*EPF302 03/20/2002
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, March 20
(Israel/Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, Bosnia, Colombia, Italy, terrorism, Taiwan, China, Zimbabwe, Mexico/Monterrey, Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Iran, Nepal) (8330)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

Daily Press Briefing Index
March 20, 2002
Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
-- Violence/General Zinni's Objectives/Response from Hamas/U.S. Peacekeeping Troops/Possible Meeting between Chairman Arafat and Vice President Cheney/Arab League Peace Proposal/Saudi anti-Semitism
PAKISTAN
-- Repatriation of the Green family/Unidentified remains from Church attack
-- Voluntary Departure of personnel from U.S. Embassy in Kabul
NORTH KOREA
-- Compliance with the Agreed Framework/KEDO
BOSNIA
-- Threats to the American Embassy
COLOMBIA
-- Supplemental budget request
ITALY
-- Assassination of Mr. Marco Biagi/Status of the Red Brigades
TAIWAN
-- Application for the World Health Organization
-- Meeting with the Defense Minister
ZIMBABWE
-- Situation Update/Charges against Morgan Tsvangirai
-- Relations with African Nations/Sanctions
CONGRESS
-- Hyde Bill
YUGOSLAVIA
-- Certification/Political Situation
GUATEMALA
-- Visa Revocation for former intelligence chief
MEXICO
-- Fidel Castro to travel to participate in the Monterrey Conference
DEPARTMENT
-- Swearing in of Ambassador Frank Ricciardone
IRAN
-- Suicide bomber in Iran
NEPAL
-- Maoist Rebels

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
MARCH 20, 2002

(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

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

QUESTION: An update, if you will, on the efforts in the Middle East. I don't suppose -- well, maybe I shouldn't suppose. If you care to address what Cheney was told, that would be neat, although I know he doesn't work in this building, but certainly Zinni's efforts.

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, let me make clear that we condemn absolutely in the strongest terms the terrorist suicide bombing in northern Israel today that left at least seven civilians dead. The attack only underscores the importance of immediate maximum Palestinian actions against terror.

We welcome the Palestinian Authority's condemnation of this act. What we expect from Chairman Arafat and the Palestinians is a 100 percent effort to do everything he can to control the violence and prevent it. We further expect Chairman Arafat to begin immediate and serious steps to get a cease-fire started, to begin implementation of the Tenet work plan. This includes a clear public commitment to the Tenet security work plan, unambiguous orders to Palestinian security services to enforce the cease-fire, and a serious effort to stop terror and attacks.

These kinds of attacks, this kind of violence, harms the cause that the Palestinians are seeking. It harms the community and it harms their future. And Chairman Arafat should do everything possible to avoid bombers from causing this kind of harm to his community.

We do strongly support the decision today of the parties to participate in the trilateral security meeting today that is either ongoing or approximately at this time. I don't have any results yet, but we do think that cooperation by both sides on security matters is the most critical way, critical element, to help restore an atmosphere of calm.

QUESTION: I have a little problem with the word "expect" because it can be read two ways. It could be your expectation --

MR. BOUCHER: What we want from.

QUESTION: It sounds like Spanish, esperar. Your hope or your expectation. Which is it?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's what we want. It's what we want from Chairman Arafat. We want to see him take the steps to stop the violence, to commit unequivocally to the steps of the Tenet security work plan, to give clear and unambiguous orders to people, and to make a very serious effort across the board to stop terror attacks, which at this point we haven't seen that kind of complete effort. But we're having trilateral meetings, we're trying to get that effort from Chairman Arafat, and we're trying to continue to establish security by cooperation with the parties.

QUESTION: I guess the answer to how Zinni is doing is the trilateral meeting. You held it out yesterday as a step forward. Anything else to say?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have any other characterizations at this point. I think we want this process to continue. We want it to achieve an end to the violence, achieve a cease-fire, and then move into the cement-and-prevent steps, the steps in the Tenet security work plan that can help cement the cease-fire and prevent further acts of violence.

QUESTION: Do you have a response to the statement of Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi earlier today, who said that there would be no way that his organization, Hamas, would be respecting a cease-fire or anything in the Tenet plan?

MR. BOUCHER: As we have made clear repeatedly from this podium, groups that want to carry out violence, groups that want to sponsor suicide bombers or carry out shootings in schoolyards, they need to be prevented, they need to be stopped. It's not a matter of whether a leader intends or doesn't intend; it's whether he can or he can't, and we have to make sure he can't.

