30 January 2002

Transcript of State Department Noon Briefing

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

NORTH KOREA -- Dialogue Between US and North Koreans in New York/Nonproliferation Concerns/Conventional Forces on the Peninsula/Terrorism/Humanitarian Concerns/Contacts with Terrorists/North Korea's Missile Exports/Agreed Framework

SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA -- Support for South Korean President's Efforts to Engage North Korea

MIDDLE EAST -- US Engagement and Commitment

IRAN -- Offer of Unconditional Dialogue with Iranian Government/Nonproliferation/ Evidence of Iranian Involvement in Karine A Arms Smuggling Operation/ Terrorism List/Characterization of Iranian Leadership/Reform Movements

IRAN/IRAQ/NORTH KOREA -- Reference to "Axis of Evil"/Offer of Unconditional Dialogue

EUROPEAN UNION/IRAN/NORTH KOREA -- European Countries Developing Oil Fields in Iran/European Union Countries Establishing Full Diplomatic Ties with North Korea

RUSSIA -- Sales to Iran/Undersecretary Bolton's Meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov/US-Russia Strategic Framework/Reductions in Offensive Weapons/Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov's Meeting with Secretary Powell/ Meetings with Chairman of Russian's State Commission for Chemical Disarmament

GREECE/TURKEY -- Dialogue on Aegean Issue/Economic Partnership Committee

IRAQ -- UN Resolutions/Contact with Iraqi National Congress/Accounting Problems

UK -- Visit of British Foreign Secretary Straw/Discussion of Status of Detainees

UZBEKISTAN -- Assistant Secretary Beth Jones' Meetings in Tashkent/US Assistance

MOROCCO -- Head of State Immunity Request by Foreign Minister of Morocco

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS -- Ambassador Kurtzer's Remarks to Israelis

ISRAEL/EGYPT -- Removal of US Troops from the Sinai

PAKISTAN -- Threat About Reporter Daniel Pearl and Other Journalists/Travel Warning

MACEDONIA -- NATO Operation

SAUDI ARABIA -- Funding Purchase of Shipment of Arms from Iran by Palestinians

JAPAN -- Foreign Minister Tanaka

AFGHANISTAN -- Compensating Afghans for Lost Properties

Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I would be glad to take questions from the distinguished representative of the wire services.

Question: In the speech last night, the President made a reference to the "axis of evil" and North Korea in particular. What does this mean for the on-again/off-again dialogues between the US and the North Koreans in New York?

Mr. Boucher: The contacts that we have in New York with North Korea are just sort of maintaining a certain level of contact and working on logistical, administrative, normal routine relationships. As you know, we have said that there are serious issues to discuss with North Korea, that we are ready to sit down and discuss those issues at any time, any place.

We have made quite clear, as the President did again last night, our very serious concerns about programs that North Korea has had to develop weapons of mass destruction, about the need for North Korea to get involved with IAEA inspectors with regard to the nuclear power plant that is being built, and the need for a serious discussion between the United States and North Korea about these issues.

The President stated again in the clearest possible terms our concerns about missiles, about weapons of mass destruction, and the grave and growing danger that those represent to the United States and its allies. And that remains a key factor in our policy.

Question: If I could just follow. My understanding, though, was that eventually the State Department is trying to move towards some sort of dialogue on those missiles. Has there been any progress that was made, and is that still on the table?

Mr. Boucher: At this point, we have offered to discuss these issues, these very serious issues in a serious manner at any time, any place, without preconditions. The fact that we identify the nonproliferation concerns as among the most serious dangers in the world these days, as the President did last night, should be a message to North Korea that it is imperative for them to respond to our offer and to sit down and discuss these and the other issues of concern, including conventional forces on the Peninsula, and terrorism and humanitarian concerns as well.

I would note in this regard that we continue to support South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's efforts to engage North Korea. We see those as essential to establishing lasting peace and security on the Peninsula, and we will continue to coordinate very closely with our allies, Japan and South Korea, on policy towards the North.

Question: Richard, on the speech also, it struck some around this town and particularly overseas that the speech was kind of like half of a Tolstoy novel, rather long on war, but short on the other. And in particular, it has been noted with concern that there was no mention of Middle East, except in terms of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. What can you do to reassure the Arab world in particular that this omission is not a sign of some kind of a greater policy movement?

Mr. Boucher: It seems to me we get a question like this every time the President delivers the State of the Union speech. It is impossible for the President to mention every item in the world, every geographic region of the world, every situation that remains very, very important to the United States. In the speech last night, the President addressed, in terms of foreign policy, I would say three or four of the overarching themes of great importance to the United States. One is the fight against terrorism; second is the efforts against weapons of mass destruction, and he did cite some examples there; and the third was the question of values and our support for the essential freedoms that are universal values.

He didn't, I don't think at any point in the speech, try to go into any specific situation in a particular region. That said, I would make quite clear that the United States engagement and commitment to doing what we can in the Middle East remains exactly where it was.

Question: Following up on that North Korean -- the dialogue in North Korea, can you also confirm that the offer of unconditional dialogue with the Iranian Government still stands?

Mr. Boucher: We are prepared to discuss issues with other governments, including Iran. We have made, I think, that clear before. But the President also made clear with regard to Iran last night that Iran continues to aggressively pursue programs of the weapons of mass destruction; they continue to support terrorist groups and export terror. These are ongoing concerns that have been longstanding, and we are trying in every way possible to address them.

As you know, we have made a lot of efforts with regard to proliferation and Iran. We have made this an important part of our dialogue with Russia on nonproliferation issues, for example. We just had a Russian delegation in town for the last day or two, and we have been discussing these issues again with them. So we continue to press on these issues and we will work -- as the President said yesterday, we will work closely with coalition partners to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Question: And can I follow up on that one? I think a lot of people around the world might be confused by your policy. At one moment you're talking about an "axis of evil" and threatening unspecified action against these countries; at the same time, you are offering unconditional dialogue with them. How do you reconcile these two apparently conflicting --

Mr. Boucher: There is nothing to reconcile, Jonathan, and I don't see why anybody should be confused. I thought the President was very clear last night.

Question: He was very clear last night. That's why --

Question: I mean, you can't -- I mean --

Mr. Boucher: Let me finish the answer. These are serious issues that need to be addressed. The President made quite clear that we have dangerous regimes with dangerous weapons, and that is a prime concern of US foreign policy. It has actually been for a long time, and I think, as the President made clear, even more so since September 11th.

What do you do about it? Well, there are a number of things. First, you fight terrorism and terrorist groups in the many different ways that we are doing that. And second, you try to choke off the development of weapons of mass destruction, and you can do that through a discussion with governments and countries if they are prepared to abandon these programs and open themselves up to international IAEA inspectors, for example, or in the case of Iraq, open themselves up to fully comply with the UN resolutions.

But second of all, that is not the sum total of your efforts, is to wait until they're ready to talk about it. We are also actively engaged in strengthening the international nonproliferation regimes, for example under the Nonproliferation Treaty. We have made proposals to strengthen the inspection regimes. We are involved with key partners in various efforts; for example, our discussions with Russia about their sales to Iran. We are involved with the United Nations to support UN resolutions with regard to Iraq, to support the return of inspectors with regard to Iraq. And the President also made clear that America deserves the right to act in our interests if we need to do that.

Question: Okay, can I just follow up on that? It's still a little unclear. Are you basically saying your policy is to intimidate these people into dialogue? Because that seems to be --

Mr. Boucher: I think I said nothing of the kind, so I'm not going to say what I just said.

Question: So what is -- okay. What purpose is served by describing these regimes as evil? What is the -- what is the, you know, objective in making -- using this description?

Mr. Boucher: Well, first of all, I think we can all see that for ourselves. So it may be just describing reality, which we often do, and which is something that somehow my press colleagues always ask me to do.

But second of all, I think it emphasizes once again the importance the United States attaches to this issue. These are very dangerous weapons in the hands of very dangerous regimes, and regimes like Iraq that have shown no hesitation in carrying out evil acts. Let us remember the way they use chemical weapons against their own people.

Question: Can I get a follow-up? I want to come at that, if I may, a different way. It's the use of "axis." "Axis" implies that there's a unity among all these unpleasant states, the people you have called rogue states and such. Is the President suggesting that Iran and Iraq and North Korea, et cetera, all pull together in some combined effort? I don't understand "axis of evil." Jonathan asked about evil; I'm asking about axis. A-x-i-s.

Mr. Boucher: And somebody else will ask about "of"?

Question: Of, probably.

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: Prepositionally, at least.

Mr. Boucher: I would say the word is appropriate because there are relationships between these countries. And I'm not sure there's anything particular I could cite on the public record at this point without checking, but there are indeed relationships there.

Question: Can we expand on that just a minute?

Question: All right, go ahead.

Question: You're saying that there are relationships between these countries, but you're not prepared to describe what they are?

Mr. Boucher: We obviously have a lot of information about nonproliferation in the world. We know a lot of how it happens. We know a lot of who is involved with whom.

Question: Okay, and you believe that --

Mr. Boucher: And at this point, I would say that there are some relationships between these countries.

Question: And you believe that these three countries are ganging up together on the United States?

Mr. Boucher: That's not what I said.

Question: I know, and that's what I'm asking.

Mr. Boucher: I said there are relationships. That is as far as I can go at this point.

Question: Do you believe that these three countries are ganging up on the United States or US interests throughout the world, or the civilized world, as you might say?

Mr. Boucher: I would say that each of these countries has programs which constitute a danger to the countries in those regions, to the broader world, and particularly that their contacts with terrorists constitute a danger as well. And that is why this is an important issue for the United States to address, as I said before, in many different policy ways.

Question: Okay. It was my understanding, especially with North Korea, that they had largely eliminated their contacts with terrorists. Are you saying that there is now a renewed concern?

Mr. Boucher: I would say that they are still on the terrorist list. We have not yet found sufficient action to take them off.

Question: Is there still going to be discussion about having them removed? I mean, there were quite close discussions --

Mr. Boucher: We have always made clear that they had taken steps. I am sure we will review that again in our Patterns of Global Terrorism Report. But we also made clear that there were additional steps that we were looking for, that we made clear what we look for North Korea to do, and that they have not, I guess I would say, finished the process. They have not finished the process of cutting their ties to terrorist groups in a manner that will let us take them off the list.

Question: Is there any evidence that North Korea has abridged any of the agreements that we have with them or that the rest of the world has with them in terms of nuclear or missile technology deployment?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, the missile area is not one where we have any particular agreements, and we have been concerned about North Korea's missile development. We have been concerned particularly about North Korea's missile exports.

In the nuclear area, I think you are aware of sometimes in the past there have been concerns about individual actions and projects, and we have conducted at least one on-site inspection out there with their assistance. But we have also made clear the importance now for North Korea to start bringing in IAEA inspectors and putting the new projects under the proper controls in order to get that process moving in time for the new reactor that is being built.

Question: But we don't believe that they have abridged the Agreed Framework, do we?

Mr. Boucher: We haven't said anything like that on the Agreed Framework, no.

Question: Richard, when you have your dialogue with these countries, I am fairly confident that they say to you, "Well, you have missiles and weapons of mass destruction too. Why shouldn't we?" How do you answer them when they say this?

Mr. Boucher: Well, we haven't had a whole lot of dialogue --

Question: Well, you've had dialogue with North Korea.

Mr. Boucher: In the previous administration we had discussions in Pyongyang.

Question: So what do you say to them when they say that?

Mr. Boucher: When they say we have missiles too?

Question: And weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Boucher: There is -- many issues involved here. The first is that we abide by -- and indeed are working to strengthen -- the international nonproliferation regimes that are essential to ensuring a certain stability.

Second of all, we don't have contacts with terrorist groups; we don't support terrorism in the world; and as the President made clear, it is particularly disturbing when you have countries that develop weapons of mass destruction who also have contacts and support for terrorist groups. And that constitutes a threat to us all.

Question: You will admit, though, that you do have contacts with groups that these countries might consider terrorists.

Mr. Boucher: No.

Question: No?

Mr. Boucher: No, because I don't have a list of groups that they consider --

Question: The Iraqis, for example, are complaining mightily every time you have any contact with the Iraqi National Congress, which they see as --

Mr. Boucher: Who are here today.

Question: Who are here today. Exactly. You don't accept the premise that --

Mr. Boucher: I don't try to accept their characterization of who is and who isn't. I think it is quite clear what different groups are involved in.

Question: On Iran, there had been a sense, prior to September 11th at least, that there might be moderates there that the US could engage. Is that out the window now?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think the President threw out the window our support for democracy in the world, which he made quite clear in fact was an important part of the overall policy, an important part of in fact fighting terrorism. And so certainly any reform, democratic change in a country like Iran, would be welcome. As I said, we are ready to sit down and discuss issues such as these, but the President stressed in very strong terms the importance of addressing these issues, particularly now.

Question: Do you see any potential change in your terrorism list, as far as including the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or the Peoples Mujahedin? Is that going to be reconsidered now in the wake of the President's comments?

Mr. Boucher: We make those determinations on the basis of law, and those were made. The President is not countenancing terrorism in any form.

Question: So the answer is no, there is not a reconsideration?

Mr. Boucher: I am not aware of any reconsideration. I guess I'm a little perplexed as to why one would think that would flow from the President's comments last night. But that's something else.

Question: Richard, the President last night appeared to lay out a very clear policy direction for any agency of the government that deals in foreign policy. Can you cite any step, particular step that this Department is taking today, starting today, that responds to that?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think any department can answer that question for you. Are we doing something new in Afghanistan today? Are we doing militarily -- I don't think one expects to go from a strong statement of policy and priority from the President into a brand-new unveiling of a different policy. This has been an important part of the President's policy from the beginning. His concern about weapons of mass destruction, particularly with regard to North Korea, you will remember about a year ago, was clearly stated. The concern about Iraq and letting the inspectors back in has been very clearly stated. Concerns about Iran and the weapons of mass destruction, the fact that the President has been raising this in his meetings with President Putin, as we have in our meetings with the Secretary and other people has been clearly stated.

What the President made clear last night is the priority he attaches to this, his determination to pursue the issue of weapons of mass destruction. What I pointed out to you today are many of the things that we are doing and can do to continue to pursue this area with determination and with the priority that befits the President's statements. And those are things that we will do over time consistently, persistently, and I am sure with a variety of measures.

But we are not standing up here today and say, hey, we just discovered nonproliferation. We have very active nonproliferation programs, and we will continue to pursue those.

Question: Can I go back to Iran? After September, there were a lot of people in Washington -- well, in the administration were saying fairly positive things about Iran. You remember all those things about rescue operations, and so on and so on and so on, and the reaction to the events of September 11th.

What has happened since then to make you change your mind about the Iranian leadership?

Mr. Boucher: I think you are providing sort of a different characterization to what we have said on this. I would say with regard to Iran, we have called them the way we have seen them. When there were opportunities to explore, we said there were opportunities to explore. When there was cooperation in Bonn and meetings that we had with the Iranians in Bonn to encourage and support a broad-based government, we were quite clear of the benefits of that cooperation. The Secretary, I think, also talked about the cooperation of the Six Plus Two at one point, as a factor, as one of the ways that we could indeed work with Iran on that question.

But then, for example in Afghanistan, when we began to have some serious concerns about what Iran was doing in various places on the ground in Afghanistan, we also spoke about those. Iran has the possibility to be a positive force in helping in Afghanistan to bring al-Qaida to justice and to help the Afghans establish a broad-based government. And all along, we have been making clear our concerns about weapons of mass destruction in Iran, about particularly their nuclear programs, sometimes about missiles.

So I think we basically -- you know, there have been a lot of different factors at play in Iran, and we all know some of the complications of the political situation there as well. But we have, as I said, commented on each of these, called them the way we see them, and looked for an opportunity to deal with the serious issues in terms of the things that we see in Iran that are of concern to us.

Question: Richard, didn't you leave one out, just so we can say that you mentioned the Karine A?

Mr. Boucher: The Karine A. You want me to do the whole thing?

Question: No, no, no, but I just --

Mr. Boucher: We are deeply concerned about the compelling evidence of Iranian involvement in the Karine A arms smuggling operation.

Question: I just wanted to make sure that was one of the things that --

Mr. Boucher: We have always raised a whole series of things with regard to Iran, weapons of mass destruction being the one we are talking about today. We have also, as you know, raised serious concerns about the human rights situation, about their support for terrorism, and particularly in this recent case.

Question: About a half hour ago, you made some reference to Mr. Bolton's meeting with Mr. Mamedov. Could you give us any kind of a read-out on that meeting?

Mr. Boucher: Sure.

Question: Can we have more axis questions?

Mr. Boucher: We have more axis questions? We'll do this and then we'll --

Question: All right, whatever.

Mr. Boucher: John Bolton, our Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov yesterday in the Department. Each side had an interagency team participating in the meetings. This was the latest in the series of meetings in support of Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister Ivanov that have been held in Washington or in Moscow since last summer.

The Bolton-Mamedov exchanges focus on the elaboration of a new US-Russia strategic framework and the development of agreements following up on the results of the meeting of President Bush and President Putin in Washington and Crawford.

This was our first meeting of 2002. We would expect further meetings as part of the preparations for the next meeting of the US and Russia presidents.

Question: Was there forward movement on this relationship?

Mr. Boucher: I would say we found it productive. We found it a substantive discussion. But at this point, I don't think I can go into more specifics than that. They are working as senior advisors to Secretary Powell and Foreign Minister Ivanov, and working on the preparations for further meetings between the presidents.

Question: Will the Secretary's meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow in any way relate to this, or is that --

Mr. Boucher: I would expect some of these issues to be discussed. Clearly, our interest in working out the strategic framework of Russia has been quite clear, an element that I'm sure we'll discuss in that forum as well.

Question: I want to follow up on Mark's question. I mean, you all have talked about nonproliferation a lot before, but the President struck at least a new tone last night. He said that time is not on our side in dealing with this problem, and that he won't stand still while the threat grows. Is he suggesting military action? Was he suggesting more inspections of suspect countries? Sanctions? Diplomacy? What?

Mr. Boucher: Well, as I said, there are a lot of things we are doing, a lot of things we can do. But I will go back to what the President said. He said we will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses. And all nations should know America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

So he has a number of options available. We are already doing a number of things in this area to pursue nonproliferation as a priority for the administration, and we will continue to do that.

Question: A follow-up? Iran's reform movement keeps selecting Khatami, and these people seem to be more open to change. But the hardliners appear to still control the intelligence and the military. Does the tough tone of the speech towards Iran yesterday indicate that the United States no longer feels that the reform movements in Iran have any chance of changing its policies?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think the United States has any desire to play Iranian politics, and our policies are determined based on the objective facts of the situation. Obviously we welcome democracy, we welcome reform in Iran. But as we have seen, the Iranians will proceed with that at their own pace based on their own political system.

What is of specific concern to the United States at this juncture, and as the President indicated of serious concern to the United States, are these programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. And rather than waiting for some eventual political change that might change attitudes towards them, we think it's important to do whatever we can at this point to keep Iran from getting the materials and technology that are necessary for these programs and to end the cooperation and export and other manifestations of the development of weapons of mass destruction by states that also have ties with terrorists.

Question: A question on working with the coalition on weapons of mass destruction. Does this have any bearing on the US policy with the European Union that it usually waives sanctions against European companies that develop oil fields in Iran on this? Clearly, those oil profits would be used for weapons and that type --

Mr. Boucher: That is done on a case-by-case basis. It is a subject of continuing discussion with the Europeans. Obviously Europeans are very important partners when it comes to nonproliferation; we work with them in a great number of areas.

Question: But there is also a general policy --

Mr. Boucher: The bottom line is I don't have anything new on that.

Question: Okay, you don't have anything new. And would there be any kind of increased diplomatic pressure with regards to new relationships with North Korea? A number of EU countries, like Italy, have established full diplomatic ties with them. Are there now going to be pressure to try to not have that sort of thing?

Mr. Boucher: The issue with North Korea is -- well, there are many issues with North Korea. But the issue that we are talking about today is their programs with regard to weapons of mass destruction. We assume and know from our close contacts with any number of governments that are involved one way or the other or setting up ties that these issues are important to the international community as a whole and that these issues are raised by other governments when they talk to the North Koreans. So I think we think it's important for the international community to stress these issues and to try to seek some resolution.

Question: To follow up on that, do you think that recent overtures by this administration to get verification on North Korean weapons programs are going to be stifled by the President very publicly saying that North Korea is a new target in the war on terrorism?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think that (a) that's not what the President said; (b) as --

Question: Well, he clearly made a -- he clearly expanded what the definition of the war on terrorism meant by including countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. I mean, he clearly expanded the definition of what the war on terrorism meant.

Mr. Boucher: Yes, but you all reported that three weeks ago when you said he did that already. I don't think there is any question that the President has been very concerned, that we have been very concerned about terrorism, about nonproliferation and about the nexus of, as he said, dangerous regimes getting the most dangerous weapons.

So those are two important policy priorities. Does that make these countries "the next target"?

Question: Well, I guess that's not the appropriate way of saying it.

Mr. Boucher: I don't think so. That's not what the President said.

But on the substance of your question, as I said earlier, sometime in the last half hour, we think that the priority that we have attached to this, the importance of these issues, the danger of these issues, makes it imperative that North Korea respond to our offer of discussions on these questions.

Question: So let me get this straight. Your offer to both Iran and North Korea for talks any time, any place, still stands? And if Iraq would accept weapons inspectors, there might a chance for some kind of an improved relationship? Relationship might not be the right word, right? But with Iran and North Korea your offer still stands, yes?

Mr. Boucher: But it doesn't stand alone. We need to deal with these issues.

Question: Right, I understand.

Mr. Boucher: A discussion, dialogue or a serious willingness on the part of these governments to address these issues could be an important part, but that doesn't mean we are going to stop our other efforts to strengthen nonproliferation regimes, deal with some of the specific concerns, get inspectors in, get inspectors back, and take all the other steps that can happen with or without a discussion.

Question: But don't you think it's a rather unusual way to invite these countries into having talks by calling them an "axis of evil"? I mean, surely that's not the most diplomatic way. If you want to have talks with these people, you're not supposed to go running around calling them evil. Surely that's not the way to go about having a diplomatic dialogue, is it?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, I think it's important for everybody to understand, including the countries themselves, the priority the United States attaches to these issues. Second of all, since September 11th, I would say the priority has only gotten higher. Third of all, I would point out that for many months, in some cases for many years in others, we have been quite nicely and diplomatically saying we're happy to sit down and talk. And that hasn't led to the discussions either, so I don't assume that -- I don't assume that the phraseology has a whole lot to do with it.

Question: Okay, wait. I was under the impression that your being diplomatic with North Korea had led to discussions and that you had talked about their making at least some progress toward getting off the terrorism list, although now it has apparently stopped. Correct?

Mr. Boucher: You just compressed about five years of history. Yes, Korea had made some progress in getting off the terrorism list. Yes, at some points we have had direct discussions with North Korea, and Secretary Albright went to Pyongyang to discuss these issues. At the same time, what I said before is equally true; since last spring, we have made quite clear we are prepared to have serious discussions with the North Koreans. The Secretary in Hanoi made clear to them directly and to others there that we were ready to sit down any time, any place, and that remains our policy.

Question: That was all before last night.

Mr. Boucher: The phrasing hasn't exactly changed the relationship.

Question: So what you are saying is that even though you regard these countries as the "axis of evil" they shouldn't take that as a sign that you are not particularly willing to talk to them?

Mr. Boucher: We'll tell the truth. We'll tell you what we think and we'll tell you we're ready to discuss these issues. But the only thing I want to say is that the policy is not limited to discussion or the possibility of discussion.

Question: Richard, he didn't even leave -- the President didn't leave open the possibility for discussion last night in his speech. He seemed to indicate that, whether it be now or tomorrow or in a month from now, that the United States is looking at these countries -- and that he indicated that the US was going to take action against them -- whether it be military or something else. I mean --

Mr. Boucher: I don't know how many times I have to read this: The President was quite clear in saying we will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

As I have said before, there are a variety of ways to do that -- we are pursuing them all and will pursue them all -- and that they don't depend on having a dialogue with these governments; although that too, if the governments are willing to address these issues seriously, that too is something that we would be prepared to do.

Question: When the senior-most North Korean official ever to visit Washington met with President Clinton, the United States issued a statement, a joint statement with the North Koreans, offering dialogue and a very positive statement. Since then, from what I understand, since President Bush was elected, the North Koreans have asked the United States to reaffirm this declaration, and the United States has refused to do so. And from what I understand, the South Koreans are also in private asking that the United States reaffirm this declaration.

Why have you not done so?

Mr. Boucher: Our policy, this administration's policy on North Korea, I think was clearly stated, what was it, about a year ago May, last May, and that is the policy of this administration, of the President.

Question: Wasn't it updated after the review? Was that May? Is it that long ago?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, it was May or June of last year that we put out the statement -- that the President put out the statement.

Question: Earlier today, you spoke of supporting South Korea and what it's doing.

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: Is that where it stands now, that this administration doesn't intend to push for substantive US talks with North Korea, but is happy to have South Korea carry the flag, carry the ball for you?

Mr. Boucher: I have just been saying the exact opposite for a half hour or so.

Question: So when are we going to have talks again? You referred to Albright and you referred to the previous administration. This administration is a year old.

Mr. Boucher: Secretary Powell has been in this administration. My reference to the policy that we announced last spring by the President, my reference to the Secretary's discussions in Hanoi, clearly are this administration. Okay?

Question: All right. I mean, we know the Secretary's position. We're weren't wondering about the unified administration position. And it's one and the same, right?

Mr. Boucher: It's one and the same.

Question: Can we change the subject?

Question: Can I go back to Mamedov, which we dealt with rather briefly?

Mr. Boucher: Okay, let's do Mamedov, and then we had a change of subject.

Question: The Russians said that -- in a statement on the talks yesterday that they want to see a legally binding document setting out real cuts. Is that something the United States -- what is the US position now on that? Many different things are being said, and I wondered whether you had come around to taking a position on whether it should be --

Mr. Boucher: The position has been the same one that was stated when the Secretary was in Moscow in December, which is that we want to sit down and that we were going to sit down and discuss with the Russians the reductions in offensive weapons that both sides intended to undertake, and that the form -- we were prepared to reach an agreement on that. The form of the agreement would be subject to discussion.

And so we've known the Russian position. They have stated it publicly before. And our position is that we will talk about it, and that's what we're doing.

Question: Okay, and on the question of real cuts, rather than just sham cuts, you know, putting them in --

Mr. Boucher: The President announced real cuts.

Question: Richard, on Russia, there seem to have been a bunch of different Russians in this building yesterday, or at least in the last couple days, including someone who has something to do with the Russian Chemical Weapons Program whose name I can't pronounce. But apparently he met with the Secretary. Well, first of all, did Mamedov meet with Secretary Powell? And then on this other guy, the chemical weapons guy, did he also meet with the Secretary?

And there are some reports that this Russian guy says that the Secretary assured him that the US would fund a plant in some city that I also can't pronounce to destroy chemical weapons. What's the story?

Mr. Boucher: We're on top of these things for you. First of all, yes, Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov met with the Secretary briefly during -- they had a short discussion during a break in the larger meeting. So they had some discussion with the Secretary. But as I said, the principal meetings were with Under Secretary Bolton.

We also had separate meetings on January 28th and 29th with Minister Sergei Kiriyenko and his delegation. He is the Chairman of Russia's State Commission for Chemical Disarmament. Secretary Powell did meet him, and they had discussions with other senior US officials. They discussed the issue of US assistance for the construction of a chemical weapons destruction plant. The two sides agreed on the importance of resolving all the issues related to implementing US assistance and agreed to resume on an expedited basis the bilateral consultations on an expert level about this topic. So we're looking forward to the opportunity to work with Russia on reducing weapons of mass destruction.

Question: It sounds like they're beginning to implement the White House statement of late December which had that plant, but it had another major feature, which is in finding another way to dispose of plutonium. Do you happen to know if that came up?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know if the subject of plutonium came up. There is a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year '02 where they authorize the money for chemical weapons destruction that the Secretary of Defense has to certify that six conditions would be met. And that has not been done yet, so these are subjects of continuing discussions.

Question: And is that what you meant when you said you agreed on the importance to resolve those six conditions?

Mr. Boucher: To resume our experts discussion on an expedited basis.

Question: What are those six conditions?

Mr. Boucher: I don't actually have the list with me, so I can't do that.

Question: So the Russians -- if the Russians would say that they had met those conditions, you would disagree?

Mr. Boucher: Well, we haven't certified so yet.

Question: Okay.

Question: Richard, can we go on India please?

Mr. Boucher: Well, let's change a couple subjects first.

Question: Mr. Boucher, Greece and Turkey announced that they are going to start a dialogue on the Aegean issue. Since the US Government was very much involved to this effect, could you please comment?

Mr. Boucher: I hadn't seen that so I don't have any comment, but I'll get you one.

Question: One more question. When Mr. Simitis met with the Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, January 10th, did you participate in that meeting? Since then we did not have any readout of the talks, do you remember if they discussed also the Aegean issue, to your best recollection?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, that's the problem right there. (Laughter.) I would have to look back and see if they discussed it. What I would say is that I think just about every time that the Secretary has met with Foreign Minister Papandreou or with the Greek Prime Minister, they have discussed the Aegean, they have discussed Greek-Turkish relations. And it's a subject we discuss with the Turks as well. So we've been very interested and supportive of the steps that Greece and Turkey have been taking, of the fact that they have been discussing a lot of issues together.

So if it didn't come up in that meeting, it was only because they know clearly of our support and our interest in the topic.

Question: Last week, you take some question about the travel ban against Turkey until January 16th. What kind of travel ban, Richard? Did you find out?

Mr. Boucher: I never got a final answer on that so I don't have anything for you.

Question: Well, another part is the President and also State Department announced that establishing new partnership -- economic partnership committee. What will be the difference than other past two economic commissions?

Mr. Boucher: I thought we did get an answer on that, but maybe not. Let me look into that one. Sorry.

Question: Outside, members of the Iraqi National Congress told us that they had worked out with you the disagreements over their funding -- sorry, accounting practices, and they said that they expected full funding to be re-instituted very shortly. Is that your understanding of what went on in their meeting they have had already today?

Mr. Boucher: The representatives, the leadership of the Iraqi National Congress, came in today to meet with Under Secretary Grossman. They will meet further today with Assistant Secretary Bill Burns.

We have had very good and serious discussions with them. Both sides are approaching the issue of funding constructively. They have made good progress in responding to the concerns that were posed by the Inspector General's report, and we continue to work with the INC to address them fully. We hope to work through these issues with the INC.

That is where we are at this moment, but we are continuing our discussions.

Question: Well, the deadline tomorrow, is that still -- they say there's no deadline hanging over their head, but how do you feel about that?

Mr. Boucher: I think we made clear that the funding would expire at the end of this month if we didn't work these issues out. But as I said, we're having these discussions and seeing -- trying to work them out. We have made quite clear all along our interest in supporting the activities of the opposition groups in Iraq.

Question: To follow up on that, they said that they didn't even have to talk about this much, that it's already accepted by both sides that they would institute this, and that you then went on to discuss more about policy. But from what you say, it sounds more like it was still a discussion of how to get the accounting practices up to standard.

Mr. Boucher: There are a number of issues that are still being discussed. We are just right in the middle of this right now, and I think it's better if we try to report on it tomorrow, for example.

Question: Can I just -- can I follow up on that? They keep saying that these -- I mean, can you characterize for us one more time the nature of these accounting problems? They continue to say that they are very minor, and that it is -- that the United States should not use accounting as an excuse for political indecision.

Mr. Boucher: I don't think today is the day to get into an argument over this. But we have been quite clear in the past that our Inspector General has raised serious questions that needed to be addressed, that we had tried to address those issues repeatedly, that we tried to work with them and support the institution of good accountability; that when we're dealing with taxpayers' money, whatever organization it is, we try to take very seriously the responsibilities to account for it properly, and that we expected the people who receive the money to do that as well.

So these are important issues to us. We have made that clear all along, and hopefully we're in the process of working them out.

Question: Did last night's speech give any more impetus to working through this with the INC or were the meetings long planned since the deadline was coming up?

Mr. Boucher: I think these meetings were long planned because the deadline was coming up.

Question: Richard, is the reason that today isn't the day to get into an argument over this because you are close -- you believe that you're close to getting an agreement on --

Mr. Boucher: I can't -- we're in between two meetings that are happening today, and we've --

Question: I mean, we were told that the meeting this afternoon with Assistant Secretary Burns was about policy, and not about the accounting problems.

Mr. Boucher: There are a variety of issues that still are under discussion. We're just in the middle of this and not able to really characterize it at this moment. I have said we have made good progress in responding -- they have made good progress overall in responding to the Inspector General's report, and we hope to be able to work these things out.

Question: Richard, seeing as they're looking for a license to operate inside Iraq, as they put it, is that something -- but they say they don't have it yet from the President nor from the State Department. Is that something under discussion too, expanding their -- what would you call it -- their charter, their brief?

Mr. Boucher: That has been a subject of discussion with them in the past, but I would say that we have not funded activities inside of Iraq.

Question: Richard, generally, does the speech in itself -- after the speech, do you envisage a sort of quantum leap forward in your relationship with the INC? I mean, is it -- does it -- is it likely to lead to a more substantial US funding for them?

Mr. Boucher: As you know, we've had very substantial funding available.

Question: Well, yes, available.

Mr. Boucher: And we've had discussions of a variety of programs that we were willing to support. We have in fact supported a variety of programs by the INC, by other groups, by other players, people who collect war crimes information and a variety of other things. So I think the United States does have money available, and has been active in supporting Iraqi opposition groups and will continue to be.

Question: Yes, but that doesn't quite answer the question. I said, do you expect sort of a --

Mr. Boucher: Well, it's sort of like Mark's question earlier about, so what are you going to do today. And the answer is that the President in his speech gave a quite clear set of policy priorities that we will be carrying out over time in a variety of ways.

Question: Richard, Jack Straw is coming tomorrow, Britain. Is he? To meet with Powell?

Mr. Boucher: So I hear. Do we know that for sure? Okay, yes.

Question: Well, having established that --

Mr. Boucher: Yes, having established that --

Question: Having established that, will they be discussing the calls in Britain that the three British prisoners -- detainees, captives, guests at Guantanamo -- go to Britain to face criminal trial or some sort of justice, rather than remain in limbo?

Mr. Boucher: I am sure that they will be discussing the status of the detainees at Guantanamo. I think we have made clear from the start that one of the issues that we were discussing with foreign governments, as we considered our own decisions on justice and what should happen, was to find out from others whether these individuals were wanted, or might face charges were they returned home. So that's been a subject that we initiated right from the start with other governments, and a subject that has been continuously discussed with a number of governments.

I don't know how this subject will come up tomorrow, but I would expect that the issue of the prisoners at Guantanamo, detainees at Guantanamo, could easily arise.

Question: But you couldn't give them to the British without having to answer to the Saudis and various others who have asked for their prisoners, or could you?

Mr. Boucher: I think that I can't lay down general rules at this point. What we have done is we have tried to find out from other governments what the judicial circumstances would be for these individuals and so we can understand that compared to the United States.

Question: Yesterday, Assistant Secretary Jones was in --

Mr. Boucher: If you don't mind --

Question: -- Tashkent.

Mr. Boucher: Tashkent.

Question: Yes, she went there. She told them what I think we knew here before that the US was going to basically triple its assistance to Uzbekistan. She also talked about how the government there had made a new commitment towards reform and democracy. I am wondering how those comments square with the unfree and unfair election that you say they had on Sunday. What exactly is she talking about when she talks about new commitment towards -- the president's new commitment towards reform?

Mr. Boucher: Well, in Tashkent she discussed a number of things. First of all, let me say that we thought the meetings were productive, including the meeting with President Karimov. In all her discussions, she underscored our long-term commitment to helping Uzbekistan, and for that matter, all the countries of the region to create lasting security, stability and prosperity. Her message did clearly include the US view that the only way to accomplish this is through economic and democratic reforms and the safeguarding of human rights, and you heard that view expressed yesterday by the President.

As for our assistance -- and this gets into sort of some of the things that we can do to support reforms and humanitarian considerations -- our assistance this year is going to be 60 million in regular funding and approximately 100 million in supplemental funds. I guess that's not quite triple what it started out, but close enough. The increased amount reflects our close cooperation with Uzbekistan and the war on terrorism, as well as our long-term commitment to helping Uzbekistan strengthen its economy, security and civil society, and to make the transition to democracy. The assistance is provided in the form of technical assistance, educational visits to the US, grants to non-governmental organizations and local communities, credits for small business, and humanitarian aid such as food and medicine.

So we have programs in a number of areas that can support civil society, can support reform, support economic and social development. And that is one of the ways that we manifest our desire to support human rights, in addition to talking about it and talking about things that don't manifest sufficient respect for standards of --

Question: So I guess it goes without saying, then, that you would not agree with people who think that this is rewarding a government that abuses human rights or paying them off simply because they are allowing you access to their military bases and air space?

Mr. Boucher: I would go back to the many things the President said last night, where he made quite clear -- and I don't think I have the quotes with me, but made quite clear that expanding respect for individuals, adhering to universal values of tolerance and human rights, is an important part of US foreign policy, an important part of the campaign against terrorism. And that was quite clear in the discussions that Assistant Secretary Jones had out in Uzbekistan. It is quite clear not only in our rhetoric in what we say, but it is also clear in the kind of programs that we have done to put our assistance into areas that help with economic and social involvement, that help with reform, that help with the development of civil society and the free press.

Question: Forgive me if you dealt with this earlier.

Mr. Boucher: It's okay, I probably can't remember. It was too long ago.

Question: As a result of the meetings with the Russians in the past couple of days, can you say whether Russia is cooperating or starting to cooperate on your proliferation concerns regarding Iran?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I can characterize it at this point. We have had a number of discussions with them. Assistant Secretary John Wolf was in Moscow about ten days ago, our Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Affairs, and he had, I think, very detailed and serious discussions. Those discussions so far have been good, but I don't have any announcements to make or precise characterizations as to where we are and how far we have to go in those discussions.

Question: Speaking of adhering to human rights and in terms of foreign policy, I think for us you promised you were going to have something on the head of state immunity request by the foreign minister of Morocco over the incident in which he is accused by Jerry (inaudible) of conspiracy to inflict harm on Americans by publishing things on United States congressional letter.

Mr. Boucher: That question is why don't I have it. I did, didn't I? If it's okay, we'll get it to you right after the briefing, I apologize, to all of you right after the briefing.

Question: It's been an hour and we haven't even asked about Arab-Israeli. An Israeli newspaper, a mass circulation tabloid, reports that the Israeli cabinet secretary summoned Ambassador Kertzer and, according to the report, reprimanded Kertzer -- because reprimanded is a very specific term, so don't hold me to the word "reprimanded" -- criticized, rebuked, whatever -- complained about Mr. Kertzer's remarks to Israelis that they ought to pressure their own government to reach peace with the Palestinians.

Mr. Boucher: I am not aware of a meeting like that. First of all, I think we did say at the time that those remarks were probably misreported and misrepresented, but I will look into it and see if we've had any meetings on the subject.

Question: Apparently there is a new email out saying that Daniel Pearl is no longer suspected of being CIA, but instead Mossad, and a warning that he will be executed in 24 hours.

Question: And that all Western reporters --

Question: -- are in danger. Why did the President make a conscious decision not to mention -- I mean, could you address that? And also, why doesn't this -- why wasn't the Daniel Pearl case mentioned last night as an act of current terrorism that is quite threatening?

Mr. Boucher: Unfortunately, there is --

Question: Forget about the speech. Answer the Mossad extradition question.

Mr. Boucher: Okay, let me -- please, thank you.

Question: You're welcome.

Mr. Boucher: I repeat what I have said before. Mr. Pearl is a respected journalist. He has no connection with our government. The Wall Street Journal has made clear in its message, in their message, that he has no connection with anybody but The Wall Street Journal. He disappeared a week ago now. Once again, we say he needs to be released immediately and unconditionally. We are working very closely with the Pakistani authorities, with the Pakistani police. US law enforcement officials are there to assist as they can. Cooperation is close. We are very concerned about his safety, and we hope that he can be located and freed soon.

Question: You have nothing on the assumed threat?

Mr. Boucher: We are aware of the new message, but I don't have any particular response.

Question: Have the Pakistanis told you that through the arrest of this Mr. Gilani that they're making progress in cracking this case?

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to try to characterize their progress. I think they have had some things to say, but I'll leave it with their remarks.

Question: Is there any consideration about revising the Pakistan travel warning? You've now allowed dependents to go back, lifted the Authorized Departure Order. If there is a threat specifically against Western journalists now, do you think that a new travel warning will be in order?

Mr. Boucher: I think we'll have to see about that. Obviously we are very concerned about the situation of Mr. Pearl, and I think if you look, though, at the travel advice that we give, we make quite a lot of mentions of some of the dangers of the situation there.

Question: Former (inaudible) State Department Johnson, Mr. Johnson, said recently that he thinks that former -- or current ISI -- in other words, Pakistani intelligence officials may be involved in the disappearance. Could you make any comment on that?

Mr. Boucher: I didn't see the comment. I don't know on what basis he might be saying that. I don't know of any.

Question: The Germans are saying that they expect the NATO operation in Macedonia to be extended. I understand that this would -- this requires NATO -- what's the word that you guys use when you all agree on it? Consensus. Has the US joined the Germans in this?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think it has actually come up formally yet at NATO. Let me check on the status of that.

It was extended in December to March 26th, at the request of the Macedonian Government. NATO allies and the Macedonian Government will soon need to address whether this kind of support continues to be needed. No decision has been made on this question, so it will be taken up and discussed at NATO.

Question: Do you know when?

Mr. Boucher: Sometime between now and March 26th.

Question: Thank you.

Question: Richard, there's a report in a German newspaper that the Saudis were involved in funding the purchase of the shipment of the arms from Iran by Palestinians.

Mr. Boucher: I hadn't seen that report. I don't have any information on that.

Question: On Japan, Japanese Foreign Minister was fired yesterday, and some people are saying it may affect the popularity of Koizumi cabinet because she was the most popular cabinet member. Is there any concern in your administration that it could affect Koizumi's economic reform or US-Japan relations?

Mr. Boucher: I think that would be -- I'm not going to speculate on Japanese politics and things like that. I would just say that during her tenure Ms. Tanaka contributed to further strengthening an already closed bilateral relationship. We look forward to continuing our close and cooperative relationship with Japan and to working with her successor on bilateral, regional and global issues in the spirit of our longstanding US-Japan friendship, which is rooted in shared values and interests.

Question: Richard, (inaudible) part of that improving relations?

Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't want to speculate on Japanese politics.

Question: Have you received official notice from the Japanese Government about the resignation of the Foreign Minister? There must be communication going on for the preparation of the President's trip to Asia.

Mr. Boucher: It's not necessarily the kind of thing that we have received official notice on, although a government would normally send around a diplomatic note when they appoint a new or an acting foreign minister. So I don't know if that has been received, but obviously we have been following the events in Japan and have seen the cabinet decisions there.

Question: This morning, there is one NGO and actually the family members of the September 11th victims had a news conference on Capitol Hill, and they basically says, yes, and call for legislation for the compensation for Afghans who lost properties, also family members by the US bombings. And they talked about actually past compensations, past examples of US compensated to Nicaragua, Panama and Lebanons who lost properties because of US campaigns. So I am just wondering, any general discussions of consideration?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything for you on that. I think you can check with the Pentagon, but I'm not sure if they've been able to address it.

We have one more.

Question: The Pentagon wants to withdraw most of the US forces from the Sinai. What is Secretary Powell's position on this intended withdrawal?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything new to say on that. As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld has addressed it. This issue has been around since the beginning of the administration. It remains an issue under discussion, but I don't have any new decisions or an end to that discussion.

Question: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m. EST.)