14 February 2002

Transcript of State Department Briefing

Following is the transcript of the February 14 regular press briefing at the State Department. Department spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Daily Press Briefing Richard Boucher, Spokesman Washington, DC February 14, 2002

INDEX:

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS -- Chairman Arafat's Leadership and Responsibility -- German Foreign Minister Fischer in the Region -- Vice President Cheney Traveling in the Region

CHINA

• Detention of 40 People After Demonstration in Tiananmen Square -- US Discussion of Human Rights Issues with China

VENEZUELA -- State Department Official's Meeting With Labor Leaders

IRAN -- US Contact with Iran and President's State of the Union Address -- Recent Demonstration in Iran -- Reports of Iranian Crackdown on Taliban

IRAQ/AUSTRIA -- Travel by Joerg Haider to Iraq and UN Sanctions -- US-Russian Discussions on the Goods Review List

CANADA -- Visit of Canadian Foreign Minister William Graham

PAKISTAN -- President Musharraf's Visit -- Debt Relief for Pakistan

ENVIRONMENT -- President's Speech /Global Climate Change Initiatives

DEPARTMENT -- Secretary Powell's Telephone Calls

NORTH KOREA -- Terrorism List and Ending Support for Terrorism -- North Korea's Missile and Technology Sales

SYRIA -- Iraqi Oil Imports and UN Sanctions

AUSTRIA -- Status of US Missions

Transcript:

Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I guess I'm batting at the bottom of the order today. You've seen the Secretary, the President's out speaking now on the global environment. So I'm here to answer your questions. Anything you have on your mind? Mr. Schweid.

Question: Well, we've tried it elsewhere; we might as well try it here. (Laughter.) And I don't mean to focus the question entirely on one story in The Washington Post, but are you folks still convinced that Yasser Arafat is able to maintain some leadership abilities, and that -- I know you say you've got to deal with him, but there's some strange stories coming out suggesting that he's having problems with his own deputies, that -- and suggesting that they may be a little more agreeable to accommodating to peace moves than he is?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, on these stories about internal things within the Palestinian Authority and leadership, I don't really have anything one way or the other on those. But the second thing is, as the Secretary said in testimony just yesterday or the day before, Chairman Arafat is the leader of the Palestinian Authority. We look to him for leadership. We look to him to take strong and resolute action, irreversible action, to stop the violence and to get to the bottom of the Karine A affair. And we continue to urge him to do that.

Question: He wasn't -- the Secretary questioned, pursued, when he spoke of the letter -- I don't even -- it's hard enough to describe the distinction; I'm not sure what it is exactly, that Arafat acknowledged responsibility as Chairman of the Palestinian Authority for the smuggling, but not personal responsibility. Do I have that right?

Mr. Boucher: Yes. That's what the Secretary said.

Question: What does that mean? I mean --

Mr. Boucher: That means he took responsibility as a leader for any actions that Palestinian officials might have taken.

Question: Well, like the buck stops here type of statement. I'm in charge, so --

Mr. Boucher: Yes. Without saying anything personally. But he said, I'm responsible for what has happened under my authority.

Question: That's a net gain from the US view?

Mr. Boucher: It's a beginning of resolving the problems to admit there is one.

Question: Have you seen -- since the letter came on Sunday, I guess, and on Monday, you said, and the Secretary said later, that you are looking for him to follow through on the actions that he said he was going to take in the letter -- have you seen him do that yet?

Mr. Boucher: I think it's best described as saying we've seen some of the actions taken, and there's --

Question: That's what I meant. Since the letter, since he got the letter --

Mr. Boucher: Since the receipt of the letter over last weekend -- I'm not sure of the exact timing. He has done some of the things he has described in the letter; some of the things he was doing. I think you saw the arrest of one individual before we got the letter. But there are a number of things that he indicated he intended to do, and we look forward to seeing all those things happen.

Question: I'd like to ask about the detention of 40 foreigners in Beijing protesting the banning of the Falun Gong there. Do you know how many Americans are in that group? And are you doing anything on their behalf?

Mr. Boucher: We don't know yet. Reports are the Chinese police detained as many as 40 people after a demonstration in Tiananmen Square. Our Embassy has made representations today requesting notification of any American citizens who might have been detained, and of course requesting consular access to them.

We have not been notified of any Americans by the Chinese, but we continue to seek this information, and we really -- we just don't have the answers yet.

Question: Do you think you might by the end of the day?

Mr. Boucher: Given that it's 2:00 a.m. or something in China, probably not.

Question: German Foreign Minister Fischer is in the Middle East at the moment, pursuing a kind of EU peace initiative. Does the US Government see that as helpful or as counterproductive to their own peace initiative there?

Mr. Boucher: The German Foreign Minister is in the Middle East or headed to the Middle East. I think the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain is there now. German Foreign Minister Fischer is either there or heading there. The Secretary has coordinated very closely. He has talked to both gentlemen.

Again, our emphasis, our focus, remains on steps to end the violence, ways to end the violence, achieve a cease-fire and get back to talks. The Mitchell Committee recommendations is the shorthand for all that. But I think that is where our focus remains. That is what the Secretary talked about in his conversations with both Foreign Secretary Straw and Foreign Minister Fischer, and that is where we would hope the weight of the international community would fall.

Question: Is there kind of coordination going on between Washington and --

Mr. Boucher: There is a lot of close consultation on these issues. We have always kept in touch with Europeans who are traveling out there, with the EU High Representative Solana frequently on the Middle East. Minister Fischer and the Secretary talked about it -- you know, at least once a week, frankly.

Question: Just going back to China, these days, especially now, presidential visit will take place to China. Religious people or religions, especially ones that are under persecution. So what the United States is doing really, or how much the President will discuss this issue ongoing?

Mr. Boucher: This has been a subject of repeated discussion with the Chinese. It has been part of our discussions on human rights generally, on freedom of religion. We have raised concerns about the way the Falun Gong were viewed and treated. We have raised concerns about the way Roman Catholicism is treated in China. We do believe in freedom of religion for all groups.

Once again, we have repeatedly called on China to permit the free exercise of religion in China. That applies to Roman Catholics and some of the other practitioners. We raised, as you know, recently the case of the gentleman that was accused of smuggling bibles. We are thankful he has been let out and allowed to go back to Hong Kong.

So this has been an issue that we have raised repeatedly, and I would expect we would continue to do so at whatever level we talk to the Chinese, including the President.

Question: What response do the US get from the Chinese, because this -- as you said, this has been ongoing for many, many years. Each meeting takes place between China and US, the issue comes there -- human rights and religious persecution.

Mr. Boucher: I would say that we have gotten responses in some particular matters and particular cases. Sometimes we have been told to mind our own business, but then something happens that's productive. I would cite the fact that we did raise the question of the bible smuggling case, and for whatever reason, the Chinese decided it was appropriate to let the man go back to his family in Hong Kong.

So we will continue to raise these cases. It is important to the United States, and we will continue to do so. It is important for us -- the Chinese bringing their practices into line with international practice, frankly.

Question: Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich met yesterday with two labor leaders from Venezuela, one of them from the opposition, Carlos Ortega. Do you have any comments on the reason for this meeting?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have any particular comment on that meeting. I would just say that we always keep in touch with a variety of people in any country, and I am sure we look forward -- you know, the views of people like this are important to us to understand the situation down there.

Question: On a new topic, has the US been in touch with Iran through the channel that you use about the speech, about the "axis of evil" speech, trying to explain exactly what you mean by that and what your policy is towards talking with them?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, we don't generally talk about how we communicate with Iran and what we say in that channel, so I think I'm sort of constrained. My frank answer is I don't know, but I was contemplating whether I should offer to get something, and I don't think I will. We just don't normally get into those -- you know, whatever exchanges we might have had.

We have raised -- I would say, as the Secretary has mentioned, we have raised specific issues with Iran. We have talked to them about the Bonn process, about Afghanistan. We have raised our concerns about the recent meddling that we've seen by Iran or Iranian factions or officials in the affairs of Afghanistan, raised our concerns about various specific things.

They, of course, are quite aware of the importance that we attach to ending support for terrorism, of the importance that we attach to ending any attempt to pursue nuclear weapons. That is what the President spoke about in his speech, and I would say that Iran's Government is quite aware of our concerns about those issues. Those are things that we have made clear publicly and privately many times.

Question: Given the size of the demonstration in Iran and the reaction to being labeled a country in the "axis of evil," do you think that it would be helpful to do that?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think a statement of fact, a statement of truth, a statement of clarity like the President's, requires any particular explanation.

Question: Well, perhaps it -- and that doesn't require an explanation, but what it means might require an explanation, because people all over the world seem to be rather confused about that.

Can I ask about another member of the club, as the Secretary called it this morning? Yesterday, this building said that you guys were going to be looking -- asking the UN Sanctions Committee to figure out if your friend Jorg Haider had violated any UN sanctions by traveling to Iraq and meeting with Saddam.

Have you done that, do you know?

Mr. Boucher: We have looked into the matter a little more, and I think it's a matter for Austria to look at first, and then to report on. I'll double-check on that.

UN member-states are responsible for enforcing UN sanctions, so we would expect, we would trust, that the Austrian Government would follow up on this matter and report its findings to the UN Sanctions Committee.

Question: What does that mean? Do they determine whether it was a violation or not, or they just find out the facts of what happened and they --

Mr. Boucher: I think that means they would find out the facts and report the facts and their opinion on anything that -- to the Sanctions Committee.

Question: On what grounds would it be a violation of the sanctions? What particular aspect of the sanctions would it violate?

Mr. Boucher: There's issues of money, of travel, of other things that probably need to be looked into.

Question: Okay. And do you take an opinion on -- does this building have an opinion, then, on whether --

Mr. Boucher: I think our opinion is that we look forward to seeing what the Austrians have to say on it. On the travel itself, the travel itself --

Question: On the travel -- I know what you think about the travel itself, unless it has changed since yesterday. You don't suddenly think --

Mr. Boucher: We think it's totally inappropriate.

Question: Right, okay. But on this, do you take an opinion on whether it was a violation of the sanctions?

Mr. Boucher: At this point, we would have to look to see what the Austrian Government reports.

Question: Well, have you asked them specifically to go to the -- to collect the facts and go to the Sanctions Committee with their findings?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know, frankly.

Question: The Secretary has said in the last week or so that there might be some progress in terms of discussions with the Russians on the goods review list for the UN sanctions against Iraq. Can you tell us who is meeting with whom, when, and whether or not the US is preparing to winnow the list, the goods review list that it had originally proposed? Or do you feel that the Russians are ready to accept this list that you originally had proposed?

Mr. Boucher: Well, we'll have to see how the discussions proceed. We have had several rounds of discussions. This has been a subject of conversation in a general sense and frequently between the Secretary of State and Foreign Minister Ivanov. It has come up in Under Secretary Bolton's meetings with Russia. But more specifically, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Affairs, John Wolf, has had several rounds -- I think two, I'll have to double-check that; several, let's put it that way -- rounds of discussions with the Russians on the goods review list, on the whole renewal of this resolution.

As you remember, when the Secretary and Foreign Minister Ivanov discussed this late last year, after the passage of the last resolution, they both agreed that it was important to start moving as quickly as possible towards resolving this, and not let it wait in usual UN fashion until the expiration in May.

So we've been working constructively with the Russians, and we hope to bring that process to a close as soon as we can.

Question: Was that intended as a little barb to the UN there? Not wait "in typical UN fashion"?

Mr. Boucher: No, it wasn't. This is not -- that's not the UN, actually. I just remembered last time we had a renewal, we were telling you all about how these things normally don't get settled until right before it's time to renew. With this one we're doing differently. That was the only point I was going to make.

Question: Well, if I can follow up, you were optimistic in June about the goods review list and the Russians eventually acceding. Why are you optimistic now?

Mr. Boucher: Because the last resolution was very specific in saying that the Council agreed unanimously to a new way of approaching controls to make sure that Iraq couldn't acquire weapons and weapons of mass destruction. That remains the focus of the Council, and the goods review list is the way to implement that. And the Council members pledged themselves to reach agreement on the goods review list. And we've had several rounds of discussions with the Russians. We felt those discussions were constructive so far. And we'll keep at it to bring it to a close.

Question: Just one more, just back to my original question. Is the US at this point prepared to change the goods review -- its position with regard to the goods review list, at least the contents of it at this point? I mean, is this side ready to maybe compromise?

Mr. Boucher: Just to go back to my original answer to the original question which you asked, we'll have to see how the discussions proceed. I'm not going to offer you any concessions from the podium.

Question: I don't know whether you had a chance to stay, but after the Secretary left, the Canadian Foreign Minister made some remarks about attacking sovereign countries without good reason was a recipe for international chaos, and the need for a rules-based international system. And I wondered whether you would -- how you felt about this?

Mr. Boucher: Since I didn't stay, I didn't hear him say it himself, and I don't know exactly what he did say, other than your conveyance of it. I think I'll decline on that.

Question: Did he tell the Secretary he was going to make a statement on the subject? Did that possibly --

Mr. Boucher: I don't think we had -- I don't think we knew what the questions were going to be.

Question: All right.

Mr. Boucher: You guys ask the questions, and we try to answer them as best we can. I'm sure the Canadian Minister did that.

Question: Sometimes no matter what the question is, there's a statement that's going to come out.

Mr. Boucher: They did -- during the meeting they discussed the issue of the "axis of evil." They discussed the questions of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran. They discussed the approaches to it. The Secretary told him what he said publicly, and what they have discussed before. The President didn't declare a war on anybody. There are issues here that need to be dealt with. The convergence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in these places constitutes an axis of evil, and it's important for all of us to figure out what to do about it, how to deal with it.

Question: If you don't want to come out on his precise words, as a matter of principle, does the United States believe in a rule-based system based on the United Nations and international law?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: And how does the threat of attacking sovereign countries fit into that?

Mr. Boucher: I'll invite you to read the body of international law. There's probably X number of rows of international lawyers and their books that can explain it.

Question: I'm having some problems just on this precise question, not --

Mr. Boucher: It's not a very precise question, I have to say.

Question: Does the United States believe that there is cause to believe that A, Iraq may be behind the terrorist attacks; and B, that Iraq is accumulating weapons of mass destruction? Which were, what, at least according to the Foreign Minister, these were up in the air; he hadn't seen the evidence yet. So do you think that there's cause to attack Iraq?

Mr. Boucher: You're asking me to justify something that has not been decided, and I'm not going to do that on the basis of your speculation. I'm sorry.

Question: Richard, it seems -- I want to go back to the whole "axis of evil" thing. Despite the fact that everyone is saying that the President was so clear, and crystal clear, and everyone understood it, you do allow, don't you, that there has been -- the Secretary and other people in this building have been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain what he meant to foreign officials, don't you?

Mr. Boucher: I do allow that we've been asked an inordinate number of questions, that we've seen an inordinate amount of speculation on it. But I don't think there is anything wrong with that. The main point that the President made --

Question: Well, that's not what I'm --

Mr. Boucher: The main point that the President made is that the world can't stand by and watch people who have ties with terrorist countries and who are developing weapons of mass destruction and just wait and see what happens. This is a real issue, and in our diplomacy, in our relationships, in our control systems, and in whatever we do, we've got to figure out a way of dealing with the problem.

Question: I'm going to ask it extremely briefly. The Secretary made a small and brief reference this morning to a conversation he had had with Foreign Minister Singh. Was there anything in particular noteworthy about that conversation, or was it basically -- I mean, new in that conversation? Or was he trying to tell him about how the talks with Musharraf went?

Mr. Boucher: I think certainly the issue of India-Pakistan came up in the talks with Musharraf, but I think actually this was one of a series of phone calls that he has been making about global climate change.

Question: Oh, okay. All right.

Mr. Boucher: Because we have made a number of phone calls in the last day or two in advance of the President's speech today.

Question: Okay. So who else has he called on climate change? I know that the White House said that he --

Mr. Boucher: I walked into that one, didn't I? He talked to the Japanese Foreign Minister -- let me see if I can get my list -- Mrs. Kawaguchi for the second time. He talked to her over the weekend as well when she was announced. He talked to, let's see, Prime Minister Jospin, Prime Minister Kasyanov, Foreign Secretary Straw, as I mentioned, Prime Minister Berlusconi. Foreign Minister Fischer and Foreign Secretary Straw, I think, gave a heads up on this as well. Mrs. Kawaguchi.

Question: This is in addition to -- the Straw and Fischer also the Middle East?

Mr. Boucher: Yes.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: You know, he has had various other conversations, like Prime Minister Howard. I can't quite remember which ones were about climate change and which were other topics. Mr. Armitage talked to Howard. Okay, sorry.

Question: President Musharraf last night expressed gratitude to Secretary of State Powell for mediation, meaning of course his trip. And he said, you know, it lowered tensions but you still have a bad situation; the troops are still facing each other. He says India won't talk to Pakistan.

Is there something more that the US is going to do in the way of mediation? Are you engaged in somehow trying to promote talks between the two sides? Or do you feel tempers have come down enough they ought to find their own way?

Mr. Boucher: No, I think the situation is the way you described it, that it may not be quite as acute in terms of the public rhetoric. And we're all supporting Pakistan, looking to Pakistan to carry out the steps in General Musharraf's speech. But I think, you know, we're also interested in seeing the two sides take further steps to ease the tensions, so the Secretary is continuing to work on this, continuing to keep in close touch with both sides, continuing to look for steps that they can take that would ease the situation and truly get us out of what probably still remains a dangerous period vis-��vis the confrontation, the military confrontation.

Question: (Inaudible) with India is demanding that Musharraf should stop cross-border terrorism if the Secretary or US is asking, or did come this issue that the issue -- he should stop completely supporting cross-border terrorism into India?

Mr. Boucher: Well, as I think you noted in President Musharraf's remarks at the White House yesterday, he said he had disavowed any support for terrorism anywhere in the world. We think that positive, that kind of statement that he has made before, and we look for steps. We've seen some steps. We look for the implementation of that.

Question: Is there a figure now on debt relief? In other words, the President offered help. I don't know if there is a specific -- and then Tom Harkin comes along, a Senator on the Appropriations Committee, and says whatever it is, you know, we intend to do better because Pakistan needs relief. So somebody must know the figure, I think.

Mr. Boucher: There is a White House fact sheet that has been put out. We agreed to a package of debt relief worth $1 billion, and we will be working with our Congress in that regard. In addition, we have made a commitment to support education reforms. There are about $42 million a year worth of concessions on textile exports to the United States for each of the next three years. We are enhancing our cooperation in law enforcement and various other areas. So the White House put out a fact sheet that deals with that, with democracy assistance, education, defense cooperation, law enforcement, science and technology, space, market access, economics and trade. So there's a number of things that we announced in addition to the strong support we're already giving them.

Question: Assistant Secretary Kelly this morning, speaking about North Korea, said that they hadn't been particularly cooperative on terrorism and that they could do more. Can you give us some details of what more they can do?

Mr. Boucher: Not any more than we haven't in the past. As you know, we have always said North Korea knows quite clearly what they need to do, and we have had discussions with them in the past about it. But we have never tried to stand up and detail a list of steps.

Question: Why are you so reluctant to tell us what they have to do? It's kind of difficult to understand. What is the --

Mr. Boucher: I don't think every time we have a conversation with a foreign government we need to put out a list of particulars in public about what we may or may not be asking them to do. We are not interested in making these for publicity purposes; we are interested in getting action, and we'll take whatever course we think is the most conducive to ending support for terrorism in the world.

Question: Just to follow up, in ending support for terrorism in the world, are you now counting North Korean missile and arms sales to other state sponsors of terrorism as part of the things they need to do to stop to maybe get off the terrorism list?

Mr. Boucher: Once again, I'm not in a position to put out the details of what we might have said to them. Certainly our concerns about their missile exports have been made quite clear. And it is the conjunction of those kind of things, with the support for terrorism, that has been the concern of ours.

Question: The Secretary yesterday, with calculated imprecision, declined to say whether the US is concerned with missile sales to Egypt, which you don't consider a terrorist-supporting state. So the question in my mind is -- but then again, when it got to Russia, there were things Russia could sell fine that are with us, and other things that aren't fine with us. The question is: Does the US want North Korea to stop exporting missiles period, or is it export of missiles to states that we feel pose a danger, that the US feels poses a danger?

Mr. Boucher: I don't see any way I can answer that without getting right back to the question of Egypt; and, frankly it's a question that the Secretary, for good reasons, was unable to answer in public session, and I can't do it here. I'll leave it with what the CIA has said --

Question: I was just probing how much of a problem North Korea poses in the US view with its missile sales.

Mr. Boucher: North Korea's missile exports, particularly the missile sales, because it has been selling missiles and technology and capabilities to terrorist states; and second of all, because it has been selling missiles and technology and capabilities that go beyond the internationally accepted limits and norms. It is not subject -- doesn't subject its exports to the missile technology control list, the MTCR.

Question: What are those internationally accepted norms?

Mr. Boucher: Jonathan, you're familiar with missile technology controls, right? Is it 300 kilos/500 kilometers or 500 kilos/300 kilometers? I can't remember, frankly.

Question: (Inaudible) voluntary agreement, or does it have any kind of --

Mr. Boucher: These are the guidelines that almost every country in the world abides by, one way or the other.

Question: Richard, do you have any comment in general on the story that appeared in The Post this morning on Syria and Iraq and Syrian oil, and specifically on the question of whether you think the Syrians are keeping their promise to Secretary Powell last year about turning information over on oil -- their oil pipeline to the UN?

Mr. Boucher: Well, let's see. Should I comment on the story or should I tell you the facts? Since the facts weren't in the story, let me go through them here.

The unregulated flow of oil from Iraq outside UN control has been and remains a major ongoing concern because it strengthens Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten his neighbors and rebuild his military capabilities with regard to the weapons of mass destruction. There should be no mistake about our seriousness on this issue, and reports suggesting otherwise are wrong.

The US has raised these concerns bilaterally with Syria on a number of occasions and at the highest levels, including very recently. We have made this a bilateral issue and we have also taken the issue now to the UN Security Council. We have underscored that Syrian assertions that they're just testing the pipeline are just not credible.

And in terms of news, the news on this issue is that in the last few weeks we have made this an issue at the UN Sanctions Committee. We have taken this to the UN Sanctions Committee and we have tried to -- and we have found other countries that do agree with us, and perhaps the whole Sanctions Committee will -- that this is a serious issue and that the Iraqi exports to Syria need to be brought within the scope of compliance with UN resolutions as the latest resolution -- I think it's 1382 -- on sanctions indicate.

Syria is now a member of the United Nations Security Council. As such, it bears a special responsibility with regard to implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. Given the seriousness of this issue, you can be sure that we will continue to press Syria to live up to its responsibilities to respect the Security Council resolution and to ensure that its actions contribute to international peace and security.

Question: Can I infer from what you didn't say that Syria has not lived up to its promise to Secretary Powell last year?

Mr. Boucher: This has been a continuing issue since we heard from Syria, from the President of Syria last June that he intended to put these exports under the UN regime, under the UN arrangements. It is important that the UN know about these arrangements, as it does in the case of Turkey or the case of Jordan, and that the UN members be allowed to take whatever action is appropriate, and that these things are made under appropriate safeguards to ensure that there is not an unregulated flow of funds to a regime that has threatened its neighbors and that continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Question: On this, you said that it was raised very recently at the highest level. Can you be a little bit more specific?

Mr. Boucher: The most recently, I suppose, would be the conversations that Assistant Secretary Burns had in Damascus about two weeks ago. We have raised it recently and throughout, including at highest levels.

Question: Last one. With Asad?

Mr. Boucher: I have to check to see exactly which of the conversations he had it was raised in, but I believe so. He had a number of conversations in Syria during his trip, and I think this issue came up at the presidential level. But I would have to double-check to see, to make sure it wasn't in some other conversation that he had.

Question: Do you have a view on what kind of action would be appropriate if these exports through Syria continue? And also, do you take a similar view of the widespread smuggling through Jordan and Turkey and, indeed, Iran?

Mr. Boucher: As I think I mentioned already, the Security Council has taken note of the arrangements -- in some cases, the barter arrangements -- with Jordan. We consult with the Turkish Government on the trade that goes across from Turkey to try to make sure that the unauthorized receipts for the sale of oil don't reach Baghdad. So it is important to UN Security Council members that this be reported to the UN Security Council in a factual way for what it is, and that we get a chance to work out with them the appropriate arrangements with the Sanctions Committee or the Council, as I said, to make sure that this unregulated flow of revenue doesn't go to this regime that's been developing weapons of mass destruction and to make sure that the money that is earned by these oil sales through the Oil-for-Food program or whatever barter arrangements might be necessary, so that that money is actually given to the Iraqi people and not the regime.

Question: This flouting this rule, or not telling the UN or informing them, is that conduct unbecoming to a member of the Security Council?

Mr. Boucher: As I said, we think that members of the Council have a special responsibility to abide by the resolutions.

Question: Vice President Cheney is traveling to the region. Is there any level -- or what is the level of coordination between his office and the State Department on that trip? Is there any?

Mr. Boucher: Other than -- it's enormous. (Laughter.) We support him, we prepare papers for him, we handle the travel when he goes out there. He's our guy.

Question: And people from the building will be with him, won't they?

Mr. Boucher: I assume so. Yes, they normally are.

Question: I presume there's no news on Daniel Pearl, right?

Mr. Boucher: No, there's not.

Question: Okay. Can I ask just one thing? Yesterday there was some kind of a threat against your missions in Vienna, and they were closed to the public for the day. I understand they have now reopened. But can you provide any more details about what that threat was? Is it at all related with the FBI warning that went out on Monday and that seemed to relate to either Yemen or a Yemeni?

Mr. Boucher: I can't give any more detail on why they were closed. They were closed to the public, not closed as missions. They were still in their offices working, but they were closed to the public yesterday in order to review their security postures. They are open for business as usual today.

Question: And that's it?

Mr. Boucher: That's it.

Question: Have you seen anything to suggest that the Iranians are cracking down on the Taliban?

Mr. Boucher: We've seen some of the press reporting on this. I think there were some stories yesterday, as a matter of fact, as well as today.

Question: There may be something more recent than that.

Mr. Boucher: As well as today. But, no, I don't have anything new on that from our sources at this point.

Question: All you have are press reports so far?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, that's all I've seen. I'll check and see if there is any other information we might be able to convey to you, but I don't have anything right now.

Question: A short question to the global warming. You mentioned that the Secretary made a series of telephone calls to the leaders. What was the reaction from the EU countries and Japan?

Mr. Boucher: Well, I leave it to them to describe their reaction once they hear more fully from the President. This is a serious, action-oriented program that the President has been developing to deal with a very serious problem. And I think once people study what we're doing in terms of technology, market incentives and the other steps, that people will understand that. But I'll leave it to them to react after they have had a chance to look at the whole thing.