13 March 2001 Full Transcript of State Department Briefing U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing Tuesday, March 13 2001 Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I would be glad to take your questions. Mr. Schweid. Question: Would you mind taking another swing at how the Administration feels about the growing friendship between Russia and Iran? Is there anything ominous about it, so far as you know? Are these weapons -- do you see weapons sales that might pose a danger? Mr. Boucher: I don't think there is another swing to be had. I think we've been quite clear that our concerns are with sales of advanced conventional weaponry or sensitive technologies, assistance to programs like the nuclear area where Iran obviously has nuclear ambitions, and we don't think that cooperation with Iran in that sphere is well advised. We have been quite clear in the past with Russia. We have not seen, at this juncture, any particular details or contracts or information coming out of this visit, but we would continue to be concerned about any sales of advanced conventional weapons or sensitive technologies, which we think are not only a problem, a security threat to the United States and other countries that have interests in the region, but in countries of the Persian Gulf, but also ultimately could harm Russia's interests as well. Q: And you've told them about this, I suppose? Mr. Boucher: We've had a frequent discussion of this going back many years, as I think you know the whole history of these, going back to the early days after the Soviet Union, actually the late period of the Soviet Union as well. Q: I'm sorry to introduce -- well, I'm not sorry, but I'm introducing a political element. You remember late in the campaign the Republicans rounded up mostly ex-Republican Secretaries of State, Defense Secretaries, et cetera, and complained about the Gore-Chernomyrdin arrangement, suggesting that Al Gore, the Vice President, wasn't, you know, on guard against Russia technology proliferation. And now it seems, by the face of it at least, at least as bad as it was before. I don't know where I'm going with this question but -- (laughter) -- Mr. Boucher: I don't either, actually. Q: But it strikes me that you don't have a proper mechanism. You can't do Gore -- I mean, you can't do Cheney/whoever because the Administration criticized that arrangement so severely. What mechanism is there besides the usual diplomatic dialogue to try to keep a check on what the Russians are doing that are clearly not in the US's interest? Mr. Boucher: Well, I don't think you need to say what mechanism is there, apart from the regular diplomatic means that are available. That's like saying, you know, what mechanism, apart from cars, buses and trains, can you use to get to work in the morning? The fact is, we have the cars, buses and trains of the diplomatic business that we use all the time, and we will be taking up these issues with the Russians directly through our Embassy in Moscow, perhaps through their representatives here, and obviously through high-level visitors, and occasions when we meet with high-level Russians, such as a visit by Sergei Ivanov this week. Q: (Inaudible) from Moscow, or we're waiting -- Mr. Boucher: Not at this point. We don't have any more information. We haven't had the discussion -- Q: Are we just asking for information first? I mean, if we don't know what they're selling, we don't if we're -- Mr. Boucher: Obviously, as I indicated yesterday, first and foremost, our interest is in finding out if there is any there, what the sales might be, what do they mean by selling defensive, in their view, weapons? Our concern is, as I said, is with advanced conventional weapons; it is with sensitive technologies. So first and foremost, we would want to know what this involves, if it involves anything serious at all. But second of all, I'm sure in the course of those discussions, as we have in the past, we would make quite clear our views about how ill advised it is to sell advanced technologies to this region. Q: Did Ivanov happen to mention this to the Secretary when they met in Cairo that -- Mr. Boucher: I don't know that Ivanov mentioned anything. I think when the Secretary met with the Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Ivanov in Cairo, he did raise the issue of Russia's sales to Iran and our concerns about that. So it has been an ongoing issue for us. Q: Richard, can we move to something -- a related subject? Q: Can we stay on this a bit? Q: Two questions. One, would you be considering -- are you -- is the State Department at this point considering applying the 2000 Iran Nonproliferation Act sanctions or any of the other many laws that Congress has passed on this, considering that the Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement actually said that we would enforce those penalties, based on their agreement not to set up new contracts? Well, here we are. Mr. Boucher: I think you have distorted a number of things. First of all, we will follow the law; we always follow the