07 January 2002

Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY -- General Zinni's Talks With Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat -- Israeli Seizure of Vessel Containing Weapons -- Iranian Connections to Seized Vessel -- Zinni's return to region

REGION -- A/S Burns Travel to Middle East

INDIA/PAKISTAN -- Update on Situation/Diplomatic Efforts -- Meeting between leaders

IRAQ -- Funding to the Iraqi Opposition

SAUDI ARABIA -- Clothing Standards for State Department Employees

SINGAPORE -- Arrest of Suspected Terrorist/Threat to American Interest

ASIA -- Joint Communiqu��from Shanghai Cooperation Meeting -- Taiwanese Vice President's layover in NYC

AFGHANISTAN -- Lifting of Sanctions -- Diplomatic Immunity for Taliban -- Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan

U.S. Department Of State
Daily Press Briefing
Monday, January 7, 2002 -- 12:55 P.m. (on The Record Unless Otherwise Noted)

Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here and I'll be glad to take your questions. Mr. Schweid.

Question: The business of the ship, the intercepted ship. By the way, I saw a date presented of a return to that region. I can't remember what it was, the 17th maybe. But in any event, what is the current U.S. view of what happened and whether there is any Palestinian Authority culpability?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I actually have any new information for you today on that. As you know, General Zinni raised this during his meetings in Israel and his meetings with Chairman Arafat. He pressed for an explanation of the incident. He urged Chairman Arafat to take immediate steps to prevent further attempts to bring in additional weaponry and escalate the current conflict.

As we mentioned on Friday, Chairman Arafat, at that time, denied any knowledge, offered full cooperation in an investigation. And that is what we are looking to see so that we hope that he and the Palestinian Authority will move quickly in supporting an investigation and expect he will do that.

Question: Is it the uncertainty, some degree of uncertainty, that inhibits the State Department from drawing any conclusions? In other words, should I wait till you find out if Arafat knew about this?

Mr. Boucher: We tend to like to have the facts before we draw the conclusions, so at this point we're still talking obviously to the Israelis and talking to the Palestinians about getting the facts in this matter. The Israelis are conducting an investigation. The Palestinians have offered to cooperate in any investigation. And obviously, beyond knowing the facts of this particular matter, we need to see steps by the Palestinian Authority to see that this threat is eliminated and that the kind of threat that these terrorist groups -- that terrorist groups represent be brought to a close.

Question: Just one last thing then, because obviously you consider the jury is still out. When the State Department says that Arafat's involvement is something they are still looking at, does that mean you still --

Mr. Boucher: I didn't say that, Barry. I said we're looking for the facts of the matter. We're looking for the investigation of the matter. And I can't tell you whose involvement is to be presumed or expected or examined.

Question: No, I just meant that Arafat told Zinni, according to the State Department, that he doesn't know anything about --

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: So I thought that's one thing you want to find out: Did he know about it? But the question I'm trying to ask is whether you also don't know whether the Palestinian Authority had hired the ship to bring 50 tons of outlawed weapons into terrorist hands in that region. Is that still a question in your mind?

Mr. Boucher: Barry, I answered your question originally to say we don't have the facts in this matter. I didn't focus on Chairman Arafat except to the extent that he said he didn't have any knowledge. We don't know. We don't know who hired it, who was the recipient. Those are the kinds of pieces of information we are looking for.

But as I stressed, beyond the information, we want to make sure that those who would use weapons like this, that the terrorist groups that operate, are dismantled. And that remains a key important step for policy purposes, beyond getting the facts of this matter, is to making sure that groups that conduct terrorism are not able to do so, not able to get weapons, not able to carry out attacks.

Question: If I could ask one last thing, and then I will give up -- or yield, not give up, because you are providing some answers at least.

Mr. Boucher: Then you will be satisfied and full of information?

Question: No, I mean, I think it will probably take a long time before the State Department figures out who did this, but then we'll be back with the same questions. I just wondered if there was any compliment or any or any pat on the back due Israel for intercepting, considering your war on terrorism -- whoever hired the ship, wherever the weapons came from? And Friday you seemed to credit the notion they came from Iran. Is this the sort of action that complements the U.S. war on terrorism?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, I don't think I mentioned Iran on Friday.

Question: We all mentioned Iran, and you seemed to -- well, all right, let's leave Iran out of it. Nothing happened, apparently except a ship was out there and it was intercepted by Israel and there were weapons. Is it good that Israel stopped the weapons?

Mr. Boucher: It's definitely good that Israel stopped the weapons. Obviously, this was an Israeli operation. Any law enforcement operations or other operations that are able to prevent terrorists or violent groups from acquiring the means of carrying out their violence is good. We think it's commendable of the Israelis for having been able to intercept the shipment and prevent the potential escalation of violence in the region.

Question: But presumably it is also good that the sun rose this morning, yes? I've got two things. One, I don't know if you covered this before we got in here, but is there any timetable set for the Secretary's discussions with General Zinni? And also, how long is he expected to remain here until he goes back? And I'm sorry if this was covered already.

Mr. Boucher: Yes, he will remain here until he goes back.

(Laughter.)

Question: How long?

Mr. Boucher: No, I'll get to the serious answers to your question. He has returned to Washington now. We have confirmation that he is in the United States. He just got back. And Senior Advisor Zinni returned to Washington. He will brief Secretary Powell on his recent trip. There is no specific meeting set yet, but I'm sure they will see each other in coming days.

As we have said on Sunday, his four days of intensive consultations have made clear that, though there are serious challenges that remain, there are also real opportunities for progress. He will consult with Secretary Powell and Assistant Secretary Bill Burns later this week, and then he will return to the region in the near future to assess what the parties have been able to accomplish in their bilateral and trilateral meetings that the parties have convened.

Question: You would not expect to have a date for his return until after he meets with Burns and --

Mr. Boucher: That's right. I don't have a date for you yet, and I would expect him to have his meetings before we announce one.

Question: Okay. And on the related matter, has there been any contact through intermediaries with the Iranians about this incident?

Mr. Boucher: The answer is I don't know. We don't usually talk about it, but I will check and see if there is anything I can say.

Question: There were reports from the -- I know you said there is no date specific, but reports from the region are indicating that there is a date of January 18th. Is that around the time, or is that --

Mr. Boucher: That was alluded to earlier. I don't have any specific dates for you. I would expect something a week or two from now that he'll probably go back. But at this point he's back here and he'll be talking with the Secretary and Assistant Secretary Burns, and we'll announce it for you when we're ready.

Question: Speaking of dates, there was another date mentioned in a paper, a Yemeni newspaper this morning, saying that Assistant Secretary Burns will be there in Sanaa on the 17th. Was this also discussed earlier? I'm sorry.

Mr. Boucher: No, it wasn't. I don't have a specific date for you for Yemen, but Assistant Secretary Burns will travel to the region from January 9th to the 18th. He'll be talking about issues of mutual concern, like the campaign against terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and then bilateral and regional issues with countries involved. His stops include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, in approximately that order. So that would put Yemen towards the end of the trip, from the 9th through the 18th.

Question: He doesn't expect to go to any -- well, to any of the -- if he's talking about the Israelis and Palestinians, you don't expect him to --

Mr. Boucher: Is he going to the region in the region?

Question: Yes, the region within the region.

Mr. Boucher: At this point, as you know, he has been making a number of trips to the Near East, North Africa, and he was with General Zinni on the original stops in Israel and the Palestinian areas. So this is to another part of his vast region. I don't know of any travel to Israel or Jerusalem at this point.

Question: Going to the ship incident again, the wires are carrying interviews with the ship's captain where he says that he was indeed working for the Palestinian Authority under contract to the Palestinian Authority. And I understand that you are still in the process of gathering facts and verifying information and so on, but if it is shown that this indeed was a Palestinian Authority operation, how serious a blow would that be to --

Mr. Boucher: That's what we call the hypothetical, the grand speculative hypothetical that we don't try to answer. Let's see what the facts are first. Let's deal with the facts as we find them, as we know them. At this point I know there is a lot of things being said, but it's not for us to speculate.

Question: If I can, just to follow. Other elements of the U.S. Government are a little bit more supportive of the Israeli point of view than you have been. Is there some other information that they have access to that you don't, or why are you --

Mr. Boucher: I don't know that I've been supportive or dismissive of anybody's information. Obviously we are in very close touch with the Israelis. They are a friend and an ally. We cooperate with them in any number of ways. But I am not out here to draw conclusions on a set of facts until we've had a chance to gather all the facts and hear from all the parties.

Question: So we're doing a separate investigation of our own?

Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't call it that. I would say we are interested in anything we can find out from any sources or any parties in this matter.

Question: Are you interested in talking to the ship's captain?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know if we would do that sort of thing on our own, frankly.

Question: You know, the impression that the State Department is leaving today is they are waiting to hear from Yasser Arafat, or from at least Palestinian Authority officials, what happened. I mean, you don't know what happened. It's five days after the ship was intercepted, and it's a big, big mystery.

Mr. Boucher: Let me just say the impression is wrong.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: Okay?

Question: So what does this --

Mr. Boucher: So don't go away with that impression.

Question: So what is it you need to --

Mr. Boucher: Go away with the impression the State Department wants to know the facts before we start speculating and drawing conclusions. That's all I'm saying.

Question: Where are you going to get the facts? Where are you reaching --

Mr. Boucher: We'll talk to the Israelis, as we are doing. We may hear from the Palestinians. We may find other information in the region. There were some reports that the ship had been through the United Arab Emirates. We have approached the government of the United Arab Emirates about reports that the ship was loaded in Dubai. They have initially told us that they had no information but that they would look into the report further and fully investigate.

So there are a variety of ways that we can get information on this, and the only conclusion you should draw today is that the State Department wants to know the facts before we start speculating and drawing grand conclusions.

Question: How long do you think it will take for you to know the facts? When do you think you could say?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know.

Question: New subject? India and Pakistan. Some comments out of the Indian Government today saying that Pakistan has not taken credible steps, credible counter-terrorism steps, and that there is no chance for dialogue until they show that they are serious about this.

The US, on the other hand, has commended President Musharraf for some of these steps. Do we disagree that there have been credible steps? Do we disagree with India?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know what the Indian criteria are. I would say that, first of all, we do believe that President Musharraf, the government of Pakistan, has continued to take steps against militant groups over the weekend. We believe that President Musharraf is committed to dismantling these groups which threaten Pakistan as well as its neighbors. We note that there have been more arrests over the weekend, for example, and that we understand that President Musharraf intends to continue to speak out against extremism and terrorism, and to try to set Pakistan on a course of moderation.

We are concerned about firing along the line of control in Kashmir. We have seen conflicting claims about this drone aircraft being shot down, but I don't have anything to offer on that matter. We do think it's vital for both sides in Kashmir to exercise restraint and reduce violence, and we encourage the leaders of India and Pakistan to continue to avoid any outbreak of conflict.

The summit in Kathmandu over the weekend did provide an opportunity for Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers to have some discussions. While no breakthroughs were made, we are pleased that they took the opportunity to get together and meet and talk. We continue to urge a resumption of dialogue in order to reduce tensions and promote cooperation between India and Pakistan against terrorism. We note that all of the countries attending the summit signed a declaration condemning terrorism.

Finally, I guess I would note that Prime Minister Blair has been in the region. He has been encouraging a reduction of terrorism, a reduction of tension, in his meetings with Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf, and obviously we fully support those efforts.

Question: Well, are you concerned then that India seems to be making less of Musharraf's moves than the United States is?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know that I could try to characterize the Indian reaction one way or the other. We think it's important that both parties continue to keep the focus on fighting terrorism, and we do note that President Musharraf has been taking steps in that regard.

I will leave it to the Indians to characterize how they see it, but I think it's clear to us that President Musharraf has been moving forward and intends to continue to move forward against militants.

Question: Anything new on an emissary from Washington today?

Mr. Boucher: Again, I dispute the use of the word "emissary" or "envoy."

Question: I was trying to avoid "envoy."

Mr. Boucher: You were trying to avoid "envoy," but "emissary" is equivalent. Let's just call it a visit to the region by a senior U.S. official is still a matter under consideration. It remains a possibility. We do want to continue to find ways to urge a reduction of tensions and improve cooperation against terrorism. At this point, there are no final decisions.

Question: A new one? The suspension of the funding of the INC, can you shed some light on that for us, please?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, I will go through with you the situation there. As I think many of you who follow this know, this has been going on for a bit, for quite a while, the question of funding. We are trying to support the Iraqi opposition. It remains fundamental to U.S. policy the view that regime change would be good for the Iraqi people, as well as for the people of the region, and we look for various ways of supporting a broad-based effort to confront the Iraqi regime. We look forward to finding ways to continue to support Iraqis who are interested in regime change, and we do see value in supporting an umbrella organization for many groups or individuals who oppose the Iraqi regime and are working towards the day when the Iraqi people can have a better government.

At this point, as many of you know, we manage a multi-million dollar program in support of humanitarian, media, war crimes investigations, outreach programs of Iraqi opposition and human rights groups. There is a variety of groups that receive funding, but the Iraqi National Congress has received the majority of these funds.

The Iraqi National Congress has been informed that an audit conducted by the State Department's Office of the Inspector General in mid-2001 identified financial management and internal control weaknesses regarding the accounting of U.S. funds. In October 2001, the INC was informed that the Inspector General had instructed the State Department to "withhold or at least restrict future funding to the Iraqi National Congress Support Foundation until the Foundation has implemented adequate and transparent financial controls."

The program managers at the State Department have been working with the INC officials in a joint effort to meet these recommendations. Pending improvements in the financial management of INC programs, the State Department is withholding funding for certain of these programs.

We have approved a funding supplement of half a million dollars until January 31st to permit the Iraqi National Congress to pay its operating expenses until these issues can be addressed.

Question: Can I follow on that, please?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: You have been funding the Iraqi opposition for years. It's not the first time, and this is a first time you carry on such a measure. Are you looking for accountability now or just future controls? Are you going to hold people responsible for what happened in the past, financially speaking?

Mr. Boucher: There have been, I think, audits conducted and looked at. I don't know. Frankly, I don't have a clear answer to your question. We want them definitely to put in place the kind of accountability systems, the kind of auditing systems, that mean that any U.S. money that goes there can be well accounted for in the future. This is an issue that was flagged by our Inspector General last spring and has been part of our discussions with them for nine, ten months now. Therefore, I think it is important at this juncture that they put in place those systems so that we know that any future monies are adequately accounted for.

Question: If the audit was completed in October, then why since October the State Department was willing to fund a much broader program that just didn't include activities inside of Iraq and there was no agreement on that? I mean, was there some new revelations that came out recently that led to this decision to only provide the barebones operational budget?

Mr. Boucher: The audit was conducted last spring and they were generally informed of it in, I think, early summer, and then in October they were formally notified of it. And obviously, when you are notified of something like this, we try to work with the groups. I think it's evidence of the fact that we want to work with these groups, we want to continue to support them, we want to be able to support Iraqis who are in opposition to the regime; and out of our desire to do that, we have continued to provide funding as we have tried to work with them to put in place the necessary controls.

At this juncture, having notified them formally in October, the Inspector General's recommendations really need to be implemented by the end of January, that that's an adequate time to do that.

Question: Was there that condition -- was that placed after the audit was completed in the negotiations over the budget until the end of December when there was -- at least it appeared from the State Department side that you were willing to fund a fairly large budget for the INC and it seemed that there was a dispute over the funding in Iraq. Was there discussions at that time that was holding the money accountable based on these suggestions?

Mr. Boucher: The discussion of the need for adequate financial controls has always been part of our discussions and, as you point out, we have tried to continue to work with the group. We have tried to continue to provide funding for their programs. We do believe they provide valuable programs and we have tried to support their operations, including with the half million dollars that we're giving them now to sustain themselves through January 31st, with the hope that by that time they'll have in place the adequate controls so we can go back to funding the actual programs.

Question: What are they due to get this year if this problem subsides?

Mr. Boucher: If this is done, I don't actually know. I don't think I have -- I will try to get the numbers on what the funding would be this year.

Question: And can you tell us anything about how these problems arose? What were the kinds of things that were discovered in the audit that created any suspicion?

Mr. Boucher: I can't go into much detail on it. I just -- I think the issue is really the accounting for U.S. funds. Just weaknesses in the way that these funds were accounted for. There were financial management weaknesses, internal control weaknesses in the systems that they used, and we have talked before from this podium and elsewhere about the need to put in place adequate accounting. And that is where I would say what we're looking for.

Question: I have one more. What would your response be to the INC, which is saying that the reason these reports have come out is that people in this building are trying to undermine arguments for the use of force in Iraq?

Mr. Boucher: It's not true.

Question: Is that all you want to say on this?

Mr. Boucher: It's just plain not true. Well, look at the history of this. We have continued to support their programs, we have continued to support their efforts. We continue to fund other opposition groups. We meet and discuss and support the constituent parts of the Iraqi National Congress. We have continued to provide funding, for example, to groups that collect information for possible war crimes prosecutions.

So the U.S. effort to support the Iraqi opposition, including the U.S. effort over these many months to work with this group so that they could continue to receive funding, I think that is adequate evidence that regime change is a key component of our policy, and one that continues to receive good funding from the State Department.

Question: Richard, the INC says that they did institute many of these changes and that, in fact, they met with Marc Grossman in December, who congratulated them on having made these reforms. They also said they were given until January 15th to do it. So they don't understand why this would come out this weekend that they hadn't done so.

Is it not true that they had a meeting with Marc Grossman in which this happened?

Mr. Boucher: It's certainly true they had a meeting with Marc Grossman. I don't think I would characterize it quite that way. The point that we have come to now in mid-January is that we need to inform them now that the funding for these programs can't continue and that we are able to sustain them through January 31st, but the time has more than come to make sure all these systems are completely in place.

Question: So the meeting with Grossman was not about them having completed what they were asked to do?

Mr. Boucher: The meeting with Grossman was about all the activities and the need for the audits, and that sort of thing.

Question: A broader question. It seems to me the Congress approved $97 million for training and equipment of the INC in 1997. As far as I know, none of this -- no resources have been spent on such activities. Do you have any response to that?

Mr. Boucher: Let me double-check. This is partly why I can't answer Elaine's question. I don't know if we're still drawing on that money or if there was separate funding for other activities, so let me double check the finance of this.

Question: And if I also could just add onto that point, an INC advisor says they were given $1.7 million on December 31st. So I'm wondering what that was for.

Mr. Boucher: Well, again, I will go back to the accounting. We have periodically, over the last few months, provided them with money to sustain their activities, to support their operations and to help them establish the positions, the accounting systems, the people, whatever they needed to conduct operations, as well as to conduct them with sufficient financial controls to be sure on how the money is being spent. So I don't remember the exact tranches, but over the course of the many months passed, we have been periodically replenishing their funding.

Question: Do you know what the total sum is that we have given the INC since '97?

Mr. Boucher: I will double-check on that.

Question: I'm sure that I missed this in all -- in everything that you have just been saying, but what exactly is new? What happened last week? Because it was my understanding that this money was suspended anyway, wasn't it?

Mr. Boucher: No, we continue to provide support for the program sort of on a periodic basis. What we told them last week was that because of these weaknesses, because of the lack of adequate accounting procedures, that we were not able to continue funding for certain of their programs and that we would only at this point be able to provide a half million dollars to sustain their activities through January 31st in order for them to pay operating expenses while they address these issues.

Question: After the 31st, if they haven't put these in place, they get nothing?

Mr. Boucher: We wouldn't be able to continue to fund their programs, yes.

Question: Not even operating expenses?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure what the final decision on that would be, but at this point we're not supporting programs; we're just providing operating expenses.

Question: When you talk about operating expenses, you're talking about offices?

Mr. Boucher: Maintaining offices, communications, hiring people to do the kind of financial controls that are required for any recipient of U.S. funds.

Question: So the half million dollars that they're getting right now goes towards a staff of how many?

Mr. Boucher: Don't know.

Question: How many office spaces do they have?

Mr. Boucher: Again, don't know. I'm sure you can get that from the organization, but I don't know.

Question: Richard, when the audit was begun, you suspended your funding for most things, and then --

Mr. Boucher: No, no, we didn't.

Question: Well, yes, because I remember having -- we couldn't understand -- you said you were suspending funding for some things and then, like a week or two later, they got this -- I think it was $4 million. Now, the programs that are now -- you're no longer funding because of the -- or you're suspending funding of, does that include their television stations? What specifically is it that you're no longer --

Mr. Boucher: We have raised concerns about their television broadcasts.

Question: What type of concerns?

Mr. Boucher: Just the viability of their TV broadcasts, the Liberty TV broadcasts into Iraq. As you know, we have talked to them in the past about humanitarian programs, but at this point they haven't really proposed a viable humanitarian project. So there are programmatic issues involved here in terms of the programs. But we have tried to continue to support -- and we have since these many months since the original audit -- support humanitarian media, war crimes investigations, outreach programs of groups like this.

Question: When you say viability of TV programs, what do you mean?

Mr. Boucher: The usefulness, whether they were -- well, whether they were viable.

Question: The actual programs?

Mr. Boucher: How it was conducted, how useful it was, where it was getting to. That sort of thing.

Question: But, Richard, are you talking about their particular ability to operate such a radio station, because this is exactly what you're -- what you've said is a very successful model for working inside of Afghanistan?

Mr. Boucher: No.

Question: I mean, are you saying that -- about the viability --

Mr. Boucher: We have not tried to make any comparison like that, that one is the model for the other, either this way to that way or that way to this way. We have tried to make clear that we support the Iraqi opposition because it's part of our fundamental policy of seeking regime change. We have tried to work with this group. We have worked with many other groups to try to make sure that we support a viable Iraqi opposition, and that the programs that are involved here are things that we want to support that we continue to try to support.

Now, some of the programs we're talking to them about how they're conducted and how they should be conducted, but this is more -- this is sort of a different thing than that. We're not suspending funding at this point because of specific program questions; we're suspending it, or reducing it to only operational funding, because of the way the accounting systems work.

Question: Just walking back, does the financial weakness have anything to do with why the State Department has opposed some of the specific activities inside of Iraq, such as information collection? And could you just explain why the State Department has opposed that so far?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I can get into the issues of particular programs. As I said, we do have issues with some of the particular programs that we've talked to the group about, but this is a different matter we're discussing today.

Question: So you have a problem with the television station in London or the radio station in Prague?

Mr. Boucher: Liberty TV. That's the TV station.

Question: Can you give us some more details about what the financial problems are? Is there any indication that money has been misspent or that it's gone into anybody's pocket?

Mr. Boucher: As I said, the concerns were about weaknesses in the accounting systems and weaknesses in the financial and internal control systems. That's about as far as I can go at this point.

Question: Richard, if the INC can't even manage its own funds, what does that say about its ability to overthrow one of the most ruthless regimes in the world?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to draw conclusions like that. The Iraq opposition remains very important to us. We want to support a broad-based effort at regime change. This is one of a number of groups that we have contacts with, one of several efforts that we fund. Now, granted, they are the umbrella organization. We think it's important for there to be one. But we don't think it's fair to be dismissive of the Iraqi opposition. Their work is very serious. They are developing into an increasingly effective and credible voice, and we want to continue to help them do that.

Question: Well, then can you say who else the United States funds? Is it the Kurds? Is it the Syrians? I mean --

Mr. Boucher: We support, I think, a variety of groups. One example that I cited is the people who collect information on war crimes. It's British-based, I think.

Question: Isn't that one of the programs that you're suspending funding for with the INC?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know that -- no, there's one at least I know of that's not their specific program. They do collect information, but there is -- yes, the INC also has information --

Question: But that's one of the programs that gets suspended?

Mr. Boucher: For the INC. But there is another group that collects war crimes information specifically, a group called Indict.

Question: Okay. But if you say that the INC is -- their work is very serious and it's getting better and more coordinated -- you were referring to the INC or the Iraqi opposition in general?

Mr. Boucher: I think in general, but including these people, and we look forward to continuing to work with them.

Question: But you have just told them you're not going to give them any more money.

Mr. Boucher: We told them -- what we told you -- was we're not giving them more money beyond operating assistance now, and as they address these issues, then we look forward to giving them more money.

Question: Well, who at the State Department is the representative to deal with the INC at this point?

Mr. Boucher: We work it out of our Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Question: Well, what is your medium-term plan for your cooperation with the INC? I mean, is this aimed at trying to get them to get their act together so you can throw more money at them, or what?

Mr. Boucher: That's putting it a little bit crudely, but yes. No, the goal is to continue to support their activities, and that requires them putting in place adequate financial controls. Once they have done that, we will be able to return to supporting their programs and to talking to them about these other programs that we think are important and can be designed to work well.

Question: Richard, is it your understanding that the loss of funding -- let's talk about Liberty TV for a second -- the loss of U.S. funding for this program will force that off the air, yes?

Mr. Boucher: Don't know. Don't know when, I guess. I make the assumption that you do, but I don't know when.

Question: You make the assumption -- you mean you make the assumption that it would have to -- that that programming would have to stop?

Mr. Boucher: At some point, with the loss of our funding, that they would not be able to broadcast. But I don't know when that would happen.

Question: And that was saving that television station? Did you put proposal for them?

Mr. Boucher: As we have said, we are discussing with them various program concerns about some of these individual programs, and once the financial controls are in place, we would be able to continue doing that and look forward to funding their activities into the future.

Question: Would you be able to say that all of the concerns are related to programs that do involve activities inside Iraq?

Mr. Boucher: No. The TV --

Question: Is that because it's not true, or is it because you can't say?

Mr. Boucher: Because it's not true. Because some of the things that I have cited in terms of program concerns are outside Iraq. But more important than that, the concerns we have about financial accounting and controls have to do with the organization as a whole, with their programs as a whole, weaknesses in the way the money is accounted for, not with the specific programs that we will continue to support and fund if we can see the adequate financial controls being put in place.

Question: No policy whatsoever?

Mr. Boucher: I would say that this is a question of financial controls, not about policies or questions about individual programs.

Question: What (inaudible)? Just the numbers, sorry.

Mr. Boucher: Let's go back. I don't have that. I will get it for you.

Question: What can you tell us in terms of Liberty TV, how long it's actually been broadcasting and --

Mr. Boucher: Don't know.

Question: You don't know?

Mr. Boucher: Don't know. It's on their website, but I read it quickly and didn't remember.

Question: Will they be able to get money then from other governments, like Britain?

Mr. Boucher: You would have to ask other governments about what funding they might provide.

Question: Will the State Department then divert some of the money to other opposition groups?

Mr. Boucher: We have funding for Iraqi opposition groups, and we look forward to supporting the Iraqi opposition. We are, as I mentioned, funding other groups as well. I think it's our hope that we can have the INC put in place these adequate controls so that we can continue to support their efforts.

Question: Can I go back extremely briefly to India and Pakistan? Again, I apologize if you went over this. Did you talk at all about the handshake? On Friday, Secretary Powell said he was hopeful that the two leaders would find a moment or so to exchange some words about the crisis. And I'm wondering if the extremely brief handshake and comments -- was that satisfactory?

Mr. Boucher: Weren't you here when I mentioned that it also provided an opportunity for the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers to have some discussions; and that that, coupled with greetings from the presidents and whatever brief words that they exchanged, we felt was useful? We are pleased that the representatives of the two sides can meet and talk. We recognize that no breakthroughs were achieved there.

Question: And you had said that before I asked it?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, I said that before. Question: I'm sorry.

Mr. Boucher: Except for I threw in the leaders this time.

Question: Different subject?

Mr. Boucher: Please.

Question: Richard, does the State Department require that its American female employees in Saudi Arabia wear an abaya and a head scarf when they are out in public?

Mr. Boucher: I'm getting different opinions from members of the press corps. Let me go back and find the truth. I will find out for you and get you the answer.

Question: And also whether you allow them to drive.

Mr. Boucher: Okay. I'll find out for you, get you the answer. Maybe in the post report. But I don't know if you have that.

Question: Related to that, is it correct that the ranking U.S. diplomat in Saudi Arabia is a woman, right, right now?

Mr. Boucher: I would have to double-check that one, too.

Question: Can I change the subject?

Mr. Boucher: Sure.

Question: The government of Singapore says that it has arrested a bunch of people who were planning an attack or attacks on the embassy there and other U.S. interests. What have you been -- have you been talking to the Singaporeans about this?

Mr. Boucher: We have indeed been talking to the Singaporeans about this. They have announced the arrest of 15 persons for involvement in terrorism-related activities, including some who had been in Afghanistan for short periods of training in al-Qaida terrorist camps. We welcome Singapore's cooperation in the international campaign against terrorism. We applaud the specific action and we think it reflects their determination to fight against international terrorism.

I would note as well that there have been arrests in Malaysia as well for groups with apparent links to al-Qaida. They have arrested a number of terrorist suspects and they too have shown great determination in the fight against terrorism.

More broadly than that, these arrests show the global nature of the threat posed by terrorist networks, but also I think the seriousness with which governments, including the governments of Southeast Asia, have been taking the threat. We are encouraged by the range of counter-terrorism cooperation and actions that are taking place throughout the world, including in Southeast Asia. We see locally generated initiatives such as the tightening of immigration and the improvement of border controls that are having an impact in this region as well as elsewhere.

Southeast Asian nations have also taken effective measures to stop the financing of terrorism, to share intelligence information, step up law enforcement, all of which are having a positive effect against the presence of terrorists in the region. We welcome the resolve towards preventing, suppressing and eradicating terrorism that they expressed in their 2001 ASEAN Summit declaration, and we stand by to assist them in this effort in both the short term and for the duration in the effort against terrorism.

Question: Do you have anything about the specific threat of the -- and if in fact there was one?

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't. What they have said in Singapore so far is that the activities of the suspects, including collecting funds for terrorist groups, surveillance of establishments in Singapore that were targeted for terrorist bombing, and attempts to procure materials for bomb construction. The announcement didn't indicate at this point specific targets. Obviously we have to assume that our Embassy and other U.S. interests were among the potential targets, but we will keep up our discussions with the Singapore Government on this and see what information can be developed.

Question: And is this something right now that you consider to be strictly local, domestic Singapore crime or --

Mr. Boucher: I think it's too early to draw that conclusion. I think in the Singapore statement they indicated that there were links, in fact, that the people that they picked up had received training in al-Qaida terrorist camps.

Question: Well, I'm trying -- jurisdiction is --

Mr. Boucher: Oh, jurisdictional, meaning do we have some jurisdiction over them?

Question: Yes. Do you think -- what's your --

Mr. Boucher: I think that would depend on the facts, but at this point it's a Singapore Government arrest and a Singapore Government legal matter.

Question: How would you describe the level of cooperation on military matters between the United States and Singapore? Significant, minimal?

Mr. Boucher: You mean in a general sense over the years? Excellent. And in a specific sense at present, excellent.

Question: But is it significant?

Mr. Boucher: Is it significant? Excellent and significant. We have had very good cooperation with Singapore in any number of areas -- information-sharing, law enforcement cooperation, but also military matters.

Question: A question on China. Did you follow the Shanghai Cooperation Organization had a meeting yesterday and it was concluded? Were you following that?

Mr. Boucher: No, I didn't actually. I don't think I have anything to say about that.

Question: Okay. See if you have any comments. They had a declaration -- I mean a joint communiqu��-- the six foreign ministers from Central Asia and China, and it said it opposes -- the organization opposes double standard in the fight against terrorism. Has the U.S. received any comments, complaints about a double standard?

Mr. Boucher: Not that I am aware of. We have our own cooperation with all those countries involved and we have quite good cooperation with many of the countries there, and excellent cooperation, particularly with the countries of Central Asia, in terms of the fight against terrorism. So I don't think there are any problems in that regard.

Question: Is there a universally accepted definition for terrorism, or the U.S. leaves every country to define terrorist?

Mr. Boucher: There are some generally accepted definitions of terrorism, including ones in the UN resolutions which, if you look at them closely, they make some attempt to define terrorism. But I think we all know that killing innocent people for political ends is terrorism, and we don't -- that is what we are opposed to.

Question: Just to get this on the record, what is the State Department's understanding of the stopover right now in the United States by the Taiwanese Vice President?

Mr. Boucher: I will have to get you something on that. I don't have it with me now. But as you know, the transits are available for the comfort, safety and convenience of the traveler, and in this case the traveler is the Vice President.

Question: Flying from Taiwan to Central America via New York? (Laughter.)

Mr. Boucher: Which is frequently the kind of path that people follow. Comfort, safety and convenience. Remember that.

Question: The United States proposed to the United Nations Security Council that some of the sanctions against Afghanistan be lifted, such as flight bans.

Mr. Boucher: I don't think there's a proposal at this point. But this is something that we will look at. The sanctions that were imposed by the Security Council under Resolution 1333 are due for renewal this month, so we would expect the Council to consider a new resolution that reflects changes in the situation. We would probably urge that sanctions remain on any remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida, but we would expect the Security Council to continue to update the sanctions and for the Sanctions Committee to update implementation of the sanctions as well.

Question: Were the original sanctions against Afghanistan or the Taliban?

Mr. Boucher: They were against the Taliban, and then things like the airlines and the representation overseas, diplomatic offices, non-diplomatic offices especially of the Taliban. So they were directed against, you might say, the attempts by the Taliban to manifest some official presence.

Question: (Inaudible) out of the blue, because you just mentioned it. Whatever happened to the guy in New York who was representing them? Do you know?

Mr. Boucher: Don't know.

Question: Okay. Can I ask, what do you mean you would probably urge that sanctions -- you will, or is that something --

Mr. Boucher: We will.

Question: You will? Okay. So we don't have to say "probably."

Mr. Boucher: You can say we will urge that sanctions remain on any remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida.

Question: Okay. And as I understand it, Aryana Airlines is flying again now, at least domestically -- well, between two -- at least two cities. Was it just international flights covered by the sanctions?

Mr. Boucher: I believe so. I would have to double-check the sanctions. But also, even as this process of renewal or looking again at the resolution goes on, we would expect that the Sanctions Committee could update implementation of the sanctions on Afghanistan. So they may have found it within their power to authorize certain flights.

Question: This is sort of related, but what is the status of Taliban officials that are captured by the U.S., in terms of any -- do they have any kind of diplomatic immunity?

Mr. Boucher: Nobody did, as far as we are concerned. And I think the last one to have any such immunity anywhere was in Pakistan, and he lost it when they closed down his office. So his status is in custody aboard -- you can check with the Pentagon on that.

Question: So he doesn't have any -- he is a prisoner of war? He is a detainee?

Mr. Boucher: He is in custody.

Question: Can I follow up on that?

Mr. Boucher: Sure.

Question: The U.S. Foreign Service has no qualms about the U.S. Government blithely taking into custody a distinguished ambassador from a different country?

Mr. Boucher: Let me not use the word -- dispense with the word "distinguished." But in --

Question: How about "blithely"?

(Laughter.)

Mr. Boucher: "Blithely" I'll actually talk about. Normally, when a diplomatic office is closed down and people are given a certain amount of time to leave, they are given time to wind up their affairs. Based on the reports I have seen, that is indeed exactly what Pakistan did. So that is the normal procedure when offices are closed down and people are kicked out. We have certainly had diplomats kicked out of other countries before. We know it happens and we take the opportunity to come home. So I don't think anything that Pakistan did in this matter is out of the ordinary.

Question: Richard, considering the fact that the Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan, what's the point of keeping sanctions in place against a group of individuals who are no longer running the country?

Mr. Boucher: I guess the question would be --

Question: Who are the sanctions against? The Taliban aren't in power anymore in Afghanistan.

Mr. Boucher: No, but there are still individuals associated with them and with al-Qaida that might be running around. We wouldn't want to say that all of a sudden you can come to the United States, you can transfer money through U.S. banks, just because you don't run Afghanistan anymore.

Question: You would be arrested.

Mr. Boucher: Yes, exactly. So if our intention is to arrest them, or to take them into custody in some fashion, I don't think we should suddenly declare it's okay for them to get visas or to transfer money.

Question: But aren't they covered under existing rules anyway?

Mr. Boucher: They would be covered probably under the various financial controls and other things. But again, you have U.S. controls, you have other countries that have done similar things, and we think it would be important for all countries in the world to maintain similar sets of restrictions on these individuals. If you had these individuals running around the world more freely, or these individuals running around able to transfer money and finance their activities, who knows what they might get up to? So it's important for the UN to maintain some controls in that direction.

Question: Canada has announced that it is sending 750 soldiers to Kandahar. This is outside the international security forces that will be based in Kabul. Does the U.S. Government have any knowledge of this and how they might mesh with the U.S. forces that are based in Kandahar?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, absolutely. We have plenty of knowledge of this, but it's not a State Department matter. It's a matter that I'm sure the Central Command and the Pentagon can talk to you more completely about.

Question: Richard, can you tell us about reports of an arrest for distributing Bibles in China?

Mr. Boucher: We are troubled by reports that an individual has been arrested for making Bibles available to Christians in China. The President is deeply concerned about these reports. The President has asked the State Department to look into this matter. We are doing so.

The President expressed his concerns about religious freedom in China to Chinese leaders; for example, in Shanghai during the APEC summit. We have raised this case with Chinese authorities. We have registered our concerns in both Washington and Beijing.

Reports of a crackdown on religious practitioners in China are deeply troubling. We call upon China, as a member of the international community, to meet international standards on freedom of religious expression and freedom of conscience. These are standards embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Question: At what level did you register your concerns?

Mr. Boucher: With the embassy here, from the Bureau. We also had our embassy in Beijing do it first thing this -- well, before this morning our time, during the course of the day in Beijing.

Question: Was it calling an ambassador in or anything like that?

Mr. Boucher: I don't believe it was at that level, but our embassy in Beijing raised it with the foreign minister -- with the Foreign Ministry -- sorry -- on Monday in Beijing. The reports are of concern to us, and more broadly what it represents in terms of the campaign against religious freedom, and that's why we wanted to raise this both privately and publicly.

Question: Thank you.