25 March 2002

State Department Noon Briefing Transcript

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

SUDAN -- Agreement on Slavery, Abductions and Forced Servitude

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY -- Secretary Powell's Conversations with Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat/Gen. Zinni's Meetings in the Region/Hezbollah/Arab League and Saudi Peace Proposal

IRAQ -- Reported Offer to Discuss Missing U.S. Navy Commander Michael Speicher

COLOMBIA -- Kidnapping and Death of Americans

NORTH/SOUTH KOREA -- Resumption of North-South Dialogue

AFGHANISTAN -- United Nations' Peacekeeping Efforts/International Security Force -- Return of Former King Zahir Shah

BOSNIA -- Status of U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo

PAKISTAN -- Personnel at U.S. Embassy and Consulates -- U.S. Efforts to Fight Al-Qaida Members -- Proposed Referendum for President Musharraf

TRADE -- International Trade Issues

ITALY -- American Family Members Killed in Auto Accident

RUSSIA -- Weapons Sales to Iran

CAMBODIA/VIETNAM -- United Nations and Repatriation Program

CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- Mr. Bustani's Proposed Resignation /OPCW/Chemical Weapons Treaty

Mr. Boucher: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I want to update you on one thing regarding Sudan, and then I would be glad to take your questions.

As many of you know, in December of 2001, Senator John Danforth, the US Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan, secured an agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to address slavery, abductions and forced servitude in Sudan. Secretary of State Powell has asked Penn Kemble, Senior Scholar at Freedom House and former Acting Director of the United States Information Agency, to organize an Eminent Persons Group to study the issue and to recommend steps that can be taken by the parties to the conflict and the international community to end such abuses.

The group will include experts on Sudan from several European countries, including Norway, the United Kingdom, Italy and France. The group, supported by a research team, will make two trips to visit northern and southern Sudan between now and the late spring rainy season. Upon completion of their travel and research, the group will draft a report and a series of recommendations. So that is work that is starting up based on the agreements that we have been able to reach over the past few months.

Question: Can I ask a question about that?

Mr. Boucher: Let Elaine first.

Question: Thank you. I just want to clarify one thing. There seems to be some confusion about whether the SPLA has actually signed the agreement on the fourth point of the peace --

Mr. Boucher: The Nuba Mountain thing?

Question: Yes.

Mr. Boucher: Yes. We said that here, I think. A few days after the government signed, we got it to them, and I think they signed in Nairobi.

Question: Richard, what is an "Eminent Persons Group"?

Mr. Boucher: An Eminent Persons Group is a group of eminent persons.

Question: Thank you. What exactly -- the only other one I've heard of is the one on small arms trafficking, which in its many years of existence seems to have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Mr. Boucher: Well, that's not the purpose of an Eminent Persons Group. There have been a number of -- I remember eminent persons from APEC, Cyprus, and various other places that these have been used, and what you do is you get a number of people who have expertise, who have knowledge and who have judgment to look into a situation and to come up with recommendations about what to do. In this case, we have got Penn Kemble, as I've said; we've got former Assistant Secretary of State George Moose, who is currently on assignment to the Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center at Howard University; a couple UK participants, John Ryle, I guess it is, and Sarah Uppard; Norwegian participants, Leif Manger and Lars Kvalvaag; and an Italian participant, Elena Sciso. We're also working with French and Dutch embassies to secure participants to secure participants from their countries. So it's an international group of persons who can look at this.

Question: And who is paying for this?

Mr. Boucher: I assume we are, but I don't know for sure. We'll have to check on that and get you --

Question: You said it was two visits?

Mr. Boucher: They are looking at two visits. There is also going to be a research group that will work with them, and they will release a report after that is finished. First visit looks like it's going to be in April.

Question: Richard, the White House said that the Secretary of State --

Mr. Boucher: Do you have more on this, Ben?

Question: That's okay.

Question: Actually I'm looking for information about Powell's contacts with Arafat and with Sharon. White House kind of conveying a message; I assume it means telephone to Sharon. And then the Palestinians are saying that he and Arafat talked for 35 minutes. What could you tell us? And then of course I'll have a half-dozen questions. (Laughter.)

Mr. Boucher: All right, well, that's already two, right? So let me talk first about the Secretary's conversations with Prime Minister Sharon over the weekend. As you know, the Vice President said yesterday on television that we believe that Chairman Arafat should be able to go to Beirut, because that offers the prospect of more constructive results of the conference, especially with regard to Crown Prince Abdullah's proposals for normalization with Israel, and getting the support of other Arab nations. So we made our views known on this issue, both privately and in public to the Government of Israel, that serious consideration should be given to that view, and to allowing Chairman Arafat to travel to Beirut and return.

That's the view that the Secretary conveyed to Prime Minister Sharon in the phone calls over the weekend. He talked to Chairman Arafat both Saturday and Sunday.

Question: So Arafat twice, Sharon --

Mr. Boucher: No, sorry. Withdraw the last sentence.

Question: Sharon? Okay.

Mr. Boucher: He talked to Prime Minister Sharon both Saturday and Sunday. Now, with regard to conversations with Chairman Arafat, as you know, General Zinni has been working in the region to secure implementation of a cease-fire and implementation of the Tenet steps to reduce the violence and get back on track towards peace negotiations. Both sides are continuing their discussions of these key issues related to Tenet implementation and security cooperation through a variety of bilateral and trilateral meetings over the past several days. General Zinni continues to work with the parties in their discussions with the goal of starting implementation as soon as possible. He will have further discussions with both sides regarding these ideas and how best to proceed.

Let me make clear it is essential that these discussions be accompanied by tangible steps on the ground. As we have said before, that means that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must expend 100 percent effort in taking immediate, serious and sustained action to start the implementation of the Tenet work plan, including giving clear and unambiguous orders to Palestinian security forces to prevent further terror attacks. This message was conveyed not only in the discussions that General Zinni has been having, but also in a telephone call this morning from the Secretary of State to Chairman Arafat.

The Israelis, too, must create an environment that makes real success possible. As you know, we oppose the demolition of homes and property, as occurred earlier today in the Brazil Refugee Camp, and we ask for those practices to be stopped immediately. Once again, as we progress, it is important for both sides to create an environment that facilitates progress. That means ending violence and terror, avoiding escalation, ending provocation and incitement, considering the consequences of their action, and ceasing immediately actions that harm civilians.

Such steps are necessary and critical to the success of General Zinni's mission and to the implementation of the Tenet security work plan as soon as possible as a first step towards resuming the implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, or a first step towards the implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations and the resumption of a political dialogue. So that's both phone calls, both sets of phone calls.

Question: The assistant to Mr. Arafat said they spoke 35 minutes, and he says vaguely that Arafat asked for more US participation, and asked for more -- to put pressure on Israel; I don't know about more -- pressure on Israel. Well, you are participating. Can you elaborate any -- I mean, 35 minutes is a long conversation, and the admonition to do more to stop --

Mr. Boucher: I don't think it was actually 35 minutes. It might have been a little shorter than that. But in any case, remember it's translated, too. So they go through translators. That's what makes it twice as long.

Question: Can you elaborate at all on the other points?

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't -- I think I was quite specific about the message the Secretary conveyed to Chairman Arafat in that phone call. That's what we're looking for. We're looking for concrete steps on the ground, including those things like the clear, unambiguous orders to prevent further terrorist attacks. And that's the message that we have conveyed consistently and quite clearly to Chairman Arafat. We're looking for those steps. The United States is very actively involved now, not only with the Secretary's phone calls, but even more, in terms of General Zinni's participation and work with the parties on the ground. And he has gotten them into discussion of some very specific kind of steps that they can and should be taking in order to start implementation of the security work plan.

Question: I was going to ask you one, but it's not fair. So I'll come back.

Question: Two on Arafat's travels. When the Secretary talked to Prime Minister Sharon, did he also convey to the Prime Minister that Arafat should be allowed to return to the Palestinian territory? And why the change from this podium earlier this week, that it should -- that the Israelis should make a decision in their interest, to now urging for Arafat to be able to leave?

Mr. Boucher: One, I think I said when we talked to Prime Minister Sharon, we have talked to his travel to Beirut and his return. When we talked to Chairman Arafat, we talked to his travel to Beirut and his return. It's seen as a trip and then a return. That's a round trip. That's what I was looking for.

Question: A round trip.

Mr. Boucher: And number two, as we approach the conference, as we look at the situation, clearly we continue to look to Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to take serious steps to stop the violence. We have been absolutely clear on that, in all our discussions. We don't think there has been enough, but we have also looked more and more at the Beirut Conference, and we think it would be constructive for Chairman Arafat to be allowed to travel. We ask the Israeli Government to give it serious consideration, to the matter, and we have conveyed our view as the conference approaches, conveyed our view of what -- the conclusions that we have reached; let's put it that way.

Question: Richard, two things. First, very briefly, did you have some concern that the Israelis might let Arafat go, but then prevent him from returning?

Mr. Boucher: I don't want to speculate on that. But it's always been seen as a round trip for both parties.

Question: Fair enough. Second thing. What's your understanding of what the actual -- the Saudi proposal is at the moment? Is it full withdrawal for full normalization, full recognition? Or is it rather full withdrawal for full peace, or complete withdrawal for complete peace, as many people seem to be reporting from drafts of the document? And does it matter to --

Mr. Boucher: Well, I don't know if you've finished writing the document yet, but I don't think the Arab League has. So let's deal with the document when it comes out.

Question: I actually haven't written anything on this, Richard. I was under the impression that you guys had seen the draft.

Mr. Boucher: But I'm not going to -- let the Arab League decide what they want to say, and then we'll comment after they say it. But as far as what the proposal was, I invite you to go back to the original Saudi ideas, where they talked about full normalization. And I think they have repeated that in a variety of fora in those terms.

Question: Well, there's (inaudible) of what reports to be a text of the Saudi proposal, and I had hoped -- although I'm doing too much --

Mr. Boucher: I'm not the spokesman for the Arab League or the Saudis, so I'm not going to tell you about --

Question: No, no, no. But here's how you --

Mr. Boucher: -- their text.

Question: Yes, I know. But I think the administration has an obligation, and the reason I think it has an obligation is because it has welcomed this plan, the President's spokesman today was pushing it on behalf of the President, saying it ought to be considered. Now, the AP and I'm sure others -- or I suppose others -- have the text, and it isn't only a vision, as you folks have described it.

Mr. Boucher: How do you know you have the text? Do you have the AP text, or the Al Jazeera text, or the some-newspaper-in-Lebanon text? I'm going to look to the Arab League for the text. And --

Question: (Inaudible) Arab League text? I thought you meant what the Arab League does with it. You meant the Saudi proposal?

Mr. Boucher: Well, when the Arab League actually releases a statement, then I'll do it. Now, as far as the Saudi ideas, let's stick to what we understood those to be. They are ideas, they have talked about full normalization in the context of a negotiated settlement. To what extent the Arab League or others elaborate on that, we'll have to see. But as far as where those ideas stand now, I think we all have seen in public the various articles in US newspapers and various articles in the Saudi press, and the statements that Saudi leaders have made. And that's our understanding, just as yours. And we have had some more detailed discussions.

Question: I'm sure when you've seen the comments directly, not through news reports or anything, from the Syrians, for example, who are considering --

Mr. Boucher: Yes, and we -- remember, Bill Burns went out to discuss these things with the Saudis, even in advance of Vice President Cheney.

Question: Yeah, well, exactly. And I don't think --

Mr. Boucher: But I'm not here to elaborate on Saudi proposals on their behalf.

Question: No, I'm not asking you to elaborate on them. I'm asking you, is this -- does the US -- is the US still as -- is the US going to be happy with something that is less than full normalization from the Arab side?

Mr. Boucher: Going to be? That's -- I go back to the first answer --

Question: Would you be less --

Mr. Boucher: Let's see what they say and comment then. That's all I'm saying. I think that's all I said 12 times.

Question: Okay, and between then, you're not going to have any contacts with them to try and mold or shape --

Mr. Boucher: Sure, we'll have plenty of contact. We work with them all the time.

Question: Okay. So you don't have any concerns right now that what the original proposal from Crown Prince Abdullah was in the Saudi press and in the US press, you don't have any concerns that that is not going to be what the Arab League adopts (inaudible)?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to comment on what the Arab League adopts until they adopt it. And in terms of our discussions, we have continued our discussions with the Arab League members about the Saudi ideas, about the situation. We do that on a daily basis at a variety of levels, and we'll continue to do that I'm sure now through the conference, after the conference, and on into the future.

Question: Richard, getting back to something that you may be able to say more about, the US, General Zinni had a meeting with the Israelis today -- a bilateral meeting, I believe -- and I think there's one scheduled with the Palestinians perhaps tomorrow. Should we read anything into the fact that we've gone from several trilateral meetings to down -- I don't know if "down to" is the correct formulation -- to bilaterals, or is this going to be the normal give-and-take?

Mr. Boucher: I think you'll see a variety of meetings. First of all, General Zinni has had bilateral meetings with each of the parties every day, every other day. You have seen trilats, trilateral meetings every couple of days. At this point, he has -- as I mentioned earlier, they have begun discussion of some specific security steps the parties can take in terms of implementing the Tenet security work plan. We want to see that happen as soon as possible. We have made that very clear. At this point, the parties are considering those specific steps, and I'm sure when the parties are ready we'll get them back together to talk about them.

Question: Would you say he's making progress?

Mr. Boucher: I'd leave it to him really to do that, and I don't think he has done that today. So I'm not going to do it, either.

Question: Richard, I'd like to go back to something one last time. Look, the point of what -- what I'm driving at is the White House -- maybe the question should be at the White House -- the White House is selectively describing the plan, frankly in the most favorable terms for Israel -- recognition, acceptance, security. The Saudi plan has other things in it. For instance, give up part of -- they don't even say "part of" Jerusalem; they say the Palestinian state should be in the holy city of Jerusalem. So what I'm asking you, what we're trying to find is, what -- you can't just keep calling it, the administration, a vision; it's a specific plan. And the question is, do you approve of all these parts, or only the parts that are being selectively advertised to try to encourage Israeli to go along with this?

Mr. Boucher: We can have this discussion again, as we have had it for the last month ever since these ideas came out.

Question: The White House spoke today about it.

Mr. Boucher: Well, I know. You probably asked -- you're asking me today; I'll talk about it today, too. The original concept as put out by the Saudis, as you will remember, was full normalization in return for a return to the 1967 borders. Remember?

Question: That's what I was just about to ask. Yeah.

Mr. Boucher: And so that's why I pointed out to Matt that they had used the word "full normalization". He asked me if we were talking about complete peace or some other term, and I said the term was "full normalization". Right? Step number one.

Now, let's do step number 17, before we ask a follow-up. Step number two was that there have been further discussions of these ideas, directly with the Saudis and to some extent by the Saudis in public. We have always made clear our view, that resolutions -- in matters that are covered under Resolutions 242 and 338 were matters for negotiation, and that things like exactly -- the withdrawal question, refugees, Jerusalem, others -- were matters for negotiation. That remains our view. And I'm not sure the Saudi Government has elaborated on all those points. But we have seen some subsequent statements where they indicated that they understood that there was going to be negotiation of some of these issues.

Question: Yes, they did.

Mr. Boucher: Arab governments and Saudi governments have always had positions on them, but the understanding would be that there would be negotiations on these issues.

So third, where does that bring us now? That brings us that there are various ideas out there of full normalization with Israel in the context of a negotiated settlement. That is the way we have described it; I believe that's the way White House has described it, and the way we continue to describe it. Full normalization in the context of a negotiated settlement is our best understanding at this point of what the idea is.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: Now, that idea is being discussed by the Arab League members. They will discuss it in Beirut. To the extent that they want to elaborate, either on the ideas or the conditions or their views of how it ought to be solved, we'll see, and then we'll deal with that then when it comes out. That's point 17, so you can ask follow-ups.

Question: Middle East related?

Mr. Boucher: Everything is Middle East-related?

Question: Yes, it is. I have a couple of questions today about Hezbollah. How serious a threat do you think Hezbollah is to peace in that region?

Mr. Boucher: That's a broad and sweeping question. First, I think you have to remember that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. They are on our list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. They are active in various places in the region, and they have received support from Iran, among others. The group seems determined to try to disrupt wherever they can, and to cause more and more violence whenever they can. We don't see that they have much purpose beyond that.

The issue, therefore, is not so much Hezbollah and its intentions; it's whether people stop groups like Hezbollah from smuggling weapons, whether people stop groups like Hezbollah from carrying out violent attacks. And that's where we come back to the situation in the Middle East, where we need to not only sort of convince these people that they don't want to make any more attacks, but we need to make it impossible for them to do so. And that's why we called on Chairman Arafat to take steps to prevent attacks, to take steps to dismantle the organizations involved, and to the extent that they operate in Palestinian areas, we think it's the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to make sure that they can't carry out attacks.

Question: I'm sorry, could I do one more? Is there -- are you all aware of any link between Hezbollah and al-Qaida?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know the answer to that. I'd have to review all the material, and I just don't know it off the top of my head.

Question: Is there anything new to indicate that the Iranians are more involved in the Palestinian conflict, anything to indicate they are providing more arms, playing a higher role, training more, facilitating -- any kind of activity?

Mr. Boucher: I wouldn't say that. As you know, this is something we do watch very closely. I know there were some news stories about it, but I think you all are aware of the more -- sort of the more recent developments. We did receive a letter from Chairman Arafat concerning the Karine A affairs, that as you know, this was a matter of very serious concern to us, and partly because of the arms themselves and partly because of the indication of Iran's and Hezbollah's involvement with this. It's a threat to try to influence the situation on the ground.

So we looked very closely at this situation. We got from Chairman Arafat a letter that indicated that he would stop the arms smuggling, that it was not the policy of the Palestinian Authority to continue that kind of arms smuggling, nor was it the policy of the Palestinian Authority to allow this influence from Iran and Hezbollah that we were most concerned about. We will watch very closely the implementation of those assurances, and we expect him to live up to it.

Question: Do you know about any meeting allegedly between Arafat or his lieutenants with Iranians in Moscow, or anyplace else, that laid the groundwork for a closer relationship?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I have anything specific on that, so I'll just have to leave that one.

Question: Do you have any information about allegations that the Israelis are planning a massive invasion of the Palestinian territories, in case the talks break down?

Mr. Boucher: You'd have to ask the Israelis about that. They don't tell us --

Question: What would the US view be if that took place?

Mr. Boucher: They don't tell us about their plans, and we don't approve them.

Question: What would the US view be if that took place?

Mr. Boucher: That's what's known as a hypothetical question. I'm not going to try to deal with that now.

Question: (Inaudible) hypothetical. It would be conceivable that the Secretary of State would tell the Prime Minister of Israel, just in case the truce talks flounder, "Please don't X, Y and Z." Has he served up an admonition, don't take any aggressive action --

Mr. Boucher: I have briefed you on the discussions we have had. Our efforts are devoted to trying to get both sides to work together to create an environment that gives each of them more security, and to achieve implementation of the Tenet work plan. That's what we're doing; that's what we're talking to them about now.

Question: The Teri foil right? (Laughter.) But it's on Iraq.

Question: No, wait.

Mr. Boucher: Okay.

Question: This will be very brief. I promise I won't belabor it past this. The answer to the question, "Would you like to see Arafat go to Beirut to attend the Arab Summit and return to the Palestinian territories" is yes, correct?

Mr. Boucher: The answer is yes, the Vice President said yesterday --

Question: Thank you.

Mr. Boucher: -- we think he ought to go.

Question: Okay. Why is the answer not yes to, "Would you like to see the Arab League adopt at its summit an initiative that is as close to your understanding of what the Saudi proposal is as possible?"

Mr. Boucher: If you put it that way, the answer is yes.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: We would like to see the -- we would welcome a statement by the Arab League that would be compatible with the understandings of full normalization within the context of a negotiated settlement.

Question: Would it be helpful with the Arab League for perhaps Prime Minister Sharon to address them, and/or perhaps General Zinni to address them as well?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not going to try to deal with that kind of speculation. I'm not aware that those decisions or any decisions like that, or any invitations like that from their side have come.

Question: Well, actually, Prime Minister Sharon has said publicly that he would go to the Summit to explain his position, and that he would welcome an American initiative to move --

Mr. Boucher: I'll leave it at the fact that it's not our meeting; we're not deciding on attendance. I'll just stop there.

Question: I have a couple questions on this. There are reports that the Iranians are paying the families of people who were killed by suicide bombers and groups that sponsor these inside the West Bank and Gaza. Can you confirm any of this?

Mr. Boucher: I'll have to look and see if there's anything on our terrorism report about that, and see if I have any information.

Question: My question is, Secretary Rumsfeld just said that the State Department is the agency handling this potential delegation Iraq is supposedly offering to host, and he said that as far as he knew, there had not been an invitation received. Can you update us on that?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, I can update you on that. Thank you, because I wasn't -- I didn't hear exactly what he said on the subject. But let's look at the facts here and what we have so far.

We have reports that Iraqi officials told a Chinese news service that Iraq is willing to invite a US delegation to Baghdad to discuss the case of Commander Speicher, who is missing in action. He was a US Navy pilot downed during the Gulf War. Since the end of the Gulf War, there has been an established mechanism for resolving humanitarian issues. It's a three-part commission known as the Tripartite Commission, has coalition members on one part, US, UK, France, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia; it has Iraq; it has the International Red Cross.

Iraq has refused to attend these meetings for the last three years, including refusing to attend a meeting that was scheduled for two weeks ago. We have also sent numerous communications to Iraq for specific information and answers to specific questions regarding the shoot down of Commander Speicher's aircraft.

So I would say if Iraq is serious about wanting to address this humanitarian issue, they have only to respond to the specific questions through any one of our formal channels. And we have not gotten this proposal through any one of our formal channels

The United States is deeply committed to resolving the fate of all Gulf War missing, including Commander Speicher, and we call upon Iraq to cooperate fully with its humanitarian obligation by providing answers posed to it for several years, rather than attempting to pass whatever public relations they want to through the press.

Question: I'm sorry, this meeting two weeks ago, where was that scheduled to have taken place? And all the members showed up, just not Iraq?

Mr. Boucher: I'm not sure it was actually held, because of one member not being willing to participate.

Question: Okay.

Mr. Boucher: But I'll have to check on that and see.

Question: All right. But there have been other meetings that have been held, and they haven't come?

Mr. Boucher: I'll have to double-check on that. I don't have the whole history of the Tripartite Committee. But that's a mechanism; there are other ways. If they want to communicate directly, they can communicate these things to us. We would be very interested in hearing, first, information, be that we specifically asked for; and second of all, if they have something they want to talk about, do it through one of these mechanisms.

Question: And you mentioned that the Iraqis have made this offer known through a Chinese news agency. They said it elsewhere as well, including a spokesman said it to our wire as well.

Mr. Boucher: Is that right? Well, I'm afraid we were --

Question: Does that change anything? I mean, if it's being said more widely --

Mr. Boucher: I would say, if they want to make a formal offer, if they want to make a proposal, one should make it through the formal mechanisms. If they want to respond to our questions, they could certainly respond in that channel. They can respond through the Red Cross. They can attend the Tripartite Commission meetings that was established to deal with these issues, and where the Iraqis have not dealt with these issues in the past.

So I think obviously if they go to two wire services, that's twice as good as going to one wire service, but if they want to actually make a proposal formally, we would expect to hear it in any of these channels that are available.

Question: Richard, so are you saying you would not rule it out if they made a formal --

Mr. Boucher: I'd say until they do, it's a hypothetical. If they -- as I made clear, we're looking for information. We've asked Iraq for information. If they want to come forward and say we'll provide it to you, let them come forward through the variety of formal mechanisms and opportunities they have. Let them respond in the channels where we asked them questions to the questions we have asked. If they are serious, we would expect them to do that, rather than just float ideas through wire services, much as we respect the wire services.

Question: How about if the Foreign Minister were to bring news regarding this to Secretary General Annan?

Mr. Boucher: Is there any reason to believe he will?

Question: Well, no, but there is reason to believe that Secretary General Annan is going to be meeting with the Iraqi Foreign Minister in New York on the 18th or 17th.

Mr. Boucher: 18th-19th, I think.

Question: 18th and 19th. Well, actually that was just my excuse for getting into that. What do you make of that? (Laughter.) What do you make of that -- the announcement --

Mr. Boucher: We value honesty around here, Matt. I appreciate it.

Let me say the same thing we said last time, that the Iraqis came to town. The issue is, what are they coming with? Are they coming with a clear indication that they are going to accept the UN resolutions and implement them? Are they coming with a clear indication that they're going to allow the unfettered access by inspectors that's necessary to prove their claims that Iraq is not developing weapons? Are they going to come with an indication that they're going to deal with many humanitarian issues, not only Commander Speicher, but the Kuwaiti prisoners and other humanitarian issues?

So the question doesn't really belong here; the question doesn't really belong in New York. The question belongs in Baghdad. What are they coming with? And if it's no more than they've come with in the past, I would not expect anything to happen.

Question: Can I change the subject?

Question: No, sorry. Quick one. You seem to be suggesting that Secretary Annan is wasting his time by having these meetings. Do you think that the --

Mr. Boucher: Oh, no. No. We're happy to offer the Iraqis an opportunity to come in and say that they are willing to abide by UN resolutions. But unfortunately, Iraq has consistently failed to take advantage of those opportunities, or to implement their obligations that they previously accepted.

Question: Thanks.

Question: Did you see Bob Novak's column this morning in The Washington Post, where he accused the State Department, or rather the US Embassy in Colombia, of deliberating keeping information from the Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, Otto Reich? That's his quote.

Mr. Boucher: I saw the column. I kind of fail to understand what it was based on, or what he thought it was based on. I do have copies of the two cables that our Embassy in Bogot��sent in as soon as we learned of the kidnapping of one American citizen, and then the death of two others.

Question: (Inaudible.)

Mr. Boucher: Oh, absolutely. We got cables on the 19th from our Embassy about events that occurred on the 14th, and then it was at that time that we found out about the kidnapping of the father, which apparently had occurred in December. But prior to that, the family had not requested any US Government assistance in this case. I would say that just today the family has asked us to assist, and we will see them tomorrow. We're happy to help them. We want to help them. Our Embassy has been reporting on this situation as the facts became known to them, and we will continue to try to work with the family and the Colombian authorities to find out what happened.

Question: Can I just -- the five-day lag between the 19th and the 14th on the cable, and then the incident, that was because of?

Mr. Boucher: That's usually a matter of gathering information, that you have to find out what happened before you can write about it. I know that's -- at least let me say that's true of my profession. (Laughter.)

Question: Can I ask one question? The South Korean Government yesterday -- actually Monday (inaudible) said they would send an envoy to Pyongyang the beginning of April. Do you have any comments, besides we welcome the dialogue? (Laughter.)

Mr. Boucher: Well, let's not limit my options here. Don't limit my options. I can go for three paragraphs in welcoming the announcement.

We find it encouraging that South Korea's special envoy will be visiting North Korea for talks next week. We continue to believe that inter-Korean dialogue is central to establishing a lasting peace and security on the Korean Peninsula. We hope that the talks lead to a sustained renewal of high-level dialogue, cooperation in family exchanges, as well as fulfillment of the other elements of the North-South joint communiqu��of June 2000.

We also reiterate our own willingness to meet with the North Koreans to discuss issues of concern, as the President has repeatedly noted.

Question: Can we have an update on what's happening with peacekeepers in Afghanistan? There's been a delay in having Turkey take over because of financial issues, and I wonder what we're offering, what the United States is offering to Turkey?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I have any more details for you at this point. We have been discussing with the various governments involved the idea, first, of extension of the UN time period. As I think you know, we have not at this point proposed or supported the idea of extending the mandate, and we have been working particularly with the British Government and the Turkish Government about the transition to the new leadership for the International Security Assistance Force. And that's an ongoing discussion. I don't think either government has finalized their plans, but clearly we play a role, both in bringing security to Afghanistan through the efforts of US forces, not only fighting al-Qaida but working with commanders around the country, working in various provincial towns, with both civil affairs teams as well as military people, and working very closely with the International Security Force.

So those are ongoing discussions; no particular and specific update.

Question: What has to happen, though, before Turkey takes over the command?

Mr. Boucher: The transition arrangements will be worked out with the Turks and with the British. We would welcome Turkey playing this leading role, and we'll work with them in that process. We are working with them in that process.

Question: The US Embassy in Sarajevo, I guess, is reopened today. Is that correct?

Mr. Boucher: Yes, that's correct.

Question: And could you tell us possibly what has changed in the security situation that allows them to reopen?

Mr. Boucher: I think the simple answer is, no. They closed last week to review their security situation, and they reopened when they felt comfortable reopening. That's about as far as I can go. I'm sorry.

Question: I want to go back to Korea.

Question: Can I follow that?

Mr. Boucher: Sorry, we've got a follow-up.

Question: -- embassies closing? Are there any other closings you can tell us about?

Mr. Boucher: Any other closings? You mean other than normal closing and holidays?

Question: Yes, exactly. Any other security-related --

Mr. Boucher: I'm not aware of any particular security-related closures.

Question: And sorry, just can you tell us -- have the departures from our Embassy in Islamabad and the consulates there already gotten under way?

Mr. Boucher: We want to be very careful, I think, about not talking too much about the specific status of people and the numbers of people. But I think -- I can say that the draw-downs are proceeding expeditiously. That's about as much as I can say.

Question: All right.

Mr. Boucher: All right, I just want to double-check. Some of our posts in Islamabad -- in Pakistan are on limited services because of the draw-down, because of the pre-existing situation. So if you're asking about general issues of closures of posts, some of these --

Question: Not necessarily. Just the people who are scheduled to depart or have begun to do so.

Mr. Boucher: No. We have -- the Peshawar, Lahore and Karachi are open for American citizen services, but I think not for visa services, not for -- oh, not today. That's right, because it's a holiday. That's true as well. So you have a variety of factors.

Question: (Inaudible) in Afghanistan. Do you know anything about the visas for the flight by the King? The delay in the King's return?

Mr. Boucher: I think the Italians have worked with him on the arrangements for his return, and so I'd have to leave it to them to comment on the security situation or other factors.

Question: So it has nothing to do with your government saying it's too dangerous or anything like that?

Mr. Boucher: I'm sure we're coordinating very closely with the Italians on security issues involving Afghanistan. We share information; they are a NATO ally. But as far as judgments, decisions and specific information that they might have based any decisions on, that would surely be a question for them. Which they may not answer, but I'd leave it to them.

Question: On Afghanistan. Sorry, can I just ask my other Afghan question? Do you know anything about reports that two gunmen working for the US administration have been arrested by Afghan police?

Mr. Boucher: Americans?

Question: Working for the Americans. I guess they would be called in other parlance "mercenaries."

Mr. Boucher: No, I don't know anything about reports like that.

Question: Back to the King. Was a request by the King's court, I guess you would call it, for American protection or some kind of security while he was there denied, which perhaps led to the decision?

Mr. Boucher: I've never heard of it. Let me check and see. I haven't heard anything like that.

Question: Question back to steel imports. Apparently it's raised questions with the EU, and there are other hornet's nests that have been developing over sugar and softwood imports from Canada. Are some of these trade issues being revamped, or under review right now? Or is it expected that this was the outcome?

Mr. Boucher: Well, as you know, many of these issues are very longstanding issues, issues that we've had trade disputes over with various partners for many years, and concerns about the status of our industry and things like that for many years. As the President made quite clear last week, when he announced the steel decision, part of free trade is enforcing the trading rules. And where we find that there is injury or subsidy or dumping, whatever happens under our law, we feel it necessary to take action. In many cases we are able to negotiate to try to resolve these things, but where we can we feel it necessary to take action.

Question: Do you have any reaction to the Europeans' decision to adopt their own GPS (inaudible), and that tomorrow they're having a meeting (inaudible) to start up -- start the operation (inaudible) plan? Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Boucher: I have commented previously on Galileo. I don't have anything new today. I'll see if there's something tomorrow to comment on.

Question: (Inaudible) the United States was against it, but then they decided to go ahead.

Mr. Boucher: Well, we haven't changed our views.

Question: Today Mr. Rumsfeld ruled out American troops going into Pakistan in order to pursue these al-Qaida people into the tribal areas of Pakistan. If that's the case, what is your plan to take care of these al-Qaida people, who are in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and perhaps created a terrorist-free zone, essentially, like Afghanistan was? Do you have any plan to handle that?

Mr. Boucher: Did you ask him that question when he made the statement? I mean, I don't quite know why we're asking me what's his plan. Our plan is to give it to the competence, the authority, the experience, and the knowledge of our military authorities to take care of the al-Qaida remnants in Afghanistan, and to make sure they don't escape justice. Our plan is to work with the Pakistani Government, as we have been doing very effectively throughout, to work with them to control the territory and maintain peace in Pakistan.

But I'm sure if you want any more details on that, you could ask the responsible people from the Department concerned.

Question: Are you confident that the Pakistanis are able to control al-Qaida forces in these tribal areas?

Mr. Boucher: I think we're quite aware of the geography of the tribal areas, but we're also quite aware that Pakistan has done a lot up there, and has indicated that they do intend to exert whatever control is necessary in those areas. So, again, you're asking me about military matters. I'll give you the general answer on coordination with foreign governments, but if you want to ask military questions, you can go to the Pentagon.

Question: Extremely briefly, just go back to Korea for a second. I presume that had you -- had there been any additional talks between Ambassador Pritchard and the North Koreans at the UN, between the last ones last month and now, you would have answered them in the earlier question. But I just wanted to make sure there haven't been.

Mr. Boucher: We haven't had any talks since the last ones. Which last ones are we talking about?

Question: Well, the last ones which were -- the ones that Ambassador Kelly talked about and then you talked about the day afterwards, was last week or 10 days ago, or something like that.

Mr. Boucher: I think he had -- they had two discussions -- I'll have to check on the last date. There were kind of two meetings in the course of a week or so, and I don't know if there are any more since then. We have various working-level discussions periodically, so accounting for this day by day or giving any importance to the fact that we have a meeting is probably not called for.

Question: Richard, do you have anything on five Americans who were killed in a car crash in Italy?

Mr. Boucher: Is that the one they just brought me the information on, I think? What we have are preliminary reports that an American family was killed in an automobile accident near Bologna in Italy. There were apparently seven Americans in the vehicle, all from one family. First reports indicate several are dead; the rest are in the hospital. We present our condolences and express our concern about the victims. We don't have any further information for you at this time.

A consular officer is going to the hospital to try to assist with the injured family members.

Question: Do you have anything to say about reports that President Musharraf is considering using a referendum to extend his rule by another five years?

Mr. Boucher: I believe Mr. Reeker addressed that on Friday. I don't have anything new to say since then. It was after the briefing, so do you want me to do it now? Okay. If you'll allow me to quote the esteemed Mr. Reeker. Here's our position.

We have seen the speculation in the Pakistani press about a referendum of approval for President Musharraf or his policies. As far as we know, there has been no formal announcement of such a step. We have made clear our view that restoration of democratic civilian rule is critical to Pakistan's political and economic development. It's important that Pakistan follow constitutional procedures as it pursues this process, with legality of particular actions, such as a referendum, to be decided by the courts.

We are pleased by President Musharraf's reaffirmation earlier this year of his commitment to hold provincial and national elections by October. We welcome these steps toward return of civilian rule in Pakistan, and we will continue to encourage and support this process.

Question: Can I go back (inaudible) Iran? I'm sorry -- a notion that Iran and the Palestinians, as one report had it, an alliance forged in Moscow and made while Arafat was visiting Mr. Putin. You focused on what the current situation might be, or at least what Arafat tells you the current situation is. But I don't recall if you said whether there was such an agreement reached by Arafat (inaudible), and I know you weren't asked --

Mr. Boucher: I was specifically asked 10 minutes ago, maybe it was 20 by now, and I said it was not something I had any information for you on.

Question: But I don't think -- I was in and out -- but I don't think you were asked --

Mr. Boucher: I was, and I was here the whole time.

Question: I realize. But so, if I'm going over something you answered, I apologize, buy --

Mr. Boucher: You are.

Question: The -- well, maybe not this question -- Moscow, the place for it. Russian -- US has its own problems with the Russians, so far as what it provides Iran with. Did Russia host such a -- and what does that mean if the talks were held in Russia?

Mr. Boucher: Barry, if I can't confirm that such a meeting took place, how can I talk about the meeting or lack thereof?

Question: Good point.

Question: Richard, just one question. Mr. Rumsfeld specifically asked that we ask at the State Department this question. He was asked whether the United States -- whether Russia had stopped providing Iran with weapons and with technology of weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Rumsfeld said ask at the State Department for that question. Well?

Mr. Boucher: Good question. The way I would put it to you is the subject of supplies to Iran, both in the area of nuclear material, nuclear -- in the nuclear area of technology and equipment, as well as over advanced conventional weapons, remains an issue on the agenda between the United States and Russia. It's an issue that we will pursue and we continue to discuss.

As far as what specific transfers there might be or might have taken place, I'm afraid that's probably not a question I can answer. But I can tell you it's an ongoing issue that is of concern to us, and one that we continue to discuss with the Russians.

Question: Richard, I have two things very briefly. First one, on Thursday, when you guys -- just after you guys had left, your able deputy put out a statement talking about things that Cambodia and Vietnam had done badly with regards to the Montagnards. He -- that provoked an angry reaction from Vietnam and Cambodia, and then he reaffirmed that position on Friday, the same day that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees decided to end its cooperation, or its repatriation program there for almost exactly the same reasons that you guys were citing as the problems.

What do you make of the UN's decision to stop this? Is this something you support? I know in the past you haven't always agreed with UN decisions to pull out of things, like the Khmer Rouge trial in Cambodia. Is this something that you are behind?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have any particular comment on the UN's actions. My concern, our grave concern has been expressed about the Cambodian actions, about the need to continue to offer repatriation as a choice for the population involved. And they need to adhere to the core principles that repatriations are voluntary, based on credible, meaningful pre- and post-repatriation inspections and counseling by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

So we want to see the system work. We think it's important, and the concern is about the behavior of the Vietnamese.

Question: No, I understand. I just want to make sure -- you have no position on what the -- on the UN ending their involvement in this program?

Mr. Boucher: I don't believe we've taken a position on that at this point. I think I'd leave that to them. But what we want to see happen is for the program to continue with the UN --

Question: I'm not talking about the (inaudible). I've got one more question. Also on Friday, you and the spokesman for Mr. Bustani at the OPCW seemed to come out with extremely different versions of the no-confidence vote that happened there in The Hague. This building's line is that Mr. Bustani should see the writing on the wall and should resign, and his spokesman is saying that no, he's not going to resign simply because a couple countries here and there want him to.

You guys said that if he didn't resign, you were going to call a special meeting of the Chemical Weapons Treaty signatories to force him out. Have you decided to take that step yet, or do you think that -- or have you managed to convince Mr. Bustani that he is no longer wanted?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, our view of the vote is that there was a clear, very strong majority of the members who either felt that -- specifically didn't support him or didn't support him. The -- as far as what happens next, we're considering the next steps to be taken. But we do think this organization is important, that it needs better, different management, and therefore, that given the lack of confidence expressed by the members, that Mr. Bustani should resign. That remains our view.

Question: You haven't gotten any reply from him or any reason to call --

Mr. Boucher: There's a constant back-and-forth on this, but as far as next steps, we're still considering.

Question: Thank you.