*EPF102 01/14/2002
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, January 14
(India/Pakistan, South Asia, Japan, Yemen, Israeli/Palestinian Authority, Turkey, Colombia, Otto Reich appointment, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, China/Taiwan) (7080)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index

Monday, January 14, 2002

1:00 P.M. EST

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

INDIA/PAKISTAN
-- Pakistani President Musharraf's Speech
-- India's Actions Against Terrorism
-- Update on Kashmir

SOUTH ASIA
-- Secretary Powell's Upcoming Travel

JAPAN
-- Sinking of North Korean Vessel

YEMEN
-- Warden Message on Threat Against U.S. Interests in Yemen

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
-- Arms Vessel Update and Demolition of Palestinian Homes
-- Zinni's Plans to Travel to the Region

TURKEY
-- Visit of Turkish Prime Minister
-- Peacekeeping Operation in Afghanistan
-- Issues on Iraq

COLOMBIA
-- Update on Peace Talks with FARC
-- Comments on U.S. Aid to Colombia

DEPARTMENT
-- Appointment of Assistant Secretary Otto Reich

NORTHERN IRELAND
-- Haass' Speech on Northern Ireland

AFGHANISTAN
-- Senator Biden's Call to Unfreezing Afghan Government Assets
-- U.S. Contributions to Reconstruction

CHINA/TAIWAN
-- Taiwan Notation on Passport Cover


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

1:00 P.M. EST -- MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any statements or announcements, so I would be glad to take your questions. Mr. Gedda.

QUESTION: It has been two days since President Musharraf's speech. I wonder if you would size things up for us.

MR. BOUCHER: Size things up? Bigger than a bread box. Let me go back and see. I am assuming that everybody saw the statement that we issued on Saturday from the Secretary, and then the statement that the White House did on President Bush's welcoming the firm decision that President Musharraf has made.

As the Secretary said, President Musharraf made a bold and a principled stand against terrorism and extremism, both inside and outside of Pakistan. We think this is a very important speech, not only for the steps specifically to remove violence from the equation in Kashmir, but also for the broader implications of the transformation of Pakistani society. And that is an effort that we think has profound meaning for the future of the country, but also for the region. India has commented positively on the speech and has noticed this.

We urge both countries to continue to work for resolution of tensions between them through diplomatic and peaceful means. And indeed, around the speech on Saturday, the Secretary himself was in touch with the leaders. He spoke twice on Saturday with Foreign Minister Singh. He talked with President Musharraf and Foreign Minister Sattar, and then you all know that the President spoke to the leaders of both countries on Sunday.

Pakistan is indeed following up on the banning of Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and other sectarian groups through forthright actions against these organizations and their membership. President Musharraf has clearly stated that Pakistan will not tolerate terrorism under any pretext, including Kashmir, and we are pleased to see that his government is taking action on that pledge.

So that's where we are as of Monday. The Secretary's trip to the region will be, I think, focused on several things: first, on the issues of Afghanistan, going into Kabul to see the interim government, talk to them about the process they have underway to establish their authority in Afghanistan; second of all, to prepare for the Tokyo conference, which will deal with the reconstruction of Afghanistan, both in terms of talking to the Afghans about the conference and the reconstruction needs, but also people in the region, like the Indians and Pakistanis; and third of all, of course, to continue to work with them in the present situation, with India and Pakistan, as President Musharraf moves forward on the commitments in his speech, and to continue to work with them on looking at ways to ease tensions and move forward against terrorism.

QUESTION: Can I ask you something about that? Two or three times -- not today, but two or three times -- you have referred to the need of both India and Pakistan to address terrorism. And frankly, I should have asked at that point, but it occurs now. Does the State Department have some arguments and complaint with India over terrorism that is not evident to me?

MR. BOUCHER: India has a complaint about terrorism.

QUESTION: That I know.

MR. BOUCHER: And we want to make sure that we work with India as India addresses the problems of terrorism that have occurred in India, the problems that they have found occurring within their own borders. I would also note that India is an important partner in the campaign against terrorism. They have worked with us in this present instance, and from the Secretary's last trip and the meetings that our ambassadors had, as well as the meetings the Secretary will have. We look forward to enhancing our cooperation with India against terrorism overall.

And as the Secretary noted the other day with Home Minister Advani, India also has an interest and a role to play in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, given their experience there in the past.

QUESTION: Richard, even though President Musharraf came out against terrorism and took -- or announced all these measures, he said that he is not going to be flexible on the issue of Kashmir. And the Indians, of course, have shown their inflexibility on this issue before. Are you at all concerned that the intransigence of both sides in this is just going to fester and cause the problem to just continually recur?

MR. BOUCHER: We think that one of the most important aspects of this speech was where President Musharraf said that Pakistan will not tolerate terrorism under any pretext, including in Kashmir. As I said, by taking violence out of the Kashmir situation, as he stated his goal was, which is what he basically stated in terms of his goals in this matter, that leaves political issues to be solved in political and diplomatic means. Now, granted, each of these governments has some very strong views on the matter of Kashmir.

We have always said we are willing to work with them. We have always said we are willing to help out, if they should want to. But, at present, I would say our focus is on looking for steps to ease the tensions and to avoid the buildup.

QUESTION: Okay, so does that mean -- since you're just re-offered your good offices to help out, does that mean that the Secretary or anyone else in the U.S. Government is going to be pushing the Indians to change their mind about refusing mediation?

MR. BOUCHER: I mentioned it because I knew you would ask, but I just reviewed what the Secretary would be doing during his trip, and that is to talk to them about the campaign against terrorism, to talk to them about Afghanistan, to talk to them about the implementation of what President Musharraf announced in his speech, and to talk to them about how they can ease tensions. So that's the agenda for the trip, not other things.

QUESTION: Richard, can I follow up? Matt's description, of course, is accurate. It's been an intractable problem. But he is asking mechanical questions, whether the Secretary will push or not push. Let me expand that, please. I tried the other day. You know, do you have a formula? Or to put it another way, you just said, "We'll help out where we can." Do you mean in a logistical sense, or is the U.S. prepared to begin to sift through the conflicting claims, you know, as you do between the Arabs and Israelis and come up with frameworks and all sorts of things? Maybe the previous administration did that. But is the U.S. prepared to deal with the issues and offer its advice?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always been prepared to do what the parties wanted us to do. As your colleague also correctly pointed out, we don't have two parties asking us to do this right now. The issue right now is how to move forward between the two, how to move forward on the steps that President Musharraf has announced, because we do think those steps would have a transforming effect in Pakistan, as well as in the region.

As he moves forward on those steps, we also think that's a basis for easing the tensions. That's our agenda right now, and I don't want to speculate on broad things down the road that may or may not materialize.

QUESTION: Going back to Barry's earlier question, you always said India and Pakistan. Now, the problem is terrorism problem is in India, not in Pakistan, but by Pakistan. Now, why you already said that India and Pakistan? Why don't you say that Pakistan must come out and they must tackle this problem so they don't have it either in India or against India?

MR. BOUCHER: I've said each of these people, each of these countries, needs to deal with the problem of terrorism. I think that's not dissimilar to the question I was asked before. India has suffered from terrorism, and obviously India wants to deal with the problem of terrorism that has occurred. Pakistan is also taking steps against terrorism. We will work with each of them in this circumstance as we deal with the problem of terrorism. The fact is there have been attacks against India, which have been horrible and egregious.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary carrying any special message from the President as far as this tension or problem is concerned?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of anything now. The President himself spoke to both leaders yesterday, so we will see where we stand when the Secretary gets there.

QUESTION: And on the speech? I'm sorry. Going back on the speech, can you confirm that before -- I mean, it was a great speech, of course, no doubt about it, if he follows through. Now, what I'm asking you is that if Secretary had advance copy of the speech before he read or went on the television and it was edited from here.

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: The military situation on the ground hasn't actually changed at all. India has basically said we're not going to stand down until there is more action. Would you say that this situation has actually become any less dangerous since Musharraf delivered his speech?

MR. BOUCHER: We have tried all along to paint a clear picture of the dangers of the situation, and I would continue to say the situation remains dangerous. The forces remain along the line of control. The prospects for military confrontation remain high. So I don't think I can say that the tensions have eased at this point. But I would say that the speech, the steps the Pakistani Government is taking, the reaction of the Indian Government, offer a prospect for the easing of tensions. And the issue is to see all that materialize.

QUESTION: When Home Minister Advani was here, he said that when he met with Secretary Powell, that Secretary Powell did not ask India to remove its troops from the frontier. Can you tell me, did Secretary Powell ask Mr. Advani, or has he asked India, or will he ask India, to pull its troops back?

MR. BOUCHER: Did he, has he, is he, will he, at some point now, in the future, or in the past? It's kind of too broad. Clearly, the answer I just gave that things have not eased, we are interested in seeing them ease, and we will be discussing that with the two sides. I think that's about as far as I can go at this point.

QUESTION: Can you say whether this Administration thinks that India should move its forces back?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we will be looking at both sides, we will be talking to both sides, as we have, about the need to ease the tensions, about steps that can ease the tensions. But I don't think I want to get in the business now of sort of laying out a plan from here. The goal is to talk to the two sides, as we have been doing and will do, about how they can ease the tensions between them.

QUESTION: India is asking that Pakistan prevent infiltration into Kashmir, the portions held by India. Do you have any information that Pakistan is preventing these infiltrations, that there has been any change in --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that is anything that I can particularly comment on. I can't give you a day-by-day report on the situation there.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier in your opening remarks about the need for reform in Pakistani society. Can the U.S. play a role in this? Is there targeted aid to achieve these ends?

MR. BOUCHER: President Musharraf has spoken in the past, as he did in the speech, about his desire to reform a lot of aspects of Pakistani society and to move Pakistan on a more moderate course. He talked about advancing the education system, the public education system, and other things like that.

When the Secretary was there in October and we were discussing the kind of assistance the United States could provide, especially the $600 million or so in economic support funds, what he said he most needed it for was to support that kind of expanded secular -- expanded public education program, expanded health services and other reform of delivery of services to Pakistani society.

So to that extent, yes, the United States has a role. Obviously in setting the tone, the direction, and taking care of action against extremists, that's a matter for the Pakistani Government to decide how he goes about it.

QUESTION: I have one more, and you can change the subject. Over the weekend, there was a story in one of the major newspapers that opined that two years ago -- I guess it was two years ago -- when Nawaz Sharif had sent someone here to the State Department, and this was shortly before he was ousted -- and at that time this envoy expressed to the United States the concern that Musharraf was planning to oust him.

Is that correct? And if you don't know, can you take the question?

MR. BOUCHER: I have never heard the story. I don't really know it's one I can deal with, frankly.

QUESTION: There were reports in the Japanese press, based on an interview that Deputy Secretary Armitage gave Japanese reporters, that seems to have the United States backing Japan in its assertion that the ship that was in a brush-up with the Japanese vessel was from North Korea. Could you get into that a little bit, and have you come to that conclusion?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't think it should come as anyone's surprise that we're supporting Japan. The sinking took place on December 22. The Japanese are still in the process of determining the exact background of the ship involved, its identity, background and identity of the crew, but they are believed to have been North Korean. And the Japanese will have to put out whatever information they can on the incident.

I would say, as Deputy Secretary Armitage made clear in his interview, that we believe the actions that the Japanese took with regard to this ship were entirely appropriate, given the circumstances. We do think they did the right thing and we applaud them for doing that. At this point, Japan has not asked for any assistance regarding the ship's recovery, but if they have any requests along those lines, we would be happy to continue to work with them in this matter.

QUESTION: When you say "our belief," that was folded into your telling us what the Japanese were doing and concluding. Is it believed, too, by the United States that the ship and the crew were North Korean?

MR. BOUCHER: This appears to be the situation, as reported by the Japanese, and I would just say that we believe that to be true as well.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the security situation in Yemen surrounding the U.S. Embassy there? I understand consular services have closed, or at least been cut back for the day?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Especially as Assistant Secretary Burns travels there this week. Greater concern? Can you tell us if there was anything linked to his visit?

MR. BOUCHER: When is he in Yemen? I've got him in Yemen on the 17th. The Embassy put out a warden message today, January 14th. This says it's a warden message of January 14th, but maybe there is an issue of morning or afternoon.

Our Embassy told Americans that Yemen currently believes there is an increased terrorist threat to U.S. interests in Yemen, including to the U.S. Embassy. In response to the increased threat, the Embassy is taking a number of additional security measures, including suspending temporarily the immigrant visa and routine American citizen services to the public beginning on Monday, January 14th, today. The Embassy will resume its services to the public at the appropriate time. In the meantime, Americans needing emergency assistance can reach a consular official by calling the Embassy switchboard.

As we said in our travel warning of September 20, the Department currently believes that there is an increased terrorist threat to U.S. citizens and interests in Yemen. The Department has authorized the departure of U.S. Embassy personnel in non-emergency positions and family members of Embassy personnel. American citizens have been advised of that action through the Embassy's warden system.

The question, does this relate to the visit of Assistant Secretary Burns, and the answer is basically no. The Yemenis have told us that they believe there is an increased threat at this time to U.S. interests in Yemen, and we concur with that assessment.

QUESTION: So there's nothing changed on the schedule as a result of this?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: What you just said, the Yemenis believe it or the Embassy? Because I think the warden message says the Embassy believes that there is. But you're saying now that it's the Yemenis had told you that --

MR. BOUCHER: The Yemenis -- I believe the warden message says -- do I have a text of it? I guess I don't have it here. Yes, I do. "The Embassy currently believes there is an increased terrorist threat to U.S. interests in Yemen, including the U.S. Embassy." So what I said was the Yemenis have told us that they believe there is an increased threat, and we concur in that assessment.

QUESTION: Reports out of Nepal have Secretary Powell there on next Friday. Can you confirm that, and will he be applauding them for their contribution to the war on terrorism as Nepalese media have been saying?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me double-check and see if I have any other stops I can announce.

QUESTION: New subject, Middle East. Could you talk about the actions by Yasser Arafat over the weekend? There was some confusion as to how many people he detained, and whether you've gotten any kind of explanation from him yet.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any further information on that. We have obviously followed those reports with considerable interest. We do think that arrests of those responsible for the Karine A and the statement that was made by the Palestinian Authority stating that this smuggling operation are contrary to his policy are steps in the right direction, but more must be done, clearly and immediately.

As leader of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat cannot avoid responsibility for the actions of his senior officials and, as such, he has a responsibility to immediately take action against those responsible to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism so that activities of this type cannot occur again.

The Secretary, as you know, last week was in touch with Chairman Arafat. Our representatives have kept in touch with the Palestinians all along to make quite clear that the Karine A operation was very serious and that we urge immediate action by Chairman Arafat. Our Consulate continues to press that message with the Palestinian Authority.

QUESTION: Is the jury still out as far as the U.S. is concerned whether Yasser Arafat knew of the operation or was involved in the operation?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything new on that at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. Oh, there was -- and Schlicher saw him, I thought, last week. Any follow-up on that, any further meetings that you know of?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any meetings with Chairman Arafat since Friday, I think it was, when Consul General Schlicher saw him. I will double-check whether it was Thursday or Friday. One of your colleagues is whispering at me.

QUESTION: Do you have any information on more house demolitions this morning? I believe there were nine destroyed in East Jerusalem.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we have seen those reports. I would describe our view this way. We, I think, made clear that we understand the need for Israel to take steps to ensure its self-defense, and we have been quite clear, as I just was, on the need for Palestinian action against violence and terrorism.

At the same time, steps such as the displacement of people through the demolition of homes or property, like those that occurred in Jerusalem earlier today, are provocative. They undermine trust and confidence. They create additional hardship and contribute to an escalation in tension and violence.

Now, we have seen reports that the Israeli Government has decided to end demolitions of houses and property. We cannot confirm those reports, but clearly we would see such a step as contributing to a restoration of calm and facilitating progress towards implementation of the Tenet security work plan and the Mitchell Commission recommendations.

MR. BOUCHER: Will the U.S. be taking a stronger line if there are future demolitions, I mean, in light of the controversy over last week's?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I don't want to speculate about what the future activities of the Israeli Government might be. As I said, we have seen these reports that they have decided to end demolitions of houses and property, and I have said that that would be a step that would contribute to restoration of calm. So let's hope that's what happens.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. following up those reports? Maybe they're just recent, but would you look into that?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, we will. Obviously, in our ongoing conversations with the Israeli Government, we talk about all these sorts of things.

QUESTION: Richard, last week -- or on Friday, the Secretary said that he understood the Israelis' actions, not the wanton destruction of homes, but the other actions such as the razing of the runway and other things.

MR. BOUCHER: I think what he said was we clearly understood the need for Israel to take actions to prevent the smuggling of arms and to destroy whatever infrastructure might be used for that. That remains the case today. This is a separate issue of demolition of houses and property.

QUESTION: So is it all demolition of houses and property, or is it just when it's civilian and it's not related to smuggling? I mean, what is it that the -- where do you guys draw the line?

MR. BOUCHER: We draw the line between the infrastructure that is used for arms smuggling, and houses and property that are not related to that.

QUESTION: But if someone's house is a depot for arms --

MR. BOUCHER: I think that's hypothetical. What we have been talking about, what the Israelis have been talking about in terms of the infrastructure, is actual sort of tunnels and smuggling routes. And sometimes, yes, sometimes the property associated with it.

But the issue, I think there needs to be a distinction made, and that the destruction of houses and property is not something that we believe contributes to the resolution of the problems, nor to an end to the violence.

QUESTION: Do you know if Zinni has any plans to go back?

MR. BOUCHER: Nothing at this point. I think the President spoke about it on Friday, but the Secretary has not decided to send him back at this point, or what time to send him back.

QUESTION: Can you talk about the U.S. request for extradition of a suspected bin Laden supporter from Canada?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: You can't? The U.S. has apparently asked Canada to extradite someone on suspicion of terrorist --

MR. BOUCHER: I'll double-check if there is anything we can say. Usually our Justice Department takes care of extraditions, but I will double-check on that one.

QUESTION: The Turkish Prime Minister is coming. Is there anything that you want to offer on that, issues? The Greek Prime Minister was just here, and evidently the relationship is pretty good, both Turkey-Greece and Greece-US, but there might be something you want to take up with him that you want to tell us about.

MR. BOUCHER: He will come to Washington. He meets with the President on Wednesday the 16th, so you will have to check with the White House on that aspect of it. Unfortunately, the Secretary will be out of town and will be off in South Asia and won't be able to continue the very productive and useful conversations that they had while the Secretary was in Turkey. But Deputy Secretary Armitage will meet with the Prime Minister at Blair House and he will also attend the Prime Minister's meeting at the White House.

We see the visit as an opportunity for two good friends and allies to continue the normal discussions, cover a full range of important regional and bilateral issues, including Turkey's contributions to the war on terrorism, recent developments in Cyprus, and the European security and defense policy question, as well as Turkey's economic reform program which remains very, very important to us, especially as regards investment and commercial issues. So there is a lot to talk about with the Prime Minister and we look forward to those discussions.

QUESTION: I may have lost track, but is it still alive the question whether Turkey will succeed Britain as head of the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan at some point? Maybe it's a given. I don't know. They volunteered and --

MR. BOUCHER: I think I'll leave that question, for the moment, to the Turks and the British. But I think I can't remember quite what they've said. I think the British did say that they welcome Turkey's offer to take over after Britain had established a force and led it through its initial phase. So that is certainly something that we would welcome as well and certainly something that will come up during the course of the discussions.

QUESTION: Could you talk about what issues related to Iraq, then?

MR. BOUCHER: Not in any particular detail at this point. When the Secretary was in Turkey they did discuss the sanctions process, the new UN resolution, the situation along the border between Turkey and Iraq, things like that. I expect some of those will come up this time as well.

We had some questions in the back. Colombia?

QUESTION: Yes. The U.S. Government has been concerned about the DMZ. The U.S. Government tonight that area will be under control of Colombian army. The U.S. Government must be very pleased at this issue. Are you?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think, first and foremost, we have always supported President Pastrana's efforts towards peace and we have blamed the current impasse on the FARC, including the fact that they have continued to carry out various activities in this zone throughout the period that President Pastrana has provided for the despeje, for the DMZ to be in existence. So we hold them responsible for the current impasse. We continue to believe the burden is on them to respond in good faith to President Pastrana's efforts to resume negotiations.

So we support President Pastrana, his decisions regarding how to proceed at this juncture. We are in touch with him and we're following the situation very closely. We'll see what happens tonight, as you point out, which is when the deadline expires.

QUESTION: The President signed a new aid bill for Colombia and in it only 60 percent of the aid is to be disbursed if the Secretary of State certifies that the Government of Colombia is taking action regarding human and civil rights and militias and so on, then he has to report every 120 days to the Congress that they have not only taken the initial action but they have taken the final actions.

My question is: Is the Secretary going to certify that Colombia is taking such actions?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't realize there were such provisions in the new bill. That sounds like the provisions --

QUESTION: The Leahy --

MR. BOUCHER: And those kinds of provisions were in the old bill and we did --

QUESTION: This has no waiver.

MR. BOUCHER: All right. Well, I will look. We'll look at the situation and see when we have to do that, whether it has to be done right away or not.

QUESTION: There are people in Colombia who have suggested that the U.S. Government has been pushing President Pastrana to end the DMZ. Is that true?

MR. BOUCHER: The position that I gave you all along -- the position I gave you today is the one that we've taken all along, is that it is up to President Pastrana. We have been very disappointed and we have condemned the actions of the FARC in this area, but we have said we leave this process to President Pastrana. We have supported in the past whatever decisions he has made in this matter.

QUESTION: On the DMZ, you have been supportive of the President Pastrana's negotiation with the guerillas, the terrorist group, the FARC. Even though you know that they are a terrorist group, you still support all his decisions?

MR. BOUCHER: All along we've supported whatever steps he thought he could take to resolve this situation. We have supported his willingness to try a peaceful path, to resolve the situation down there, and we have -- as I said, we have held the FARC responsible for the impasse and for the lack of any progress in that regard.

QUESTION: In a follow-up? On the appointment of Ambassador Reich last week --

MR. BOUCHER: Assistant Secretary Reich, we call him.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, Assistant Secretary Reich. Is the U.S. Government sending a stronger message to the Colombians and to the region about the new policies or politics in that particular region?

MR. BOUCHER: As he said to the staff meeting this morning, sorry I'm late. It takes him a while to get in here. I think it is clear that this Administration has put a lot of emphasis on Latin America. We have paid a lot of attention to Colombia, to the Andean region, both in terms of our rhetoric, in terms of our attention, officials, but also in real money terms as well.

And so having him on board as Assistant Secretary we think is an important contribution to being able to carry out the President's policy for the hemisphere and the emphasis that the President himself places on the hemisphere.

So in those terms, yes, it is a message of the importance that we attach to Central and South America, and our desire to work actively with people in this region.

QUESTION: Can I move on to the -- first the question just before then. You are saying that it is okay, then, to negotiate with some FTOs? As long as the government is willing -- the government of a country where a terrorist organization is located is willing to negotiate with them, it's okay? That sounds like a shift from what -- it was black and white (inaudible) at the White House before. It was either -- you're either with us or you're against us in the war on terrorism. But you're saying that you would continue to support Pastrana's talks with the FARC?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always taken the position in Colombia -- as you know, this has a lot of history behind it. I think our position has been quite consistent. I am not declaring some new policy worldwide about terrorists. But we have always focused on the situation in Colombia in this way, and that's been the position actually since before this Administration.

QUESTION: Well, I'm sure -- I mean, is there a gradation of FTO that maybe is not out -- set out clearly? But you believe that some groups that you have designated as terrorist organizations are okay to deal with?

MR. BOUCHER: The issue of designation of groups is -- the point is to get people to end their support, their terrorist activities. In this particular situation, this has been the way we have supported the efforts of President Pastrana to get these people to make peace and to end their terrorist activities. That is about as much of a conclusion as I --

QUESTION: That wouldn't have been an option in Afghanistan, say, for -- I realize you're going to say it's apples and oranges, but in other countries, that's not necessarily an option?

MR. BOUCHER: It's apples and oranges.

QUESTION: Not specific to any other country, but in other countries in general, it is not necessarily an option?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not doing "in general"; I'm doing in particular; in this situation this has been the position we have taken.

QUESTION: But you can understand why some people might see a contradiction there, can't you?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there is any particular contradiction in this situation. The issue is ending the violent activities of various groups, and there are various ways to do that.

QUESTION: On another conflict where you backed governments and talked to terrorists. The British and Irish newspapers interpreted Richard Haass' speech on Northern Ireland last week as a shift in this Administration's emphasis on the situation in Northern Ireland, away from focusing on the Catholic minority as a victim, and focusing on the Protestant majority as a community which also needs some attention now.

Do you think that is a true analysis of this Administration's approach in Northern Ireland?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think that's the way we read this speech. This was the speech on Wednesday, January 9th. What he said in the speech was that Northern Ireland's community leaders have a responsibility to promote a collective vision of the future for all citizens. As he said, the reality is that there is no separating the future of one community from that of the other. And we remain committed to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. As Ambassador Haass has made clear, the U.S. role has been and will continue to be that of an impartial advisor, an honest broker, and a firm supporter of the Good Friday Agreement.

QUESTION: Did you say, though, that there has been a shift, even -- not necessarily from the point of view of the Administration, but in terms of what you believe the emphasis should be at this point, as the chief mediator?

MR. BOUCHER: I think for the moment I would just leave it that we have always supported the Good Friday Agreements in an impartial manner, and that continues to be our emphasis.

QUESTION: Senator Biden is calling for the unfreezing of Taliban assets to be given to the new government. Does the State Department play a role in that, or is it all Treasury? Do you make any kind of recommendation? And if so, where does the building stand on that?

MR. BOUCHER: This is one of the things that we have been working at the United Nations with other members of the UN sanctions -- the committee that deals with sanctions on the Taliban and al-Qaida, and one of the things that will happen with the new UN resolution, that would adjust or modify the sanctions that have previously been applied, so that as the committee on sanctions in the UN looks at the various entities that have been under sanctions, as these entities -- how can I say -- take over their responsibility with a new Afghan government, we're then in a position to unfreeze the sanctions that apply to them under the Taliban.

So the unfreezing of assets for the new government is an important project. It's something that we have under way, obviously working with our colleagues in Treasury, but also with other governments, largely through this UN sanctions process.

QUESTION: But wasn't there a meeting on that last week?

MR. BOUCHER: There was a Friday meetings about Ariana Airlines, and looking forward to their being able to resume flights. And I'm not sure to what extent they might also have assets that would be unfrozen, too.

QUESTION: You would support the unfreezing of assets to be given to --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, absolutely, and it's something we're working pretty intensively on right now, to try to make the assets of Afghanistan available to the new interim authority there.

QUESTION: Do you know how much we have? Do you know how much there is frozen by the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a dollar estimate for you, but it's probably hundreds of millions of dollars.

QUESTION: There was a report the other day that the interim government needs billions and billions -- several billions of dollars for reconstruction. And I know it isn't a cheap project, but a few weeks ago, the U.S. didn't have any rough estimate. Are you getting closer to some notion of how much it will take to put the country back on its feet?

MR. BOUCHER: There are a number of different estimates of this. I think the best estimates will be those that the United Nations and the World Bank are producing. We are relying on that process to inform us in Tokyo of what the real -- or of what the best estimate of the needs are, or what kind of needs there are.

Generally, the estimates that I have seen have been in the range of $10 billion over five years or so. But we'll get a better estimate from the UN and the World Bank as we head to the Tokyo Conference, and that's I think what we will all try to deal with.

Of course, we also recognize -- have recognized that there are immediate needs of the Afghan administration to get up and running. We have contributed to that process to get them up and running, and we are working hard on the issue of unfreezing their assets so that those can be in the hands of the government to support the efforts of getting under way, as well as reconstruction.

QUESTION: I'm reading that the U.S. has started something they're calling, I think, a "start-up fund," technically. Was that established at the meeting, the initial reconstruction meeting that was held here, a fund held by the U.S. asking for donations already?

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to go back and check on exactly what that is. We have been working with the UN and other donors as well.

QUESTION: Eight million in it so far?

MR. BOUCHER: There is a fund that the United Nations estimated. I think they'd need about 17-or-so million to get started, and we have contributed a million to that process. I think there's 19 and a half million available already to the government, or pledged to the government to get it started.

But then, obviously, the needs for reconstruction are considerably larger.

QUESTION: Has the Administration started to hone in on a range of what the U.S. contribution to this reconstruction is going to look like?

MR. BOUCHER: What are the implications -- if I say, yes, can you promise there won't be a follow-up question?

QUESTION: Then I'm going to ask, what's the range?

MR. BOUCHER: Have we started to hone in on a range of what the U.S. contribution might be? Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, what's the range?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't tell you at this point.

QUESTION: Richard, you said that the estimate that you have seen is at $10 billion for over about five years?

MR. BOUCHER: That's generally the ballpark for some of the estimates we're starting to see.

QUESTION: Well, do you take a position at all on what the Afghan -- what the government is saying? There's $45 billion over 10 years --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I realize there's a variety of different estimates. I don't know how to reconcile all the numbers, but what we intend to go to Tokyo with, actually, is to deal with the World Bank and the UN estimates, and as those estimates are refined, that will probably be the most solid thing for all of us to work with.

QUESTION: Will you be reviewing the U.S. (inaudible) at Tokyo? Is that the place where you would do that?

MR. BOUCHER: We'll see.

QUESTION: One more very different question. Richard, since the Secretary will not be in town and the Defense Minister of India will be here the day after tomorrow, is anybody meeting from the building?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

QUESTION: Because the Taiwan government has announced that it will add the word Taiwan on the cover of its passport, and Beijing says it's another step towards Taiwan independence, and some others may say it's a change of the official name, the Republic of China. Does the U.S. worry about the development, or do you think it might lead to a higher tension between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I want to speculate any more broadly on what the change might imply. For us, it doesn't affect how we deal with travel by -- or travel documents of the people on Taiwan. And that's the bottom line for us.

QUESTION: Because that announcement was made in front of the Taiwanese-American organization meeting in Taiwan. So I guess it might affect U.S. interests in --

MR. BOUCHER: Once again, you know, Taiwan authorities have said that this doesn't represent any particular change in policy for them. We take them at their word. And it won't affect how we deal with the document or travelers. Okay.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:43 p.m. EST.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents