15 January 2002

Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing

Deputy State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- Secretary Powell's Departure for Trip to South Asia & Japan/Welcome to Visiting Indonesian Journalists

INDIA/PAKISTAN -- U.S. Handle on India-Pakistan Situation/President Musharraf's Speech

LIBYA -- Assistant Secretary Burns' Meetings in London/Need for Libya to Comply with Requirements of UN Resolutions on the Lockerbie/Pan Am 103 Bombing

COLOMBIA -- Continuing Support for President Pastrana's Peace Efforts/Constructive -- Role Played by UN Special Envoy James Lemoyne and Facilitating Group/ Focus on Counterinsurgency/Countering Narcotics Trafficking

AFGHANISTAN -- Report of American Hostage/Reports of Banditry

ZIMBABWE -- Sanctions Against President Mugabe/Assistant Secretary Craner's Visit

DEPARTMENT -- Secretary Powell Agreed to Appear on MTV to Take Questions from Youth Around the World Concerning America's War on Terrorism

PHILIPPINES -- U.S. Troops Invited into Philippines/American Missionary Couple

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS -- Death of American Citizen/Ascertaining Whether Ceasefire Remains in Effect/Israeli Government's Delay in Accrediting Palestinian Journalists -- U/S Bolton's Trip to Israel for Consultations on Nonproliferation Issues SOMALIA -- Security and Terrorism Situation

MEXICO -- Individual Arrested in Mexico and Transferred to Houston

GREECE -- Readout on Meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kostis Simitis

CYPRUS -- Talks in Nicosia Between President Clerides & Turkish Cypriot Leader Raul Denktash

DEPARTMENT -- Deputy Secretary Armitage's Schedule Tomorrow

Mr. Reeker: Good afternoon, everybody. I apologize for the delay. Keeping in touch with our traveling team often takes a little more of my time than I expect.

In that vein, as you know, Secretary Powell departed this morning at 9:52 a.m. from Andrews Air Force Base for his trip to South Asia, and then on to Tokyo for the Reconstruction Conference regarding Afghanistan. Ambassador Boucher of course is accompanying him. Many of your colleagues as well are with him. Ambassador Boucher has left me with a cold, so I hope you will bear with me as we try to get through today.

I would like to welcome a group of 12 Indonesian journalists who are with us today from different news organizations in Indonesia. They are sponsored on a State Department exchange program, working with our Foreign Press Center and the East Asian Pacific Affairs Bureau. We are very pleased to have them here, and again apologies to you as well for the delay today.

With that, I have no other announcements, so Barry, please go ahead and start.

Question: Well, you have been in touch, and is there something you can tell us about the US handle on the India-Pakistan situation that the Secretary hasn't already said on television?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think there is much to add, Barry, to what the Secretary said last night, and I am sure he has talked to some of your colleagues. They will have an opportunity to file stories when they stop for refueling in Shannon, Ireland.

Of course, the Secretary noted that he will be discussing these issues when he visits Islamabad, which is his first stop, as well as New Delhi. He noted last night again that President Musharraf had made a very important speech on Saturday, noting that President Musharraf had said that jihad should be for purposes of educating people, for the purpose of lifting people out of poverty and extremism, and coming down squarely against that type of extremism or any type of terrorism, against all forms of terrorism emanating from anywhere in Pakistan or under Pakistan control.

And so the message we continue to deliver is working to the point where we can continue diplomatic and political track of the situation there and persuade everyone that that is the direction we should move into, and that is certainly the theme for the Secretary's trip. But obviously your colleagues will have more to add as that goes on, and we can certainly make available to you all the transcripts from the Secretary's interviews last night.

Question: We have those. Thank you.

Question: New subject, since I guess there's nothing more to say on that. Do you have anything on Assistant Secretary Burns' recent talks with the Libyans in London? And it seems as if the Libyans have been offering a lot of cooperation, comments from the region. Can you say what Libya needs to do at this point to get itself off the state sponsors of terrorism list, and would you say that their cooperation in the war on terrorism has grown since September?

Mr. Reeker: First, as you led off with in your question, you know that officials from the United States and the United Kingdom, including Assistant Secretary Burns, held discussions with a group of Libyan officials in London last Thursday, January 10th. This was a follow-up to the last such meeting that they had conducted back in October of 2001.

There is no new initiative or shift in relations here. It's one of a series of meetings that have taken place in New York and London since the Lockerbie verdict. And the goal of this, the aim, is to discuss the Libyan response to the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions on Lockerbie, and the discussion focused on those requirements.

So, first and foremost, our position with Libya is the need for Libya to comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions on the Lockerbie -- the Pan Am 103 bombing. Our policy, our message on that, have never varied, regardless of the channel or the particular interlocutors: Libya must comply with its UN Security Council obligations and put its terrorist past behind it; there can be no shortcuts around these obligations; and we continue to call upon Libya to fulfill those obligations.

So that type of dialogue, that delivering of the message yet again, is what occurred in London last week. We have had talks previously, as I indicated, since 1999. No shortcuts there, and that is what we will continue to stress with Libya as a first and most important step in terms of what they can do to show that they have tried to change their way.

I would refer you to the annual report on terrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism, in terms of Libya's presence, continued presence, on the list of state sponsors. I can't speculate on what the future of Libyan behavior may entail or what our future decision might be. The list itself, of course, is a tool to call attention to behaviors that must change, and that goes for all the state sponsors. It goes for those organizations that we also list as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

Question: Can I follow up?

Mr. Reeker: Sure.

Question: So, but can you say exactly what Libya has to do to get off the list? Is it merely to comply with these resolutions, and if so, could you just review what they have to do? And were there other issues related to terrorism that Libya has to comply with in order to get off the list?

Mr. Reeker: First and foremost, Libya must comply with their obligations under the UN resolutions. The need for them to do that has never changed. That is what we have continued to emphasize, and they must comply with that. As I said, once again, there are no shortcuts around that. That is the first and foremost step. We would need to look at a number of other things. We would continue to review Libya's behavior regarding terrorism and a number of other channels, but I can't speculate at this point on what steps we might take, or what steps indeed Libya will take.

But certainly, first and foremost, fulfilling their obligations under the new UN thing. And if you want to go through all of those, we can get you the details of the UN Security Council resolutions and what they require.

Question: Can you say that the Libyans have been helpful in other areas of the US war against terrorism, not related to Lockerbie?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know that I can provide you any particular readouts on that. Obviously, there are many different aspects of our war on terrorism, as we have said, and there are different contributions. We have called on all states to make contributions in different ways, and we will leave it to individual countries, including Libya, to suggest to you steps they may have taken.

Question: Can you say anything about what these talks actually achieved (inaudible) comment, it seems as if nothing, except --

Mr. Reeker: I don't know why you would necessarily draw that conclusion from what I said. We have had talks before to reiterate the position that we have that has never varied. We do this in conjunction with the United Kingdom, and we deliver the same message, the same position. I think there may be additional talks in the future to hear from the Libyans how they are going about complying with this, and for us to reiterate the fact that there are no shortcuts, that they must comply, that that is the first and foremost -- the most important aspect in terms of living up to their obligations, and hopefully putting their terrorist past behind them.

Question: You say there may be additional talks; do you mean more talks like these, or do you mean that an agreement --

Mr. Reeker: Yes. I mean, we have had these before. The last one was in October. We had one again then last week. I don't have anything scheduled at this point, but certainly the possibility would remain to do that.

Question: And Burns was there?

Mr. Reeker: Burns was the person that did that last week, Barry, on the 10th of January.

Question: Have you seen any results from these meetings? Have you seen any change of behavior, or their beginning to comply with these resolutions?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I could characterize at this point, other than to say what I have already said, and that is that our position remains very much the same. There are no shortcuts around this, and they need to fully comply with that. That's what we will be looking for; that is the bottom line.

Question: Colombia?

Mr. Reeker: Okay.

Question: Do you have (inaudible)?

Question: Can we go back to Libya for just a second?

Mr. Reeker: We'll do Libya -- now that I've already changed places in my book, go ahead. No, go ahead.

Question: All right, well, what was the Libyan response to all of this, and why was the UK and the US the only ones at the meeting, since the UK has much more open relations with Libya, essentially has backed away from the sanctions?

Mr. Reeker: I think if you are familiar with the Lockerbie situation and the history of that, the US and the UK have been the lead countries on that, obviously because it involved an American jetliner, American citizens, that were killed, that were blown up over the United Kingdom.

And the first part of your question?

Question: Well, yes, but the UK has much more open relations with Libya at this point, as does France and various other countries.

Mr. Reeker: And your point is?

Question: My point is that we seem to be saying UN sanctions, while the rest of the world is saying let's do business with Libya.

Mr. Reeker: I think every country has their own foreign policy, their own way of approaching the situation. Ours, in terms of Libya, is set with a priority that has not changed, and I reiterated that several times here already today. That is clearly our priority. That is our message repeatedly, and again today to Libya, about the need for full compliance with the requirements of the UN resolutions.

Okay, now we're going to switch.

Question: To Colombia. Do you have any comments or reaction to what the diplomatic delegation chief in Colombia toward the peace process?

And my second question is probably you saw the story in The Washington Post today saying that this administration is trying to shift the policy toward the counter-narcotics actions in Colombia, trying to help the government now against the guerrillas.

Mr. Reeker: Let me start out and answer the first part of your question by saying that we want to reiterate again today our continuing support for President Pastrana's tireless peace efforts in Colombia. I would also like to acknowledge the constructive role played by James Lemoyne, the UN Special Envoy, and the facilitating group in helping restart talks between the government of Colombia and the FARC.

We again call upon the FARC to halt its terrorism against the Colombian people and to refrain from its obstructionist tactics and to engage in good faith negotiations with the Government of Colombia.

Our goals, the United States goals in Colombia, have not changed. We seek to help that country's embattled democracy combat narco-trafficking, defend and strengthen its democratic institutions, advance human rights and promote socioeconomic development. As you know, those have been the goals of President Pastrana under his Plan Colombia. Those have been our goals in terms of our support for Plan Colombia and for the Andean Regional Initiative.

We pursue these US national interests in Colombia, as elsewhere, in a manner fully consistent with the laws and authorities established by the US Congress. And so I have read newspaper reports. I'm sure many people have. As those reports suggest, and as you all know, we regularly review programs aimed at achieving our policy goals and we frequently discuss all the different options that might offer more effective means to advance our interests.

At this point, it is totally inappropriate for me to comment on any sort of review process until such time as any decision, even preliminary decisions, have been made. And obviously we would be having consultations with Members of Congress, with the various parts of the federal government concerned with this.

So, again, the basic answer to your question is that our goals in Colombia haven't changed at all, and I think we have made that clear repeatedly. And certainly our support for President Pastrana and his tireless efforts are still very much our policy.

Question: You cannot comment on preliminary reviews, but can you say if there is any time frame to make a decision about --

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I could give you a time frame at this point. If I am ever able to do that, I would be happy to share that with you. But, as you know, when we look at policy, when we review things, which we do continuously, it is very difficult to set out any particular time frame.

Question: Isn't it true that you are going over a request made by the Colombians to the State Department to shift some of the resources of Plan Colombia away from solely counter-narcotics to deal with the counter-insurgency?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know. I have not heard that.

Question: -- still at least you confirm that it is actually under discussion, the possible role of the US in counter-insurgency in Colombia?

Mr. Reeker: No, I think --

Question: Has it been discussed at all or --

Mr. Reeker: I can't say. I don't participate in meetings to know what people discuss. Obviously people review all options available to them, but the most important thing is that we have laws, we have processes of government, we have a policy, we have a goal in Colombia, and that is to help the country's democracy there that has been embattled by narco-traffickers who have affected American interests in terms of growing and trafficking drugs which come into our country.

We have been dedicated to strengthening democratic institutions, to advancing human rights, to promoting the type of development that President Pastrana has also called for in his Plan Colombia. And that is what we want to continue supporting there. We will continue looking at how we pursue those goals and pursue that policy, and we will continue to support President Pastrana and his efforts. And so we will also, of course, have consultations with those in Congress who have an interest, and of course with the government of President Pastrana. That is a very important aspect of all this as well.

Question: In those consultations, do you guys (inaudible), by any chance, what independent groups are saying about change the policy, like human rights groups?

Mr. Reeker: Obviously. We read extensively. This is what experts and officials do in terms of reviewing the views of many. Input into policy-making involves just that, exploring all the options, seeing what others say, even what the press says about things. That's part of the process. But I couldn't point to any particular thing. It's a consultative process that we undergo within our national security structure, and working obviously with the country, Colombia, with the government of President Pastrana, working with Congress, as I said.

But I think we have an active dialogue with nongovernmental organizations and other groups that express interest in that. We want to hear what people have to say, and --

Question: But the military aid to Colombia, it is an essential part with aid to the government of Pastrana, to combat narco-traffickers?

Mr. Reeker: I think you are familiar with Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative and the various things we have provided under that, in terms of countering narcotics trafficking, and defending our own interests as part of that.

So we do have the US national interests and Colombia and those who support obviously President Pastrana and his positions in terms of fighting narco-trafficking, and defending and strengthening democratic institutions. That's important.

Question: The fact that there are some talks about extending aid beyond counter-narcotics means that probably the policy that was applied to Colombia before was falling short on what the country really needed?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think that's what I said at all. I think you are very familiar with what we have done over the past several years, in terms of Plan Colombia, in terms of the Andean Regional Initiative, to support Colombia, to support President Pastrana's goals of a socio and economic development there, to support democracy and certainly to counter narcotics trafficking.

And so as we review those programs that we have done with Colombia, we continuously look at our goals, look at the various options available to us, how we might more effectively advance our interests. I think we have discussed in the past, and I would be happy to look into getting you some more information on the positive steps that have been taken to counter narcotics trafficking, utilizing the assistance we have provided under Plan Colombia, what we have been doing regionally as well.

And so we will continue to look at that, how we might do things better. And as I said, we need to discuss those options, those ideas with the Colombians, with Congress, and within our own structures.

Question: Just to clarify, the money that is right now under Plan Colombia program, any given time can be that used towards counter-insurgency now?

Mr. Reeker: I think that's fairly set in law, in terms of when that money is appropriated, authorized, obligated. I think that's fairly set, and I would have to go back to the specific bills and get for you -- it is certainly a matter of public record what the details are in terms of using that money.

Question: Change of subject? The American allegedly kidnapped in Afghanistan, have you had any more details than what came out this morning or last night?

Mr. Reeker: As I think a number of you are aware from press reports -- and we were able to give you a little information last night -- we have received a phone call. The Department of State has received a phone call from an American who has reported information that her husband may have been or may be held hostage in Afghanistan. There is this reported situation. There is very sketchy information and details remain unclear.

The Bureau of Consular Affairs, which, as you know, handles these matters, is in touch with the reported American's wife and with Embassy Islamabad. We have also been in touch with the Afghanistan Foreign Minister, the Foreign Minister in the interim authority in Kabul, and asked their help in trying to develop further information based on the sketchy reports that we do have. The Foreign Minister promised to pass our request to the military and Interior Ministry officials of the Afghan interim authority. Obviously our office in Kabul is trying to follow up on this.

As you know, when it comes to these situations, because of the Privacy Act, I am not in a position to provide or confirm any particular names of the individual in question or the wife, so I can't really provide you anything further at this point, but we are certainly following up on that to see what facts we can determine and what we can do about the situation.

Question: Can I follow up on that?

Mr. Reeker: Please.

Question: The sketchy details you have, do they include any idea of where exactly in Afghanistan or what general region this was in?

Mr. Reeker: No, I don't think I have anything else that I could offer in that vein, other than Afghanistan.

Question: Or whether it was a sort of a banditry?

Mr. Reeker: Certainly there are plenty of reports, as you all know, and your colleagues who have covered directly from Afghanistan, there are plenty of reports of banditry. I just don't know enough facts to ascribe it to that definitively, but that would be an obvious and perhaps logical conclusion from the sketchy information that we do have. But it is certainly something we will continue to follow up.

Question: Zimbabwe. I want to find out -- the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act was signed by the President in December. It sets personal sanctions against Robert Mugabe and his family, some of his top aides.

I just want to know, how do those sanctions work? Are they already in place? If not, do they need to be applied now? Will the election and his behavior over the election have anything to do with when and if and how those sanctions are applied?

Mr. Reeker: The simple answer to your question is that we have not yet imposed any sanctions against President Mugabe or his family or against any officials of the government of Zimbabwe or their family members.

As you indicated, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 was signed by President Bush last month, in December, and we are consulting with various governments regarding targeted sanctions against Zimbabwean leaders, their family members and associates. Such sanctions could include travel bans, but let me reiterate that at this point no final decisions have been made regarding timing or other details concerning the possible implementation of targeted sanctions. And we will continue to have our close consultations with a number of other countries on that subject.

Our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Lorne Craner, is in Zimbabwe as we speak, to reiterate our position in terms of our dismay at the political environment in Zimbabwe, which has been marked by significant deterioration in respect for the rule of law and the judiciary by government-sponsored political intimidation and violence and by harassment of the independent press that just certainly escalated in recent weeks and months.

Question: So what is the deterrent of the law then? What might trigger the imposition of these sanctions?

Mr. Reeker: I think it is something we are still reviewing. I would have to go back to the specifics of the law, which I don't have in front of me, and into what detail it goes into. It does have conditions that should be satisfied in terms of restoration of the rule of law in Zimbabwe. There must be free and fair presidential elections or establishment of conditions for such an election, commitment to equitable legal and transparent land reform. I mean the law lists quite a few areas where we would like to see change and improvement in Zimbabwe --

Question: But sorry, just -- those are what you want to see, otherwise sanctions will be imposed; is that what you're saying? It's not automatic sanctions.

Mr. Reeker: Until those conditions are met, as outlined in the law, it provides that the US Government should opposed debt relief and vote against loan creditor guarantees to the Government of Zimbabwe, and any international financial institutions, and recommends that we consult with other governments on how to identify those responsible for that.

So that is what we are going through right now, in terms of looking at that, and making decisions under that law as to further steps we might take. But at this point, I just can't give you any more details.

But certainly we are watching the situation in Zimbabwe very closely. Our Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Kansteiner, was recently there. The Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor is currently there. We continue to make our message loud and clear, as I hope I am doing again today, that they need to take steps in Zimbabwe to reassert the rule of law and attention to the norms of a civic society. The policies that the Mugabe government have taken have led the country to economic and political rack and ruin, and it is time for them to think about the future of their country, the future of their people, and focus on democracy. And that would include establishing a system to have free and fair elections as they are scheduled in March.

Question: Can I go to something else? There is evidence perhaps of the further blurring of show business and politics. Variety is reporting that Secretary of State Powell will headline a global town meeting next month and take questions, it says, from young MTV -- I don't know of any old MTV viewers -- about America's war on terrorism. Is there anything to that report?

Mr. Reeker: Come on, Barry, I know you watch MTV.

Question: No, I don't even know what MTV is, to tell you the truth. Nor do I want to learn.

Mr. Reeker: I do believe that MTV, Music Television, released a press release yesterday indicating that Secretary Powell had agreed to participate in one of their global fora, where he will have the opportunity, probably in the month of February -- we have yet to schedule the exact date -- to take questions, to interact with youth from around the world. They have a reach in some 164 countries and territories, I believe, reaching some 375 million households, which will be a great opportunity for Secretary Powell --

Question: Not my household.

Mr. Reeker: -- to reach most households, except the Schweid household.

Question: Well, maybe he'll come down and talk to us, too. And we can hum along.

Mr. Reeker: I'm sure he is talking to your colleague on the plane as we speak.

Question: Oh, good. Okay.

Question: Is there anything you can add to what the Secretary or what maybe the Defense Department has said about US efforts in the Philippines to combat extremism? Plans or efforts?

Mr. Reeker: Sure. I don't think there is anything particularly new. We have talked about this before. Certainly we have had a longstanding strong relationship with the Government of the Philippines. We are close friends and allies.

US troops have been invited into the Philippines by the government of the Philippines to enhance our joint capabilities to combat international terrorism. I don't think there is any particular news in that. It's an important step in the ongoing effort against international terrorism to work closely with the Philippines on training. Our Filipino counterparts take this very seriously. These are matters of great concern to both our governments.

The Defense Department, as you indicated, may be able to give you more details on the specifics of this training program, and of course the Government of the Philippines itself may also be able to describe it. But certainly working with the Philippines to help them upgrade counterterrorism capabilities is an important part of our overall relationship with the Philippines and an important part of the war against terrorism. We are going to continue to work with them to enhance the capabilities of the Philippine military to battle terrorism.

Question: Just to follow up on that, has there been any update on the situation of the Burnhams, the American couple, the missionaries held by the Abu-Sayyaf down there? Is there any suggestion that the extent or the scope of the US help to the Philippines, when that's being talked about? Does the fate of the Burnhams and any kind of knock on the faith we might have on them come into thinking?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I have a daily update as of today on the situation for the Burnhams, who have obviously been held far too long, and we would continue to call for their immediate release. It is an example of what these terrorist groups do in terms of denying this couple their freedom of movement for some perverted purpose. And so we continue to call for that.

Again, I think our working with the Philippine Government to help them expand their counterterrorism capabilities has to be looked at for that purpose. Certainly the holding of the Burnhams is an indicator, is an example of the type of threat the Philippines faces from terrorist organizations like Abu-Sayyaf. And so we will continue to call for their release. The Philippine Government will continue their efforts in that direction. We will continue to be in close touch with them on that, and our other programs to work on counterterrorism capabilities will also continue as I described.

Question: Different subject? Do you have anything on an American who was killed today in Israel, or the Palestinian territory?

Mr. Reeker: I can confirm the report that earlier today an American citizen was killed in the region. We are trying at this point to reach the American citizen's next of kin to convey our deepest condolences and to offer our assistance in this time of grief. We are in contact with Israeli and Palestinian officials regarding the incident and trying to ascertain the facts.

Certainly the incident, the death of this American citizen, underscores the necessity of bringing an immediate end to violence and moving quickly towards implementation of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell Committee recommendations, as we have called for for so long.

Question: Can you say where this took place?

Question: So it wasn't an accident or anything?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have the facts. I'm sorry. We can try to follow up this afternoon. I think that is really all I had.

Question: You don't know whether it was in Israel or in the Palestinian territories?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know specifically where it took place. It was an American citizen, I believe resident in the region. We are trying obviously to reach next of kin as a first step and trying to ascertain the facts. Until I have any more facts, I just wouldn't want to go beyond that.

Question: Can you say whether he was killed by somebody or if he was just killed by --

Mr. Reeker: I don't have all the facts. I'm sorry. We will continue to look at that. It was what appeared to be an act of violence. This was not just an accidental death, I don't believe, but we need to establish the full facts before we can talk about it further.

Question: New subject?

Mr. Reeker: Go ahead.

Question: It's on Somalia. Is there still a US fact-finding mission there to kind of take a look at what the security and terrorism situation is, and, if so, have they reached any conclusions? And also, what is it exactly that the US does not support about the current transitional authority?

Mr. Reeker: In terms of Americans there, I think from the State Department's perspective we have talked about the State Department officer, I believe, based in Embassy Nairobi who does visit Somalia on occasion. I am not aware that he has traveled there more recently than we last discussed it. I am not aware of any other Americans involved there, or groups. You could ask around.

In terms of Somalia generally, there are a number of different factions that control or attempt to maintain control over different parts of that ravaged country. We have not recognized any particular faction as a government or as holding power there, and we will continue to watch the situation there closely in terms of the potential for the country in a situation like that to house terrorists, to be victim to terrorists taking advantage of the misfortune of a country like that. But I don't have anything --

Question: Do you not recognize one of the groups? Because why isn't there one group or the other that you haven't recognized?

Mr. Reeker: Because there isn't. There is no one group --

Question: Isn't there a transitional authority that is currently in place?

Mr. Reeker: I believe there is a group that calls itself that. I don't have a list of all the different organizations and authorities -- big "A" or small "a" -- in Somalia, but I know there are lots of them. And we, the United States Government, do not recognize any one particular one.

Our Embassy officer from Nairobi, when he visits Somalia, attempts to talk with some of these groups to get their views to ascertain the situation there, as Ambassador Boucher has described for you in the past. But I just don't really have any updates for you.

Question: A quick question on the American citizen who was arrested in Mexico yesterday and transferred to Houston. I wondering if the State Department was in contact with the Foreign Minister of Mexico in terms of (inaudible) of the extradition treaty.

Mr. Reeker: I could check on that. I think it was probably handled directly through law enforcement channels, but we could certainly ask.

Question: Back on the Middle East, has this building endeavored to find out from Yasser Arafat whether his cease-fire remains in place or not? And the other one I'll ask in a minute officially -- the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade's statement saying that the cease-fire is dead.

Mr. Reeker: I have seen a variety of statements. I am not aware of any particular conversations with Mr. Arafat in particular. You know that we have made quite clear that the progress toward peace can not be made unless serious and sustained action is taken by Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority against terror and violence. And certainly those words still apply. We would want to see continued movement immediately in that direction.

Question: And the other one. Have you expressed any view to the Israeli Government about their delay in accrediting Palestinian journalists, which a group of 29 media organizations, media officials --

Mr. Reeker: I would have to look into that. I wasn't aware of that. I will be happy to check on it.

Question: If you could take the question.

Question: Is there any readout on the meeting between Greek Prime Minister Kostis Simitis and the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, last Thursday?

Mr. Reeker: We had a readout. Ambassador Boucher, I believe, attended that meeting and he gave you a readout, so why don't we get it from the transcript because he talked about it here. I wasn't in the meeting, so I would rather you just see what he had to say about it.

Question: One more question. Any comment on the Cyprus issue, since tomorrow the talks that are going to be in Nicosia between President Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Raul Denktash?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I have anything new to say. We certainly have encouraged that process and we are pleased if they can continue to move forward in the rubric they have been using.

Question: Still on the Middle East, do you have anything on Under Secretary Bolton's trip to Israel to discuss nonproliferation issues?

Mr. Reeker: Sure. "Anything" is a good factual set of points here that Under Secretary Bolton will travel to Israel from January 16th through January 18th for our regular US-Israel consultations on nonproliferation matters. And I guess that is about all I have to say about it.

Question: What does our concept of nonproliferation mean, so far as -- I know what it means, but what does it mean apropos Israel? Proliferation of American technology? Proliferation of weapons generally? Because Israel has military relations with Greece and with Turkey, and you spoiled a very lucrative sale they had lined up with China. Is that what we're talking about, the transferring of technology to other countries?

Mr. Reeker: I think it can be a broad dialogue on nonproliferation matters. It is a regular dialogue that we have, this type of consultation at that level. And so I will leave it for them to discuss these specific topics that they want to, and then I will be happy to see if we have anything further to say after they actually have those talks.

Question: Well, what I am trying to distinguish here is there is a general proliferation concern the US has in the Middle East, and then there is a specific concern the US has had as to what Israel -- which is far more advanced than any of the other countries -- providing advanced technology, or even concern that it might be American technology, to other countries.

Which of these two areas is the point of the Secretary's visit?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know if I could tell you that. I think it is an opportunity for them to discuss nonproliferation issues, and it may include all of those or both of those subjects. I will say in response to some of the recent press reports I saw regarding, for instance, transfer of a Phalcon aircraft to -- Phalcon radar to India, that we actually support the transfer of that. We are discussing with the government of Israel consulting further with them about the transfers, including the systems capabilities and the timing.

So that is the type of discussion that could take place in those meetings. I just can't tell you of the specific agenda. I would be happy, as those meetings take place, to discuss that. But we do support the transfer of the Phalcon to India and we will continue to have the consultations with Israel on the capabilities and timing related to that.

Question: When you say you consult on timing, I assume that you wouldn't want this to happen while India and Pakistan are on the brink of going to war.

Mr. Reeker: I think certainly we always encourage other countries, including Israel, to take into account the impact of their weapons sales. And so while we have these consultations, I am not aware of any particular time frame. The established timing and, as I said, the capabilities are the subjects that we would have in terms of consultations, and that may be part of what Under Secretary Bolton can raise when he is out there.

Question: Will this include nuclear in the discussions with Bolton?

Mr. Reeker: Again, I just don't know that I can predict exactly what they will talk about in terms of the framework for nonproliferation discussions. Nuclear issues, in terms of proliferation, is certainly a part of concerns that we have, that the Israelis have, and I think it is something we have talked about in the past and certainly could talk about in this current set of discussions.

Question: Andrew Card of the White House staff is going to meet tomorrow with Mr. Armitage about a family planning issue which, you know, I could describe but I think we both know what it is.

Mr. Reeker: I wouldn't know. I am happy to check the Deputy Secretary's schedule, but I would refer you really to the White House for the White House Chief of Staff's schedule.

Question: Gee, the White House asked me to check it. No, but I don't think you would put on the schedule a meeting between --

Mr. Reeker: We generally don't. Our internal meetings are usually something we just continue doing in our long work days.

Question: Yes, so watching the schedule isn't going to help me. Or maybe I can find it some other way. Thank you.

Mr. Reeker: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:57 p.m.)