to senior officials of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Sprska and the governments of Yugoslavia and Serbia.

The steps last week taken by the Government of Yugoslavia to relieve responsible officials from their positions and to conduct investigations of the activities of the Ministry of Defense and Yugo Import, as well as the government's commitment to adopt appropriate measures to regulate the transfer of military weapons and technology, these are all significant, serious actions.

We welcome these steps, as well as the decision to close the Yugo Import offices in Baghdad.

We've offered the full support and cooperation to the Yugoslav authorities, both in the investigation and in providing technical assistance and expertise to develop the appropriate legal, regulatory and enforcement measures, and the mechanisms to control military and sensitive exports.

We welcome -- excuse me.  We welcome the Republic of Srpska's announcement last week that it has fired the general manager of Orao, properly spelled O-r-a-o.  I'm told I may have messed that up last time I did it.

They've removed a senior air force officer and fired a senior government official.  This is a good start, but more needs to be done.  Orao's illegal activities would have required extensive coordination with the Ministry of Defense, possibly other parts of the Bosnian Government.

The US expects the relevant authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and particularly the Republic of Srpska, to conduct a thorough investigation and to hold accountable those responsible, regardless of the seniority or position.

We also expect all United Nations members to meet their obligations to prevent the transfer of weapons or other materials prohibited by UN sanctions to Iraq.  This also highlights the need for Bosnia-Herzegovina to move forward on its recent promise to establish effective export controls at the national level.  Such activities are also in violation of the Republic of Sprska's obligations under the Dayton peace accords to keep the stabilization force informed regarding any military export activities.

So that's the kind of the review of the overall situation since we last talked about it.  Without talking in any detail about the actual activities that might have been going on, I can tell you we've shared this information with other governments.  We're working with them, and particularly with the Government of Yugoslavia, to see the kind of steps that are necessary.  We're starting to see those steps elsewhere, as well, and we think that more needs to be done.

Okay.

QUESTION:  Richard, two questions on this.  One, so you will not confirm for the record that missile technology or missiles were involved in any -- you don't have evidence?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think I'm able to speak about the details from here because of the kind of information we have.

QUESTION:  There were details last week, right, about airlines --

MR. BOUCHER:  There are details about aircraft repair.

QUESTION:  Is that okay to talk about?

MR. BOUCHER:  Yeah, that's okay to talk about.  Whether there's anything more than that is what I'm not able to say.

QUESTION:  Okay.  And secondly, as a result, as relates to your US -- the statement that the US expects all UN member countries, what about what's going on with your investigation into Ukraine?  Have you come to any conclusions about whether President Kuchma should face some kind of sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't -- no, I don't have anything new on that.  As I remember, our team was preparing its report in conjunction with the British members who were -- we were together on that, and I'm not aware that that's coming.  I'll have to double-check at this point.

Okay.  The gentleman wanted to ask about Kazakhstan, I think.

QUESTION:  Yes.  Kazakhstan.

MR. BOUCHER:  A long time ago.

QUESTION:  Yes.  This morning, prominent Kazakh journalist Sergei Duvanov was detained by Kazakhstani police and prevented from traveling to the United States where he was supposed to speak at the Carnegie Endowment, at the Open Society Institute and the Radio Free Europe about corruption in Kazakhstan.

Mr. Duvanov was attacked just a few months ago, and nearly died, was attacked, people believed, by the government thugs.  This time he is accused of rape, something which certainly a lot of opposition experts and human rights experts in Kazakhstan say is not true.

What is the position of the US Government towards these developments in Kazakhstan? Because it's quite clear the situation deteriorates there every week, and I know that Secretary Powell spoke with President Nazarbayev in Johannesburg last time, and I wonder what happened, why the situation keeps going worse and worse, and at the same time when the Department of Justice here in Washington made serious progress in a case which involves President Nazarbayev?

MR. BOUCHER:  I would -- on the specific incident that happened, I have to say we don't really have enough information yet about the charges that were filed and the circumstances involved to be able to make a comment.

On the overall pattern that you have noted, that is the pattern of harassment and abuses of journalists that we have noted in the past.  We have regularly raised these concerns with the government, including meetings at the Secretary level and repeated meetings with our Ambassador.

I'm sorry to say the string of abuses has continued, the pattern of harassment has continued, and we'll have to continue to raise and press our concerns.

QUESTION:  New topic?

MR. BOUCHER:  New topic.

QUESTION:  In the Middle East --

MR. BOUCHER:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Did someone else have something?

MR. BOUCHER:  Well, he had the one that was somewhat related, maybe, to Iraq, which was kind of pending for a long time.

QUESTION:  Not Iraq, but the same neighborhood.

MR. BOUCHER:  Yeah, that's right.

QUESTION:  Today, Turkey was the only country that doesn't get any date from the European Union leadership, and also, especially the European leadership said to the Turkish president today, after the election, what kind of party will win the election?  Then they will decide that they will -- if they give the date or not.  Isn't that against all kind of the democracy and the human rights which their best defense?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think you're asking me --

QUESTION:  Do you have any reaction all this event?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the relationship between Turkey and the European Union other than to say that we've always supported that European aspiration of Turkey.  We've always made clear to the Europeans that we think that they should do everything possible to work with Turkey, to move closer with Turkey, to advance with Turkey, along the path of accession.

And we've also supported everything that Turkey has done in order to prepare itself for that accession.  So we will continue to encourage both sides to talk to each other seriously about this and to move as far as they possibly can because we think it's such fundamentally a good thing for all of us, that the United States needs to support it. 

Okay.  Now, Elise.  Elise has a question.

QUESTION:  There's some reports from the region that Yasser Arafat is going to make some new cabinet appointments and is going to dismiss his Interior Minister, Minister al-Yahya -- that the US has been working closely with -- for a less reform-minded, shall we say, cabinet.  Do you have anything on this?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any particular comment on the individuals who may or may not be appointed.  I would say that we've continued to meet with a wide variety of Palestinians.  We've continued to work with them on the issues of reform, which they have spoken about and cared about and advocated.  When Assistant Secretary Burns was in the region, he met with a variety of people both in this cabinet now and outside the cabinet -- people from different walks of life who have been advocating reform in the Palestinian community. 

And we have made very, very clear that we look for people who can be responsible, who can be untainted by terrorism, who can be responsible for progress and establishing progress in their community to create the kind of Palestinian state that the President talked about.  So that remains our goal, is to look for people to work with who can be responsible and take responsibility for the kind of reform that needs to happen in order to create the Palestinian state.

QUESTION:  Well, without talking about any new appointments, can you talk about the Interior Minister?  I mean, you yourself --

MR. BOUCHER:  No, I wouldn't --

QUESTION:  The Secretary --

MR. BOUCHER:  I wouldn't talk about an individual personality.

QUESTION:  Okay, but -- well, you already have.  I mean, you've already praised this individual.  And Secretary Powell has said that this is a man that the United States thinks is on the right track, has done -- is trying to take a lot of steps to improve this Palestinian security situation.  So, I mean, you've already been on record saying that you think that this is an individual that has done -- is a reform-minded person.  So what would you think of Yasser Arafat dismissing him?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not going to speculate at this point.  If we have anything more to say at the time, I'm sure we will.

QUESTION:  Have you been happy with the progress of the working groups that were set up and that I believe --

MR. BOUCHER:  I think we think a lot of good work has been done.  The task forces and the working groups under the task forces -- or the task force under the working group, I can't remember.  But there has been a lot of good work done on a lot of very specific aspects of reform, a lot of very specific aspects of financial controls, of accountability.

As you know from the statement we issued when Prime Minister Sharon visited, that we've been looking for additional ways that we can help establish that sort of transparency and accountability so that tax revenues can be returned to the Palestinians with some confidence that they'll be spent properly.  We continue to work on that. 

We continue to work on a lot of the details -- humanitarian aspects of reform, as well as, on the overall roadmap.  And what Assistant Secretary Burns has been doing in the region is consulting with the governments involved and the countries that are affected and players like the Palestinians to work out the elements of a roadmap on how to move forward on all these fronts so that we see all the parties carrying out their obligations.

Barry.

QUESTION:  Does the State Department see any positive pattern to what Arafat is doing?  Or is he just moving chess pieces around?

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't want to try to speculate on what he might do, or what he is doing.

QUESTION:  No, no --

MR. BOUCHER:  What I've made clear is --

QUESTION:  Is he making an attempt to reform is the question.