QUESTION: Thomas Friedman had an editorial today in the New York Times which suggested that in order to really maintain peace in that area that US troops would have to be involved in any peace that were to prevail in that area. Do you see -- the Secretary has offered observers possibly to help quell the violence. Do you see observers simply being another term for US troops?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we don't.

QUESTION: Do you see this -- is this something that has been discussed or is being discussed?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I'm not in the habit of commenting on commentators all the time. And second of all --

QUESTION: The Saudi proposal first appeared in Friedman's column.

MR. BOUCHER: We commented on the proposal, not the commentator. And it appeared in Saudi media as well.

The issue of what US role there may be somewhere down the road -- I mean, Tom has written about this before, we know. I'm not going to have any new thoughts to offer at this point. The issue of observers is different. The contribution that we might make as observers, third-party monitoring of the implementation of these steps, is designed to reinforce the security process, to reinforce the security cooperation, to identify problems and causes and to help resolve them. That's the kind of monitoring, third-party monitoring mechanism, we've been talking about.

QUESTION: I'm trying to remember. The US has forces with the Sinai -- on the Sinai, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: As part of a UN peacekeeping effort. Is there any thought or are there any efforts to withdraw from that particular duty?

MR. BOUCHER: You can check with the Defense Department. We've talked about readjusting the size of our presence and things like that. We have certain obligations under previous treaties and agreements in this region, and we carry out those obligations. How we do that is periodically the subject of review.

But I think it's quite speculative at this point, where the issue is stopping the violence on the ground, getting the Palestinian Authority to take control of the groups that are trying to undermine the Palestinian Authority, and reaching a cease-fire so that Israelis and Palestinians can have some normalcy back in their lives and can get into a process that leads back to negotiations. It would be very speculative for me to start talking about possible outcomes and future treaties. It's not speculative for commentators to do; that's what they get paid for.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: I take it that now that the Vice President has left the region, it's largely in your hands to make a recommendation at some stage about whether he should meet Chairman Arafat.

MR. BOUCHER: Before the Vice President left the region, he said he would be looking to General Zinni for that sort of discussion and recommendation, and that remains the case now.

QUESTION: And General Zinni essentially reports through you, through this building, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Correct. Well, not through me.

QUESTION: And given what you said about Chairman Arafat not yet making the sustained effort you want, I guess it would be -- is it fair to assume that at this stage you wouldn't -- he wouldn't recommend such a meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to get into a day-by-day probability. Well, I don't intend to. You can ask a question every day; I'll give you the same answer every day. We're not going to tell you what the chances are on a daily basis. We're not going to have a thermometer or a clock that tells you the countdown to the Cheney meeting with Arafat.

What's clear to all of us is what I've said already. General Zinni has worked with the Vice President when the Vice President was there. General Zinni will continue to update the Vice President in the days ahead. A crucial factor is for Chairman Arafat to take aggressive steps to stop the violence, and for the parties to continue to make the security cooperation more and more effective.

When the conditions are such that a high-level meeting would be useful and constructive in ending the violence and resuming a political process, then General Zinni will say so. He's in the region to accomplish that objective, and we'll continue to work with him to do that.

QUESTION: Is there -- without saying a timeline or anything like that, do you have any kind of benchmarks that you can say? I mean, you say aggressive steps, but is it a certain list of arrests? Is it a certain number of factories he has -- mortar factories?

MR. BOUCHER: I've just given you a series of things that we believe need to be done: a clear commitment to the Tenet security work plan, unambiguous orders to stop the violence, and strengthened efforts across the board to stop the violence and the violent groups. There are many elements to that, and obviously those are the kind of elements that General Zinni discusses with the parties.

QUESTION: Well, can you flesh out what a "strengthened effort" means?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think I can go through every possible step. The point is that they need to make every possible step to stop the violence, everything they can do. A 100 percent effort means everything you can do should be done.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: No, I want to stay here for a minute. I wondered if you folks thought it's fine that -- would like to see the Arab League endorse the vision, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia's vision for agreements between Israel and the Arabs.

MR. BOUCHER: We have talked about that vision as a positive statement, that those ideas demonstrated that there was an interest in pursuing a political path on the part of the Arabs. We have welcomed the support that it has gotten from others. We noted the support it got at the Arab League Foreign Ministers Meeting. So we think that the endorsement of these ideas by other Arabs, including the Arab League, to the extent they have, has been positive.

QUESTION: If I could ask you if you wish to return to the blood libel column in a Saudi newspaper. Yesterday you condemned anti-Semitism, or criticized it, but you didn't speak specifically of the column or --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I haven't had a chance to check into it a little more, and let me run through it for you.