law. Second of all, the earlier agreement, as I understood it, did not -- those laws, as far as I understand them, have to do with the sale of advanced conventional weapons, and the early understandings were that Russia would not sell advanced conventional weapons, and that we made that determination at the time and stuck to it as long as Russia did not sell advanced conventional weapons. Obviously, if they did, the provisions of US law would come into play. Q: And if I could follow up. Was this a complete shock to the State Department, considering that Foreign Minister Ivanov assured Secretary Albright at the time that there were no new contracts in the offing with Iran? Mr. Boucher: Once again, you are going back to December, when they abrogated the understanding, and at that point said that they didn't have any new contracts. Now, do they have new contracts now? We'll have to ask, we'll have to find out. It's not clear from the press reporting that they do. Q: Just a quick one. Can you just confirm that you will bring this up with national security man Ivanov tomorrow? Mr. Boucher: I hesitate to go quite so far as to say a specific meeting at a specific time will involve a specific subject. I would say I would expect this to come up during the course of his visit here. Q: (Inaudible.) Q: (Inaudible.) Mr. Boucher: Just about. Q: And sorry -- and secondly, can we take it from your emphasis on advanced conventional weapons and sensitive technologies that you are not concerned about the other things, about -- Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure I can say I'm not concerned about the other things, because I'm not sure I can describe all the other possible things that they might sell. What we want to do is hear from them what they have in mind, what they intend to do. We know from US law and from our basic concerns about the region that advanced conventional weapons and sensitive technologies are the most serious concerns that we have. I can't quite say that everything else is okay. I'm sure some of the others probably doesn't matter as much. Q: This presumably is generated by, then, Russia's economic situation. The last Republican administration, the last Republican Secretary of State, Mr. Eagleburger, was very understanding of arms transfers that he thought were not advanced, that were not threatening to the United States. Mr. Boucher: Having been around at the time, as you were, I remember several occasions when Secretary Eagleburger raised arms transfers to Iran with the Russians. Q: Yes, but I'm saying that there were two sides. He showed some understanding of their economic situation, thought innocuous transfers or things that weren't threatening were, you know, not a problem, understanding how much Russia was in need of capital. Do you see any leeway here that maybe there is a gray area, Moscow needs money and therefore Moscow steps right up to that line, that danger line, that red line? Or do you want to open a big aid program? I mean, Russia is in trouble financially. They've got to sell big guns. Mr. Boucher: I don't want to freelance on this. I have not heard anyone in this Administration express the view that Russia needs to sell arms for economic reasons, that Russia should sell arms for economic reasons. Obviously, in the modern world, as Russia reforms its economy, there are abundant opportunities for investment and for exports and for economic development in Russia without relying on arms sales as a principal source of revenue. I would point to the price of oil and the price of other raw materials these days. Q: Richard, depending upon which type of weapons systems you're able to confirm that the Russians have sold to the Iranians, would there be ramifications as far as the US is concerned? Mr. Boucher: Yes, depending. Q: And what would those be? Mr. Boucher: It depends. Q: They wouldn't get as much aid as they might have wanted? Mr. Boucher: Again, we don't know what we're dealing with here. The first important thing is to find out what they mean by "defensive weapons," what they intend to sell, and whether they have any contracts. Once we find out that both from law and policy, we'll have a better framework. What I have made clear is that there are certain things which quite clearly would cause serious concern to the United States. Q: And serious ramifications? Mr. Boucher: And serious ramifications, either legal or policy ones. But I don't know -- till we know what they're dealing with, we don't know what we might -- what it might cost. Q: Can we now move to a somewhat related topic? The Russians are unhappy about the treatment of Mr. Borodin in New York. I am wondering if you can tell us what this building's understanding of the situation involving him is and what the status is of -- did you receive an official, formal demarche about him being moved to the hospital without consular notice? Mr. Boucher: We heard some expression of concern over the result of Friday's bail hearing at our Embassy in Moscow. The bail question is a matter for the courts to decide. I would point out that