*EPF401 09/02/2004
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, September 2
(Malaysia, China, South Korea, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Honduras, Bahamas, Sudan, Libya, China/Taiwan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel/Syria, Israel/Palestinians, U.S.-Central America relations) (7930)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed the media September 2.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Wednesday, September 2, 2004
12:56 p.m. EDT

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

MALAYSIA
-- Statement on the Release of Anwar Ibrahim
-- Status of U.S. Embassy/Testing of White Powder

CHINA
-- Foundations for Transfers of Nuclear Equipment, Technology & Material

SOUTH KOREA
-- Voluntary Reporting of Uranium Enrichment Activity
-- Comparison to Nuclear Activity Reporting by Other Countries

NORTH KOREA
-- Importance of Disclosure of Nuclear Program
-- Status of Six-Party Talks
-- Query on Administration Position on Legislation Regarding North Korea

IRAN
-- U.S. Consultations Regarding Action on Iran's Non-Compliance
-- Sixth Report by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General on Iran's - Nuclear Activity
-- History of Non-Compliance with Treaty Obligations

PAKISTAN
-- Dismantlement of Black Market Mechanisms

HONDURAS
-- U.S. Cooperation with the Honduran Government Against Terrorism

BAHAMAS
-- Status of U.S. Mission in The Bahamas/Ordered Departure

SUDAN
-- State Department Discussions Regarding Sudan
-- Briefing by Mr. Pronk to the UN Security Council/Next Steps
-- Expansion of African Union Force/Sanctions
-- Movement on Humanitarian Issues/Security Concerns
-- U.S. Assessment of the Situation in Darfur

LIBYA
-- U.S. Communications with Pan Am 103 Families
-- Basis for Future Decisions on Sanctions

CHINA/TAIWAN
-- Query on Contact Between Secretary Powell & Taiwanese President

LEBANON
-- UN Security Council Draft Resolution on Sovereignty of Lebanon

SAUDI ARABIA
-- Query Regarding Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin

RUSSIA
-- Hostage Taking Situation in North Ossetia
-- Discussions with Russia/U.S. Offer of Assistance
-- Issue of International Terrorism

ISRAEL/SYRIA
-- Query Regarding Israel-Syria Relations & Syria's Support for Hamas

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Query on Suspension of Legislative Sessions by Palestinian Parliament

DEPARTMENT
-- U.S. Relationship with Central America and the Caribbean

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:56 p.m. EDT

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I'd like to make a very short statement on the release of Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia. We welcome the Malaysian federal court decision to release former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. This is a victory for the rule of law and the judicial process in Malaysia. We hope that the medical treatment he is planning to undergo will restore Anwar Ibrahim to good health. That's all.

Questions on this, or change of subject?

QUESTION: Yeah. You guys have been asking for -- calling for this for quite some time, and suggesting that his original trial and conviction and the earlier appeals processes were politically -- had some kind of political bent to them. I'm just wondering, if you don't see that his release now, with a new Prime Minister in power, didn't also have a political bent to it, and if you can really say that this is a victory for the rule of law, when Anwar himself is saying that he thinks that there was political influence in getting his release.

MR. BOUCHER: What I saw him saying on TV was that he thought that there was a removal of political influence, and the court was therefore able to decide on the facts to release him. But I'll leave that to him.

As far as the political factors involved, certainly, we have repeatedly emphasized our concerns about his welfare, his situation, as well as the process that put him in jail. I think we issued a statement not too long ago reiterating our continuing concern, and this is something we've raised publicly and privately over the years. What the political implications are or interpretations are of his release at this time with the new government, I think I'll just leave to other commentators.

QUESTION: Isn't it a travesty that he was kept in prison for six years for something that he appears not to have done?

MR. BOUCHER: We have certainly made clear our view that he should not have been in prison to begin with.

QUESTION: Also, Malaysia, but not Anwar. The Embassy? What's the status there?

MR. BOUCHER: Non-toxic.

QUESTION: Non-toxic.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. Let me --

QUESTION: So it's reopened?

MR. BOUCHER: An envelope containing powder was received at the Embassy -- U.S. Embassy in Malaysia. The area was immediately sealed off and appropriate precautions were taken. The substance has now been identified as non-toxic. The Embassy will reopen tomorrow.

QUESTION: Did it -- it stayed closed all day today -- or from the discovery until the end of business, it was closed?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I believe so. We're now, you know, middle of the night, tomorrow morning or something.

