State Department Noon Briefing

(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestinian Authority, Mexico, Iraq)
(8510)


State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.



Following is the State Department transcript:



(begin transcript)



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Daily Press Briefing Index



Tuesday, November 20, 2001 - 1:00 P.M.



BRIEFER:  Richard Boucher, Spokesman



AFGHANISTAN

-- Reconstruction Conference

-- Participants in UN Talks in Berlin

-- Dobbins Whereabouts

-- Haass Meetings

-- King Zahir Shah Participation

-- Reported Misconduct by Northern Alliance

-- Role of Women

-- Rewards for Justice Program

-- Mail Update at State Department

-- Contributions by China/Reported Support to Taliban

-- Missing Journalists

-- Contributions by Germany



PAKISTAN

-- Border Security



ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

-- Burns/Zinni Travel

-- Zinni Role In Process

-- Goals for the Peace Process

-- Assistance to Palestinians



MEXICO

-- Immigration and Border Security Talks



IRAQ

-- Sanctions





U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DAILY PRESS BRIEFING



TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2001

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)



1:00 P.M. EST



MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to
be here. I'm happy to take your questions.


QUESTION: This morning, the Reconstruction Conference opened here, but
I understand that there's now going to be one -- the next one is
already planned for Islamabad next week; is that correct?


MR. BOUCHER: That's right. Let me go through this as much as I can for
you all. The meeting today brings together a lot of potential donors
and the people who are going to need to be involved in planning for
the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is intended to begin organizing
the international community in support of proceeding with the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan, and to offer Afghans
a vision of a better future.


The tremendous scope of this task means that there are going to be
many countries, many international institutions involved and there is
going to have to be an orderly process for getting there. So this
meeting is to kick off that process.


We will hear reports this morning from the UN Development Program,
from the World Bank. I guess you would say there are initial reports
of what they consider to be Afghanistan's needs. And that will let the
potential donors focused on planning in more detail in the future on
how they could meet those needs and what kinds and the amounts and the
types of assistance that will be needed to reconstruct the country.
The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the UN Development
Program will then convene a more technical discussion in Islamabad
next week and that meeting, they will begin to work even more on a
very detailed needs assessment that eventually will result in looking
for funding.


QUESTION: When does the process get to the point where you -- as the
Secretary said -- where you put out the hat?


MR. BOUCHER: After the real definition of needs and amounts is done.
You have to know what you will need to do. You have to figure out what
you need to do, you have to figure out how much it is going to cost
and then you have to ask for money, okay? This is the beginning of the
process figuring out what we need to do. The World Bank assessments,
as they go forward will come to define more -- once they define what
needs to be done, how much is it going to cost and then we'll get the
money. What's clear is there is a lot of support in the international
community for this, a lot of people who intend to support the
reconstruction of Afghanistan, and I think today's meeting and the
meeting next week are clear signals of that.


Second of all, let me remind you that there is a massive humanitarian
effort under way to take care of the immediate needs of the people of
Afghanistan. And what we are talking about planning for here is the
reconstruction of a country that has been destroyed by many years of
devastation and that's a process that will proceed over a longer term.


QUESTION: That's what I'm getting at. Is the Islamabad -- are you
expecting to have a firmer idea of the dollar figures needed for the
longer term? And I wasn't trying to suggest that this is moving too
slowly. I was only trying to figure out when exactly the actual
amounts needed is -- when that's going to become clearer. Do you think
that might happen at the meeting in Islamabad?


MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think that will happen in Islamabad, because
the Islamabad meeting is to focus more technically. Today, you might
say, this is what needs to be done in general terms. Islamabad will
start looking more technically. If people agree that roads need to be
built, they will look at what roads need to be built, and that kind of
thing. But that then leads to an assessment process that will result
in quite detailed planning and then an estimate of the costs.


QUESTION: I'm not trying to suggest anything either. But I am having
trouble juxtaposing the Secretary's plaintive appeal for quick action,
how urgent it is, winter is approaching. And, you know, if you'll
forgive me, there are other ways to go at this to have a quick fix and
then plan long-term aid. And the US is -- is contributing a huge sum
of money. I guess the question is, if it's so urgent, do you need all
this exquisite planning? Shouldn't more be done right away?


MR. BOUCHER: As I just mentioned two minutes ago -- maybe you weren't
here yet -- but there is extensive assistance being done in the
humanitarian area. We've got trucks moving. We've got trucks moving
back into Afghanistan for the first time in a week from Peshawar to
Jalalabad. There are six trucks that have gone over, arrived safely.
The World Food Program is sending 48 more trucks today. There is a lot
more movement, there is a lot being done. The World Bank staff, the
World Food Program's female staff that used to work for them is back
on board working again for them in normal program activities. So there
is a tremendous amount being done. The World Food Program has got
international staff going back into Afghanistan. There's an enormous
amount being done for the immediate needs of the winter. But that has
to transition into a longer-term effort. There will be things that can
be done earlier in that effort. There will be needs perhaps identified
through this process, where we can use the food assistance to help
build roads. There is a natural transition in this process that can
take place, and things can be done quickly. In addition to feeding the
people who desperately need the food, as the needs are identified,
some of the things can be done sooner rather than later.


QUESTION: Can you say who will be attending the UN talks for the
United States in Berlin? And are there any people who haven't been
invited yet that -- or who aren't planning to attend that you would
like to attend? If you see what I mean.


MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't see what you mean.



QUESTION:  Well, are there any --



MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we're assuming that all the major Afghan
leaders, groups, factions will be represented there, and we think it's
important that, as a result of the talks the UN is having, as a result
of the talks that Ambassador Dobbins had in Tashkent, and then in
Bagram Airfield, the Northern Alliance has made it clear that they
intend to participate in this process to form a broad-based government
in Afghanistan. We certainly welcome the meeting that will take place
in Germany, I guess starting over the weekend, or starting by Monday.


As far as the United States, we'll be there. We certainly welcome this
process and want to support this process. We do work closely with the
United Nations, and in fact, Ambassador Haass is in touch with Mr.
Brahimi several times a day, actually.


As far as who will go to Germany over the weekend, certainly
Ambassador Dobbins will be there, probably, possibly Ambassador Haass
as well, and others. So we don't know for sure, but that's generally
the kind of people we'd intend to send.


QUESTION: Just back to reconstructing Afghanistan for a second. In
this forum, will there be an appeal to other countries to contribute
to just the relief effort, which has been primarily American now?


MR. BOUCHER:  This is a reconstruction conference.



QUESTION:  Right, but --



MR. BOUCHER: Remember, the UN identified $580 million worth of needs
for relief in Afghanistan. That was oversubscribed by considerable
amounts. The United States put up $320 million. If I remember
correctly, there was a slightly larger than that amount pledged by
other countries. So other countries are pledged to give very
significant amounts to the relief effort, and I think that is an
indicator of what we would hope to see in the future, that everybody
will be there to support reconstruction as well.


QUESTION: Can I ask you about the Northern Alliance's statement that
this is merely a symbolic meeting? Does that suggest -- MR. BOUCHER:
I'm sorry; we just talked about three different meetings. Which --


QUESTION: I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. Not the humanitarian meeting,
the Berlin meeting, the post-planning for diverse whatever -- whatever
you call it. It sounds like they're not enthusiastic about it. They
backed away from insisting on Kabul. But they say it's only a symbolic
meeting.


MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen any particular quotes like that, Barry, so
I am not going to take two words out of context for that. What we have
found in our meetings and in their public statements is that they have
agreed and supported the idea of forming a broad-based government for
Afghanistan, that we would hope this meeting in Berlin or near Berlin
would register progress toward the creation of an interim political
authority, interim political arrangement that leads to that kind of
broad-based government for Afghanistan. So we think it's a useful
meeting.


Clearly, all the parties have said that we want the process to move
back to Afghanistan as soon as the parties can move back to
Afghanistan and continue the work.


QUESTION: Let me ask three very, very quick questions all kind of
related to the same thing: Dobbins, Haass and the King. One, is the --
does the United States believe that the former King -- sorry, Zahir
Shah, is he an adequate representative for the Pashtuns at the meeting
in Berlin? And then, two, Ambassador Haass apparently is going to
India in the beginning of December. Can you say why? And number three,
over the weekend, the Secretary referred to Ambassador Dobbins as the
ambassador to the Northern Alliance at one point. Was that a slip of
the tongue, because that would seem to imply diplomatic recognition.
Is he still the special envoy -- special representative to the Afghan
opposition?


MR. BOUCHER: Yes, of which the Northern Alliance is part. So he is --


QUESTION:  But he is not ambassador --



MR. BOUCHER: He is our guy to meet with the Northern Alliance. He is
an ambassador. He is our man who meets with the Northern Alliance in
the field. And that's as accurate a description of some of his
activities as anything.


Now, moving backwards --



QUESTION:  But his title hasn't changed?



MR. BOUCHER: No, his title hasn't changed. Moving backwards slowly,
because I'm trying to remember -- Haass in India, I will have to check
on.


QUESTION:  The King representing the Northern Alliance, is he --



MR. BOUCHER: My understanding, I was watching Mr. Vendrell on
television this morning, and he was talking about quite a number of
other Pashtuns who we expect to be there. The King, and the people who
have been working with them in this group are indeed Pashtun leaders
as well. So I would expect that there will be others in addition to
them that would be there. But, as you know, we are encouraging
everybody to participate and the United Nations will be working on the
participation in the meeting.


QUESTION: There are reports, I think mostly out of London, of some
concerns between the British and Americans regarding the behavior of
the Northern Alliance around the Bagram Airport, reports that they
were not welcoming British troops coming in working on humanitarian
aid, had asked them to leave. What can you tell us about that and what
the United States is conveying I guess again and again to the Northern
Alliance, that they are not yet the government of the new Afghanistan
and they shouldn't be treating their allies this way.