Russian consular officials have regular access to Mr. Borodin. Most recently they saw him yesterday. The Russians were informed when we learned that he was being transferred to a hospital. I want to be absolutely clear on the facts of this matter. He is being held pursuant to the Swiss extradition request. There is no US charges against Mr. Borodin. In an interview that was published on March 7th, he repeated his willingness to travel to Switzerland and to meet with prosecutors. He can waive the extradition proceedings at any time and agree to go to Switzerland to be turned over to Swiss authorities to face his charges in Switzerland. But has not pursued those options, and that is why he remains in detention in the United States. Q: So there are no grounds for the Russian concerns? Mr. Boucher: As far as I know, they expressed concerns to us about the outcome of the bail hearing, the fact that he wasn't given bail. That's a decision for our courts to make. Q: Well, they put out a statement today saying that they have complained about not having any notification of his transfer to the hospital, so was that not correct? Mr. Boucher: I think we did inform them when was being transferred to the hospital. Q: So there is no grounds for this complaint? Mr. Boucher: "This complaint"? I haven't seen the complaint, but it would not be appropriate to say that they were not informed because they were informed. Q: Can you elaborate on Mr. Tobin, who is being held in Russia? I think he was due a consular hearing last week. Mr. Boucher: Let me see if I have the most recent on that. We have visited him recently, and I think we'll soon see him again. I don't have my details with me, but we have been in regular touch with him as his case moves forward, and I can get you an update later. Q: And do you have any comment on North Korea's decision to cancel its talks with the South? And do you think it's possible that the attitude taken by the United States has any role in this? Mr. Boucher: I think it would be pure speculation on my part or anyone's part to try to make a connection like that. They didn't specify any reasons for postponing the South-North ministerial that was expected to begin on March 13th in Seoul. There is no reason to believe that, as has happened in the past when these things have been postponed, that this ministerial will not be rescheduled. We've made quite clear that we support President Kim Dae Jung's policy of engagement with North Korea. We consider the ongoing North-South dialogue to be a key to lowering tensions and improving the prospects for peace on the Korean Peninsula. Q: So you don't regret the position or -- you just -- Mr. Boucher: I mean, if you want to try to explain why the North Koreans canceled, go ahead. I'm not going to try. Q: China. Two things on China. The first is the Chinese have apparently lodged a formal complaint about the Secretary's remarks last week in the International Relations Committee in which he called Taiwan the Republic of China. I'm wondering what you have to say about that. And also about the Chinese warning about giving a visa, a transit visa, to the Taiwanese president. Has a decision been reached on whether the president will be allowed to transit through the United States on his way to Latin America? Mr. Boucher: Two things. We did get a phone call from the Chinese. They called the Bureau here to ask, and we replied very clearly that the US policy has not changed; our longstanding policy regarding unofficial relations with Taiwan under the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act has not changed. We made that clear to them. As far as any possible transits, I don't think there is any particular request for that, so no decisions. No request, no decisions. Q: Okay. Well, is that the only thing that the Bureau said to the Chinese when they called to complain about this? Did they not say anything else? Mr. Boucher: They did not apologized. They just explained that our policy has not changed. Q: So is that now the way that the State Department is going to refer to Taiwan in testimony? Mr. Boucher: I doubt it. Q: I'm sorry? Mr. Boucher: I don't think so. Q: You think -- okay, so Republic of China is not the way that the Department is going to be referring to Taiwan? Mr. Boucher: That has never -- our policy has not changed, and that is not normally a term that we use. Q: Okay, so -- all right. Q: Is it something that the Department thinks is interchangeable with Taiwan, the equivalent of? Mr. Boucher: It's not a term that we normally use here. Q: I know, but the Secretary did use it, and he used it several times in his testimony. So is that something that we can expect to hear more of? Mr. Boucher: No. (Laughter.) Q: Has it been suggested to the Secretary that perhaps in the future he might not use the term "Republic of China" when referring to Taiwan? Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to get into our discussions with the Secretary. (Laughter.) I'll just say that we don't normally use the term, and I don't think we'll be using it in the future. We haven't used it in the past, and our policy is unchanged, so that would mean we wouldn't use it -- Q: Is that why you are avoiding saying it right here, too? Mr. Boucher: What term? (Laughter.) Q: Richard, that's the second time in a week that he has used terminology that has prompted protest from countries overseas. Is this just growing pains into the job, or what -- how do you explain that? Mr. Boucher: Obviously this is a strange business where we use a number of specific formulations, and we don't use others. Anybody coming into this podium gets used to using certain terms over time. I guess what I would say is, you know, if we want to praise the Secretary for being open and speaking English and talking without following a specific script, one would also have to accept that, as part of that, the language might be a little looser at times. So I would just say, don't get too excited over one word here and one word there. Q: It's not us that are getting excited about it; it happens to be the entire -- Mr. Boucher: You seem to be pretty excited today, but -- Q: Well, that's because the entire Arab world, and now China, have lodged vociferous protests. Mr. Boucher: And we are happy to say in whatever case that people might have questions about this whether our policy has changed or not. In these cases, there has been no change in our policies. We have been happy to restate our policies, and I don't think there is any particular reason for concern. Q: Did the Bureau get any calls from the Arab states about Jerusalem, and are you -- is that something that they are not going to use again? Mr. Boucher: I don't know if they have gotten calls in the Bureau. I think some of our Embassies have heard from people in the Arab world. Again, the same sort of thing: it is an inquiry. I would describe it more as an inquiry than a protest, both in the case of Jerusalem or in the case of China, where they asked, and we told them that there was nothing implied or different about the use of particular terms. Q: Richard, in the testimony, the Secretary also said that under no circumstances would the US tolerate any use of force against Taiwan, and that seemed to be a little stronger than our usual formulation that we prefer peaceful means. Did the Chinese ask about that, too? Mr. Boucher: Not that I know of. The formal language that we have always used is that to resort to anything other than peaceful means would be -- Q: -- a grave concern? Mr. Boucher: -- of grave concern. That is the nice way of saying, very serious, or whatever the Secretary said. Q: So it's not a pardoning of -- and even in a small way, no? Mr. Boucher: Again, I don't want to -- you know, if somebody is talking without notes, without a prepared text, I wouldn't want to say that every word that is used implies a change in policy. That's not the way that this Administration or this building normally unveils changes in policy. We normally try to make a big deal of things if we do think we have done something new. Sometimes we can't even impress you. Q: Richard, can you tell us what the meeting between the Secretary and the Arab-American delegation is all about? Mr. Boucher: He is having a meeting today with a group of Arab-Americans, and he will have a meeting tomorrow with -- tomorrow evening with a group of Jewish-American representatives. These are chances to discuss the current situation in the region and US policy as a whole, including Iraq and the pursuit of Middle East peace. They are part of our ongoing outreach to American citizens who are interested in our policies in particular areas and regions. Q: The meetings were requested by the groups, were they? Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure, actually. Sometimes we phone people up and say, you know, let's talk. Q: Can I ask you a question on behalf of one of my colleagues at ABC? What is the status of efforts to capture the leaders of the Arellano-Felix organization? Mr. Boucher: I have no idea. (Laughter.) I was not going to say that, but we will check on that one. Q: Very, very extremely briefly, just on the basis of the meetings, did the Secretary have a meeting with people from the American Legion yesterday? Mr. Boucher: No, not that I'm aware of. One of the people who briefed you yesterday afternoon talked to the American Legion yesterday about Plan Colombia and drugs. That's the only meeting I know of with the American Legion. I don't think that the Secretary had any meetings. Q: He's on the Hill tomorrow, is he not? Mr. Boucher: Tomorrow and Thursday. Q: Morning? Mr. Boucher: In the mornings, yes. Q: Can you say anything about Hwang Jang Yeop, the North Korean who is now in Seoul, defected in 1997, founder of the Juche philosophy, invited by Jesse Helms to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Mr. Boucher: No. Q: Okay. Mr. Boucher: Should I? We don't normally talk about defectors and -- Q: I mean, he'd like to go, Jesse would like him to testify. What does the State Department think? I mean, would you -- Mr. Boucher: We think it's a free country. Q: If I remember the words right, I think the Secretary was saying that he wanted to make substantial progress on Iraq policy before the Arab League summit, which is now two weeks away. Can you give us an update on how substantial the progress has been and where it's being made and in what fashion? Mr. Boucher: Now two weeks away. Q: Less than. Mr. Boucher: A little less than two weeks. I think you've seen from the discussions that he has and the way he has explained it himself on the Hill that there is -- was during his trip and in our discussions afterwards -- considerable support for the direction that we're heading in, and that we have now moved to a further stage of discussing with the various governments the kind of steps that might be taken, the mechanisms that might be used, and how we would work in New York with the Sanctions Committee and that sort of steps. So we're proceeding down the road. Substantial progress? We're making progress that will be substantial by the time we need it to be substantial, I guess is the way I'd put it. I don't want to lay claim to having quite gotten there yet. Q: Will you have something -- do you think you'll have something that the Arab heads of state can look at and take a position on in time for their meeting, even if it's -- Mr. Boucher: I think when you're dealing at the heads of state level, I'm not sure what sort of detail they would want to look at. Clearly the direction that we're going in has been a matter of support and favorable commentary in our meetings with various leaders in the Arab world, so we consider that the basic thrust of the policy on tightening controls on weapons, but smoothing out the flow of civilian goods, that we have substantial support for that. The precise mechanisms for doing that as they're being worked out, we'll see if the heads of state want to take a look at that or not. But that's the kind of stage that we're at now. So I don't know that I can predict exactly where we have to be when we get there; it's just we want to see substantial progress by then so that they can understand what we're doing. Q: Is that what Ambassador Walker found on his trip? Because he went to specific places. Mr. Boucher: He went to several places that the Secretary didn't -- wasn't able to get to on behalf of the Secretary. And we've had considerable discussions there with Ambassador Walker, as well as other discussions with the parties through our embassies and some of the Secretary's meetings. Q: (Inaudible) talk about tightening them up, the swiss cheese problem? Mr. Boucher: That's what we discussed with everybody. Q: No, I understand. I'm trying to -- you don't want -- care to right now. I'm trying to see whether he extracted anything specific in, what, the four countries he visited, because two or three of them were problem countries. Mr. Boucher: Well, he did a press conference in Turkey, if I remember correctly. Q: That's one of the problem countries. Mr. Boucher: And we've talked about it subsequently. And I think we have said, as we said during the trip, that in Assistant Secretary Walker's meetings as well we found substantial support for the direction that we were headed; we found substantial support for the idea of keeping tight controls on weapons, on money, on smuggling, and taking steps to tighten up on those things, at the same time as we were able to smooth out the flow of civilian goods to the civilian population. So as I said before, we found the reaction in those places similar to the one during the Secretary's trip, and the willingness to take on the additional measures necessary to make it effective was expressed in places in a general sense, and now we have to work out the specific mechanisms to do it. Q: Richard, did either Secretary Powell or Ambassador Walker raise with these Arab states the possibility of expanding support for the Iraqi Opposition? And is that something that the Administration also thinks is necessary, a key ingredient if you will, to go forward with expanding support for the INC and others? Mr. Boucher: As the Secretary explained in testimony, and I think explained to the people on the airplane, we see this as being a matter of several different baskets. The trip was about the UN basket, the basket where all these countries are involved together in an effort to keep Iraq from threatening its neighbors, threatening its own people, particularly with weapons of mass destruction. There are other aspects of policy that reside more specifically with the United States or with the United States and a few allies, such as the no-fly zones or the support for the Opposition. Those things would be looked at as well, but we are looking at those things as well. But those weren't the subject of the trip. Q: And could you just comment on whether or not it's necessary that they're (inaudible) support among certain Arab states for expanded support of the Opposition? Mr. Boucher: I don't -- I think the Secretary has said, and we see this as primarily a thing that the United States and maybe a few others, have been involved in and would continue to be involved in, that is not the same as having that wide need for support from frontline states and other countries like the Perm-5 or the UN. Q: I'm not (inaudible) in wide support, though; I'm just talking about some support from countries like Jordan and Egypt. Mr. Boucher: Again, that is something that particularly resides with the United States that we would principally deal with ourselves. Q: But every -- when there is an -- when the United States backs an insurgency group, there usually is a friendly country on that bad country's border that is at least open to the idea that we are trying to knock out the government that we have got a problem with. Do we have any kind of assurances that Iraq's neighbors would harbor the Iraqi Opposition at this point? I mean, are we trying to get assurances on that score? Mr. Boucher: We're not talking about an insurgency group here; we are talking about a group of people that we cooperate with in various public ways and humanitarian possibly ways that we are looking at, so I think we are far from the stage that you were describing. Q: What was that? If you're not talking about an insurgency group, is the idea of regime change in Iraq now dead? Mr. Boucher: No. Q: So what exactly is the INC going to be doing, if it's not being -- if it's not insurging? Mr. Boucher: Why are we having this conversation today? It's the same conversation we have had 18 times -- Q: I know, but you just said we're not talking about an insurgency group. Mr. Boucher: -- in the last two weeks, and I can tell you that there is no difference today. There is no difference from the way we talked about it yesterday, there is no difference from the way we talked about it a week before, and there is no difference in the way we talked about it in September. Q: You said you're not talking about insurgency, and insurgency was always kind of implicit in somewhere down the road. Mr. Boucher: I think we have made quite clear that we have certain understandings with the Iraqi opposition that we support. The Secretary has talked about our continued support, says he continues to sign off on money for these groups, and it is all within the framework of what we agreed to in September. We have been discussing expanded activities. You are quite aware that about a month ago, there was a report that went to the Hill about their taking a humanitarian role, and the questions that would be involved in that, and there is a discussion going on with them. So I am just trying to say that the framework of our cooperation is at a certain stage, and anything that is beyond that is beyond us now. Q: Following up on that, part of what we have been talking about is the idea that they now have a license to operate inside Iraq, which is new. Do we have any kind of agreements with any of Iraq's border neighbors for them -- are they aware that they are going to -- I mean, how are they going to get into the country? I mean, obviously -- are we doing anything like that? Mr. Boucher: If you remember what we said at the time when we provided the money and the license for them to operate inside Iraq with US funds, they have been operating inside Iraq from various neighboring places for a long time, using their own money. So we were just supporting them with US funding to do their public information and other activities inside Iraq. Nothing has changed on that. Q: Are we talking to them -- talking to these countries about this, though? I mean, are we talking to Iraq's neighbors? Mr. Boucher: As I said, going back to the original question, the purpose of the trip was to discuss the UN sanctions and the controls on Iraq getting weapons and money, and smuggling. It was not a trip to discuss the Iraqi Opposition. That is something the United States does and will continue to do, but it is largely a matter for US policy to decide, and that policy will be looked at and will be carried forward as appropriate. Q: I was just going to say that the reason that we are asking this question now, as Neil brought up, is the fact the Secretary had said that he hoped to make substantial progress on Iraq policy before the April 24th summit -- Mr. Boucher: On the sanctions policy. Q: On the sanctions. So this is not part of -- Mr. Boucher: He didn't promise any change in that. He said they were looking at the issue of these other baskets, and will continue to look at them, but that they are largely matters for the United States to look at and determine what we want to do. Q: Can I just try and clear something up on that? I don't want to belabor it, but your understanding -- the US understanding with the INC about regime change in Iraq -- you seem to be saying that that understanding about regime change in Iraq involves the INC not seeking to change the regime in Iraq. Mr. Boucher: No, I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and I didn't say anything different on that. I said we are supporting their activities. At this point, we are supporting their activities in the areas that we have specified, which include public information and possibly humanitarian areas. That is where we are now with them. Q: But that could change? Mr. Boucher: Obviously. We can look at the entire policy; we can change it any day we want. Q: Okay, so then your comment before about "we're not talking about an insurgency group" relates only to right now, where the US is right now with the INC? Mr. Boucher: Yes. Q: This agreement that allows the Serbs to go back towards the Kosovo border, lightly armed though, are you worried that they could be subject to being outgunned by Albanians there who are heavily armed, and what this could do to the Serbs there, and perhaps ignite fleeing refugees to create more of the situation we saw two years ago? Mr. Boucher: I just love it when the situation starts getting better that we have to worry about all the disasters that might happen if it gets worse again. Q: I'm just making the point that -- Mr. Boucher: The fact is is that we have made progress. We have made progress there in a very positive way by having ceasefires accepted by the two parties; that we have had technical conditions working forward, moving forward for the ground security zone to be reoccupied by the Yugoslav forces. We would expect that to happen in the next few days in the area, the narrow sector down along the Kosovo-Macedonia border. NATO will work out the operational details. We have made clear all along NATO will retain a certain level of jurisdiction over that area in terms of the commander's jurisdiction, but we would expect that the operating conditions will be such that Yugoslav forces in that area would be able to defend themselves, and it will be all coordinated with NATO. Q: But when you say the Serbs should be able to defend themselves, they are not allowed to take tanks or any heavy artillery in, but the Albanians that are operating there have them. Mr. Boucher: Once again, the exact details will be coordinated with NATO, and NATO's goal is to allow them back in so that they can maintain the peace and be able to defend themselves. Q: The Macedonian troops on the move toward the border, even after the troops yesterday, is that defensive? They seem to think there is a problem, that there's a problem for ethnic Albanians who aren't insurgents. People have left the towns. The towns are emptied of -- Mr. Boucher: Okay. Q: No, I mean, I know there's a truce, but you sound very positive about what's happened. Mr. Boucher: I think you have to be clear that the truce involves the Albanians -- the ethnic Albanian armed groups, on the one hand, and then also the ceasefire -- I guess better described as a ceasefire than a truce -- a ceasefire accepted by the ethnic Albanian armed groups, and separately by the representatives of the Yugoslav Government. These are the groups in the Presevo Valley that have accepted the ceasefire. The situation near Macedonia is slightly different. That is the area where we would expect in that particular narrow sector of the ground safety zone for the Yugoslav forces to move back within a few days. In the Presevo Valley area, there is a ceasefire that has now been accepted by both sides. Certainly we welcome that ceasefire. We see it as a positive step in the process towards peacefully resolving the issues in the southern Serbia. But we would note at the same time, particularly in regard to the Presevo Valley area, that the peaceful settlement requires further steps to reduce tensions, to build confidence between the parties, and to implement political and economic reforms. Q: This agreement -- was it signed, or this was a verbal agreement -- the ceasefire? Mr. Boucher: My understanding is that somehow it was separately accepted by both sides, that they weren't actually together concluding the ceasefire. Q: And you said that the -- on the Albanian side, on the ethnic Albanian side, this was those operating the Presevo Valley? Mr. Boucher: Mm-hmm. Q: Okay, because my understanding was that there are actually two groups of insurgents: one, about 1,000 of them operating the Presevo Valley between Kosovo and Serbia; and the other sort of rag-tag bunch of however many -- hundreds perhaps -- that are operating between Macedonia and Kosovo. So are you saying that the Presevo Valley Albanians are speaking for the others by Macedonia? Mr. Boucher: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the Presevo Valley group has accepted the ceasefire, and in the Presevo Valley area we have a clear acceptance of the ceasefire by both sides. In the Macedonia area, it's slightly less clear. Q: But aren't the troops moving into the Macedonian area? Mr. Boucher: And in the Macedonian area, you have a slightly different scenario going on, where the Macedonians are taking care of their side of the border, NATO has expanded patrols and activities on the Kosovo side, and you now have the Yugoslav forces moving into that narrow sliver of the ground safety zone. Q: But who is handling the ethnic Albanians? Who has signed -- who has agreed to a ceasefire down there? Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure there is any organized group that has agreed to a ceasefire down there. Q: Okay. Because, again, there are people in this building who say that there are two different groups of insurgents, that they don't believe that they are -- Mr. Boucher: I'm accepting that, and that is why I'm saying the situations are different. Q: Okay. So you don't think that it's slightly dangerous that you have Yugoslav forces moving in to the portion of this demilitarized zone that -- Mr. Boucher: Our troops were in a firefight the other day. It's dangerous, yes. But these things move forward in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reach a peaceful situation. Q: This goes to my pending questions for a week now regarding the Bulgarian request to send troops and military equipment to FYROM in order to fight the Albanian terrorists without even help from US, NATO and KFOR. Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything new on that, so I'll check. Q: And do you know when will be the meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Greek Foreign Minister Yeoryios Papandreou here in Washington? Mr. Boucher: No. I'll have to check to see if I have anything on that. Q: Thank you. Q: Can I ask a question about Indonesia? The Indonesian Foreign Minister has told The Washington Times that he wants American help both to fight religious extremists and -- Mr. Boucher: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Q: -- and US military cooperation? Mr. Boucher: Can we try again? You said he has told The Washington Times what? Q: In an interview, that he wants American help, both to fight religious extremists, or pressures from that side, and he wants more military ties with the United States. Would you have a comment on that? Mr. Boucher: In the meeting yesterday -- I haven't seen the quotes -- let me start out there. I haven't seen the quotes in The Washington Times so I don't know if I can parse it exactly for you. In the meeting yesterday with the Secretary, they discussed, first of all, our support for Indonesia's territorial integrity and democracy, our desire to improve our bilateral relationship. With regard to the situations in Aceh, the Secretary told Foreign Minister Shihab that the US supported and urged the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement to resolve differences through peaceful democratic dialogue. On military cooperation, the Secretary noted our legal restrictions and the importance of human rights. He informed Foreign Minister Shihab that we would like to explore ways in which we can continue to assist Indonesia in building a professional civilian police force. So with regard to Aceh and more generally, they talked about the need to have a professional police that could help calm situations such as this, without the need to resort to military force, which is not the way to solve these situations. They very much support the idea of peaceful dialogue, and the Secretary made quite clear we expected both sides to pursue a peaceful dialogue to resolve situations in Aceh. On the more general issue of military-to-military cooperation, that came up, but the Secretary really noted our legal restrictions and the human rights considerations that we would have on any possible resumption. Q: What are these legal restrictions? Mr. Boucher: I would have to go through all the criteria and the law, but there is law that puts constraints on what we can do with the Indonesian military. Q: As a result of his lunch yesterday with the Secretary of Energy, has the Secretary asked US Ambassadors to OPEC countries to convey any messages out of the OPEC meeting? Mr. Boucher: Without going into any specific diplomatic instructions, I would say that we have had an ongoing dialogue with OPEC countries, with oil-producing countries -- I think is a slightly more general term -- that we conduct that dialogue, and it is through our embassies in these countries. We conduct that dialogue with visitors who might come to Washington in other high-level meetings, and we will continue to pursue that issue through the various channels that we have available. Q: Richard, yesterday you were asked about whether this building had a position on the bankruptcy bill, as it relates to Lloyds of London names. Mr. Boucher: I don't have a final response to give you. They are still working on that. Q: Really? Q: That's surprising. So someone spoke out of turn earlier this morning? Mr. Boucher: I don't know who spoke. Do you want to tell me a name? Q: I don't have a name. They didn't speak to me. They spoke to one of my colleagues, I believe. Mr. Boucher: Well, maybe one of your colleagues would give me a name. Q: So is -- Mr. Boucher: As far as I'm concerned, they are not quite ready to speak. Q: But the comments that have been reported and attributed to a State Department official on this subject are not accurate at the moment? Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't say that. They may be premature, but we may see. I want to be absolutely certain that I am giving you an accurate 90-second response. Q: Okay, thanks. Mr. Boucher: Thank you. Return to the Washington File