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in pro-government and opposition party media throughout the Middle East, including in Saudi media outlets. Anti-Semitism, wherever it manifests itself, is repugnant, and we condemn it in the strongest terms. Clearly we believe that such material is counterproductive to improving relations and dialogue. We do continue to press the Saudi Government on this at the highest levels and the clearest terms possible.

Saudi officials have promised to address the issue, and we will continue to follow up on it. We were particularly concerned by the appearance of an article in a recent Saudi daily repeating a centuries-old calumny. The Saudi daily claims to report this as fact, and that is outrageous and defies disbelief.

We approached the Saudis to register our complaint about the baseless and inflammatory nature of this article, and we note that Turki Abdullah Al-Sudairy, the editor-in-chief of Al-Riyadh and the dean of the Saudi press corps, wrote an opinion piece in Al-Riyadh March 19th condemning Dr. Jalahma's Purim article as unfit for publication.

QUESTION: Does that mean that the question to my -- the answer to my question yesterday is, yes, you specifically --

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, specifically we have -- that's the answer to that.

QUESTION: It's not just the VOA editorial?

MR. BOUCHER: It's not just the editorial. We've approached them directly as well.

QUESTION: As well. Other governments, I mean? Because that editorial said Saudi and other --

MR. BOUCHER: It is something that we regularly do with other governments. I know we've done it with other governments, not only in the Middle East, but I think we've spoken in the past about approaches to the Russian Government about some things that appeared in Russia. So it's an issue we regularly take up, not only in editorials and statements, but directly with governments or newspaper editors who may be responsible for publishing these things.

QUESTION: Along these lines, have you brought up with the Saudis also funding from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, not necessarily from the government, but from charities that are operating freely? Is this something that has also been brought up, considering the peace process, Abdullah and the peace proposal?

MR. BOUCHER: The issue of funding for groups in the Middle East has been an ongoing subject of discussion with a great variety of countries. We have worked very closely with Saudi Arabia on various financing of terrorism questions, too. And so, yes, all these things get discussed from time to time, and we work on them.

QUESTION: What about specifically financing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I'm in a position to go into any particular details on this.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Terri had the first change. Terri?

QUESTION: I did. First, I'm wondering where that tone is coming from and if it's bothering our feed. No? Okay.

Second, the bodies of Barbara Green and her daughter are being flown from Pakistan, today I believe. Do you know if her husband is accompanying them? Is he still in the hospital there?

And can you give us any update also on this front -- I believe Pakistan said yesterday it's sending at least a sample of this unidentified body to the United States.

MR. BOUCHER: The bodies of Mrs. Green and her daughter, Kristin Wormsley, are aboard a US military aircraft that's flying back to the United States. Mr. Green and their son have also left on this airplane to come back to the United States. I would say that, as for the departure in Pakistan, we don't expect the arrival to be open to the press. That's the wishes of the family and we'll stick to that.

As far as the question of the other as yet unidentified body, I really don't have any kind of detail on the investigation. We tend to stay out of the details of those things, as they're ongoing. There is an investigation under way. Our Diplomatic Security team is en route to Islamabad. There are FBI assets that are already out there working with the Pakistanis. So their investigation into the bombing continues with our full support.

There are still no claims of responsibility for the attack and there have been no arrests. The investigation is working quickly to establish the facts, and we'll provide details if they become available.

QUESTION: You're saying the US not testing this sample, then, trying to match the identity?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I just said I'm not talking about the details of investigations and samples and forensics because we stay away from the details of any investigation as it goes on.

QUESTION: Okay. I thought that you meant that we weren't participating in it.

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Just you're not talking about it.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Richard, this morning Ambassador Chamberlain said that no one from the Embassy had taken up the voluntary departure program yet. Do you know if that's still the case? Obviously other than --

MR. BOUCHER: That is still the case three hours after she said it, yes. But normally, you know, unless there is a need to evacuate, to get people out right away, you know, families make their arrangements, make their reservations, make their plans, get organized for these kind of things. You don't just pick up a suitcase and walk out the door and say goodbye.

But I have to say that for security reasons I don't expect to describe numbers of departures of people. We never try to give very precise counts on how many people we have somewhere.

QUESTION: New subject, North Korea? If you can talk about the decision not to certify that they've adhered to the Agreed Framework. And they said at the White House that this was the recommendation of Secretary Powell. If you could --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I can't talk about the decision because the decision is one that belongs to the President, and the White House would talk about a decision. But I could tell you that this is a subject that Secretary Powell has looked at and that we have made a recommendation from the State Department that we waive the certifications that would be required under the law.

The first thing to remember about this is that, under that law, any time we intend to spend money in pursuit of this program, we have to either waive or certify under these three conditions of the law. So the fact that we're doing this now is an indication of our intention to go ahead with the program this year, our intention to abide by the Agreed Framework, as long as North Korea does so as well, and our intention to abide by all these understandings and agreements. That is why we're doing this now.

We have looked at the various areas of certification in the agreement, and we have found that we could not certify them. That is not the same, and we have not said that they are in violence of the Agreed Framework, nor, as I said, are we backing away from our own commitment to implement its provisions.

The goal of this process, the goal of the decisions we're making now, is to encourage North Korea to begin full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as is required under the Agreed Framework. We have made clear we are seriously interested in reopening a dialogue with the North Koreans, and we remain prepared to meet with them any time, any place, to discuss any issues they want to discuss, with no conditions.

QUESTION: Can I follow up? Can you say what the difference is between not being able to certify and saying that they are in violation? I mean, is there a --

MR. BOUCHER: If you don't have sufficient information or you have some concerns, then you may not be able to certify. We have expressed in the past, for example, our concerns that they needed to get going on this program to provide the full safeguards that will be required down the road for the reactor to be built and key elements delivered. We have felt that process should have begun already. We've made quite clear that.

So if you don't have that kind of process beginning, you may not be able, for example, to be in a position to certify full compliance. We have not in any way accused them of having violated the provisions so far.

QUESTION: When did you last certify them on this, and what has changed since that certification?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I think this has been an element of the law year by year, but the actual precise language on certification has changed in different years. Second of all, the element that I talked about, the need to get going on the full safeguards with the IAEA, is something that has developed over the course of the last year or so because their IAEA estimate was it takes three or four years to do that, and we're getting to the point in construction where that process, we believe, should be under way.

And third of all, it's always a question of information. Having sufficient information to meet a high standard of certification may mean that you would go for the waiver instead.

QUESTION: Are the North Koreans hearing about this for the first time today, or is this something that might -- that was raised between Ambassador Pritchard and the North Korean --

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's been discussed directly with them as well, to the extent it needed to be. This is a US legal requirement, and we carry it out.

QUESTION: Yes, I know, but did it come up last week in the meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know when we might have told them, but I understand we did.

QUESTION: I could be wrong -- I'm not an expert on the details -- but the inspectors are there from the IAEA to verify that the North Koreans are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, or something along those lines. So at this point, can the United States Government say that you know for certain that the North Koreans are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have sweeping judgments of that sort. The ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of -- I think it's nuclear material -- I can't remember if it's nuclear material or specific facilities -- is not the same as the kind of full-scope safeguards that will be required when this reactor is substantially completed. And therefore, this bigger package of safeguards needs to be worked on now, we think, because the experts tell us it takes a while to develop, and we want it to be able to proceed according to the -- we want it to be there when its construction schedule gets there.

QUESTION: But without the inspections, does that mean that -- I mean, you're saying you can't say that there's a violation, but can you -- I mean, cutting through all that to the big question that a lot of Americans would be concerned about, whether the North Koreans are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapons program or are they not, can you assure them now that you have enough information to know that they are sticking to the basics on that, and it's just a matter of detail?

MR. BOUCHER: As I have just said, we have not said that they have violated the Agreed Framework, but that's different than the kind of certification we were required to do.

QUESTION: Will this remain under continual review, then, until they give you enough information? Or does missing a deadline mean you don't get another chance to possibly grant the waiver until another date?

MR. BOUCHER: The requirement is that when we go forward with funding, that funds allocated pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriation Act, when they are used to ship heavy fuel oil to the North Koreans as called for in the Agreed Framework, and for the KEDO administrative expenses, that when we do that, we need to provide -- deal with these three issues of the certification or waiver.

So that's what we're doing for this year. The funds will be used to ship 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil to North Korea. That's our abiding by the obligations that we have under this agreement. That's why the first point to remember is we come to this juncture because we intend to abide by our commitments, to stick with the Agreed Framework as long as North Korea sticks to it. And it will -- as it's been a feature of our legislation every year for the last several, I wouldn't be surprised if we came to another juncture, either this year or in future years, when we had to certify in order to commit the funding.

QUESTION: But it will be another year?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure if this funding goes all at once, or tranches. So we have to do it repeatedly.

QUESTION: But it's not the Yugoslavia money, for example, where if you don't hit this deadline, it could just be that you don't fulfill certain --

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not that kind of deadline that's been set. When we decide we're ready to go ahead with the funding, then we have to do the certification to Congress 15 days in advance, or the certification or waiver. That's the way this law is written. So the fact that we're doing this now is an indication of our intention to abide by our obligations as long as North Korea does.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) 15 days?

MR. BOUCHER: We'll be able to disburse the money in 15 days.

QUESTION: Have you talked to KEDO partners, the Japanese and the South Koreans, about this?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure we have. I don't know specifically when, but I'm sure we have.

QUESTION: Would it be possible that you would advise them to delay the pouring of cement, which is supposed to take place --

MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear that we intend to abide by the Agreed Framework as long as North Korea does. This notification that we have to do to the Congress is another sign that we do intend to abide by the Agreed Framework, and we would expect others to meet their obligations as well.

QUESTION: Richard, does it make a lot of sense for KEDO to spend all kinds of money on these two reactors in the absence of North Korea living up to its end of the bargain with respect to inspections?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, you've got to differentiate between the ongoing inspections, which deal with specific issues, and the kind of full safeguards that are required for this reactor to be completed. The issue here is that the experts at the IAEA have said it takes three or four years to do the analysis, to gather data, everything else that is required for the full scope of safeguards.

Given the kind of construction that we see ongoing, we think that that has to be -- that process has to be done in parallel, those preparations with the construction, because at some point we'll get to a point where X, Y or Z piece of equipment might not be able to be delivered. But that's the crunch point, not now.

QUESTION: To go back to your answer to my question, is this question of the delay in making arrangements in inspections, is that the major issue here in deciding not to certify?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say that --

QUESTION: You've not mentioned any others.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, I have.

QUESTION: No. Lack of information. Any others?

MR. BOUCHER: Those, I would say, are the two principal ones. The certification requirements are very specifically written into the law, and so every year we look at the specifics in the law and see if that particular item can be certified. And this year, we didn't feel that they could.

QUESTION: Can we move on? On Monday, Richard --

MR. BOUCHER: We've got one or two more back there.

QUESTION: Can we talk about China for a second?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we'll go somewhere else first. One more here.

QUESTION: Just to try to clarify this a little bit, when you say that it's for lack of information, if the IAEA inspectors were allowed in, would that satisfy you? Would that enable you to certify? Is the sole issue?

MR. BOUCHER: I said --

QUESTION: And is it the fact that you're moving that much closer to the construction deadline?

MR. BOUCHER: The construction deadlines are moving forward. We think they need to get this process started with the IAEA. We've made that clear over the past year every time we've talked about this.

But, third, there has to be -- you know, it takes more information to certify on a specific issue than we had at this moment. So it was two factors, probably more. But simply put, there's two factors.

Okay, Matt is going to change topics. There's one more on that. Nick.

QUESTION: So are you saying that the mandate that these inspectors have is very limited and it should be bigger, larger? Are you talking about the so-called surprise inspections which are supposed to happen when a certain level is achieved in the --

MR. BOUCHER: The simple answer to both those questions is no and no, and if you need the full details on the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection process, I think you better check with them because I'm probably not the best person to try to explain it.

QUESTION: Richard, on Monday I asked you about threats to US interests in Bosnia. This isn't meant to be critical, but you didn't -- I mean, you said that you didn't have anything, and then if you did you would put out a notice. Well, today the Embassy has put out a notice saying it's shutting down to the public until further notice because of an "unverified" threat.

I'm just wondering what changed in the two days that you decided to take this step.

MR. BOUCHER: The unverified threat -- I'm just -- you know, they've -- they indicated in their Warden message of the 18th, Monday, that they have increased security measures because of unverified threats against the Embassy. They have done what they could. They continue to analyze the threats. They are still unverified, but they felt it was prudent to close to the general public until further notice.

I would remind you that our Worldwide Cautions, which have been out for some time and repeated recently, do say that from time to time our posts may need to close in order to review their security requirements, and that's what they're doing.

QUESTION: But you don't envision this being a long-term -- this until further notice, not necessarily weeks, right?

MR. BOUCHER: What's the normal weekend in Sarajevo? Saturday, Sunday. So, well, we'll see. We'll see how long it lasts. But it depends on them. There are people on the ground who review their particular situation, both in regard to threats and in regard to their physical security circumstances, in regard to cooperation with local governments, and they make the call on security on opening or closing.

QUESTION: And you can't give any idea of what the nature of the threat was?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't.

QUESTION: Change of subject? Colombia. Can you tell us, as the Secretary and the President leave tomorrow, where the legislation stands on budget requests on supplemental?

And also, in a House resolution that's admittedly non-binding, they suggested that the Department appoint someone, like a special envoy, on Colombia. Has there been any action on that yet?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see that recommendation. As you know, the Secretary of State's general practice has been to follow -- to handle these issues in the regional context through the assistant secretary for the region. In this case, we have an assistant secretary for the region in the person of Otto Reich, and he has been dealing with this, as well as these people who deal with counter-narcotics, Rand Beers, and others. Marc Grossman has played a very active role in coordinating this. It is a broad effort for Colombia. It's an even broader effort if you look at the Andean Regional Initiative, including the trade issues involved.

So there are a lot of people involved that comes together in the persons that the Secretary and -- and really under the guidance of Marc Grossman. So I don't think we've had any problem doing all this work.

The second -- the first part of that on where do we stand as regards to supplemental or making proposals to the Hill, I'm afraid that we're not the ones who put those forward so I'm not in a position to discuss that at this point.

QUESTION: So you're presuming that they won't be ready -- they won't be finished by tomorrow?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not.

QUESTION: It could be? Hmm.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we didn't say tomorrow. We said this week. Looking to do it this week.

QUESTION: It's the OMB who knows this, then?

MR. BOUCHER: OMB does this in the end, so they'll have to account for -- tell us when it's time to talk about it.

QUESTION: But you'll probably already -- I mean, you may already be gone, right? So you'll get some phone calls on the road what to tell Pastrana when you're down there?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure that the White House is working on it, and so I'll leave it to them for the moment.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment or reaction to the assassination of the labor reform economist in Bologna?

MR. BOUCHER: In Bologna, yes. We condemn this outrageous terrorist act. We express our sincere condolences to Mr. Biagi's family, friends and colleagues. Reports have quoted Italian officials as saying this murder bears the hallmark of the terrorist organization Red Brigades. Once again, we condemn this senseless and violent act. We will support the Italian Government's effort to combat terrorism and bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice.

QUESTION: Richard, are the Red Brigades -- I was under the impression they were considered pretty much defunct, with the exception of this assassination that they claimed two years ago, prior to this. They're no longer even listed in the Patterns of Global Terrorism Report, except for that mention of this, what happened two years ago.

MR. BOUCHER: They're discussed in the commentary. They're not listed as one of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations. But remember, the financial controls, for example, under the Patriot Acts Exclusion List, include not only the Foreign Terrorist Organizations, but others as well, and they are included on that list for the financial controls.

QUESTION: Okay, but what I was trying to get at was that -- I mean, are you at all -- by the way, they also have -- or at least they claimed someone claiming to be with the Red Brigade has claimed responsibility for this assassination. Are you guys at all concerned that we might be seeing a resurgence of this kind of activity in Italy?

MR. BOUCHER: We're always concerned about terrorist activity, and particularly friends and allies. We work very closely with them and we will continue to do that.

QUESTION: I was talking specifically of the reformation of the Red Brigade.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to speculate on that at this point. As you know, as you mentioned yourself, there was one attack a couple of years ago that was reported on in last year's terrorism report that was also attributed to factions or groups associated with the Red Brigades.

QUESTION: The Senate yesterday passed a bill to support Taiwan's application to WHO. Does the State Department have any program to assist that?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see if we've taken a position or said anything for it.

QUESTION: Well, then, Ambassador Randt in Beijing was summoned by the Foreign Minister over the weekend. Has there been any response or any communication between people about the complaints?

MR. BOUCHER: Between people? We've certainly talked to him. He was called in -- I don't have the details with me here --

QUESTION: You (inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't talk about it, did I? I would have, if they had asked, but I didn't.

Yes, he was called in over the weekend, and I think he responded. At the time, we gave our position. We are quite up-front on the meetings that we have had.

QUESTION: What was the (inaudible)?

MR. BOUCHER: It was about meetings with the Taiwan Defense Minister.

QUESTION: Richard, the Chinese don't seem to want to let this one go. They keep banging on the drum, as it were, and they have been. I mean, these meetings took place over a week ago now, or just a week ago, and they seem not to want to let it die.

What do you make of that?

MR. BOUCHER: You'll have to ask them.

QUESTION: Well, what does the US make of it?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not accepting your analysis nor going to try to comment on the commentary.

QUESTION: You're not? They've brought it up in their Foreign Ministry briefing every single day. Xinhua has been -- all the newspapers -- I mean, every day since last week. And you guys don't --

MR. BOUCHER: That's very interesting. I'll leave you to do the commentary, Matt. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Are some people here in the State Department trying to intentionally ignoring all the complaints, then?

MR. BOUCHER: We have responded. Our position was well known before this meeting. Our position is well known after this meeting. You want to ask me about it every day? I'll be glad to explain it every day. The Chinese want to ask about it every day? We'll be glad to explain it every day. But the position has not changed. These are normal contacts that we have with the people in Taiwan, and we'll continue to do that.

QUESTION: New subject, Zimbabwe. Reaction to the charging of Morgan Tsvangirai with treason? And I have a follow-up.

MR. BOUCHER: This is part of, I think, an example, the latest example, of the kind of retaliation against opposition and supporters that we're seeing under way in the aftermath of the election. War veterans, ruling party militia, farm squatters are carrying out widespread retribution against commercial farmers, their workers, polling agents and other opposition supporters.

Since March 13th, at least five opposition supporters have been killed. We condemn this campaign of violence and intimidation being carried out by the Government of Zimbabwe and its supporters in the post-election period. As Secretary Powell said in the statement on March 13th, the outcome of the fundamentally flawed March 9th to 11th election will only deepen the crisis in Zimbabwe and the suffering of the Zimbabwean people. The truth of that statement is now readily apparent.

The charges against opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, another example of this kind of repression. He was arrested today. I'm sorry, we understand he has not been formally charged with treason, but he was arrested. We're not aware of any convincing evidence to suggest that there is any basis to the allegations in this case, and we have yet to see any specifics to back up the arrest or the potential charges.

QUESTION: We've got -- with Monterrey coming up tomorrow, we've got leaders like Thabo Mbeki could meet with Bush and other people in Monterrey. What is this going to mean for ongoing relations? I know that regionally you've been looking to some of the leaders to take a real stand on this. I'm just wondering if there's going to be a message carried, or there are things they want --

MR. BOUCHER: This has been a subject of ongoing discussion with people in the region. It will continue to be. President Mbeki, President Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard made the statement on behalf of the Commonwealth yesterday, or the day before. To what extent it will be discussed in Monterrey, I don't know. I think everybody in the region realizes that this kind of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe is causing hardship to the people there, and that then spreads to neighbors as well, and that the neighbors have concerns economically and socially about the flow of refugees, for example. So it may come up in that context as part of the -- another one of the difficulties being caused, not only for the development of Zimbabwe, but for the development of others in the region.

QUESTION: Another subject. Anything new on US positions on further sanctions? I understand that the list of people facing the travel sanctions is being extended.

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I don't have anything new. We continue to review it. One possibility is broadening of travel restrictions, others like blocking of assets, formalizing an arms ban. So there are various things under consideration, nothing definitive at this point.

QUESTION: Yesterday -- wasn't the list expanded by six people yesterday? I mean, weren't six additional Mugabe aides added to the list yesterday? That's what some of us were told.

MR. BOUCHER: Frankly, I don't know.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: Will you take it?

MR. BOUCHER: I might, and then again I might not. If there is anything to say, I will say it. If there's not, I won't. I promise. Terri.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't, actually. I don't.

QUESTION: What doesn't the administration like about Mr. Hyde's proposals to reform the public diplomacy program?

MR. BOUCHER: The first thing to say, I think, is we very much support the direction, we very much support the idea of doing more public diplomacy. We are indeed doing that, and we appreciate the support that we've gotten from the Congress to move in that direction.

When it came down to analyzing this particular legislation, we found that there were various sections of the legislation that in one way or the other directed particular actions or amounts or numbers or organization charts that we felt, in fact, took away from our flexibility and took away to some extent our ability to conduct these programs, or would take away if the law was enacted.

So therefore we had to say that we very much appreciate the spirit in which the bill has been submitted. We appreciate the strong endorsement for educational and cultural programs, for more broadcasting, for making more resources available, but in terms of the specifics we were not able to support the legislation.

QUESTION: Does your objection to it matter? I mean, you sent them a letter yesterday. How does that factor in? I think they're having a hearing on it today.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, obviously the Congress decides. They asked for our views. We gave them our views. But they ultimately will decide what to do. It's their legislation, and they'll decide how to proceed.

QUESTION: Could you give us a couple examples that we would -- of the program that we already know about that would be changed under this that was causing you problems?

MR. BOUCHER: You know, there are a variety of sections of this bill. Section 106, Section 102(e), Section 102(b) -- all of these in one way or the other -- there's a Section 204 that either directs monies to be spent, directs officers to be hired, directs personnel to be used in a particular way that just really prescribe in much detail ways of doing programs or organizing the broadcasting that we feel will actually reduce the flexibility to go forward with these programs, reduce our ability to move forward, and reduce the President's ability to direct the programs of our foreign policy apparatus.

QUESTION: Do you have anything new on how Belgrade is coming along a week before its certification deadline in terms of any progress it's made or hasn't made?

MR. BOUCHER: "New" is kind of a high standard to me. The Secretary has made no decision yet with respect to certification. As we approach March 31st, we have made clear that Yugoslavia must cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal, take steps to support the Dayton Peace Accords, and take steps to implement policies respecting minority rights and rule of law, particularly with respect to the release of ethnic Albanian prisoners.

We are closely monitoring political developments in Belgrade, with particular regard to the effect they may have on Yugoslavia's cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. We remain concerned about the military's role in the arrest of an elected Deputy Prime Minister of the Serbian Government. This incident raises questions about civilian control over the military and the need for military reforms.

So basically what I'm saying is the concerns the Secretary talked about the other day, the concerns that we have talked about, and the issues that we have to certify are not yet resolved.

QUESTION: If I could follow up, how do you think the kind of domestic political situation right now is hampering kind of your efforts to get what you need to see done there, or the Yugoslav -- the Kostunica administration's ability to deliver on some of those things?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to make a commentary on internal politics in Yugoslavia. It's up to them to deal with their political situation, their political issues. What is clear is that in terms of Yugoslavia's long-term relationships and the support that the West has given to democracy in Yugoslavia, our ability to continue that support and our ability to continue the process of integrating Yugoslavia -- or Serbia and Montenegro, as it may be known someday -- into the West, into Europe, depends on the kind of cooperation that can be established with the international bodies, with the international obligations.

So this is not just a question of immediate certification; it's a question of where is Yugoslavia going in terms of its cooperation with the Tribunal and its support and respect for the kind of standards that European nations support and respect.

QUESTION: New subject. Can you say anything about reports about your revocation of a visa for a Guatemalan, I believe, intelligence official?

MR. BOUCHER: The gentleman in Guatemala. Or maybe he's not a gentleman. The visa of former Guatemalan intelligence chief Francisco Ortega Menaldo was revoked on Monday, March 18th. The revocation was made under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act related to narco-trafficking, and that's about as far as I can go into the details of the decision.

QUESTION: Well, was he in the United States at the time of the revocation, or was he in Guatemala?

MR. BOUCHER: Is he actually being kicked out? You know, I don't know. But he can't use a visa to come back.

QUESTION: Can you say what kind of a visa it was? Was it a multiple-entry business, or was it --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure I can do that. Specifics of visas are --

QUESTION: Well, if you say that he can't come back, that implies that it was a multi --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't tell you for sure that he was in or out. But were he to arrive again with that visa, it would not be valid. And normally we inform people and ask them to come in so we can cancel the visa. But I'll have to -- I'm not sure I can go into that level of detail because visa records themselves are confidential.

QUESTION: Do you have any criminal charges against this gentleman?

MR. BOUCHER: That -- I don't know of any. I would have to check on that. But he can still be found ineligible under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

QUESTION: Legal -- without any legal procedures?

MR. BOUCHER: It doesn't have to be criminal charges in the United States. If you're convicted or charge overseas, you can be found ineligible for a US visa. Remember, people don't automatically come to the United States pending the outcome of their trial.

QUESTION: On a similar area, just do you have any opinion at all on the decision by President Fox to invite Fidel Castro to the summit in Monterrey, and Castro's apparent acceptance?

MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen that. I don't have any commentary at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask, was Ambassador Ricciardone sworn in today?

QUESTION: This afternoon.

MR. BOUCHER: Don't know. I wasn't invited. No, I probably -- I think I was, but I don't remember when it was.

QUESTION: Does the State Department see reports, or can they verify information, that last week two Iranian security services targets in Iran were attacked by suicide bombers in Tehran?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know anything about it, and I'm sure we wouldn't be able to talk about it if we knew anything.

QUESTION: The Maoist rebellion in Nepal continues apace. I wondered, given your expressions of solidarity with the Nepalese Government, whether there was anything you were doing to help them that you could share with us.

MR. BOUCHER: Last year -- as you remember, last November, when the attacks started -- we said that we would consider a non-lethal assistance to the military. We have also been working with them on development assistance that is directed towards immediate, high-impact job creation programs to promote development and improve the living conditions in rural areas. So we are working with them in both those areas. I don't think I have any specific announcements to make at this point, but those are areas where we have been talking and working with them.

Once again, we would urge the Maoists to lay down their arms immediately and engage in peaceful pursuit of their aims within the democratic framework of Nepal's constitution. We take the opportunity to reiterate our support for the right of the Government of Nepal to safeguard its citizens within the framework of the constitution. And we do have two Public Announcements in effect for Nepal that deal with various aspects of the security situation.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Thank you.

(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