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't think we've put a lot of stock in that -- that path, the Arafat path.  I think the President made that quite clear on June 24th.  What we're looking for is for people to emerge in responsible positions who will take responsibility and be able to carry through on reform, and make it happen in a manner that's untainted by the past.

 

QUESTION:  Well, this is kind of ripe because you all spoke positively bracketing the new Finance Minister -- I think you're more enthusiastic about him than the new Interior Minister, who, after all, got to talk to the head of the CIA.  This showed some approval of what was going on, and now that's being torn apart.  I don't understand.

 

MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any comment at this moment.  I realize a lot of this is under speculation.  If we want to say something -- I think I just said, if we want to say something at the appropriate time; we will, but you know, two minutes after she asks is not the appropriate time yet.

 

QUESTION:  You actually did -- I think that you may have -- I don't know if you meant to say this or not, but when you say that you don't think we put a lot of stock in that path, the Arafat path, you're not talking about Arafat's reform efforts, are you?  You're talking about Arafat himself?

 

MR. BOUCHER:  He's -- they --

 

QUESTION:  I'm sorry, because I thought that you guys liked the Finance Minister and the Interior Minister that he put in.  Are you saying the Arafat path of reform --

 

MR. BOUCHER:  No, no, Matt.  I didn't say that and I'm not saying that.

 

QUESTION:  Okay.

 

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm saying we're not counting on Chairman Arafat to decide on what reform and what reformers.  We think there's a lot more effort in the Palestinian community to support reform, and we think there's a lot of other individuals involved in the Palestinian community to carry out reform.

 

And he was asking me what do we think of Arafat's credentials as a reformer, and I had to say that's not particularly what we're counting on for reform in the Palestinian community, more broadly speaking.

 

QUESTION:  But you did say, immediately after that, you are waiting for people to emerge.

Now, in the past, youve been happy to deal with people appointed by Arafat.  Are you suggesting there's some other way that people might emerge after being appointed by Arafat?

 

MR. BOUCHER:  Both of you, in what I said to your colleague over here, I don't think I'd change the policy this way or that way.  I didn't lean toward Arafat any more than we have or away from Arafat any more than we had.

 

The fact is that when people have emerged, through whatever process, whether it was through the parliament or through appointments or through whatever else, and shown that they're able to take responsibility and operate in a manner that's not like the past, we've been willing to work with them.  That's what we've done.  That's what we'll continue to do.

 

QUESTION:  Can I just sort of -- and the roadmap that Mr. Burns has been trying to fine-tune as he travels around the region, he's basically doing that by himself, right, without consultation with the Quartet.  At some stage -- has he made any changes to it, and is he going back to the Quartet at some stage to get their endorsement of his changes?

MR. BOUCHER:  I think he started his trip with the Quartet meeting in Paris.  If you remember, that was probably a week or ten days ago.

 Whether -- I'm sure, along the way, he's kept in touch with the other Quartet representatives.  Remember, there are several Quartet representatives who are already in Israel or Jerusalem, so - I'm sure he's kept in touch as he's gone along.  I'm not aware of any further Quartet meetings at his level, but I'll check.

QUESTION:  But is this not leading up to some kind of  -- some kind of Quartet final presentation?

MR. BOUCHER:  I'm not aware of any particular Quartet -- I'm not aware of any such meeting, but I'll check.

We have one more questions back there.

QUESTION:  It was reported in the Israeli press that the Secretary is on November 6th going to give a speech focusing on the democratization of the Arab world.

Do you confirm this report, or -- and what is the message that the Secretary is going to convey, or the content of that speech about the democratization of the Arab world?

MR. BOUCHER:  I haven't announced it yet, and I would want to say something before I would -- I would want to be able to confirm the event before I could talk about what it might be.

Okay.  Do we have one or not?

QUESTION:  I think I'm going to be pilloried if I -- well, what I -- Sharon said today apparently that he could follow the roadmap that he received two weeks ago, except for settlements, a ban on settlement activity.  Is this something that he can pick and choose from, or do you know --

MR. BOUCHER:  We were talking to all the parties about their views of the roadmap and the elements in the roadmap.  I don't think I can get into position now of talking about one individual's comments or not.

Thank you.