MR. BOUCHER: Are you referring to brand new reports or the reports
from the other days, because there were sort of reports like that a
couple days ago and then I think the Northern Alliance said that they
didn't object to us; they just wanted to talk about it. I assume that
people have been talking about it. You can get probably a better
update from the British than anybody on that.


QUESTION: Have the British expressed concerns to you or
dissatisfaction to you with perhaps the message that --


MR. BOUCHER: As far as military deployments, really, I would leave it
to the military, and I am sure we are coordinating very, very closely
with the military on that.


QUESTION: No, I am talking about diplomatically, are they discussing
that with us?


MR. BOUCHER: As far as military deployments go, we are coordinating
with the British, I'm sure. But I don't have anything new on that
front. As far as I know, nobody has really objected to those things.


QUESTION: Richard, one gets the impression that the Northern Alliance
have been very grudging about yielding any ground on issues such as
power sharing and a number of issues. And you are not lending any
credence whatsoever to that, is that --


MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it is something to make a big deal of,
frankly. I would say if you look at the behavior of the Northern
Alliance, I know there were a lot of fears, I know there were a lot of
concerns, I know there were a lot of concerns, I know there were a lot
of people who thought events moved very, very quickly and that the
rest of the political organization didn't catch up. But I think the
history of this is quite clear. Before Kabul fell, they formed an
arrangement with the former King to try to work on a broad-based
government. We initially felt that they shouldn't try to go into
Kabul, but events moved so quickly that they did. But they have still
left the bulk of their forces outside. And they seemed to have
provided security, and based on all the news reports that I see, it
appears that life in Kabul is returning to normal, pre-Taliban normal,
and that people are able to do things, live comfortably and safely in
the city once again.


The Northern Alliance has agreed to attend these meetings, agreed to
continue working on a broad-based government. So obviously we judge
people by their behavior, but things seem to be moving in a direction
that was set towards a broad-based government, and so far that's the
way things have proceeded.


QUESTION: But what do you think about Rabbani saying that he is still
president, especially as we recognized him as president all these
years? Doesn't that put us in a quandary if we don't want him declared
president automatically now?


MR. BOUCHER:  No.



QUESTION:  Why not?



MR. BOUCHER: Because Ambassador Dobbins and others have met with Mr.
Rabbani and the whole leadership of the Northern Alliance. That was
the meeting that we had yesterday at Bagram Airport. And all those
people, including Mr. Rabbani, have made quite clear that they intend
to participate in this process to create a broad-based government for
Afghanistan, and that a whole variety of Afghan leaders will be there,
and they intend to work with them.


QUESTION:  Do we not consider him president in this interim time?



MR. BOUCHER: I'll get you the specific sort of formal guidance on
recognition if I can.


QUESTION:  Thank you.



QUESTION: Richard, this morning, Secretary Powell and the other two
speakers who kicked off the conference all took great pains to mention
the role of women in Afghanistan, and the role women should play and
ought to play and deserve to play in reconstruction and the rebuilding
of Afghanistan.


Has Ambassador Dobbins raised this in his talks with any of the
groups? And if so, what has the response been from groups he has
raised it with?


MR. BOUCHER: Let's just say, the United States has raised this. I
don't quite remember which meetings it's been raised in. But the
United States has certainly made this point in our diplomatic
discussions and our meetings with Afghan faction leaders, and our
meetings with Afghan representatives. The importance that we attach to
seeing women participate in the political process, participate in the
reconstruction process, and participate in the future life of
Afghanistan. One would say it's sort of a basic part of "broad-based,"
to have all segments of society represented, and that includes two
genders.


But this is an issue that we have raised, and I think we found some
receptivity to that.


QUESTION: Can we assume then that this means that if the future Afghan
government chooses to exclude women from power, there will be
consequences?


MR. BOUCHER: I would say this means that you can assume that the
United States will continue to promote the idea that women have to be
involved in all aspects of Afghan life, and that we see that as
essential to the creation of a broad-based government.


QUESTION: Richard, can I shift slightly, not very much? I'm confused
about the whole reward thing.


MR. BOUCHER:  Don't be.



QUESTION: For information. Because it seems to me that this actually
-- the up to $25 million offer doesn't come into effect until this
afternoon, or whenever it is that the Secretary signs the paperwork to
do that. And yet, for the past several days, the Pentagon has been
advertising this up to $25 million reward on the airwaves and through
word of mouth in Afghanistan. It seems to me that they are guilty of a
little bit of false advertising here. If I had turned in bin Laden two
days ago, would I not have been able to get $25 million?


MR. BOUCHER:  First of all, it's "up to" 25 million, so --



QUESTION: Would I have been able to get up to $25 million or only up
to $5 million?


MR. BOUCHER: We would have had to make the appropriate determinations,
as we say.


No, I think we've all known since Congress passed the law that we
would authorize up to $25 million for this, and, in fact, I think the
first time that the number actually appeared that way in public was
when we did our public diplomacy rollout. And I think we showed you
one of the posters that was being prepared that had a $25 million
figure on it. It's actually been on our web site for a while, too.


So we've all known this was coming. There was a legal matter that the
Secretary of State has to make a formal determination and by saying
that he had decided to offer up to $25 million to you this morning,
you contributed to that process. There is no more legal question about
it.


QUESTION: It is true that up until the time that he actually signs off
on this, you couldn't have given out up to $25 million; it was up to
$5 million, correct?


MR. BOUCHER:  We can now.  Do you know where he is?  (Laughter.)



QUESTION:  Where who, where bin Laden is?



MR. BOUCHER: If you can tell me where Usama is, we can start
discussing --


QUESTION:  Yeah, well, I was holding out for the full 25.



MR. BOUCHER:  Well, time to come forward.



QUESTION: No, I'm trying to figure out, before this thing is actually
authorized by the Secretary, you can't give out more than --


MR. BOUCHER: It's authorized -- the Secretary of State has to make a
determination. Under the US Patriot Act of 2001, which became law on
October 26, the Secretary of State can offer or pay a reward greater
than $5 million if he determines that a greater amount is necessary to
combat terrorism or defend the nation against terrorist acts. That
determination he has made because he has told you that he is willing
to offer up to $25 million.


QUESTION:  What were the delays?



MR. BOUCHER:  I think just paperwork.



QUESTION: I'm not asking if there was a delay or not. I'm just trying
to figure out if prior to his decision to authorize up to $25 million,
was it not the case that even though people were saying you could get
up to $25 million, in fact, you could only get up to $5 million? I'm
not trying to be obnoxious; I'm just trying to figure out what's going
on here.


MR. BOUCHER: If somebody had come forward on September 12th, 13th or
14th and told us how to find Usama bin Laden and the al-Qaida
leadership, I think we would have found a way to offer an appropriate
reward. We have always known this is where we would go. We've gotten
more than 22,000 pieces of information since September 11th through
the Rewards for Justice Program. The majority of this has come through
e-mail and telephone. We do have information on our website in
English, in French, in Arabic and Spanish. Pictures and things like
that, including the $25 million figure.


We are working on a broader advertising campaign that we expect to be
able to deploy shortly. The Pentagon, as you said, is working on
getting the information out in the region. So this amount has been
available whether we could actually write a check and, you know, there
is a committee that has to review information that comes. They make
the determination on the amount based on the relevance of the
information, the amount of risk the person took in giving it to us,
their cooperation in subsequent things like trials. And so that
process could have unfolded and we could have made the appropriate
legal determinations at any time. But the money has been there from
Congress, the authority is there from Congress by the end of October
and the intention was clearly there. So I don't have any problem with
people having talked about $25 million before a formal piece of paper
is signed.


QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? Can informants haggle? Is
there any kind of negotiation that goes on?


MR. BOUCHER: Let me read to you the process, if I can. The person is
nominated for award by a US Government investigating agency and an
interagency committee chaired by the Department evaluates the
information provided and recommends whether reward should be paid and
if so its amount. The recommendation on the size of the award of
payment is based on a number of factors, including the value of the
information provided, the risk faced by the informant and the degree
of the informant's cooperation in an investigation or trial. If the
Secretary approves the recommendation, he then consults with the
Attorney General. If there is federal criminal jurisdiction, the
Attorney General must concur on the payment of the reward. So,
basically, you have a government committee that looks at this, decides
what kind of reward should be paid and then pays it. I'm not aware of
any negotiation involved.


QUESTION: If I could follow up, has this committee already started
meeting, considering that you've got all this information?


MR. BOUCHER: No, that would depend on finding not just information but
information that leads to the identification, to the arrest, to the
capture of al-Qaida leadership or others planning terrorist acts
against the United States.


So if that were to happen, we've got 22,000 pieces of information. We
pass those to the appropriate investigating agencies, but at this
point, nobody has come back and said that we got the information that
can lead to the capture. It hasn't happened yet.


QUESTION: Richard, just for clarification, given what you've read, and
I didn't realize this before. If there are federal criminal
jurisdiction involved, the Attorney General would have to concur with
the Secretary's award?


MR. BOUCHER:  Yes.



QUESTION: So that anything having to do with al-Qaida and bin Laden,
ipso facto, does it follow that the Attorney General will be involved
in concurring with --


MR. BOUCHER:  I suppose so.



QUESTION:  There is federal --



MR. BOUCHER: Yes, they are federal crimes of terrorism and killing the
Americans, and things like that. I would assume so.


But remember, Justice Department is part of this whole committee
process anyway. They are the people we work with on a day-to-day
basis. All this information that we collect through our program is
then turned over to the FBI. They are the major investigating agency
in this case, and they are ones that would come back and say, the
information that you got from confidential informant, whose identity
is being protected, number 413, or whatever, was actually what led to
the capture and the arrest. If they come back with that, then we'd
start talking about rewards.


QUESTION:  This has been (inaudible), is it?



MR. BOUCHER: It's actually broader than that. It's directed certainly
at getting the al-Qaida leadership and people who are responsible for
September 11th, but it's broader than that. It's for anybody who might
be carrying out terrorism or planning terrorism against the United
States and American citizens.


QUESTION: Are you still as confident as you were last week, given some
of the things the Taliban ambassador has been saying, that bin Laden
actually is still in Afghanistan?


MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any new news on that. I think Secretary
Rumsfeld actually has been addressing the question on a daily basis. I
don't think we have any reason to believe that he is somewhere else.


QUESTION:  Can you be a little bit more specific --



MR. BOUCHER:  Can we go to the back a little bit?



QUESTION: Can you say if in the 22,000 pieces of information you have
received, you have received anything valuable that leads to their
domestic role, foreign --


MR. BOUCHER: We have not identified any particular information yet
that has produced a particular result. As you know, he hasn't been
captured.


But certainly, this has all been turned over to the appropriate
agencies, and they will get back to us if they find any particularly
valuable pieces of information in there that can lead to the capture
of terrorists.


I think the point we're at now is not one where one has an evaluation
of all the information. This is an enormous investigation going on.
This information has become part of the investigation. What eventually
produces the result won't be known until we get there.


QUESTION: And on that 22,000, is this since a specific date? Is this
in response --


MR. BOUCHER:  Since September 11th.



QUESTION: Since the 11th, 22,000? Now, it would seem -- it seems if
most of them are coming in by phone calls and e-mail, it would appear
that few of these tips are actually coming in from Afghanistan itself,
right? Or do you have any idea of breakdown of --


MR. BOUCHER:  No, I don't.  I don't have a breakdown yet.



QUESTION:  Can we move on?



QUESTION: We have to presume that some mail for this program is in the
mail that was frozen.


MR. BOUCHER:  That's right.



QUESTION: Can you say how the efforts at unfreezing that is coming
along?


MR. BOUCHER: I do think that we'll get more information once our mail
situation is resolved. But that is in fact beginning to be resolved.
So let me give you an update on that.


All the State Department mail rooms that received mail from the
Sterling, Virginia, facility have been cleaned, according to the
Center for Disease Control's recommended procedures. The facility in
Sterling will be cleaned as soon as possible. So we have resumed
worldwide distribution of mail that is received from the US Postal
Service. The mail that we received from the US Postal Service is
irradiated, so it's safe to go into the system.


We sent out our first 37 pouches to 30 overseas posts this morning. So
all the mail rooms have been cleaned, except for the one at Sterling.
We're doing the manual processing at an alternate facility, so it's
not quite as fast as it used to be.


Now, all the mail that was in those mail rooms, except for Sterling,
has been bagged and taken to locations where eventually it can be
looked at to determine if we have another anthrax letter in our system
or not.


As you know, I think the Postal Service has advised that the letter
that was forwarded to Senator Leahy's address may have been misrouted
and passed through the State Department. The FBI and the Postal
Service are looking at that. They may have confirmation today as to
whether in fact that letter had passed through our facility at
Sterling. But if that letter proves to have gone through there, that
offers one possible alternate explanation for how the anthrax got into
our mail sorting machines there. So we will be watching that very
closely. And, of course, we are working closely with the FBI and the
Centers for Disease Control as we go forward on the investigation side
of things.


QUESTION: Is what is contained in the pouches all new mail or is there
also irradiated mail in there? MR. BOUCHER: It is new, irradiated
mail.


QUESTION:  And irradiated?



MR. BOUCHER: All the old mail has still been set aside because we want
to check. As we said before, we may have a letter in our system so we
have to check all that old mail and they will be starting that
process, I think, tomorrow, checking old mail.


QUESTION:  Richard, can you talk --



MR. BOUCHER:  Can we go to the back, please?



QUESTION:  Yes.  Chinese Government has been --



MR. BOUCHER:  Okay, we'll stay on the same subject then for a while.



QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the kind of frustrations or
problems you've had or this building has had because of the frozen
mail, like paying bills, et cetera? I understand there have been a
couple of problems with late payments.


MR. BOUCHER:  Is this official payments or are these personal bills?



QUESTION:  No, this is State Department --



MR. BOUCHER: I had not heard of any checks in the mail, so I will have
to double check. I'll see about it.


QUESTION: You haven't heard about bureaus getting their phones shut
off or --


MR. BOUCHER:  No.



QUESTION: People threatening to cut off cell phone service or things
like that?


MR. BOUCHER: No. I think we do a lot of electronic payments and even
people overseas now do a lot of electronic bill paying through the
Internet.


QUESTION: Richard, another mail question. The Pentagon is requiring
that all mail be opened, visually inspected, X-rayed and tested for
biological and chemical materials. That goes beyond what you're doing,
right?


MR. BOUCHER: I don't know how they receive their mail, what the
routing is. But when we get all the mail we get from the Brentwood
facility from the Postal Service, the First Class Mail that comes in,
all of that is irradiated. So it's safe before it arrives at anything
to do with the State Department. It is trucked out to Ohio, I think,
and irradiated. So I think it's probably just different procedures for
different places, depending on how they do their business.


QUESTION:  Is this going to be the practice from now on?



MR. BOUCHER: What, trucked to Ohio and irradiated? Not necessarily.
But somehow --


QUESTION:  Are you going to irradiate all mail from this point on?



MR. BOUCHER: Either we or the Postal Service will make sure that
everything that goes into our system is safe.


QUESTION: China has been sharing intelligence with the United States
in this anti-terrorism campaign. Could you please mention some
specific contributions that China can offer in Afghanistan nation
building?


MR. BOUCHER: I'm afraid the answer to that right now is, no. As you
know, on the process of reconstruction, on the process of supporting
the political effort, this is just getting going now. We do expect
that all the nations that are interested in Afghanistan and who have
worked hard on the situation will continue to work on that. But I
can't offer specifics that China might provide.


QUESTION:  Are you talking about that with the Chinese Government?



MR. BOUCHER: I don't know to what extent we have at this point. I will
have to double check. Let me check one thing right if I can. That's
what I was checking right now. Yes, China is at the conference this
morning. So in terms of participating in the overall process, I think
it's clear that China wants to participate. But as far as specifics
about what they might contribute, that will be for them to say and to
decide down the road.


QUESTION: I'd like to know if you have any statement about the
journalists that were killed in Afghanistan. What the idea is, whether
it was Taliban or Northern Alliance? Because there seemed to be
conflicting -- is there an investigation? Who would be conducting it?


MR. BOUCHER: I think the answer at this point is we don't know a whole
lot. We don't know the exact circumstances beyond what's been
reported.


It's certainly a tragic incident we very much deplore. We do believe
that those who committed these murders need to be identified, need to
be found, need to be held responsible. But I don't think I can go
beyond that in terms of specifics.


QUESTION: Would it be held responsible by whom, by whatever interim
government comes in or --


MR. BOUCHER: I think that all depends on the circumstances and what
happens.


QUESTION: Well, right now there isn't anyone to hold them responsible,
if they're caught.


MR. BOUCHER: We think they should be held responsible, and whatever
government is established, whatever system is established, it will
also depend on national jurisdiction for other governments. So I can't
define the legal process at this point, but certainly we do think that
people that commit murders like this need to be held responsible. And
I think the first thing is to see who did it, and what can be done.


QUESTION: Sir, according to the reports, a lot of -- I mean, at first
China and Pakistan both were helping the Taliban, and also thousands
of Pakistanis were fighting against the United States inside
Afghanistan. Now they are fleeing across the border.


Are we -- what are we doing about that, and what is the future of
those -- because they are still --


MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Who is
fleeing across the border? And which border?


QUESTION: Okay. First of all, according to the reports, China and
Pakistan both were helping underground or behind the scenes Taliban --
they were helping the Taliban. Two, Pakistan is crossed the border,
fighting against the United States, into Afghanistan. Now they are
fleeing Afghanistan back to Pakistan. And now they are grouping back
where they came from; now they are coming back there. So what is the
future of this? How can we protect in the future?


MR. BOUCHER: You're talking about Pakistanis coming back across? Is
that the idea?


QUESTION:  That's right.



MR. BOUCHER: I think the general answer to the question of the
Pakistani border is that this has been an issue of concern to us. We
are certainly in close contact with the Pakistani Government about the
border, and trying to ensure that people don't cross and cause
trouble, and escape justice.


There are these reports that Taliban fighters might be trying to
cross, and this is something that we are working on with Pakistani
leaders. Pakistan has increased its security forces along the border,
particularly in some of the remote areas. I mean, we do remember,
there's something like 1,500 miles a border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan. It's very rugged and inhospitable terrain. But we have
cooperated with Pakistan on these subjects in the past. It's part of
our counter-narcotics program, for example, where we have worked with
them in a variety of ways, including improving control along their
borders. We have authorized provided $73 million in assistance to
support specifically Pakistan's security efforts along the Afghan
border.


And so these are areas that we are working on and we will continue to
work on. And we do believe that Pakistan is committed to prevent entry
by Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, and that they are taking a lot
of measures to that end.


QUESTION: (Inaudible) Indian officials said when they were here that
these Talibans, after the US war in Afghanistan is over, they are
fleeing now across the border into Kashmir to fight in -- to India --


MR. BOUCHER:  I don't have any information on that.



QUESTION: Richard, can I just get a clarification of just one -- that
question. Has the State Department ever received any information that
the Chinese have supported the Taliban?


MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've ever said anything like that,
frankly.


QUESTION:  I mean, is there any reason?  Okay.



MR. BOUCHER: I mean, everything the Chinese are doing is to oppose
terrorism coming out of Afghanistan. They have done that for many
years, in a variety of ways. And certainly, their position in the
current circumstances has been quite clear.


QUESTION: Richard, a big chunk of that $73 million for the border
security was for big-ticket items, like helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft. Do you know if that stuff's actually arrived there yet?


MR. BOUCHER:  I'll have to check.



QUESTION: Yes. Can we turn to the Secretary's speech from yesterday?
Are we going to get a chance, perhaps, to have an off-the-record with
Ambassador Burns and Zinni, Assistant Secretary Burns and Zinni,
before they go out?


And secondly, what is the difference between the Burns-Zinni and the
Tenet-Burns mission that went off earlier in the spring? Is there
really any difference? Dennis Ross has said that there is nothing new
in the Secretary's speech. But a lot of other people disagree with
him. But, nevertheless, would you comment on that?


MR. BOUCHER:  I'd love -- no.  (Laughter.)



QUESTION:  I didn't expect you to.



MR. BOUCHER: First of all is whether you guys will have an opportunity
to talk to Assistant Secretary Burns and General Zinni before they go
out. We'll have to check. I think the fact that it's Thanksgiving week
might make that difficult.


The second question is sort of what are they doing. What they're
doing, as the Secretary said to you outside, is to work in these
particular circumstances that we have right now, on achieving a
cease-fire and achieving non-belligerency and achieving implementation
of the steps that were understood by Tenet and recommended by the
Mitchell Committee to stop the violence, ease the restrictions, build
confidence, get back to talks.


So what they are doing is to deal with the present circumstance, try
to get us moving down that road.


QUESTION: Richard, on that, do you have a more precise arrival time
for them in the region? Or departure time for them, as to when they're
going to either leave or get to the region?


MR. BOUCHER:  No.



QUESTION:  Is it still this weekend?



MR. BOUCHER:  This weekend.



QUESTION: Because some people are saying -- out there, some people are
saying Monday. I know that's -- I'm quibbling, but -- and the other
thing is, does General Zinni, does he envision having any kind of
staff, or is he kind of just going to be a lone wolf?


MR. BOUCHER: He is going to be supported by the Near East Bureau. So
when he is in Washington, he'll have office and people helping him
here. When he is in the region, I'm sure people from our embassies and
consulates will be assigned to help him out. So he will be supported.


Does he have other people hired -- is hired the right word for
somebody who is not paid? -- does he have people specifically assigned
to support him? I'll have to check, if they're like full-time people
that have been assigned to do that.


QUESTION: Do you know the answer, or you say he's still not paid as
now a full-time -- is he now a full-time?


MR. BOUCHER: No, he works a certain number of days a year, is the
understanding of some of these deals. And so obviously he is going to
be out in the region a lot. He'll work, I'm sure, more than eight
hours a day when he's out there doing this. But some of the time, when
he's back in the States, he might not necessarily be coming in to the
State Department every day. So he'll have some time to himself again.


QUESTION:  So "part-time unpaid? Is still the correct designation?



MR. BOUCHER: Part-time unpaid is still correct. But I don't want to
imply he's only working four hours a day. He's going to go out and
work very intensively on getting us started down this process, and
he'll be back and forth, but spending the bulk of his time in the
region.


QUESTION: He is not shelling out for his own plane tickets, though, is
he? MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm sure we pay his expenses.


QUESTION:  Where is he going to be based when he's in the region?



MR. BOUCHER:  I don't know yet.



QUESTION: I'm just trying to figure out -- if it is possible that he
is going to be supported by various people, either from here or in the
region, particularly if they're in the region, why should this not be
seen as the beginning of a US observer team, something that -- our
third-party observer team, something that the Israelis have protested
against in the past?


MR. BOUCHER:  Because it's different.



QUESTION:  How so?



MR. BOUCHER: I mean, the idea of observers were people who were able
to move around on the ground and go to locations where difficulties
were being encountered.


QUESTION:  Isn't that what he's going to be doing?



MR. BOUCHER: He's not going to be standing on a street corner watching
for things to happen. He is going to be working with the parties to
try to get some movement towards a cease-fire, non-belligerency. He's
going to be working with the commissions that are established. You've
seen the announcement from Prime Minister Sharon. You've seen the
Palestinians say that they look forward to doing something similar.


So he'll be working with the parties to try to help them implement
these steps that have been agreed do, start going down this road that
leads back to talks.


QUESTION: Richard, if there's a peace in the Middle East, the
agreement between Palestine and Israel, terrorism will be diminished
or like Usama bin Laden said in the past, that the reason he is
attacking Americans is because there is no peace in the Middle East.
Do you think terrorism will go away?


MR. BOUCHER: No. We think that we have to fight the war on terrorism.
We have made quite clear that Usama bin Laden discovered the
Palestinians after he started carrying out his attacks, and not
before. The Palestinians have made quite clear they don't want to see
their cause hijacked by terrorism. There are people that have to be
gotten. The al-Qaida network has to be ripped up if we're going to
stop terrorism, as well as other terrorists. And we don't think that
solving the Middle East is going to make terrorism go away.


On the other hand, we think solving the Middle East, working on the
Middle East, reducing the tensions, getting back to peace talks is a
very, very important issue of its own. And it takes away some of the
excuse that people use for violence. But stopping the violence in the
Middle East and getting back to talks is an important aspect of our
diplomacy.


QUESTION: One of the new aspects that was unveiled in the speech was
the US working with other countries on redeveloping the ravaged
Palestinian economy. Current US policy is that the only support we
give to the Palestinians -- we don't support the Palestinian
Authority; we only support NGOs. So my question is, are we now -- or
rather, is the State Department now considering giving money directly
to the Palestinian Authority?


MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any change in our policy. As you know,
we support nongovernmental organizations, we support UN organizations
and others who do work in Palestinian areas. And certainly, endorsing
development in those areas and the rebuilding of a Palestinian economy
doesn't necessarily mean we change the way we route the money. So I
don't have anything new in that regard.


QUESTION: So there's not under any consideration now doing what the
European Union does, which is bankrolling the Palestinian Authority?


MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any change in our policy. I'll just stop
at that at this point.


QUESTION: Can I ask about the meeting with Joschka Fischer this
morning? I know you can't talk about specific deployments by the
Germans, but they do have -- their parliament does have this peculiar
situation where any deployments have to be approved. Can you tell us
whether the Minister and Secretary Powell discussed specific ideas for
things Germany can do now that it's past this hurdle in its parliament
for deploying troops?


MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary certainly welcomed the contributions that
Germany has made and is willing to make in this regard. They didn't
talk about specific military deployments. That's a military matter
that is not discussed at the State Department. So that kind of
planning would be done elsewhere.


QUESTION: Did they talk about humanitarian deployments? Searching the
--


MR. BOUCHER: No, they didn't discuss specific military deployments of
one kind or another. It's just not what we do over here.


QUESTION: Our meetings today with the Mexicans on migration and other
issues. And they are certainly winding up. Do you have anything?


MR. BOUCHER: I've been here with you instead of asking people what
happened at those discussions. I guess I'd describe them as
expert-level or slightly higher, assistant secretary-level, I believe,
discussions with the Mexicans again today on immigration issues,
focusing, I think, on the overall issues of border security, and
immigration generally. And I'll see if I can get you a readout of
those talks once they're done.


QUESTION: With the -- a television station just going on air in Kabul
a day ago, not many people having television sets, how is the PR
campaign going to be waged? And do you expect, within Afghanistan,
that to be a commercial-type enterprise, or do you expect it to be
maybe a part of what the government takes over? And how are you making
arrangements?


MR. BOUCHER: I would say that as we've looked at what we can do to
help people in Afghanistan understand what's going on, we've looked
especially to radio, because most people in Afghanistan do get their
news, do listen to the radio. And so we've tried to make programming
available, whether it's the international broadcasters. I'm not
actually sure what's gone on at this point inside Afghanistan, but
we're trying to make information available as much as we can to any
broadcasters that are starting up again in Afghanistan.


QUESTION: Richard, recognizing this is Thanksgiving week, and also
that the clock is ticking very rapidly towards the end of the Iraq
sanctions, what's going on, if anything, this week? And also, is
anything planned for next week? I assume that something is planned for
next week, if it's not for this week. What's the update on that?


MR. BOUCHER: Well, let me first of all make clear the United States
remains very firmly committed to rebuilding a Security Council
consensus on Iraq, around a new approach that precisely targets
controls to prevent the Iraqi regime from rearming, particularly with
weapons of mass destruction, and to further improve the humanitarian
conditions of the Iraqi people.


We believe that the draft resolution, which the United Kingdom
presented, contains the elements that will most effectively implement
this approach. We are continuing to work with other members of the
Security Council to achieve a resolution that will implement this
improved system.


Russia, as you know, is the only Security Council member that is not
yet in agreement with this new approach. We remain in close
consultations with Russia, aimed at reaching an agreement for the
Security Council action as soon as possible.


The Secretary has discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Ivanov.
We have had consultations at different levels with the Russians. We
had a British team here about a week ago to talk to them in more
detail, and obviously a lot of these consultations now are taking
place at the United Nations. And we will continue to work in the
United Nations as the deadline of November 30th approaches.


QUESTION:  But you don't have anything specific this week?



MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't -- these are sort of ongoing consultations
and discussions in New York. The Secretary has talked to Foreign
Minister Ivanov every couple days. In many of those conversations, the
subject has arisen. So it's an ongoing topic of discussion with other
governments. We all know where we want to go to by the end of the
month, and we keep trying to get there.


QUESTION: Are you -- sort of related -- are you contemplating calling
again through the UN once again that Saddam accept weapons inspectors?


MR. BOUCHER: That's a standing requirement of the United Nations
resolutions, and we always call upon Saddam and on the Iraqi regime to
meet the requirements of the UN resolutions.


QUESTION: Are you thinking about re-upping it in some way, or changing
it around, making it stronger?


MR. BOUCHER: It's as strong as it can be. It's a clear requirement of
the Security Council; he needs to comply.


QUESTION:  Thank you.



(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m. EST.)



(end State Department transcript)



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