02 January 2002

Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

AFGHANISTAN -- Food Aid to Afghanistan -- Special Envoy/Charge d'Affaires in Kabul -- Ambassador Dobbins' roll/Growth of Special Envoy Positions -- Donors Conference -- Security Force/Leadership

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS -- Travel Plans for General Zinni -- Situation Update

INDIA/PAKISTAN -- Secretary Powell's Actions/Situation Update -- Possibility of Leaders meeting in Kathmandu -- President Musharraf's efforts to halt terrorism/Trip to China -- Prime Minister Blair's efforts -- Kashmir

ARGENTINA New Government/U.S. Response to Crisis

ZAMBIA -- New President

DEPARTMENT -- Department efforts to cut visa fraud

EAST TIMOR -- Refugee Camp Closure in West Timor

CHINA -- U.S.-Sino Relationship

Mr. Boucher: Happy New Year, everybody. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here. If I can just start out by noting one thing, we will have a briefing on the record, on camera tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. on humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. The Administrator for the US Agency for International Development, Andrew Natsios, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Alan Kreczko, will be here to brief you.

The number for the day -- and they will have more to explain on the overall program -- but the number for the day is 115,803. This is the tons of food that the World Food Program has been able to move into Afghanistan during the month of December. It is twice the amount they were able to get into Afghanistan in the month of November. And I think it is the largest amount they have ever been able to move anywhere, over the course of the last 40 years. So it is a considerable success getting food into Afghanistan and now increasingly getting it delivered to the people who need it.

Question: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Boucher: Generally, 80 percent of the food comes from the United States. I am not sure of the exact figures on any particular month. But the briefers tomorrow will be able to update you on the distribution of humanitarian aid and the ongoing programs in other areas as well.

Question: While you're at it, though, because weather is always a factor, but does this auger well for January and so forth? Is this a mechanical thing that is in place now that should be promising henceforth?

Mr. Boucher: This amount of food is, I think, able to feed six million people for two months. And that is a good -- bodes well for being able to take care of people through the winter. Again, our briefers tomorrow will have more details for you. But we are also getting trucks through the country, trucks traveling between Spin Boldak and Herat now. They are passing through the center of Kandahar to deliver food to these areas. They are not stopping in Kandahar yet, because it has not been cleared by UN security team yet.

Islamic Relief is doing food distribution in Kandahar city and there is a variety of food being distributed in other parts of the country. So there is quite a bit of food distribution going on and it is getting to the people who need it, so that they can take care of themselves and their families over the course of the winter.

Question: You seem to have stolen all of your colleagues' thunder.

Mr. Boucher: No, they have more thunder. They will have more thunder tomorrow. Other ongoing programs and future plans.

Question: Maybe this is something that should wait until then to ask them, but do you know how much of that food went across the infamous Friendship Bridge?

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't, at this point.

Question: Is that something that they might be able --

Mr. Boucher: That is something they might be able to find out.

Question: Well, you mentioned trucks and that was a nut to crack. Again, we will ask tomorrow, but means you are now going to have the mobility you needed or --

Mr. Boucher: Yes, we have had trucks going into Afghanistan from neighboring countries. Throughout the crisis, that was how the food got in, most of the food got in in October, November, December. The problem was getting the mobility around the country, as you point out, so that you could actually get food from the warehouses within the country to distribution points for the population. For a long time, we were doing very well after the Kabul area, particularly after the Taliban withdrew. Now what we are seeing is we are able to get into other parts of the country as well.

Question: Good. Could we ask you about other things?

Mr. Boucher: Please.

Question: All right, General Zinni. I don't know if he is there yet, but there is already a dispute as to how much quiet there has to be for how long. And, of course, it is a recurrent question because the Secretary has carefully avoided saying zero violence, but "way down" is his prescription. Israel says zero. But more significantly now is the Prime Minister saying seven days of calm is insufficient. And it seems maybe that the US thinks it is sufficient or you are getting close to the point where you want to kick in with Mitchell. So can you bring us up to date on that?

Mr. Boucher: Well, let me go back and try to sort of characterize where we are with General Zinni and his travel back to the region. I will describe it to you, tell you what he is up to, and then if you have more detailed questions, we can go to that.

Our Senior Advisor, Anthony Zinni, will return to the region this week to continue his efforts to assess the situation on the ground with a view towards assisting the Israelis and Palestinians to establish a sustainable cease-fire through the implementation of the Tenet work plan and the Mitchell Committee report. He hasn't quite gotten there yet. I think he gets there tomorrow.

General Zinni will continue to focus the Palestinian Authority on security steps to combat terror and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, and to promote a continued reduction in the level of violence. He will also discuss with Israel economic measures that they can take to ease the pressure on the Palestinian population. His return is part of the continuing US effort to help the parties end the violence, restore confidence, and resume a political process. He is expected to return to Washington early next week to brief Secretary Powell.

I would note in this context that there has been a reduction in violence in the region. We continue to urge Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to continue their efforts, including arrests of terrorists in the Palestinian territories, and firm actions to dismantle terrorist networks and institutions. We have also continued to urge direct contacts between the parties to combat terror more effectively, and to sustain and strengthen the relative calm of the past several days.

We will continue to work with the parties towards the achievement of a durable cease-fire, and movement along the lines of the Tenet work plan and the Mitchell Committee Report, and we are exploring what practical formula can best move this effort forward.

Question: I realize I'm asking the questions that put you on the spot, or put the Near East Bureau on the spot --

Mr. Boucher: Well, don't do that.

Question: But you brought up another one, and of course, you haven't really answered the questions I asked. The cells, the terrorist --

Mr. Boucher: Well, I corrected a lot of misimpressions that were inherent in your question.

Question: Was I wrong? I didn't think you dealt with it at all.

Mr. Boucher: So I considered that a useful contribution anyway. But go ahead, Barry. Ask your question.

Question: Thank you. But I didn't think you -- first of all, you didn't tell us if it's the US view that violence must cease, period.

Mr. Boucher: You didn't ask that question, but the question --

Question: I did. I said the Secretary of State still has to come down a lot; Israel says it has to end for Mitchell to kick in. Which is the -- what is the US's position? Secondly, are seven days of calm sufficient in the US view? Israel says no. And you're -- what you've just said raises a third question. You have asked for the dismantling of terrorist cells; must they be dismantled for Mitchell to kick in?

Mr. Boucher: We have always said that ending the violence is part of the Mitchell process; it's part of getting it started, part of getting it going, and part of continuing it. What we are looking for is practical steps by the parties. That is what the Tenet plan, that is what the Mitchell Plan is all about. We have looked to the parties to continue to take steps, as I have described it today. What we are looking for is an effort to combat terror and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. That's the way to promote a continued reduction of violence.

So it's not a question of endorsing one or the other side's criteria or ideas; it's a matter of working with both sides to get them to take steps that can effectively end the violence.

Question: Can I ask you one more? Then I'll withdraw. Does Zinni expect or hope to have Mitchell going by the time he leaves to come back here?

Mr. Boucher: He is going to discuss the practical ways of how to move forward. I don't want to predict at any particular moment, what he can achieve.

Question: Two questions. One is, the Israelis claim that in the last two weeks, despite the cease-fire pledge from Hamas, that they have actually prevented a number of terrorist attacks. How does that factor into the -- what Barry was asking about, in terms of measuring the quiet? Does a thwarted terrorist attack count as not a day of quiet?

And second, about getting both sides to talk to each other, the Israeli President Katsav has offered to talk to the Palestinian assembly, and Sharon has said -- he told him he can't go. Does the State Department have a position on that?

Mr. Boucher: Well, in answer to your first question about what counts as a day of quiet, the only answer to that is I ain't be counting days of quiet, if you've noticed. In response to that question, that question, and probably the next one and the next one. Okay? So let's just not start assuming something in your questions.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: The second part of it is, in terms of President Katsav and his travel to the Palestinian Assembly, I'll leave that one with the Israelis. That's a matter of their own politics. I'm not going to get into that.

Question: Can I just take another bite at the apple? But will Zinni in any way be, in the more general sense, asking the Prime Minister, in terms of encouraging contacts with the Palestinians, not to -- maybe to allow his peacemakers in the Israeli Government to meet with Palestinians, as a general proposition?

Mr. Boucher: We will continue to urge direct contacts between the parties. We have always stressed the importance of direct contacts on security issues. We have always stressed the importance of having direct cooperation between the parties, and the value of these meetings on security issues.

Beyond that, on other more political areas, I really don't know that I want to make a grand pronouncement, but I do want to say we always encourage direct contacts.

Question: You mentioned at the beginning the request for Israeli to take steps to ease the position of the Palestinian people. Given the reduction in violence of the last week or so, do you think the time is now right for the Israeli Government to take such steps?

Mr. Boucher: We think the time is right for Zinni to be discussing with the Israeli Government the kind of steps that they can take, and that's one of the things he will be doing when he is out there this week.

Question: Okay. And another question. When General Zinni last went to the region, he -- you said he would stay as long as it takes, essentially. It didn't turn out to be possible in the end. This time he is only going for four or five days. Why the difference? And what's your backup plan if he can't get something agreed in these four days? And then has to leave --

Mr. Boucher: I think it's important to remember in all this, if Zinni is in the region, and he stayed for a while to try to get things started, to get some ideas himself, listen to the parties, get some ideas himself about where to go. And as we have said before, in fact, he has been working on ideas. He has worked with the parties on ideas of how to get moving along this line of the Tenet and Mitchell processes, and that process was disrupted by the series of attacks.

And since then, we have managed to see a reduction in violence, some very strong statements by Chairman Arafat, some strong efforts to carry that out. So I think the -- you know, the mission continues, the involvement of the United States, the involvement of General Zinni continues. At this stage, he is going out there to talk to them about practical formulas to move forward and then he will come back and talk to the Secretary. We always assumed he would be back and forth. We always assumed his first trip would be for a fairly long period of time. And from here on in, it will depend on what the best step is at any given moment.

Question: If I can say, you do envisage a strong likelihood that he would return again after coming back for consultations --

Mr. Boucher: I think I better let him get there before I talk about his next trip, okay?

Question: Along that line, though, is there a date specific for his return to the US, or is that something that will be decided once --

Mr. Boucher: Early next week.

Question: But no definite --

Mr. Boucher: I don't have a particular date for you at this point.

Question: Another thing, did you guys take note, and if you did, what did you make of Arafat's New Year's speech, in which he vowed to have an independent Palestine this year?

Mr. Boucher: I think we noted it. I don't have any particular commentary.

Question: New subject?

Mr. Boucher: Please.

Question: India-Pakistan. Can you say what the Secretary has done over the last few days? Any phone calls he might have made and what the US is doing to try and help the parties avert war?

Mr. Boucher: Okay. The Secretary over this weekend had a number of conversations with Indian and Pakistani leaders. Since Friday, he has talked one, two -- looks like four times to President Musharraf, looks like three times to Foreign Minister Singh and they've kept in touch. But I think above and beyond that, we have worked very closely, the Secretary has worked very closely with our ambassadors in the region,

Ambassador Blackwell, Ambassador Chamberlin have both been very active in terms of working to try to defuse tensions, trying to encourage steps that will stop terrorism, it will stop extremism in the region, and that will satisfy the needs of both countries to be safe from terrorism. We are pleased to see that Pakistan and India have both continued to take steps to defuse the tensions between them.

Leaders of both countries have made conciliatory statements. Pakistan has continued to act against fundamentalist groups that are a threat to itself and its neighbors. Pakistan has arrested heads of organizations that have been engaging in terrorism. They have closed offices in Pakistan, they have arrested others who are intent on disturbing the peace. President Musharraf has made several important statements with regard to encouraging moderation, and we are confident that he will continue to show strong leadership against extremism.

We would also note the statement today -- I think it was today or yesterday -- by the Indian Defense Minister that Indian troops had been deployed to assembly areas and were not in battle positions in Kashmir.

So we do think that the -- each of these countries are continuing to act responsibly in order to avoid a conflict. We continue to encourage them to resolve their differences through dialogue. We note that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation meetings, ministerial at this point and then a summit at the end of the week, are taking place in Kathmandu. The two foreign ministers are there now. So we would hope that the two governments would see this as an opportunity to make progress toward resolving their current differences and to lower tensions. We will continue to be active in working with both sides. We continue to have active diplomacy through our ambassadors on the ground as well as directly from the Secretary of State.

I would note there does continue to be violence in Kashmir. There were some more attacks today, which we obviously condemn and we continue to call for an end to violence there.

Question: Richard, a couple things, first of all on the Secretary's phone calls, Phil told us about some over the weekend. How many of those phone calls --

Mr. Boucher: I think that's basically what I'm doing. The last ones were on Monday.

Question: Okay. Two, do you have anyone who is not normally in Kathmandu in Kathmandu now, trying to like shepherd these -- because, although the foreign ministers did shake hands, I guess, this morning, there is no plan for the leaders to meet?

Mr. Boucher: I think there are five or six days. We will just have to see what happens there. I am not aware that we have sent anybody who is not normally in Kathmandu. But we have diplomats in Kathmandu and one of their jobs is to follow meetings of these sorts and they keep in touch with both sides.

Question: I am not trying to cast aspersions on --

Mr. Boucher: We are everywhere; we don't have to send people there.

Question: Okay. Well, speaking of being everywhere, there was some talk, some rumor, some reports of possibly sending someone from Washington over there to South Asia to try to deal with this. And I notice this morning that the Libyans have actually sent someone.

What do you think about that and what is the status of the US envoy?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think anything particular about that. I would say that US diplomacy continues to be active in this regard. As I said, both the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and others are working our ambassadors in the region. Whether or not we send someone else at some point is obviously a matter we will have to consider, but at this point there have been no decisions.

Question: On the first thing -- can I just follow up on the first question?

Question: It's the same question. It's the same issue. So would you conclude, from what you're saying, that you think the crisis has turned the corner to a more favorable view than you thought last week, or the week before?

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to do that. We're going to continue to be active. We think it's necessary to continue to be active, first and foremost because we are interested in seeing an end to this terrorism. We are interested in seeing an end to the extremism that has brought violence to this crisis instead of solutions.

So we will continue to work with both India and Pakistan about what they can do to stop terrorism, to fight terrorism. And I think we will continue to be active. I don't think one should make any sweeping statements at this moment.

Question: Would you direct -- could you say directly, would you like to see Musharraf and the Prime Minister meet?

Mr. Boucher: The leaders are there, the foreign ministers are there. I'm sure they have other delegations who are there. We do see it as an opportunity, but I will leave it to them to decide how to use it.

Question: Richard, there was a story in the -- I believe it was The Times this morning. If I remember it correctly, it suggests that Musharraf has told US officials that he wants to go beyond arresting leaders and root out these terrorist apparatus involving Islamic radicals in Pakistan. Do you have anything on that?

Mr. Boucher: I would just say that's been inherent in the statements that he has made. I think he has made one on the 25th, and then another statement on the 28th or the 29th. And he has recognized the dangers that extremism poses for his country and for the region, and we think he is taking steps to carry that out in action as well as word.

Question: Prime Minister Blair is headed for the region. Has he coordinated his mission with anyone in this building or in Washington?

Mr. Boucher: "Coordinated his mission" may be too strong. We, obviously, keep in very close touch with the British on these issues, including on Prime Minister Blair's trip. So we're quite aware of it, we know his mission. But this was a trip that I think he had planned some time ago and so we have always been aware of it.

Question: Is anybody here working with their Chinese counterpart on Pakistan? The Pakistani President is in -- going to go to China in the second time in like eight days or something.

Mr. Boucher: Going -- he has been there, right?

Question: He left on the 24th of last month.

Mr. Boucher: That's kind of what I remember too.

Question: And I think he is going to stop by on the way to attend --

Mr. Boucher: I didn't realize that there might be a second trip. I hadn't heard about that. We have been in touch with the Chinese. We continue to be in touch with the Chinese through our embassy in Beijing to talk about the situation in India and Pakistan. In fact, we have been keeping in touch with the neighborhood, people in the region, and we will continue to have contacts with the Chinese, both on the specifics of the visits there, but also on the more general situation, which is of concern to neighbors as well as to us.

Question: One more. After India gave back Pakistani Government new list of 20 wanted people, Pakistan said there is no evidence that these people are guilty. And is there any new pressure from Washington to ask them to compromise on both sides?

Mr. Boucher: I would say part of our ongoing discussion with the Indian Government has been about the need to make available as much as they can evidence and information on the perpetrators of these actions. But I don't think I can go into any more detail than that at this point.

Question: Mr. Boucher, has Secretary Powell specifically suggested to Indian and Pakistani leaders that they should meet in Kathmandu, foreign ministers or --

Mr. Boucher: Same question that I was asked here.

Question: No, in the conversations that he has had.

Mr. Boucher: Well, I don't -- I think I would just stick with what generally the United States has said, that this is a good opportunity for them. How they use it will be obviously for them to decide.

Question: Does the United States have a position on the Indian request that the Pakistanis actually extradite these people for trial or some of these people for trial in India?

Mr. Boucher: Not that I've heard of.

Have you taken a position, Phil? Phil doesn't have a position, either.

Question: Okay. Would you like to -- I mean, do you have any ideas on it?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think it is a subject that we can get into at this moment. I will double check and make sure.

Question: Can I ask you about those incidents in Kashmir? It was sort of a "but," but I don't know whether the State Department knows which side or only one side is responsible for the outbreaks. In other words, you read the -- you read a list of Pakistani moves that you obviously thought were positive and then you spoke of recurrence of violence. Is there any suggestion --

Mr. Boucher: Barry, we have been quite clear on the groups that we think are carrying out violence in Kashmir. I don't have any particular evidence of the grenades that went off today in Srinagar, of who did that. But let me remind you that the United States has made quite clear the groups that we think are carrying out violence in these areas. We added two of them to the terrorism list last week, about a week ago now, and they have been on our list of financial sanctions for a while and they have been mentioned in our terrorism report. So we have been quite clear about who we think is carrying out the violence.

Question: Afghanistan. Since I was here last, we have a new special envoy to add to the other several special envoys and I was wondering if you could do a rundown of what these people are doing.

Mr. Boucher: Funny you should ask. Let me try to give you a rundown of where we stand with Afghanistan. I think the first thing to remember is where we are. The Interim Authority is established in Kabul. They are beginning the task or continuing the task of establishing a working government, restoring peace and order to Afghanistan. The Interim Authority has the full support of the United States and the international community and the United Nations.

The Afghan Interior Minister initialed this week a -- with the British - a technical agreement to allow establishment of the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan and that force will help provide security and safety for the government and the people of Afghanistan as they establish themselves and they will work in full cooperation with the Interim Authority.

On the United States side, let me give you the rundown of the players the way it stands right now. The White House has announced the appointments of Zal Khalilzad as Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan. He will be leaving soon for visits to Afghanistan, and to neighboring countries. He will meet with Afghan leaders, with UN officials, with officials in neighboring countries as we continue our effort to promote Afghan reconciliation and reconstruction.

Ryan Crocker, who many of you know, currently Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Near East Bureau, principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Near East Bureau, will be arriving in Kabul early next week, where he will take up the position of Charg��d'Affaires. And then the White House will announce its choice for the next US Ambassador to Afghanistan at the appropriate time. That's a White House matter.

As for the existing players, Ambassador Dobbins has accomplished a very difficult mission in working with the Afghan opposition to establish a plan for creating a broad-based government in Afghanistan. He will remain available as needed at this point. And Ambassador Haass will of course keep his eye on Afghan issues in his role as Director for Policy Planning, and remain engaged on that basis.

Question: Does that mean that Ambassador Dobbins still has the title? Or has that title been modified since its --

Mr. Boucher: Well, he was the Special Envoy to the opposition. The opposition is now the government, and I guess the only opposition is the remnants of the Taliban. We have other special envoys who are working on that right now. (Laughter.) You can ask at the Pentagon about that.

Question: Non-diplomatic?

Mr. Boucher: So no, Ambassador Dobbins basically accomplished his mission.

Question: Does that mean that he still -- is he done?

Question: He's going? Is he leaving?

Question: Has he left?

Mr. Boucher: He has left -- he's here. He's in an office in the South Asia Bureau. For the moment, he has accomplished his mission. I think that at this point we're talking about reconstruction, reconciliation over the longer term. Zal Khalilzad will go out to work with our mission in Kabul, and to work with the new interim authority there, and work that process.

Question: Well, I guess what I'm -- just for the sake of us trying to be accurate, I mean, are there three people still who will --

Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't try to count today.

Question: Okay. Well, then, on a similar but related matter, when this Administration came in, the Secretary was particularly vociferous about eliminating special envoy positions. You've now got three for Afghanistan. You've appointed one for Sudan; you've appointed -- you've got Zinni as a special advisor. Has the Secretary changed his mind about special envoy positions?

Mr. Boucher: I think the Secretary has always said, from the first day, when asked about special envoys for the Middle East, special envoys for other places, that if he thought it useful, he would name people. Early on in the Administration, he reviewed some 55, I think it was, positions, decided to eliminate 20-some of those. The few that have been established since then don't bring us anywhere near the number that we had before. And as we see with Ambassador Dobbins, one can go out as a special envoy, one can accomplish admirably the goals that were set forth, and then consider the task done.

Question: Oh, okay. So Dobbins then, he's finished then? I mean, he's not -- (laughter). I know that sounds bad. I'm just -- I mean, is there still a special envoy, or a special representative to the Afghan opposition? Is there still someone in that position? I realize it's very mundane, but I want to be accurate.

Mr. Boucher: It's too precise a question to be able to answer at this point. I'm not quite sure. The answer is basically, he has achieved his mission; he did what he set out to do; he completed his mission, and now he is available as needed. But he is not going to be actively --

Question: You should basically call him up and ask him if he thinks he's the --

Mr. Boucher: No. I talked to him this morning, thank you. I know what his phone number is. So all right? So he's basically finished his mission. I'll leave it at that.

Question: Richard, you said that Ryan Crocker was going to Kabul as charg�� I know this has come up, and I don't want to go into great length if it's -- if you don't have anything to add, but have you established at what point the charg��becomes an ambassador, and can you explain why he is only a charg��and not an ambassador?

Mr. Boucher: The charg��doesn't become an ambassador necessarily. An ambassador will be named by the White House at the appropriate time and then will be confirmed and become an ambassador with the advice and consent of the Senate. Anyone -- most anyone, normally -- who has not gone through the advice and consent process is not an ambassador. And therefore, we have to go through that process, with all respect for our colleagues for the advice and consent process in the Senate.

In terms of the charg�� he is the guy in charge. He is the guy that we are sending out to take the mission, to run the mission, to manage the relationship and get to work on this ongoing relationship and the future issues of reconstruction and reconciliation, aided and supported by people from Washington, like Mr. Khalilzad. But he will be out there. He is charg��because he is in charge.

Question: Well, okay, can I just follow that up? And so you seem to be suggesting that the constraint is on this side, rather than on the Afghan side. You're appointing a charg��because you need somebody there quickly, not because of any -- the special status of the Afghan administration; is that correct?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: Richard, can I just ask, just to get things clear, and that what we were talking about as you were walking in -- is he a DCM? And at what point --

Mr. Boucher: No. The charg��is the person in charge. Very frequently, when an ambassador leaves, the deputy -- the Deputy Chief of Mission becomes the charg�� But in fact, a charg��can be someone sent from the capital. There are some places where we don't have an ambassador, where we have a permanent charg�� A "charg��ad permanentsia" -- (laughter) -- I don't know if we have another term. Not ad interim, but where we decide to accredit a person a certain level, and have a charg��instead of an ambassador for recognition or political reasons. Jonathan asked; I said that was not the situation.

Question: Right, right. Is there a -- is a charg��more senior than a DCM?

Mr. Boucher: A charg��is the person in charge. When a DCM -- when anybody becomes charg�� they get ambassador's pay, which is a great boon to younger members of the Foreign Service. So it's just different. It's the guy in charge. It can be -- it is frequently the deputy, but is not always.

Question: Just two questions. Is there a replacement in -- I guess, I think it's Gulf Affairs, for Crocker, who is going to be acting in his place? And second, why wouldn't you leave Dobbins, who has all these contacts with the opposition, who are now the government, to continue working with the people who are running the new administration in Afghanistan, since he has all this experience dealing with them up to now, and send in someone totally new instead? I mean, why wouldn't you just leave him there?

Mr. Boucher: Well, I have to point out, Ambassador Crocker is not totally new to the situation in Afghanistan, because he has worked the many Middle Eastern aspects of the fight against terrorism and the war, and the effort in Afghanistan, including reconstruction assistance, and all the other things that we have done with many of the Middle Eastern countries.

Second of all, Mr. Khlilzad was with Ambassador Dobbins in Bonn, worked closely with the various groups who now form the interim authority, and has other personal and political experience with Afghanistan. So we have working this issue for us several individuals who have an awful lot of experience. And that's how we're going to go forward.

Question: But, I mean, is there any particular reason why Dobbins wouldn't stay there? I mean, I just -- I just want to know why -- I mean, he was making -- he did such a great job; why wouldn't you --

Mr. Boucher: He certainly did. And he achieved his task.

Question: Can you talk about reconstruction, please? There is going to be a conference later this month in Tokyo, I believe.

Mr. Boucher: Yes. The conference -- let's see what I -- I'm not quite sure how much information I have about at this point.

Question: Has that assessment team been -- there was an assessment team that was due to go.

Mr. Boucher: I think I'm going to -- I'm going to end up having to get you more on that. The conference is coming up in Tokyo, around the 21st of this month. The countries involved have been meeting with the steering committee and others through a series of meetings since we had the Washington meeting. There were meetings in Berlin and Brussels. I think Brussels was probably the last one, in December.

So we look forward to getting together in Japan later this month, in trying to work on a concrete plan for helping the Afghans in their reconstruction.

Question: Is that a meeting the Secretary might attend?

Mr. Boucher: No word on that at this point for you.

Question: Well, on the Tokyo conference, when this first came up, I think we got the impression that Tokyo would be a pledging conference, or a donors conference. Is that a thing sufficiently advanced at this stage for that -- for you to go ahead on that basis?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not quite sure how it will be formally described, but I would say that things are fairly well advanced in terms of identifying the needs for Afghanistan, the costs of reconstruction, the kind of programs that need to be funded, and things like that. So I expect that there will be -- we will be in a position to discuss many of those issues there.

Question: Okay, so what is the Administration's thinking on how much money they might be willing to contribute?

Mr. Boucher: We don't have any yet.

Question: Richard, moving from A to Z.

Mr. Boucher: Can we let Andrea go to a new subject first?

Question: As long as it's in between A and Z.

Mr. Boucher: Somewhere in between A and Z.

Question: New subject, Argentina. I don't know if you've heard, but they have a new president.

Mr. Boucher: Yes. We have. Only As and Zs today. Argentina, Afghanistan, Zal and Zinni. (Laughter.)

Argentina is working its way through a difficult political situation. They are working through a political process within the framework provided by their constitution. So how they do this is an internal Argentine matter.

We're hopeful that the new government will persevere in laying the groundwork for a return to sustainable growth and prosperity. Once again, I point out, Argentina is our neighbor, it's a valued ally, and it's a friend.

We're closely following events in Argentina, and remain engaged with its leadership. We have confidence in the strength of Argentine institutions. And we have made clear that once Argentina develops a sustainable economic plan, working with international financial institutions, that we and others are willing to support Argentina through the IMF and other international financial institutions.

Question: How concerned are you about the impact of these various changes that have happened in Argentina in the last several weeks on the future of Latin American free trade?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think one should draw any conclusions at this point. Clearly, the opportunities for the Hemisphere need to be pursued. The opportunities for free trade and the benefits of free trade need to be brought to all the people in the Hemisphere, and that remains a fundamental proposition of our policy.

Question: Can you guess? Zaire is gone, so --

Mr. Boucher: It could be Zambia, or it could be Zimbabwe.

Question: It's Zambia. The other day, you hadn't on Monday yet made up your mind about the -- what you thought about the Zambian election, because the results hadn't been announced. So now that they have, and there's a new president, what do you think?

Mr. Boucher: Well, the new president was sworn in today. We also know that the opposition parties filed petitions to preclude the swearing-in of Mr. Mwanawasa, the ruling party candidate. Petitions contend that serious fraud had taken place, and that the outcome had been changed by ballot box stuffing and similar election fraud. A high court judge has stated that the petitions filed need to be brought before the supreme court, according to Zambian law. We understand his ruling was in conformance with the electoral law of Zambia, which states that election challenges can be brought within 14 days of the inauguration, but cannot defer the swearing-in of the elected president.

We would hope that the electoral commission will cooperate in the timely release of the figures, and lend credence to the final tabulations. We would say that the international election monitors and others observing the process have been positive about the transparency of most of the polling places and the counting process. Interim reports that have been issued by the Carter Center and the European Union observers have not cited ballot stuffing or tampering as having been observed. Opposition reports of widespread incidents of such fraud had not been confirmed by independent observers.

We think opposition groups need to be encouraged to be more specific in their allegations so that observed or suspected incidents of ballot tampering can be verified. International and domestic monitors continue to assess the situation. We await their final conclusions.

Question: New subject. Had you seen the story in the L.A. Times this morning about efforts in which the State Department is vowing to cut down on visa fraud?

Mr. Boucher: Let me tell you about efforts to cut down on visa fraud, if I can. We're talking about better technology, face recognition, things like that?

Question: Yes.

Mr. Boucher: We have been investigating the use of biometrics, including, but not limited to, facial recognition technology for some time now. It's part of our ongoing efforts to increase border security.

In June 2001, a pilot program -- in a pilot program, we began sharing digital photographs on new visas issued at four embassies, with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In mid-December, this data was expanded to include all new visas issued worldwide. This information is being made electronically available to inspectors at all US points of entry.

The Immigration Service is in the process of training its inspectors and updating its equipment to give inspectors access to these digital images. So I have to refer you to them in terms of training and technology, and their use of the digital images that we provide.

The Enhanced Border Security Visa Entry Reform Bill that was just passed would require biometric identifiers on visas and passports of countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program. It is still too early to comment on how -- on that, because the bill has still not been enacted, excuse me.

The State Department has been working with members of Congress and their staff throughout this process.

Question: And one day, I asked about the closure of refugee camps in West Timor. Did you get anything on that?

Mr. Boucher: What do we know about the closure of refugee camps in West Timor? Well, just a second; I'm getting there.

Here's what we know. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, during the latter part of December 2001, the Government of Indonesia did threaten to discontinue providing refugee assistance in West Timor. But the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in coordination with the Government of Indonesia, announced in late November a plan for the resettlement of these people within Indonesia. So any additional questions have to go to those UN agencies on how exactly it's being worked out.

Question: Well, no, I'm not asking about how it's working; I'm asking what you think about it.

Mr. Boucher: Well, our understanding is that they are not being thrown out of West Timor.

Question: But you just said the solution was to resettle in Indonesia?

Mr. Boucher: Well, within Indonesia, I guess.

Question: In West Timor? Okay.

Mr. Boucher: It doesn't necessarily mean -- you will have to check with them on the details of it, that kind of plan.

Question: Richard, do you have any comment -- Ambassador Dick Holbrooke's article in today's Washington Post saying that Beijing -- Washington and Beijing should negotiate a new communiqu��

Mr. Boucher: We have a lot of important treaty relationships in Asia, as well as important relationships with China and other governments in this region. We're looking for candid, constructive and cooperative relations with China, but we do continue to build on areas of cooperation and common interests, like the fight against terrorism, as well as addressing our differences with the Chinese.

We frankly think the current framework of our relationship allows us to pursue these goals, and we will continue to use that framework as we move forward.

Question: Well, what was that? You said, "candid, constructive" and what?

Mr. Boucher: Cooperative.

Question: The three "Cs". (Laughter.) It's like --

Mr. Boucher: Who knows what that will be next time.

Question: With China making it four Cs.

Question: Richard, does that framework include a possible communiqu��in the near future?

Mr. Boucher: The framework, the existing framework, we think, allows us to pursue the goals we need to pursue with China and we will stick with that for the moment.

Thank you.

(The briefing concluded at 1:45 p.m. EST.)