QUESTION: I know.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: I guess the preliminary -- sorry, the preliminary tests must have indicated it was non-toxic.

QUESTION: Because usually it takes a few days, doesn't it?

MR. BOUCHER: There is usually quick tests and then definitive tests that take a little longer.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: On China, has the United States reached an agreement with China to permit U.S. sales of nuclear technology to China, or is the United States close to reaching such an agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: The substance of this matter is that the basic foundations for such, to consider such sales, are already in place. There are two major elements. The first was 1998, when we implemented the U.S.-China Agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation. There was a certification we made to Congress and that, under that agreement that we could permit transfers of nuclear reactors fuel and components based on case-by-case review.

The second significant event was an exchange of diplomatic notes in September of 2003 that confirmed conditions and assurances governing transfers of nuclear technology which are not covered by the agreement, and those notes provided as well for a case-by-case review.

There are really no other procedural obstacles that would block transfers of nuclear equipment, material and technology between the U.S. and China, but of course, each individual transfer or sale will be subject to case-by-case review.

QUESTION: What does that mean?

QUESTION: Are you close to approving one?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any specific cases. I don't think I'm in a position to talk about them. I'd have to check.

QUESTION: So there is nothing new on this then? You already have whatever statutory thing --

MR. BOUCHER: The procedural regulatory foundation was already there. At what point we would approve a particular transfer, I'll have to check, see if there are any have been approved recently.

QUESTION: But none have been approved, period, so far, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, let me double check on the details of it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't have time enough to get that.

Okay. Mr. Schweid.

QUESTION: Another thing, please. The South Koreans have disclosed a secret uranium enrichment experiment -- I won't say program. Apparently, so far, all is known is it's a single experiment.

There's word the IAEA would like it taken up with the -- by the Security Council -- kind of ironic, that's what you'd like the IAEA to do with Iran. But here's your ally possibly coming under scrutiny in the Security Council.

Any comments? Any -- did we know about this?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware -- who at the International Atomic Energy Agency said it should be taken up by the Council?

QUESTION: We're hearing that. We do know that South Korea --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm hearing that, too, but for the first time.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, the first time for me, too.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: No, they --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me tell you the situation.

QUESTION: But they disclosed it, as did South Korea.

MR. BOUCHER: Let me try to explain what's going on here. We have been in contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Government of Korea about uranium enrichment activity that took place in South Korea.

The information about this activity was provided to the Agency by Korea as part of its initial declaration under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Korea voluntarily adopted in February 2004.

We expect that the Agency will fully investigate the matter and keep the Board of Governors fully informed. It is important that all such activity be investigated. When the investigation is complete, we and other members of the Board will be able to draw the appropriate conclusions. So that needs to be done.

I would say that South Korea has voluntarily reported this activity. They are cooperating fully and proactively in order to demonstrate that the activity has been eliminated and it is no longer cause for concern. Their transparency and cooperation in resolving this matter is a strong example of how states should respond in complying with their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

QUESTION: So you --

QUESTION: Does that --

QUESTION: You have no criticism, in fact, the State Department is pleased that they've come forward and told the world what they've been doing. And what they've been doing, I thought, is what folks, particularly in this building, would like to see countries stop doing -- is proliferating.

MR. BOUCHER: What they had done in the past, and as I said, they are now in the process of verifying to the Agency that that activity has been eliminated and will not be repeated. But what they had done in the past was activity that should not have occurred. It's activity that should have been reported under the Additional Protocol. We're glad that they've done so, and we're glad that they're working with the Agency.

The scale of this enrichment activity, much, much smaller than that being discussed in the situations of North Korea or Iran, but it's activity that should not have occurred and must be eliminated and we're glad that South Korea is working in a transparent manner to do that. That's a good example.

QUESTION: So you don't see any inconsistency in this revelation and what the South Koreans have -- what you have said and they have said that they want to see the complete denuclearization of the Peninsula, and you don't have any reason to doubt that that's their true --

MR. BOUCHER: No, in fact, their willingness to report this in a transparent manner and work with the International Atomic Energy Agency to make sure it's eliminated and not repeated is, in fact, I think, to some extent, a demonstration of their -- of the way we would like to see things handled.

QUESTION: And if you could just say something that's painfully obvious. You don't think that this revelation gives any credence to North Korea's program, or gives the North Koreans any excuse to say that they need a deterrent against their neighbor to the south?

MR. BOUCHER: No, there's -- as I said, it should be an example, as there are others out in the world, of how any state that is engaged in enrichment activity could react, could report it. North Korea, as you know, after initially admitting it to us, has subsequently started to deny even the existence of an enrichment program, and they've expelled IAEA inspectors. They have announced their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So it remains important for North Korea to disclose their activity and to work with others on the -- what we have all agreed on, which is the denuclearization of the Peninsula.

QUESTION: Has North Korea disclosed this to the U.S., or did you -- you know, some time ago, or --

MR. BOUCHER: They talked to us as they were preparing their report for the Agency.

QUESTION: Do you know if any other countries, particularly Pakistan, helped South Korea with this experiment?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any information on that at this point. I don't know what's in their report about how they conducted the activity, but I'm sure that's one of the areas the Agency will want to look at as they work on this matter.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Question. Was -- when South Korea conducted -- I'm sorry, but --

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, we'll start with you and move back.

QUESTION: When South Korea conducted this activity, was it violating its commitments at the time?

MR. BOUCHER: I guess that's a legal matter that I would have to check, and I have to -- I have to -- I don't know is the answer right now.

QUESTION: And then -- and to follow up on Matt's question, surely this will make your diplomacy with North Korea even more difficult.

MR. BOUCHER: I would not conclude that.

QUESTION: You don't think the North Koreans would be disturbed by the knowledge -- by the admission that one of their neighbors, indeed, what they regard as their main antagonist -- was conducting HEU -- or was it (inaudible) --

MR. BOUCHER: I think any -- I was going to say any rational observer, but let me just say that -- (laughter.)

QUESTION: That was not a condition that I made. (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: I think the example we have here is of a country that did once conduct activities which should not occur and should not happen again, which is willing, in a transparent manner to bring this to the attention of the appropriate international body, to allow that body to thoroughly investigate, and that goes out of its way to demonstrate to that body that there is no longer any cause for concern.

That's what Libya did. Libya came forward and said, we've engaged in certain activities which we don't want to do anymore, and we want your help -- U.S.-U.K., International Atomic Energy Agency -- and this is a much bigger scale than what we're talking about here.

So every example of that, of a nation that comes forward and says, "Help us get rid of this program" is a good example. That's happened many times over the last 10 or 15 years. It happened down in South Africa. It's happened in other nations, as well. And that's the kind of example, I think, that South Korea is following. And we hope that other nations would follow it as well.

QUESTION: At the same time, the amount of the uranium is, as analysts are saying, is well above what would have been needed for a civilian program, so there's not really a good explanation for why they had it, why they needed it. Don't -- I mean, --

MR. BOUCHER: I understand it's .2 grams. I don't --

QUESTION: I'm reading an analysis that says that's well beyond the level that would be needed for a civilian program.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I'm not a nuclear scientist. The point --

QUESTION: Well, me neither. But if that is true --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the point is that whatever the level was, it's -- the program is going to be eliminated and that they're working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to do that in an open manner.

QUESTION: You have no criticism that they would even embark on such a program?

MR. BOUCHER: I said it shouldn't have happened.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to Iran?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: No, can we stay on the proliferation issue?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's Iran.

QUESTION: Oh, Iran. I'm sorry. Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: But somebody's got a Korea question.

QUESTION: Can you tell if this has any impact on the coming six-party talk at all?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we think it's still important to move forward on the six-party context. We are working with other parties to achieve another round of talks by the end of September, as the parties all agreed and we don't expect this to have any impact on that. It should not.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on the diplomatic efforts to bring people around to the U.S. position that the IAEA Board of Governors should refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the Security Council?

MR. BOUCHER: The United States has been consulting actively with other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board in order to secure action by the Board at its upcoming meeting.

As Secretary Powell reaffirmed yesterday, we believe the Board should report Iran's non-compliance to the Security Council. There is both a legal basis and a security imperative for taking this step, as Iran has demonstrated over the last year, that it's willing to ignore the current level of international pressure to end its activities and is willing to -- and to cooperate with the IAEA.

We have been consulting actively, as I said, with other governments in Vienna, where our delegation is working with other members of the Board of Governors. We have shared our view -- our initial impressions of the report with many other governments, including the other governments on the Board, through our embassies in those nations. The Under Secretary for Science and Technology, Mr. Bolton, has maintained an active dialogue, particularly with the European members of the Board, with his counterparts. The Secretary of State has been talking with his counterparts. He spoke last weekend with German Foreign Minister Fischer about the matter. He's been -- he talked today with British Foreign Secretary Straw, and has been maintaining active communications with them.

So I think the first thing is to really draw people's attention to what the report says and to the situation that this brings us to. We've had six reports from the Director General about Iran's nuclear activity. We have long talked about that activity, have long viewed Iran's history of activity as non-compliance with its obligations, with its own commitments. That was the situation we were in starting last year when these reports started coming out.

Now, over the past year, Iran made commitments that it would suspend its programs and otherwise rectify its behavior. What this report, the sixth report now says, is that since the last report in June, Iran has notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that it's going to commence conversion activity, that it's going to continue with its centrifuge program, and that it's not going to meet the commitments that it made to the Europeans, and that it's not going to meet the requirements that have been requested four different times by the International Atomic Energy Agency Board in requesting a suspension of all enrichment activity.

So in September, as we look at this question, we are at a situation where Iran has made very, very clear not only that it's not complying, but it doesn't intend to comply, and that's where we have a difference from previous Board meetings.

And so that's the situation we want to focus people's attention on. That's a circumstance that we think requires action, as I said, both legally and as a security matter from the Board in order to pass this on to the Security Council.

QUESTION: Are you hearing any support from the EU-3, particularly Straw, this morning?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't want to characterize their views at this point. I'd say the discussion is going forward. We -- as I said, first thing is to focus attention on the report and the situation that we're in now, and as we prepare for the meeting to talk about the steps that we think can and should be taken. And as the Secretary said yesterday, we need to explore this more with people and find out if consensus can be brought together at this meeting to refer the matter to the Security Council.

QUESTION: Richard, do you think that this -- as you noted, there have been six reports, and this report doesn't seem to be all that much different in the sense that, while it does say that Iran hasn't met all of its commitments, it does say that there is some progress, which, in the past, states have used as an excuse to kind of kick the can down to the next meeting. Is there something specific about this report that you think you'll be able to use to build consensus? And if not, do you have a limit of how many reports you're going to let this --

MR. BOUCHER: I thought that's what I just tried to explain. Maybe I didn't do it very well. But there is a difference between June's situation and September's situation. In June, going back to last year, the Iranians were still promising suspension, were still promising to abide by their commitments and the requirements of the Board.

During the course of this report, and this is clear in the report itself, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was going to resume centrifuge activity, it was going to resume conversion activity. There's 37 metric tons of yellowcake was going to be converted into uranium hexafluoride, which is the feedstock for gas centrifuge enrichment.

And so, at this point, in September, we come not only with Iran's failure to comply with its obligations and Iran's record of noncompliance over the years, but with the Iranians making clear to the Agency, as reported by the Agency, that they did not intend to comply with the suspension of this activity, or with their promises to suspend the activity.

QUESTION: If I could follow up, though. But on the issue of progress, I mean, as I said, some countries have used like a small bit of progress that's cited in this report as a reason to kind of give it one more chance at the next meeting. I mean, do you -- obviously, you don't have an unlimited amount of patience, and at what point do you say if the IAEA isn't going to take measures, you know, we have to do something unilaterally?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we think there is -- we think it's time for the Board to move this matter to the Security Council, to refer -- report the non-compliance to the Security Council. We think that's amply demonstrated by the facts of this report and the history that's demonstrated in the five previous reports. That's what we'll be working towards and we'll see if others agree and whether we can form a consensus around that point.

QUESTION: Could I ask about Pakistan?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's finish this.

QUESTION: (Inaudible). On Pakistan. As a provider of technology, Russia has pledged to suspend at least its reactor systems. There were calls -- I have been at the receiving end from some experts in town, former officials, who think that not enough pressure is being applied to Pakistan. Do you folks think, is Pakistan still actively helping Iran?

MR. BOUCHER: Pakistan has said that it has dismantled the black market mechanisms, the network that provided illicit nuclear supplies and equipment to other governments. They have shared information about that network with other governments and with the International Atomic Energy Agency. President Musharraf has pledged that no such activity will be allowed to occur. That's something we continue to work with Pakistan on.

QUESTION: But if there is a renegade operation, you would figure though they'll collar it this time?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, they have found --

QUESTION: They denied the last one until it was just painfully obvious what was going on. They said it didn't exist.

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, I'm not going to speculate on stuff. Look at the facts. Look at the history. Look at what's happened. Look at what they've done. They have dismantled a major network and provided information on it. I think that ought to demonstrate what Pakistan's intentions are in this matter and what they would do if we and others were -- or they were able to find another such operation.

QUESTION: Richard, forgive my ignorance about this, but Iran -- is this correct that Iran is not treaty-bound to halt the centrifuge development?

MR. BOUCHER: Again --

QUESTION: That was something that they said that they would do to the Europeans, correct? Not something that is --

MR. BOUCHER: The suspension of enrichment activity was something that they promised to the Europeans and that was a requirement of the Board in four of its resolutions. So I don't know the answer on treaty and Additional Protocol requirements in this regard, but it was something that was --

QUESTION: Well, as correct that Iran is --

MR. BOUCHER: -- specified in Board resolutions and that Iran itself has promised.

QUESTION: Right. But those resolutions don't have the force of a Treaty, and they have not signed the Additional Protocol or ratified it, correct? Even though they said they --

QUESTION: They've signed, but not ratified.

MR. BOUCHER: They've signed but not ratified it (inaudible).

QUESTION: All right. But that does not mean that they're -- that means that they're not yet bound by it.

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, there is a long history of non-compliance with their treaty obligations.

QUESTION: Well, apparently South Korea was in non-compliance, and you're very happy that they came forward and said that -- admitted that they're guilty of --

MR. BOUCHER: And we'll say the Board will take -- and I said the Board will take appropriate action once these things are investigated --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: -- just as the Board took appropriate action on Libya once those things had been explored and investigated. But we think it's time, on Iran, for the Board to take appropriate action.

We've got six reports on Iran -- six reports from the Director General on Iran that detail an 18-year history of non-compliance, that detail new efforts by Iran and plans by Iran not to comply. It's time.

Sir.

QUESTION: Can I shift, asking another issue on terrorism?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's go to another issue on terrorism.

QUESTION: According to some reports of the Honduran Government, the al-Qaida operative, Adnan Shukrijumah have gathered with some gang members in Tegucigalpa, trying to recruit them to be part of their war against -- against the U.S., maybe. I would like to know if you have receive any reports of the Honduran Government in regards with that --

MR. BOUCHER: I really think that that's a specific matter that the Honduran Government would have to deal with -- not something I can deal with from here.

QUESTION: Have they requested some assistance to the U.S. Government?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, that's a matter that the Honduran Government would be happy to answer your question on, I'm sure. But it's not something for us to answer here. We cooperate with the Honduran Government and many other governments against terrorism, have a lot of good partners in this region against terrorism, but specifically what the Honduran Government may or may not be doing in this case and what sort of cooperation may or may not be requested is a question for them.

QUESTION: Well, have you receive any reports about this meeting of this terrorist --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm -- it's not something I would be able to address. I don't know myself, but it's not something I'd be able to address. They have to address it on the scene down there.

Yeah. Okay, Charlie.

QUESTION: Staying in the western hemispheric region, as far as Hurricane Frances is concerned, do you have an update on the Mission in the Bahamas, how many people are still left there or not? Any --

MR. BOUCHER: We have -- I think we've announced we're proceeding through an Ordered Departure. It is proceeding in an orderly manner. The last remaining non-emergency U.S. Government employees are expected to have departed the Bahamas today.

We understand the international airports are closing at noon today. Private American citizens have had the opportunity to depart the Bahamas by commercial airlines. The Embassy has contacted the local American citizen community by the Warden system and has urged those American citizens who choose to remain to exercise maximum caution, take prudent measures and follow the directions of local authorities and hotel management. The Embassy remains closed, but will provide emergency services to American citizens.

As far as Ordered Departures go, I'm afraid, for security reasons, we never give the number of American personnel either that have left or who remain, but we're down to the minimal emergency staff.

Sir.

QUESTION: Change subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Be my guest.

QUESTION: On Sudan. Is the Secretary scheduled to meet with Jan Pronk, and what's the next step, I guess, after he delivers his report?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that there any is meeting scheduled between the Secretary and Jan Pronk. The Secretary has kept in close touch with the Secretary General on Sudan. Our Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Connie Newman, just returned from there, from her meetings in Khartoum, and the Secretary has been following this closely and talking about it with his counterpart foreign ministers as well.

Now that Mr. Pronk has briefed the Security Council, we think it's important now to focus on what the next steps can be, focus on the further measures that can be taken, the key being to ensure effective action on the ground to provide better security for the people who live in Darfur.

One of the things that we have been discussing with others is the expansion of the African Union force, which we think would be a good step. That is now being talked about, I see, not only by us but the Secretary General, by the African Union, by the Government of Khartoum, as well. That's a point that Assistant Secretary Newman raised during her visit to Khartoum, but that would be a useful step. So that's one of the things I think is prominent.

But we'll be looking at that and other steps, as we proceed to discuss with other nations what goes in a Security Council action, at this point.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about --

MR. BOUCHER: Teri.

QUESTION: The Secretary said on the plane last night that the matter will not go immediately to sanctions. What did he mean by that and how can he prejudge what the Security Council will do? And why wouldn't you want it to go immediately to sanctions if you believe the Government hasn't done enough, as has been repeatedly stated?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, the focus has to be on effective action that can improve the situation on the ground. I think the Secretary explained his view yesterday on the airplane, that there were actions that we would look at but not -- sanctions was obviously one possibility, but not necessarily the immediate option. And that's where we stand.

There are many -- there are other measures, there are many measures the Security Council could take. What we have to do is look at the situation with other people and decide what are the best -- what's the best thing to make people safer in Darfur.

QUESTION: But by saying it won't go immediately to sanctions, you don't think he is ruling out that it will go to sanctions at this time? It sounds to me like he is.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. He's not making that our proposal at this time, but there are many steps that we can take and we'll be looking at what they are.

QUESTION: Isn't that taking some of the pressure off Khartoum though, who had been threatened that it could go to sanctions at this time?

MR. BOUCHER: The Council statement still is out there, that not going immediately to sanctions doesn't necessarily mean that sanctions are off for longer periods of time. We'll see what the Council wants to do.

QUESTION: What is the proposal at this time?

MR. BOUCHER: We're putting it together in conjunction with other nations, now that we've heard the Pronk Report.

QUESTION: Well, Richard, after the -- after Pronk released his report, Ambassador Danforth, you know, took issue with the idea that the Sudanese Government has stopped its involvement in the attacks against the Darfurians. I mean, so basically, he's saying that the Sudanese Government is not implicit by not doing anything, in terms of the security, but that continues to be actively involved in what's going on in the conflict.

MR. BOUCHER: I think you've all read the report that was -- the written report that was submitted. I didn't see the briefing by Mr. Pronk this morning, but the written report certainly outlines a number of instances where the UN has received information that the Government of Sudan -- forces of the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit militias had carried out attacks as recently as last week together, had said that those were being looked into. As the African Union has said, they had such reports and were looking into them.

So there are these reports that we are very concerned about. We have had similar information as well that this pattern of Government and Jingaweit collusion and attacks has continued, and so that's something that is of very serious concern to us and something that does need to be addressed.

QUESTION: Well, does it need to be addressed in terms of security on the ground, or does it need to be addressed in terms of measures against the Government to ensure that they stop?

MR. BOUCHER: It needs to be addressed in a way that can best ensure that the people of Darfur are safe, and that's what we're going to be looking at.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about Libya -- some families --

QUESTION: No, on Darfur.

QUESTION: Darfur? Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Richard, with respect to some comments when he met reporters, Mustafa Osman Ismail, who is the Sudanese Foreign Minister --

MR. BOUCHER: Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: -- said that everyone will recognize our achievements improving humanitarian and security situation in troubled Darfur, and maintains that they've improved the situation between 70 and 80 percent. But what do you do where, I guess in the last half month, Jack Straw, Jesse Jackson -- you just mentioned the trip by your envoys -- everybody has been there and they don't get it. Or do they want to get it? Meaning this Khartoum --

MR. BOUCHER: I think, as we've said before, look at the UN report. There's been movement on humanitarian issues, the humanitarian access situation is better. There has been, as reported from Abuja yesterday, some progress in terms of the peace, political discussions between the Government and the rebels, particularly yesterday on the humanitarian issues. There have been some steps in the security area, but there are still major problems and serious concerns in the security area, and our focus has to be on how to bring security to the people of Darfur, and that can involve a variety of steps. And we'll be looking at those in conjunction with other members of the Council.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

QUESTION: Can you tell us more about Connie Newman's assessment after talking to the Government?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite know what more there is to say at this point.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) --

MR. BOUCHER: I know.

QUESTION: -- telling who she met with, so --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think I've tried to describe her discussions both yesterday and today, that the assessment that we have, that we share with the UN and others, is that the Government has taken insufficient action on the security side of things, and in fact, that there continue to be disturbing reports that the Government forces might still be involved in attacks. Our assessment is the Government needs to take serious action along the lines of what the Secretary and the Secretary General talked about when they were there, along the lines of exactly what the Security Council has asked for in the past. And we need to make very clear, the international community does, how those steps need to be carried out by the Government, and that is what we're doing and that's what we will do with other members of the Council.

QUESTION: So this is what she said. What did they say?

MR. BOUCHER: What did they say? I'm really not here to speak on behalf of the Government. One of your colleagues has cited some of the statements the Government has made.

QUESTION: On Pan -- on Libya? Can we try Libya, please?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Sure.

QUESTION: Some Pan Am 103 families pleading with the U.S. to do three major things by September 22nd, some compensation -- you know what I mean -- assets unfrozen, et cetera.

Is there -- this may not be the building to ask the question, but I'm asking it anyhow.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, there are a couple of things to say.

First of all, we remain in very close touch with the Pan Am 103 families. They have a wide range of views on U.S. policy towards Libya, and we do keep them all appraised of developments in the evolving U.S.-Libya relationship, and we're always interested in hearing their views and listening to what they have to say.

So we've seen the letter, we appreciate the letter. We continue to do everything we can as part of our policy process to protect the interests and support the families of the victims of Pan Am 103, consistent with overall U.S. national interests.

We have, in the past, assisted and encouraged extensions of the applicable escrow arrangements, and we are continuing to remain in close touch with families' representatives as another one of these deadlines approaches, September 22nd.

And what they're talking about in the letter is the prospect that some of these steps that are -- would be required can be done by then, and that, in the end, depends on the Libyan Government. The easing and lifting of sanctions needs to be based on Libyan actions in implementing its December 19th commitments. Our future decisions on sanctions will be based on our legal requirements, on Libyan behavior and our overall national interests; and within that framework, we're seeking to protect the families' interests in their settlement.

I think we're very mindful of the families' concerns and of their interests. For details on their agreement, you'd have to check with them or their lawyers. And we are engaged in a very active dialogue with Libya to try to continue to make the kind of progress that we've seen in the past, the kind of progress that was a result, and further reciprocal steps by the United States.

QUESTION: When this last came up in this room, pleased as the Administration was with the many things Libya had done, didn't think that the game was over -- that there were other things you wanted Libya to do, and, for one thing, you couldn't remove them from the terrorism list unless they had performed better, to put it badly.

Is their record still somewhat questionable in some areas?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say we continue to make progress with Libya in a variety of areas. We're working very intensely on, particularly, the nonproliferation issues with Libya right now. We'll continue to try to make progress with them on those issues. But each of these things needs to proceed according to Libyan activity, Libyan behavior, and we're not at the point yet where we could certify under the terrorism sanctions, for example, that that behavior had changed completely to the point where we can lift the sanctions.

Those things will be looked at as part of the process, but we're just not at that point yet there with every aspect.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what you want from them, in terms of nonproliferation?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can go into detail at this point. As you know, we've made -- there was considerable progress on the nuclear area, chemical area. We've continued to work with them on missiles. So a lot of these things -- many of these things have been dealt with to a very great extent, but there's continuing work going on in terms of their commitments in some of these areas.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. We'll get back to you soon.

QUESTION: I feel kind of stupid about this because I was going to ask yesterday, but I totally forgot on the plane -- slipped my mind. When he was in Panama, did the Secretary have any contact with the Taiwanese President?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: None?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: On Lebanon.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you expect getting nine votes and no veto by Permanent Member in the UN Security Council voting today?

MR. BOUCHER: We are going forward with a resolution. There's a meeting this afternoon at the United Nations. We are co-sponsoring a resolution with France that would reaffirm the Council's longstanding position that Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence be respected.

We've been discussing the issue with Council members. We've asked for their support on this resolution. We expect the resolution to be discussed and brought to a vote some time today, although I'm told it might not be until sometime this evening. At the UN, certainly, we go ahead with these things with some confidence that we can get them passed. We'll see when the final votes are counted how many votes we get.

QUESTION: A follow-up. Richard, does the draft resolution mean that Syria has to withdraw from Lebanon and to disarm the militia within 30 days, and do not extend the term of the President Lahoud?

MR. BOUCHER: I would leave the -- I think the text is out. So rather than having me reinterpret the resolution or try to accept your language, I'd just stick with the language of the resolution.

Teri.

QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia. Have the Saudis informed you, or do you know in any other way that -- about the -- about Abdul -- Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin surrendering to authorities? He was one of the people that they believe was involved in this siege that killed 22 people, including, I believe there were some Americans in there, in Khobar. Do you know anything about this?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see if there is anything we can say, or that we have on that.

QUESTION: Just any reaction to the -- to their arrest?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if we have any reaction. I think, first and foremost, as I told your colleague from Honduras, that, first and foremost, these kind of activities, whether they're investigations or arrests or -- what do you call it -- people turning themselves in, need to be confirmed and dealt with by the government authorities involved. But whether we have some reaction to such news, let me see.

QUESTION: Well, especially, when Americans were killed by these people.

MR. BOUCHER: Whether we have a reaction to the news, let me see.

David.

QUESTION: Richard, have you made any contacts with the Russian Government on the standoff in Ossetia? Anything substantive to say about it?

MR. BOUCHER: We've been keeping in touch with the Russian Government. Our Embassy in Moscow has been in touch with them. The Secretary spoke this morning with Foreign Minister Lavrov and conveyed our concern about the situation, reiterated the offers we've made that we'll help out if there is something we can do to help. I'm not aware of any specific requests at this point from the Russian Government, but we are certainly following the situation very, very closely. The White House has, I think, talked yesterday about the phone call from President Bush to President Putin again on the subject about our concern for the welfare of these children and the people in the school and our absolute condemnation of terrorism and our desire to support the Russians in their fight against terrorism.

QUESTION: Was that conversation on the plane (inaudible) -- the Secretary?

MR. BOUCHER: With the Foreign Minister? It was today. It was in Washington.

QUESTION: So you already had it?

MR. BOUCHER: From Washington, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: No, not at this point, I mean, we'll see. If there is anything they think we can do, we're happy to do.

QUESTION: Richard, in those conversations, are you urging the Russians to kind of make a push for a political solution to Chechnya in an effort to curb some of this terrorism? Are you considering this an issue of international terrorism as the Russians have kind of indicated?

MR. BOUCHER: This is an issue of international terrorism. The Russians are quite aware of our overall position on Chechnya, the need to pursue a political settlement, but anybody who disagrees with Russian policy should also pursue a political settlement and there is no excuse and no justification for this kind of hostage taking, for this kind of terror exercised against school children and the others who are being held.

QUESTION: But you haven't advised that, you know, in an effort to curb some of this might be beneficial if --

MR. BOUCHER: There is no excuse. We don't link the political settlement with acts of terror. We're absolutely firm condemning these acts of terror and standing with the Russian Government in fighting terrorism.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Let's go to two more.

QUESTION: Did you -- has the State Department had anything to say about Israel's stance? I mean, there are ominous sounds coming from Israel apropos Syria and Syria's support for Hamas. Are you concerned that Israel might make a move against Syria that you wouldn't like to see happen?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if we have anything to say on that subject. I don't have anything right now.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Nobody on a high level has talked to the Israelis?

MR. BOUCHER: We certainly -- our Embassy keeps in close touch with the Israelis, when you have something like the bombings that occurred yesterday and they keep in touch on issues involving Syria and terrorism as well, but first of all, you know, make clear Israel has a right to defend itself and we don't -- they don't come to us and we don't approve of Israeli military operations. So that's not a subject of discussion.

But we ourselves have made clear our concerns about Syria's support for various groups.

QUESTION: When you check on that, could you check on the (inaudible) about the Israeli forces blowing up the two apartment blocs in Gaza?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I will see if there's anything to say.

Sir.

QUESTION: Korean lawmaker -- some Korean lawmakers handed a letter to the American Embassy in Seoul expressing their opposition against North Korean human right act, which will be discussed in the Senate this month.

MR. BOUCHER: Against North Korean what?

QUESTION: Human right act -- which will be discussed in the Senate this month.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on it?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't, at this point. I don't know if the Administration has taken a position on the act or not. I'll have to see. Okay?

No, we've got a few more. Sir.

QUESTION: Richard, following the bombings in Beersheba yesterday, the bus bombings, the Palestinian parliament has suspended legislative sessions, with respect to the, I guess, intransigence of Chairman Arafat to reform the security issues. And is this the steps that you've been looking for?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know exactly what happened or what the implications might be. I think you'd have to get political commentary from people out there.

QUESTION: Does U.S. have a strong relation and cooperation of the countries in Central and the Caribbean -- Central American and the Caribbean, to avoid that some of these countries can become safe haven for terrorists?

MR. BOUCHER: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:42 p.m.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents