22 March 2002

State Department Noon Briefing

Deputy State Department Spokesman Phil Reeker briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

• Secretary Powell's Telephone Calls to Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat -- Trilateral Security Meeting Attended by General Zinni

• Possibility of Vice President Cheney Meeting with Chairman Arafat

• Another Trilateral Meeting Scheduled for Sunday/ Suicide Attacks/ Tenet Work Plan

IRAQ

• Nineteen Questions Given by Iraqis to the United Nations

• Relationship Between Action on Iraq and Israeli-Palestinian Mediation

BOSNIA

• Temporary Closure of U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo

• Arrests by Bosnian Police

PAKISTAN

• Temporary Post Closure of U.S. Diplomatic Posts/ Ordered Departure -- Definitions of "Ordered Departure" and "Authorized Departure"

PERU

• Public Announcement/ Embassy Opened Security Increased

ITALY

• Update on White Powder at U.S. Embassy

MEXICO

• Monterrey Conference/ Fidel Castro's Abrupt Departure

COLOMBIA

• Supplemental Bill Sent Yesterday to the Congress/ Use of Helicopters and U.S. Trained Brigades/ Pipeline Protection Project -- Upgrading Anti-kidnapping Capabilities/ Byrd and Leahy Amendments to the Foreign Operations Bill/ Fiscal Year 2002 Act

CAMBODIA/VIETNAM

• Statement Regarding Vietnamese Montagnard Refugees in Cambodia

CHINA

• Chinese Crackdown on Uighurs/ War on Terrorism

• Withdrawal of a Newspaper in Southern China

TAIWAN

• Raid by Prosecutors on "Next Magazine"

Mr. Reeker: Welcome back to the State Department, ladies and gentlemen. I am glad that it is Friday. I am glad to be here. Assistant Secretary Boucher, Ambassador Boucher, is accompanying Secretary Powell, who is accompanying the President in Monterrey, Mexico, today, so I am here to take your questions. I have no other announcements, and I am happy to start with a word from Barry Schweid.

Question: If Powell makes any calls, would it come from down there -- or any action by the Secretary? Or should we ask --

Mr. Reeker: Did you have something specific to ask?

Question: Well, you know we always log the times. He spoke to Sharon yesterday and we didn't --

Mr. Reeker: He did speak to Prime Minister Sharon yesterday.

Question: But he was on Air Force One and we didn't really get a readout. And of course there could have been calls since then.

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I have any details to add on the call that we did inform you about. The Secretary spoke to Prime Minister Sharon. That of course was later in the day after he had spoken to Chairman Arafat. We talked about that yesterday at some length.

Did you have a specific question on that, or can I talk about other calls?

Question: Well, I mean, obviously -- both. I mean, you know, we're interested in the substance of the call. We could guess, but it's not good to guess.

Mr. Reeker: I don't have a particular readout on it, Barry.

Question: Can I ask a specific question on the Middle East?

Mr. Reeker: Sure.

Question: What do you make of the fact that the security talks went on today but apparently didn't come to any conclusion -- didn't come to any agreement?

Mr. Reeker: Right. There was a trilateral security meeting today attended by General Zinni. The meeting was conducted, as I am told, in a professional and constructive manner. As we have said before, both sides need to continue the maximum degree of cooperation to end terror and violence and to continue steps toward the start of implementation of the Tenet security work plan. Another trilateral meeting is scheduled for Sunday.

Let me just reiterate and underscore what we said yesterday in terms of condemning in the strongest terms the recent series of terrorist suicide bombings that have left at least ten dead and wounded dozens of others in the region. These attacks underscore the necessity of immediate, sustained and effective Palestinian action to end terror and violence. We do welcome Chairman Arafat's pledge to take immediate action to end attacks on Israeli civilians and his affirmation that he is committed to achieving a ceasefire. We expect that he and the Palestinian Authority will move immediately to reinforce these words with definitive action. It is that definitive action and results that we are looking for.

As we have said many times before, Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority need to exercise leadership. They need to expend 100 percent effort to control the violence and to prevent horrible attacks such as have occurred this past week. Chairman Arafat must take immediate, serious and sustained action to get a cease-fire started and begin implementation of the Tenet work plan, as I indicated. That includes clear, unambiguous orders to the Palestinian security services on the need to prevent terror attacks. These steps are crucial to the success of General Zinni's mission. And as I said, another trilateral meeting is scheduled for Sunday.

Charlie.

Question: As a follow-up to that, do you have anything on whether or not the steps Chairman Arafat has taken so far would lead to a meeting with the Vice President in the coming days, or have they been insufficient for that?

Mr. Reeker: I think the Vice President laid out his views on that. He said that he expects a 100 percent effort from Chairman Arafat to stop violence and terrorism, that Arafat begin immediate and serious steps to get a ceasefire started, and implementation of the Tenet work plan. We're not in Tenet yet. It has not yet been implemented. We want to see the clear public commitment on behalf of the Palestinian Authority to the Tenet obligations, unambiguous orders to the Palestinian security services to enforce the cease-fire, and a serious effort to stop terror attacks.

And if these conditions can be achieved, we will have an opportunity and an appropriate environment for a constructive meeting. That is what the Vice President has indicated before. In the end, I think the Vice President made clear, and we have reiterated, that it is going to be General Zinni's assessment of progress on Tenet implementation that will determine how the Administration proceeds on that. And again, Tenet has not yet been implemented. So there are no decisions on that matter.

I think it is important to note that there never was a specific date for this. Some of the reporting seemed to suggest otherwise. There was never a specific meeting date scheduled between Vice President Cheney and Chairman Arafat. We have always maintained that the justification for such a meeting is not time-driven, but performance-based.

Question: Just to follow up. And the performance to date by Chairman Arafat would indicate that there won't be a meeting? Next week -- I'm talking about in the --

Mr. Reeker: Again, timing has never been pinpointed. This isn't time-driven; it is performance-based. We have welcomed things that Chairman Arafat has done, including his pledge on taking immediate action to end attacks on Israeli civilians. We want to see results from that. That is what we will continue to be looking for. As I said, we had a trilateral security meeting today, another one scheduled for Sunday. And General Zinni obviously will be reporting to the Secretary and the Vice President on where things stand.

Question: Can I try the Israeli side of this? I think it's safe to say that the Prime Minister has not responded to three suicide attacks that have taken at least ten Israeli lives, wounded more than 60 people, 16 in just one of the attacks --

Mr. Reeker: I've read the news reports, yes.

Question: Yes, but he hasn't responded. Is that because he's come to this decision himself, or has the US Government suggested that, for whatever motives, like maybe Zinni's mission, he shouldn't retaliate, he shouldn't stir up any more violence?

Mr. Reeker: I think the Israeli Government comes to its own decisions, Barry. That is the way it has always been. I think we have made quite clear our points about that, in terms of what we want to see, in terms of security, moving ahead with these meetings. That is a positive thing. The meeting we had today, the meeting that is scheduled for Sunday; that is the way we will move forward. We need to get into Tenet, which involves both sides doing that. We have made quite clear what we have called upon Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to do in that regard, the results we want to see, and that is what we will keep looking at, and that is what General Zinni's mission is about.

Question: Can I move to Iraq?

Mr. Reeker: Did anybody else have Middle East? Joel had a Middle East question. So let's just let Joel ask --

Question: This morning, apparently General Zinni met one-on-one with Yasser Arafat. It came out on the news about two hours ago. Also, there's been other killings in Jenin, right over in the northern West Bank area, at a bus station that the troops use.

Is there anything that Yasser Arafat, as well as the Palestinian populace, can learn from your State Department, Secretary Powell and the President, that they can implement step by step in the next few days before the conference in Beirut next week with the Arab League?

Mr. Reeker: Joel, we have talked for a long time here about the Tenet work plan, something that the United States, under the auspices of course of Director Tenet, put together almost a year ago in terms of providing a security structure that the two sides can use with our support, our help, our facilitation, to put into place the measures necessary to get the violence down and then move into the appropriate next steps of that.

So I think we have laid out quite clearly what we want to see after the tragedy of yesterday's suicide bombing in Jerusalem. I relayed to you what the Secretary said to Chairman Arafat in terms of what he needed to do: speak clearly to the Palestinian people that these actions, these suicide attacks, other terrorist actions, were undermining his leadership, Chairman Arafat's leadership, and that they were undermining the dreams of the Palestinian people for an independent Palestinian state. So we need to get the violence down, first of all, and move forward in these structures, these things that have been put in place, to allow the parties to work together to move ahead out of this situation.

Question: A follow-up question. Last evening our American ABC television network was a program on Nightline, and they showed just in a hospital setting at Adassa Hospital, they're treating both Arabs and Israelis alike. And they did a whole series of interviews, and Adassa Hospital has a branch in East Jerusalem as well, and one of the hospital nurses, her own daughter had been killed in one of the recent bombings and yet is still --

Mr. Reeker: Do you have a question, Joel? I hate to take up everybody's time.

Question: Yes, I do. Is there any way that that type of cooperation can be expanded between the two communities?

Mr. Reeker: I think there are lots of ways the two communities can do that, and I am glad to see that it is being documented and shown that there is hope for peace, that people can live together, because, after all, that is the reality. The Palestinians and the Israelis need to live together side by side.

President Bush has described our vision -- the Secretary has reiterated that -- of an independent Palestinian state, fully recognizing Israel, living in peace with one another. We have got to take the appropriate steps. Chairman Arafat, the Palestinian Authority, needs to show leadership in terms of moving forward on those steps to get the violence down, get into Tenet immediately, and then move on with the Mitchell Committee recommendations and implementing those.

Question: A plug for Nightline, Phil?

Mr. Reeker: Marvelous show. I'm sorry I didn't catch it last night. Jonathan, switching subjects.

Question: I'm sure you are aware of the 20 questions that the Iraqis gave to the United Nations earlier this week.

Mr. Reeker: I thought it was 19, but anyway --

Question: Anyway, 19, 20 questions. Is the United States participating in the response to these questions? Have you seen the questions? And what position do you take on whether they should be answered or how they should be answered?

Mr. Reeker: I haven't personally seen the questions. I think the bottom line is that the UN Security Council resolutions, 624, 1284, prescribe exactly what Iraq has to do before the inspection regime evolves into permanent on-site monitoring and a verification regime that is quite well laid out.

The questions, so-called, that you refer to, given by the Iraqis to the Secretary General earlier this month, are an attempt once again by the Iraqis to distract the UN's attention away from Iraq's noncompliance with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions. Recent Iraqi statements have proposed specific time frames and other conditions to be negotiated before inspectors can return to Iraq. Let me just underscore that Iraq cannot set or demand such conditions. What Iraq must do is meet its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, admit the UN weapons inspectors, and cooperate fully with them. It's as simple as that.

Question: Okay. Now, one US official was quoted as saying that some of these require technical answers and should be answered. Could you confirm that in public that you are at least taking these questions seriously and will look at them for --

Mr. Reeker: You could certainly talk to Dr. Blix, Hans Blix, and his inspectors, the UNMOVIC mission about that if there was anything technical involved there. There is a process that is very much laid out in the security resolutions. The International Atomic Energy Agency may have an aspect on that as well.

But largely, Iraq is engaging in polemics in this situation. It is another example of that. Our policy and that of the UN Security Council remains that Iraq must comply fully with its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, in particular with regard to the return of the UN weapons inspectors.

Question: Can I have another Iraq question while I'm on it? This has been passed on to me. Could you explain how the State Department now sees the interaction between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and your plans for Iraq? Is the reengagement, as you don't like to say, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is that affecting in any way your thinking about Iraq? Is action on Iraq in any way contingent on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian mediation?

Mr. Reeker: I think President Bush has been quite clear about our concerns about Iraq, about their programs and attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, their support for terrorism, and just exactly how we view Iraq and why Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, as a start, is so important in terms of security for the region. And that affects everyone in the region, and in fact everyone in the world, because Saddam Hussein has clearly shown that he is a threat to his own people, to his neighbors, and through his support for terrorism and his desire to develop weapons of mass destruction, is threat to all of us.

That is why we focus on Iraq. That is why we consult and talk with others about Iraq, why we have been very forthright in stating our views quite clearly of that regime, the despotic regime that has cost so much for his own people and threatened the rest of us, and why we will continue to focus on that. And I don't think that hinges on any other particular factor. There is lots of analysis and punditry out there that takes place. I leave that to you guys, frankly, to do that, and we will continue to do exactly what the President and Secretary Powell have described in terms of --

Question: You don't see any interaction --

Mr. Reeker: I am not about to try to do an analysis from here, Jonathan, of global interaction. I think we remain very aware of aspects of different issues and how they relate to each other, but we are quite clear in what we see as threats, things we have to take seriously, and we will continue to be very straightforward about that.

Question: I've got a series of questions about various embassies. I will begin with Bosnia.

From what I understand, from what the Embassy in Sarajevo is saying, that they have gone from closing to the general public to actually totally closed in Sarajevo and in Mostar. Why was that step taken?

Mr. Reeker: You know, as we have said so many times in our Worldwide Cautions, and I think we even discussed this specific one here, our embassies will close from time to time to take a look at their security and reassess, reevaluate, as necessary. They make those decisions, and I am not in a position to provide information specifically about why an embassy is reviewing its security posture or what steps they are taking for doing that.

In terms of our Embassy in Sarajevo, as you point out, it is closed to the public, March 21 and 22 -- we announced that -- that includes obviously yesterday and today. Reviewing its security posture, will remain closed through the weekend. As usual, the American community was informed through the Warden System. I think you have seen that message that was put out on the Embassy's website. If American citizens require emergency services, they can certainly contact the Embassy, and we are reviewing the security posture over the weekend and will make a decision whether to reopen on Monday morning.

Question: Are you aware of any arrests made by the Bosnian police in connection with a threat to the Embassy?

Mr. Reeker: I don't believe I am, no.

Question: Okay. All right, number two, you have closed your Embassy and consulates in Pakistan to the public. The announcement of that doesn't make any mention of any particular new threat; it just refers to "in light of what happened last Sunday."

Mr. Reeker: Yes.

Question: Is there -- is that all there is to it?

Mr. Reeker: Let me talk about Pakistan and our diplomatic presence there. As you alluded, Matt, and our announcement of that stated, in light of the tragic events on Sunday, March 17, and the fact that there is a holiday on Monday, the US Embassy and our consulates in Pakistan made the decision to be closed to the public beginning today, March 22, through March 25. The normal workweek in Pakistan is as ours, Monday through Friday, and then there is a Pakistani holiday on Monday.

The American community was informed of this, again, through the local Warden System there. Once again, as with Bosnia or any of our embassies, Americans requiring emergency services should contact the Embassy or the nearest consulate by telephone. And they are expected to reopen to the public on March the 26th, after that holiday there.

You will recall that on March 18th, after Sunday's terrorist attack on the Christian church in Islamabad that resulted in the death of two of our Embassy community, the Department authorized departure of eligible family members of Embassy employees. After a careful review of our security posture in Pakistan, the Department has decided to move to an ordered departure of all dependents and non-emergency personnel at our Embassy in Islamabad and our consulates in Pakistan. The Embassy will identify non-emergency personnel on a case-by-case basis. The consulates in Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi will remain open for American citizen services. The Embassy in Islamabad will remain open for all services, including visa services.

And so we once again would remind Americans, as we have in our Consular Information Sheets, our Travel Warnings, that they should maintain a strong security posture, be aware of their surroundings, and avoid crowds and demonstrations, keep a low profile.

Question: Can I ask you -- can I just ask you to repeat that? "After a careful review of" what? I just didn't catch it, I'm sorry.

Mr. Reeker: Just didn't catch it? Okay. After a careful review of our security posture in Pakistan --

Question: But are there any new reasons for this? Any new threats?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think there is anything specific that I could point to at this point. We reviewed our security posture there. As Matt noted and I discussed, the Embassy is closed today following the tragedy of the previous week, and then we have also gone to this ordered departure so that we will be identifying non-emergency personnel and dependents, and they will then make arrangements for departure of those people expeditiously. However, our Embassy and consulates will remain open.

Secretary Powell spoke with President Musharraf this afternoon from Monterrey, and certainly made clear that this decision doesn't reflect any lack of confidence in Pakistan's ability to protect Americans. We really appreciate the efforts of President Musharraf and his government. We believe that the war against terrorism in Pakistan is far from over and that we will be able to carry it on with greater focus if our dependents are not present at US facilities there. Pakistan itself has suffered from terrorism and understands this, and we will continue to work closely with the Pakistani law enforcement officials.

Question: Do you know how many people this might affect?

Mr. Reeker: I don't have a number for you.

Question: What is the time frame for (inaudible) is it? Is it something that --

Mr. Reeker: Usually we will look at this, identify non-emergency personnel on a case-by-case basis, and will make arrangements for departure expeditiously. But I am not going to try to do any specific --

Question: Are they on a transport or would you expect them to leave commercially?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know. It is that kind of detail I am not going to provide.

Question: Do you know how these facilities rank so far as security? I remember the Secretary testifying a while ago about a certain percentage have reached a certain point. What I'm driving at is I can think of at least two reasons to do this. One is because there are new threats or new suspicions or that an embassy and its facilities someplace else might be adequate but, in this case, maybe for safety's sake, send the folks home.

Mr. Reeker: I don't think that is a specific delineation I can make for you, Barry. We have to make these judgments based on a broad variety of information and views. In this case, as I indicated, we think that we will be able to carry on our work in Pakistan at our Embassy in Islamabad and at our posts, all of which, as I said, will remain open. We will be able to do that with a greater focus if our dependents are not present at our facilities there. That is why we have moved to this step. We have evaluated our security. We work closely with the Pakistanis on our security, and we decided that we will go to this move for the time being and continue to review our security posture on a regular basis and let you know if there are any other changes in that.

Question: Did you say this was open-ended? I can't recall.

Mr. Reeker: That is the way ordered departures work. They last for a certain time and then they are reviewed and evaluated.

Question: Is this the same type of -- what was ordered last September when the dependents -- some of them left? Was that an ordered departure as well?

Mr. Reeker: I think that was what we call an authorized departure.

Question: The difference being?

Mr. Reeker: An authorized departure means we authorize the voluntary departure of categories of personnel or dependents. In this case, what we have determined to go to is now what we call an ordered departure of all dependents and non-emergency personnel at our Embassy and our consulates. So they will remain open, they will remain staffed by personnel, but we are ordering departure of dependents and certain non-emergency personnel.

Question: But the authorized departure occurred last September and then was, in effect, lifted in January?

Mr. Reeker: I don't remember the precise dates. We could certainly pull those up for you. That did occur. Some people left post under that authorized departure, the voluntary action, then returned. Then following Sunday's incident, you will recall that we issued a Travel Warning that advised Americans to defer travel to Pakistan and that those that remained in Pakistan should exercise maximum caution, and we had an authorized -- again, authorized departure at that time for eligible family members and Embassy personnel.

And then the decision that we have reached today is to go to the next level in our bureaucratic terms; that is, what we call ordered departure for family members, dependent family members and certain -- what we refer to as non-emergency personnel.

Question: Are their ways paid for, their travel? Is their travel paid for by the government?

Mr. Reeker: Yes, that is why this is called ordered departure.

Question: That is part of the definition.

Question: In instances where there is this type of departure, does that mean that these embassy staff, whether it be a consulate or an embassy, main urban centers when they are departing, does that mean they'll go to a neighboring country and continue work via telephone, Internet or whatever in the country that they have been assigned? Or is it just a full-scale --

Mr. Reeker: This is what we call an ordered departure from Pakistan, our posts in Pakistan, so those leaving would not remain in Pakistan.

Question: Well, obviously --

Mr. Reeker: I don't have information on what --

Question: In other words, they're not coming clear back to the States? They're just being --

Mr. Reeker: I would imagine that most would do that, but each one we can look at. But I am not going to be describing for you what individual members of our embassy community do under this program.

Question: While I was gone, it was all on Pakistan?

Question: Every word.

Question: Okay, then I want to go to the third embassy, which was Peru. There was -- I don't know, there was -- maybe it was just me, but I thought I was told yesterday that this blast was four blocks from the Embassy, and now in the Public Announcement that came out last night, which is what I want to ask about, it says it was directly across the street.

Mr. Reeker: I have seen various versions of that. I think it is where you define the Embassy. There is a large Embassy compound, as I understand it, in Lima. But I will stand by whatever came out in our Public Announcement in terms of the description of that. I think it doesn't change the facts of the incident.

Question: So my question about the Announcement is -- your putting this out, does that mean that the United States now believes that there was some anti-American element or that the Embassy or US interests was a target or was the intended target of this explosion?

Mr. Reeker: No. In fact, there is no indication at this point that the attack was directed at the US Embassy. We are not aware of any claims of responsibility. Peruvian authorities continue their investigation into the senseless act of terrorism that took place in Lima.

As you noted, Matt, as a precaution, we issued a Public Announcement for Peru last night encouraging American citizens in Peru to be vigilant, avoid crowds and public areas -- some of the standard advice we offer in our Consular Information Program. Particularly that applies to areas where Americans are known to congregate. And we are going to continue to monitor the situation in Peru very closely. We will follow the Peruvian authorities' investigation. And as always, if we receive information that causes us to become concerned about the safety or security of private citizens in Peru, we would augment or adjust our information appropriately.

Question: But I guess you haven't -- that hasn't happened. The Announcement only refers -- it was only talking -- there was no threat or anything there? It's just the bomb that went off?

Mr. Reeker: Right, it was noting what happened. And given the fact that it was a terrorist incident and some of the history, that is why we felt it was important to notify Americans, official and unofficial, and put that in our Consular Information Program.

So the Embassy there remains open. I want to stress that security has been increased at the Embassy and US-affiliated facilities in Peru. And I would like to point out that Peruvian officials have provided outstanding support, and we thank them very much for their efforts.

Question: I have a fourth one as well.

Mr. Reeker: A fourth one?

Question: I just remembered.

Mr. Reeker: This is perhaps a record.

Question: I understand the tests from the white substance that was found in Rome have come back. Can you tell us what they found?

Mr. Reeker: Yes. The investigation by an Italian Government laboratory -- or laboratory, as Jonathan might say -- has determined that the white powder found last week -- that was the 15th of March -- in a diplomatic pouch is not anthrax. The Embassy has not yet been able to identify the white powder, and we will try to continue with that investigation to see if we can pinpoint it. But not anthrax.

Question: But do you know when it came -- when that was -- was it today or yesterday or --

Mr. Reeker: When we learned that?

Question: Yes.

Mr. Reeker: Let me see if I do. The report came from Embassy Rome today, the 22nd of March, that the Italian Government laboratory had tested the substance and determined that it is not anthrax. And we got that report directly from the local government lab, and immediately unsealed our mailroom to resume operations there.

Question: With respect to the conference in Monterrey, Mexico, from your perspective with the State Department and the call by President Bush for more cooperation, not just with economic terms, but the countries themselves will have to, in his words, earn their -- some of this money, how will this affect the various agencies here in the State Department, USAID, and other humanitarian NGOs? And I assume they're talking Latin America, Africa and Central America. A bigger response and a bigger focus by the State Department in regard to the announcement?

Mr. Reeker: I think we talked for some time since the President's speech at the Inter-American Development Bank last week about the increases in aid, the fund we have set aside, what we have called for, an increase in the amount we provide for these things and how we are looking for good governance, how we are looking for tangible results from this.

I think the President's speech today in Monterrey really speaks for itself. The State Department, USAID, other agencies of the US Government will obviously be involved, along with often the nongovernmental community, the assistance community generally, in helping to implement new programs, helping to use this additional funding to improve living conditions, to help with economic restructuring, help promote democracy.

All of the things that the President described are important, but good governance, transparency, and working to make development dollars mean something for the people in these countries is the message we're delivering. That is what the President talked about in his speech, and certainly what is the theme of the financing for development conference that is taking place in Monterrey right now.

Mr. Reeker: Yesterday you were asked, and you did some very quick thinking and gave an off-the-cuff very nice remarks about Castro's abrupt departure from the conference. Do you have anything more to say about that today?

Mr. Reeker: I don't. I don't know anything more about it.

Question: The language on Colombia is now available. I'm sure you've seen it.

Mr. Reeker: Yes.

Question: It's kind of, for us, ordinary mortals, slightly obscure. I mean, I wondered if you could expand, perhaps, on the implications of the change in language, the change in approach to Colombia?

Mr. Reeker: I think it reflects, Jonathan, very much what we have been talking about for some time on Colombia. The Secretary has made quite clear that we have decided to seek new and more explicit legal authorities for Department of State and Defense Department assistance to Colombia in support of the Government of Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorist activities and other threats to its national security, the threats to democracy in Colombia.

And as you know, we have been very supportive of President Pastrana's government and their efforts to defend their democracy against the terrorist threats that the FARC and other terrorist groups pose, and against the threat to Colombia, to the region, and to us, of narco-trafficking. And I think there has been plenty of evidence and discussion about how the two are very much linked.

So it is obviously no surprise that our supplemental bill that was sent yesterday to the Congress from the White House includes requests for additional funding to Colombia. It provides $35 million in additional funding to Colombia; $25 million of this is focused on strengthening Colombia's anti-kidnapping capabilities in dealing with the multiple terrorist threats there; $4 million is for supporting police posts and development of civilian authorities in areas not previously under government control; and then the additional $6 million is to jump-start the pipeline protection program that we talked about and put $98 million in our Fiscal Year 2003 budget.

But also pertaining to what I said earlier, the supplemental bill, the legislation, would allow broader authority to provide assistance to Colombia in this unified -- I guess what we could call a cross-cutting -- threat posed by groups that use narcotics trafficking to fund terrorist and other activities to threaten security and undermine democracy in Colombia.

Question: To follow up, does it -- do you think this language gives you -- if approved, would give you authority to authorize the use of the helicopters and the US-trained brigades for use against -- directly against terrorists?

Mr. Reeker: I guess I would have to look into that specifically, if that were to come up. The idea is to be able to use our assistance in what is clearly, as I said, a cross-cutting threat; that is, the terrorism and the narco-trafficking threats tend to merge in their attempts to undermine Colombian democracy.

It's something I can look into, if that specifically would be part of that and where that would -- obviously this is something we would be working on with the Colombians very closely in terms of their needs and how we can be helpful.

Question: Okay. And the other thing is, since -- the pipeline protection project was originally scheduled to start in 2003, correct? This supplemental request implies therefore that you want to start on that this year?

Mr. Reeker: I know that the pipeline protection funding was provided for in the 2003 Fiscal Year budget, which includes a good portion of 2002 as well. So when that specifically was expected to start, I don't know. The purpose in asking for $6 million in the additional funding in the supplemental bill is to sort of jump-start that program and get it started.

Question: (Inaudible) start earlier than you expected?

Mr. Reeker: I would have to check into exactly how they want to use the additional money. But that would be how I would interpret jump-start, to get it off to a good jumping start.

Question: Both -- perhaps not surprisingly -- both the Governments of Cambodia and Vietnam have reacted rather negatively to your statement yesterday about their treatment of the Montagnards. They say that these people were simply going to visit their families. I presume you want to stand by what you said yesterday, but I just want to make sure.

Mr. Reeker: Indubitably. I will stand by my statement of yesterday. I don't think I can add anything to it. We had confirmed reports that the Vietnamese Government sent 12 tour buses -- that meant over 400 individuals -- to a refugee camp run by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Cambodia's Mondolkiri Province on the 21st of March, trying to persuade Montagnard refugees to return to Vietnam.

When they were admitted to the camp by Cambodian officials -- that was over the objections of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees -- there was aggressive and unruly behavior on the part of these Vietnamese visitors. That caused us great concern. The UNHCR, I believe, had similar concerns. It was an example of these two governments, Vietnam and Cambodia, acting outside the framework of standard UNHCR procedures that demonstrated a disregard for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and their role in ensuring that repatriations are not subject to undue influence, coercion or intimidation. So we will stand very much by that statement.

Question: Just a quick one on that. Well, you described these people as "individuals." Can you be any more specific about their role and their relationship with the Vietnamese authorities?

Mr. Reeker: We have confirmed the reports that it was the Vietnamese Government that sent the buses with these individuals. It was a trip sponsored by the Vietnamese Government. I don't think I can give any more description to the individuals.

Question: I just wanted to try and clarify -- did I understand you to say that $25 million of the $35 million of the Colombian aid would be used to upgrade their anti-kidnapping capabilities?

Mr. Reeker: Let me go back to that, just so I can tell you what we have. Yes, 25 is focused on strengthening anti-kidnapping capabilities in terms of training/support for forces to better fight against that. That has been a real problem in Colombia. So part of our training, expertise, equipping -- I don't have details on the program, but it is something that Colombia has asked for to help them -- what we can provide to help them better protect, better train their law enforcement authorities to prevent kidnapping.

Question: So this is US military training?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think that was ever suggested. I think we are talking about law enforcement here. The specifics of that I could look into for you, what the program will specifically involve. But I never saw --

Question: It's a lot of money for something that is not very clearly spelled out.

Mr. Reeker: Law enforcement training and things that -- there may be more details on it. I am happy to look into that for you. But I think this is something the Government of Colombia has sought, and it is a problem that we have identified as serious and an area where we can help do that.

Question: Actually Betsy raises an interesting -- are these kidnappings by the FARC and ELN and insurgent groups, or are you talking about run-of-the-mill abductions?

Mr. Reeker: At least from reading press reporting, and from what I know about much of the kidnapping, it has often been sponsored by the FARC, the ELN. As you know, terrorist groups -- that is one of their ways of trying to raise funds. It is a terrorist act.

Question: So they are the main groups that this aid looks to help the Colombians with?

Mr. Reeker: This aid, which of course supplements our current programs and provides the legislative -- the changes or the adjustment in the legislative language, as the Secretary has described, to allow us to support the Colombians in a broader way in the dual threat of terrorism and narcotics trafficking that threatens their democracy and undermines their security.

Question: Right. It just seems to me that this is kind of way of disguising -- trying to disguise anti -- you know, counter-insurgency stuff as -- by saying it's anti-kidnapping because --

Mr. Reeker: I don't think anybody has tried to disguise anything, Matt. I think we have been incredibly transparent and forthcoming in exactly how we wanted to approach this. The Secretary has testified about it on the Hill before Congress. We have worked with Congress, who has also been interested in seeing us be able to help Colombia more, and that is what we will continue to do.

Question: Human rights groups have complained about aid to Colombia because of connections between the army and paramilitaries, and the State Department report also noted that this is a problem. Is there anything in the language of this, or at least new aid requests, to make it clear that you are forcing the government to deal with this issue?

Mr. Reeker: As we have been very clear, the Secretary has said on any number of occasions that we do not intend to use additional authorities being sought to waive either the Leahy amendment or the Byrd amendment, and we will continue to observe the requirements of the Byrd and Leahy amendments to the Foreign Operations Bill. That of course concerns the limits on US civilian and military personnel in Colombia. We expect to keep within the Byrd amendment limits that specify a maximum of 400 military and 400 civilian personnel at any given moment. So we intend to abide by that.

And the Leahy amendment also says that US assistance cannot be given to military units that contain human rights violators and requires human rights certifications from the Department of State. We also intend to abide by that.

So, as Secretary Powell has said, we will continue to fulfill the requirements, for instance, for Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations, including the human rights certification requirement because the promotion of human rights in Colombia is central to US goals in that country. We will be working closely with the Congress to meet that goal and with the Colombian Government as well.

Question: Have you certified it for this year? For 2002? Because the deadline was a while ago, I guess.

Mr. Reeker: The requirements of the Fiscal Year 2002 act, I would have to check exactly what was when. I don't know the dates off the top of my head, but we intend to keep up with that. We haven't changed that language at all.

Question: This is something that has arisen after your Human Rights Report came out, so it's not covered in there. The Chinese crackdown on -- or repression, should I say, of Uighurs, several thousand, according to Amnesty International, several thousand people have been arbitrarily detained, some of them sentenced to death and executed after summary trial, all in the name of the "war on terrorism." And I wondered what you were doing to -- whether you had anything to say about this, and whether you were telling the Chinese anything --

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I have anything particularly new to say on it, but, as you know, China and the United States have both been victims of terrorist violence and face a threat from international terrorism. The Secretary has talked about that. We certainly value the counterterrorism cooperation with China. We oppose terrorist violence in Xinjiang or anywhere else in China.

But that said, as we have said before, we have made it very clear to Beijing that combating international terrorism is not an excuse to suppress legitimate political expression or freedom of religious belief. Effective counterterrorism requires a respect for fundamental human rights, protected by international rights instruments. We have made that clear to China in the past, and I am sure we will continue to make that clear in the future.

In terms of your reference to some of the Uighurs, I think you brought up -- did you mention that?

Question: Uighurs, yes.

Mr. Reeker: Yes, the Uighurs. As we have also said before, some Uighurs have been found fighting with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and we are aware of reports that some Uighurs who were trained by al-Qaida have returned by China. So we certainly understand the threats that the Chinese face, just as we face them, and we will continue working cooperatively with China and welcoming their role in counterterrorism and opposing the terrorist violence that has taken place there. But we do continue to make clear the need to make counterterrorism effective by respecting fundamental human rights laws.

Question: Well, can you tell us, apart from repressing Uighurs, what else have they done in this war on terrorism?

Mr. Reeker: Well, as we have done with every other country, I will let you talk to them about that and steps that they have taken that they would like to share with you.

Question: The withdrawal of a newspaper in southern China. Anything on that? Since you're so keen on press freedom around the world.

Mr. Reeker: I have seen reports of -- I don't think I am necessarily talking about the same thing. What are you --

Question: The "Southern Weekend."

Mr. Reeker: Since you are looking at --

Question: This is the Southern Weekend.

Mr. Reeker: Southern Weekend?

Question: (Inaudible) based Southern Weekend. No?

Mr. Reeker: I don't think I know about that one.

Question: Well, what do you have on -- the one you're talking about is Taiwan, right?

Mr. Reeker: Yes.

Question: Next -- what do you have to say?

Mr. Reeker: Next. We have seen reports of a March 20th raid by Taiwan prosecutors on the office of Next Magazine. As Jonathan rightly stated, the United States places great importance on freedom of the press, a key democratic principle, and we understand that that is something that the Taiwan Government and its people also place under great importance; that is, press freedom. We hope this will continue to be guaranteed in Taiwan, and we will follow it closely, but I don't have any other particular news on it.

Question: Do you know if the -- your -- what do you call them -- representatives? Has anyone from the AIT made a representation to the Taiwanese authorities about this?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know. You might check with AIT.

Question: Are you not allowed to speak for them?

Mr. Reeker: I don't know, but you could check with the AIT.

Anything else? Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m. EST.)