*EPF202 07/23/2002
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, July 23
(Iran, Iran/Afghanistan, Israel/Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Nigeria, Angola, India, Israel/India, Pakistan/India, China, UN/China, Denmark, UK, Dominican Republic, North Korea, Morocco, Zimbabwe) (7460)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
12:55 P.M. EST -- Tuesday July 23, 2002

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

IRAN
-- Relationship with Iran, its leadership and Weapons of Mass Destruction

IRAN/AFGHANISTAN
-- 6 Plus 2 arrangement

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Missile Strikes in Gaza and Prime Minister Sharon's Comments on Civilians
-- Hamas and the Climate of Violence
-- Use of U.S.-made Weapons/Arms Control Act

IRAQ
-- Attack on Hamas and Iraq

NIGERIA
-- Reports that Nigeria may leave OPEC and Assistant Secretary Kansteiner

ANGOLA
-- Assistant Secretary Kasteiner's Visit

INDIA
-- Secretary's Trip to the region and the sale of Arrow missiles

INDIA/ISREAL
-- Missile Technology Control Regime and the sale of U.S. missiles

INDIA/PAKISTAN
-- Stability in the region and Missile Technology Control Regime deals

CHINA
-- Sale of missiles and missile systems

UNITED NATIONS/CHINA
-- Family Planning Budget and the United Nations Populations Fund

DENMARK
-- Missile Defense Negotiations

UNITED KINGDOM
-- Statements by the Anglican Church on U.S. Policies /Kashmir and Middle East

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
-- Secretary Powell's visit with President Mejia

NORTH KOREA
-- Representation at the ASEAN Conference in Brunei

MOROCCO
-- Western Sahara UN Resolution

ZIMBABWE
-- President Mugabe/EU Sanctions/Treatment of Journalist


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

12:55 P.M. EDT -- TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here. I don't have any statements or announcements today, so I'd be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: Well, the White House has spoken about the U.S. relationship, or lack of relationship, with Iran. But there are a couple of things I wanted to ask you. First, is there any benefit -- has there been any dividend from pursuing the reformists in Iran, if you could enumerate for us?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure I would describe anything we do as "pursuing the reformists in Iran."

QUESTION: Well, trying to get a dialogue.

MR. BOUCHER: Our policy, I think, has been very clear. First of all, we're very concerned about disturbing and destructive behaviors that Iran has undertaken, the policies and actions that they've undertaken in support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, the policies that they've undertaken to support groups that are violently opposed to Israel, as well as terrorist groups that are operating outside the Levant.

Second of all, we've been concerned about their development of weapons of mass destruction, and this has been an effort that we've had underway around the world with potential suppliers to make sure that they adhere to all possible guidelines and prevent Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction.

Third, we've been asking, calling on the Iranian leaders to act like elected leaders now that there's some democracy in Iran, and respond to the will of the people for political and economic freedom, not support terrorism and not pursue weapons of mass destruction. By the same token, though, we've found opportunities, when it's been in our interest to do so, to engage with the Iranian Government on issues that are important to us, such as counter-narcotics cooperation, refugee assistance -- you remember when people were being pushed out of Afghanistan by the Taliban, and we were able to get some U.S. grain in there -- and just overall in the international effort to bring peace and stability into Afghanistan. We found opportunities in Bonn and opportunities since then to cooperate with Iran so that all the parties, all the neighbors of Afghanistan were in fact helping the parties' work together and not pulling them apart. And that's an effort that's been in our interest and we'll continue to pursue as long as it is in our interest.

But the President made very, very clear in his statement on July 12th that an Iran seeks to promote tolerance, that moves toward freedom, an Iran that moves away from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will find no better friend than the United States. That remains fundamentally what our policy is.

QUESTION: It sounds like that kind of approach would fit whether there's truly a reformist element or not. I mean, it's an approach to a government whose policies basically you don't like, but occasionally you find some areas of cooperation.

I wondered, though, if there's still a view, as there was strongly in the Clinton-Albright Administration, that there is a genuine reformist element in Tehran, even if -- well, it may not be affecting policy very much.

MR. BOUCHER: There has been I think what we've all seen, a tremendous internal debate inside Iran. There have been some elections. There have been reformers and people like that elected to various offices.

All of this is part of a movement that we see based on the Iranian people's desire for more freedom, more accountability from their government. That is certainly something that we follow with great interest. Ultimately it's a matter for the Iranian people to decide. They need -- that's what this is all about. They need to be able to have control over their own destiny.

QUESTION: Two quick ones. Do you believe that Khatami -- I don't know if you've answered this before I came in -- but do you believe that Khatami himself is a reformer? And I don't know if you mentioned U.S. cooperation with Iran vis-?vis Iraq, and particularly an organization that is harbored there called Siri.

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't mention that. I don't know if I've ever mentioned that.

QUESTION: Oh, I think you have.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we may have. If there is -- is this in our terrorism report? Is this a group in our terrorism report?

QUESTION: No, no. It's not in the terrorism report. I think you mentioned it in terms of -- I know that Syria has participated in the Group of Four discussions in London that the U.S. has participated in, and I was wondering if you would talk a little bit about -- Iran and Iraq have been regional rivals now for a while --

MR. BOUCHER: I can't really at this point. I think our issues with Iran, the primary ones are the ones that I mentioned, the ones the President's mentioned: Iran's support for terrorism, Iran's support -- opposition to any peaceful process of achieving peace in the Middle East, Iran's development of weapons of mass destruction, the human rights situation inside Iran. But the overall goal is to see the Iranian people be able to realize the freedoms that they aspire to and to see them be able to take control of their own destiny. That's the goal that we seek, and we follow developments in Iran in that way with interest.

At the same time, we -- speaking clearly on this, and the President has spoken as clearly as possible on this, when there's an opportunity to do so, we don't hesitate to pursue things that are in our interest.

QUESTION: But could I just follow up --

QUESTION: -- on the Khatami --

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.

MR. BOUCHER: Once again, I think our emphasis is on seeing that there is this movement among the Iranian people for greater freedom and we think that Iran's leaders, whatever faction, group, or origin they come from -- that need to respond to that and allow greater freedom among the people.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? Because in previous formulations of this, people in the administration, including on several occasions the President himself, have portrayed this internal conflict as one between reformists and people who are obstructing the will of the people. When the President and you came out supporting the demonstrators, it was noticeable that Khatami opposed the demonstrations. So do we now have three -- are you now thinking of this in terms of three groups and you favor the demonstrators? Is that how we should see it? Or --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I've tried to characterize it that way. I don't think the President's statement characterized it that way. The bottom line for us is what happens. It's how does Iran act? Does Iran support terrorism? Does Iran support weapons of mass destruction and try to develop them? Does Iran oppose peace in the Middle East? Does Iran respond to the wishes of its people and develop more democracy? It's not a matter of choosing individuals or factions or groups or segments or some kind of, you know, analysis like that. It's a matter of saying "Let's look at what happens. Let's look at what goes on inside Iran and what Iran's behavior is." And that's the basis on which we'll decide. Where we find areas where we can cooperate, we will. Where we find areas where their actions are inimicable to our interests and the interests of others in the region, we will oppose that.

QUESTION: But you can't say whether the U.S. used Khatami as a force for change in the right direction or just, you know, in bed with the hardliners?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to do internal political analysis. I think you've all seen the debate. You all know that people line up on different sides of these issues. But as I said, it's not a matter of picking favorites for us. It's a matter of looking at Iran's behavior and calling it the way we see it. That's what the President's done repeatedly and that's what we've done.

QUESTION: How about some internal political analysis here? Was the State Department surprised by the President's statement, as was reported in a newspaper this morning?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the -- can you tell us -- I don't know if you know this off the top of your head, but other than the Six Plus Two in Afghanistan, what other kind of non-global, regional, or groupings do you participate with the Iranians in?

MR. BOUCHER: The -- I frankly don't know how much they exist anymore now that the Taliban has gone, but Iran participated, I think, in some of the things like the Geneva Group, which were outsiders and groups from inside Afghanistan who are now back in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Who are non-Afghan.

MR. BOUCHER: Non-Afghan groups where we cooperate. We've done, in the past, we've had anti-narcotics cooperation, although much of that took place in the Six Plus Two, as well. That's, I think, one of the areas that I would cite where we found opportunities, interests -- in our interest to cooperate.

QUESTION: And can you just say -- are there any plans right now to either expand or contract your -- engage these kinds of contacts, I guess, which have been contracting naturally since Afghanistan?

MR. BOUCHER: Some of the specific activities have changed since refugees have gone back or since the situation in Afghanistan has changed. We're no longer negotiating the political future of Afghanistan. At the same time, I think, where the opportunity arises and it's in our interests, we won't hesitate to engage in those contacts, whether it's on bringing stability to Afghanistan, controlling narcotics flow in this region or any other area that we find of importance to us.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know I could cite that as something we've specifically discussed or not discussed with them.

Warren.

QUESTION: Change of subject, the Middle East? Has the Secretary talked to Prime Minister Sharon about the missile strike in Gaza? And in the State Department's view, is this an act of self-defense in terms of the use of American weapons?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me say a couple things. First, we very deeply regret the loss of life of innocent civilians, including the children who were hurt and killed in last night's Israeli action. As the White House said earlier today, President Bush believes that the heavy-handed action in Gaza last night, carried out in a residential area and resulting in civilian casualties, does not contribute to peace. We have conveyed this view to the Israeli Government through our Embassy, through our Ambassador in Israel. And I think it's been stated quite clearly, both here and at the White House.

QUESTION: How about the use of American weapons?

MR. BOUCHER: As you know, the Arms Export Control Act requires us to do a report if we believe that U.S. weaponry was not used -- or if there's a substantial violation of the terms of an agreement governing the use of U.S.-origin defense articles; that is, if they're not being used for legitimate self-defense or internal security. As we've said before, we've not made such a report regarding Israel's actions.

QUESTION: Can we confer from that that you believe that the strike, then, was in legitimate self-defense?

MR. BOUCHER: As I say, we've not made such a report.

QUESTION: You haven't made such a report, but is there discussion about preparing to do so?

MR. BOUCHER: All we've ever really answered in response to these questions is to note that we have not made such a report, and should we do so we'll tell you. At this point we haven't.

QUESTION: You will?

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is there a review event by event of whether this meets --

MR. BOUCHER: It's an ongoing issue that gets raised from time to time about the use of U.S. weaponry.

QUESTION: Well, was it raised --

MR. BOUCHER: If there are specific events or allegations or circumstances that lead people to look more closely, they will. But I've made quite clear, I think, what our view is of this action. It fits -- as we've said before, we've made repeatedly clear that we oppose targeted killings. We have repeatedly criticized the use of heavy weaponry in densely populated areas because of these kind of dangers of large numbers of innocent civilians being killed.

QUESTION: But you touched on it when you say it doesn't -- or you reminded us that the White House says this doesn't contribute to peace. But the attack was almost coincident with four or five, some folks would say, positive developments. Hamas, for instance, had said it considered calling off attacks if Israel pulled out. Peres is speaking of pulling out of Hebron and I forgot where else.

Is it the State Department's judgment that this will have a negative impact on such gestures and maybe cause a reversal?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think you can make that kind of sweeping judgment at this point. Certainly we continue to believe that it's important to move forward on all three tracks on the area of security, on the area of economic and humanitarian assistance, and on the political track as well.

We had good, productive and useful discussions with an Israeli team that came yesterday to talk to Secretary Powell and other officials, including Condi Rice. We have reviewed progress with them on the discussions that the Quartet and the Arab foreign ministers had last week, and we talked about how to advance on all these different areas.

So we continue the work to establish a situation which will be safe and secure for Palestinians and Israelis alike, where economic development and humanitarian assistance can go through, and where all the people in the region can have a prospect of a political settlement.

QUESTION: It's a little early to ask, but more specifically have you heard anything from Palestinians or whoever that this will have an impact on peacemaking?

MR. BOUCHER: I have not. No, not that I've heard of -- not that I know that we've heard anything particular on that at this point.

Ben.

QUESTION: Two questions. First of all, do you believe that Hamas has some responsibility for this event by, you know, sending out suicide bombers into Israel and then essentially hiding within populated areas? Do you believe that they have some responsibility for this?

MR. BOUCHER: We certainly believe that Hamas has a lot of responsibility for the violence and the overall climate of violence that's been created by the terrorist attacks that they have carried out. There's no question in our minds that Hamas is responsible for many of these attacks. They have claimed -- admitted responsibility to many of them. They have killed many innocents.

It's important, though, I think, to remember that we all need to respond to these attacks in a way that gets at the problem, and that does contribute to ending the violence and not in a way that, as the President's -- as the White House has made clear doesn't really contribute to peace.

QUESTION: And let me just follow up on that. Regardless of the fact that you feel that Hamas has a lot of responsibility for violence, do you believe that the Israeli attack is going to end up damaging Israel's international reputation and going to encourage criticism by critics in Europe and the United Nations and around the world?

MR. BOUCHER: That's a prediction that you can make; you don't need me to make it. I'm not -- the basis for our policy is what we believe is in the best interest of Israel, and what's in the best interest of the cause of peace, and that's why we're saying this.

Howard.

QUESTION: I have this question of the use of U.S. weapons. I'm not clear; maybe you can explain it. What is it exactly that triggers a review? Is it just the random inclination of the State Department that they feel something should be looked into? Is there a requirement that you review things after a certain time? I mean, there's been extended Israeli use of American military hardware over the past few months in a lot of these incursions. At what point is there a critical mass at which you feel it's necessary to review?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the only thing I can really say it's an object of constant attention. It's an object of ongoing review, that because it is a legal responsibility that we have that we take seriously, we do look at these events as they unfold, and should we determine that the terms and conditions of sale, that the terms and conditions of the act have been exceeded, then we would make the report.

But it is -- there's not a regular period. There's not a regular report. There's a not a particular timetable for this. It's something that we have to keep in mind because it's part of our legal responsibility.

QUESTION: So the discussion rests with the State Department to decide whether or not it needs to look at the question?

MR. BOUCHER: The responsibility rests with the State Department to carry out this law, and we do that diligently every day.

QUESTION: Can I give it another try? (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Then let's go to him. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, you have a U.S. (inaudible) plane hitting a civilian neighborhood, killing a lot of children. How many of number of Palestinian children has to die -- 25, 30, more, less -- for this to trigger a law or a review?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I mean, that's absolutely not the case. We've been quite clear on these kind of events. We've been quite clear our opposition to the use of this kind of force in heavily populated areas. We've been quite concerned about the loss of civilian life, especially children. I think the United States position on this has been stated quite clearly.

As far as the legal aspects of this, it's governed by a U.S. law, it's governed by a U.S. law that we take seriously, that we implement.

QUESTION: But to what extent -- I'm sorry, just a quick follow-up -- to what extent the political, domestic considerations (inaudible) in the arms of the law in this case?

MR. BOUCHER: The law is the law, and we implement it fairly.

QUESTION: Richard, I don't think I'm alone in seeing a pattern here; this has happened before, when -- for example, when Hamas has indicated it might be willing to stop bombings when things seem to be moving ahead. Then we see Israelis attacking, assassinating people in Gaza.

Do you see a pattern here, and does this lead you to any conclusions about the good will of Prime Minister Sharon?

MR. BOUCHER: If you want to ask if there's a pattern, ask the Israelis the reasons for their actions. We certainly follow these events closely. We express our concerns and our views when it's appropriate. But I don't have any broad judgments to make.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on slightly a different matter? You spoke about the talks with the Israelis yesterday. Did that meeting lead to any conclusions about U.S. security plan, and is there any progress on how you might present that to the Palestinian side?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, these talks covered a number of areas, and as I said, they covered security; they talked about the humanitarian situation, economics, a need for access and opening up; they covered how to make progress on the political track. We found our discussions with the Israelis to be useful and productive, and we expect to have similar discussions with working-level Palestinian officials as we move forward. But no, I don't have anything scheduled at this point.

QUESTION: Assuming --

MR. BOUCHER: Let's go down here a second.

QUESTION: I want to go back to the arms control act for just one second. Is it, and I just want to get -- it's just a wording question. Is there not -- is it not the case that you would conduct a review and then issue a report if such a review found that they were not using the weapons for self-defense? Because you keep saying that you only do a review -- I mean, that -- the review would be the end of determining whether, you would have determined that they had done something, had violated the law if a review was produced. So I'm just -- that's the way you were using it before.

MR. BOUCHER: No, we -- the arms -- let me try to do this more precisely. The Arms Export Control Act requires that U.S. Government-origin weaponry only be used for certain agreed purposes, primarily legitimate self-defense and/or internal security. The act requires that the Department of State submit a report to Congress if a substantial violation of the terms of an agreement governing the use of U.S. origin defense articles may have occurred. We have not made such a report regarding Israel's actions since the current violence began.

As I said, the issue of review -- the issue of ongoing attention is watching the situation, following it closely to see if a substantial violation of the terms of an agreement may have occurred. If we determine that that's the case, then yes, we make a report to the Congress.

QUESTION: Okay. So what you're saying is that there has never been yet a case in which you have had suspicions, or that you have thought that a violation may have occurred, including this case last night?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I said there's never been a review. I said there's been an ongoing review. It's a subject we look at. There hasn't been a report.

QUESTION: Okay, there hasn't been a report.

MR. BOUCHER: Hasn't been a report since the current violence began. And "never" is a long time, but since the current violence now.

QUESTION: But, just, I'm just trying to get this right, because the way you read the law says that you have to Congress if there may have -- if a violation may have occurred. Not that there has been. And you're saying that you've never put one of these things to Congress before, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Not since the current violence began.

QUESTION: Okay. And, well, okay -- so this case -- and this case is no exception?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point that fact remains true today.

QUESTION: I've been monitoring the response from the Middle East for the White House statement. Many observers find that the use of the word "heavy-handedness" rather weak to condemn such an attack that has happened in the middle of the night using a rocket indiscriminately in a populated area in comparison with other condemnation for similar attacks on civilians in Israel. Would you understand the concern of observers, who see that the House is not being even-handed in their condemnation?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the administration in this case has spoken quite clearly. We have made quite clear that we think this, as you say, this attack was heavy-handed. This was an attack that killed many innocent people -- a number of civilian casualties, it was carried out in a residential area. And it doesn't contribute in any way to the cause of peace, and I think that's a position that we've taken that we've made quite clear. I suppose everybody -- you know, we say what we think clearly. I suppose everyone listens with different ears, but I think we've tried to be as explicit as possible in this situation.

Betsy?

QUESTION: Does an attack like this make it more difficult for this administration to try and sell to our allies overseas the concept of going after Iraq? Doesn't this complicate that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite know how to deal with that. That's putting so many things and assumptions in. The need to deal with Iraq is because Iraq is a threat to the region. Iraq is a threat to its own people, the Iraqi regime. Iraq is a threat to the region. The fact that there's violence in one place doesn't make it any more or less important to stop the violence or deal with a problem developing in another place. We have made clear, the President's made quite clear, that Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, its threats to its own people and its neighbors constitute a danger that we have to deal with. We have pressed very hard for inspectors to go back to Iraq. We have pressed very hard for Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. And we've had to consider what other options might be available.

As you know, the President's not decided on any particular options. So the assumption that we're selling something to allies about how to go after Iraq is a little too far down the road as far as where we really are. The assumption that this attack by Israel undercuts that, I think, is also throwing things together. The fact is that Iraq is a danger to the people of Iraq and the region. One way or the other, the international community has to come to grips with that fact and figure out what to do about it.

QUESTION: Well, can I try and shift my question then? Because the -- using not just this attack, but the situation that exists in general between Israelis and the Palestinians and the unsettling effect that this has on the whole region -- I mean, that fact alone must make it difficult for U.S. diplomats to go in and talk to our allies.

MR. BOUCHER: We have spoken before about the fact that people in the region do follow events throughout the region, as they should. We have bilateral relationships. We have regional relationships. We have cooperation against threats to the region, like Iraq. We have cooperation with many of the states in the region in the cause of peace, and peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and more generally in the region.

So each of these relationships that we have is formed of any number of elements. Yes, people pay a lot of attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issues, the fact that there's violence in these areas, and progress or lack thereof towards peace is -- does affect our relationships. But it's one of many factors. And as I said, you can't deal with one to the exclusion of the other. Both are problems. Both are issues. If there are more than one issue in the region, you have to be able to deal with them all, whether they're bilateral issues or terrorism generally, getting at the problem of terrorism, or specifics like the Israelis-Palestinians and Iraq.

Okay, Jonathan.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Nigeria. Has the United States been in contact with the Nigerian Government on the question of Nigeria possibly leaving OPEC?

MR. BOUCHER: News to me. I'll have to check.

QUESTION: Oh, I thought you had something to say on the subject. I was misled.

MR. BOUCHER: No. Well, you probably were, but that happens a lot around here -- not in this room, but elsewhere.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Do you have any views on the subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Not right now. No, thanks.

QUESTION: Quick, quick.

MR. BOUCHER: Quick, quick. Yeah, almost lost it there, huh? No, I'm sorry, I don't have anything on that. I'll look into it.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject again?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: Well, can I get his follow-up (inaudible) couple weeks ago.

QUESTION: How can you follow up on nothing?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can you say whether the question of Nigeria (inaudible) supplies is something that Mr. Kansteiner will be discussing during his visit there this week?

MR. BOUCHER: Don't know. Have to check. He's in Angola right now.

QUESTION: I know. Well --

QUESTION: And Angolan (inaudible) supplies, too?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll check on that, too.

QUESTION: Is it -- well, how about this, then? Let's try --

MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Kansteiner --

QUESTION: Mr. Kansteiner. Isn't Mr. Kansteiner perhaps more concerned about the horrible drought and famine that's affecting Angola right now?

MR. BOUCHER: He is. I mean, that's one of the issues that he's talking about out there and working on the drought. But we're also working on all the regional issues that we have. We talked the other day about demobilization in Angola. That's an important issue for him to deal with.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject? There's another report in the Post today about India, and it raised an issue that I believe is not a new one at all. It came up, I think, last year maybe. This is the Arrow sales from Israel. And as I recall at the time that this first came up, the move from the U.S. was to try and get Israel not to sell. And it appeared from the story today that that's shifted somewhat to try and get India not to buy.

First, is this going to be coming up, this issue, when the Secretary is in Delhi? And two -- well, first, is the story correct, second of all, in terms of what I just said? And then is it going to come up?

MR. BOUCHER: In terms of what you just said, I wouldn't describe the issue that way. The issue is an Israeli request, Israeli interest, in transferring the Arrow missile to India. That's a request that we're reviewing now based on its merits. We look at it in accordance with U.S. laws, regulations and policy, and our international commitments, including the Missile Technology Control Regime.

We have been in contact with the Government of Israel regarding this request. We have discussed with them some of the issues that arise in our consideration of the request. I think we're all concerned about stability in South Asia. We're all concerned -- emphasize the importance of the Missile Technology Control Regime. So these are issues that we've been discussing with the Israeli Government. At this point we have not given a definitive answer to the Israeli request, but we consider to -- we continue to discuss the issue in Washington.

As far as the Secretary's trip to India, he'll be out there. He'll discuss, I am sure, a very wide range of global, regional and bilateral issues with his Indian hosts. I don't know if this would arise or not.

QUESTION: Because you said that it's been brought up with Israel several times. Has it been brought up with the Indians that you're aware of?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't really know, frankly.

QUESTION: Is the review triggered by the fact that U.S. equipment or U.S. technology is involved, or is it the general situation, or both, or what?

MR. BOUCHER: It's U.S. technology. Anything built with U.S. technology or cooperation, we have a say-so over further sale.

QUESTION: And you know, I should know this I guess, but when you referred to self-defense before, if weapons like this help India defend itself, would that be a point in the yes column, or does defense only go to --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I referred to self-defense and --

QUESTION: I know.

MR. BOUCHER: -- except in the other context.

QUESTION: You were talking about using American weapons for self-defense.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. No, the issues -- there are certain arms transfer issues under the Arms Export Control Act. The issues are also Missile Technology Control Regime, which is a more detailed set of international commitments that apply to missiles.

QUESTION: Can I go back --

QUESTION: Wait a minute. One last thing on this. When this came up before, tensions were higher, I think it's fair to say, between India and Pakistan than they are today, so it almost seemed like a given that the administration wasn't going to approve a deal to strengthen India at that point.

Is the situation between India and Pakistan a factor here anymore?

MR. BOUCHER: Stability in the region as a whole is a factor. These decisions, because they do involve long-term changes and introduction of weapons systems, have to be made with a larger perspective than this week's events or last week's events. Second of all, they have to made with regard to the international commitments that we have under the Missile Technology Control Regime, which is also based on a general approach that says the proliferation of certain kinds of missiles of certain classes is not generally in our interest, and people shouldn't sell them.

QUESTION: All right, I could pursue it, but I'll let it go.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow on Barry's question, though? The United States -- this administration believes strongly that missile defense is a good thing; you're embarking on building a huge missile defense regime. You're invoking or trying to get allies to help with that. How come missile defense is good in this situation, but it's not good if the Indians wanted it?

MR. BOUCHER: The Missile Technology Control Regime deals with the technical capabilities of missiles. And it's designed to prevent the expansion of a number of people and countries in the world who can build missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction and have certain ranges.

QUESTION: But this is missile defense --

MR. BOUCHER: It's -- if you can build a missile for defense, you can build it for offense. It's a technical issue regarding the missiles, and certain classes of missiles are covered.

QUESTION: The Chinese argued that the Bush Administration (inaudible) -- you said --

MR. BOUCHER: It's a difference between the missile itself and the system. I mean, you still have to design the rest of the system.

QUESTION: This consistency is a fruitless chase, but if you want to narrow it to missiles, fine. I mean, the United States --

MR. BOUCHER: Consistency is the soul of wit.

QUESTION: The spokesman of whenever, 20 years ago, came out here and -- well, after first denying it was true, and then finally acknowledged that the United States was providing Saudi Arabia with AWACs radar planes, which was totally unprecedented. There was no such airplane in an Arab or in an Israeli force, and the answer was because we're promoting stability in the region.

Now, if India is a democracy that you want to support, why wouldn't this be something you would look on favorably, unless you have some reason to believe it would be used against Pakistan?

MR. BOUCHER: As I've said, Barry, we're currently reviewing all the issues involved. We have to look at the merits of the sale. We have to look at U.S. laws and regulation. We have to look at the international commitments, like the Missile Technology Control Regime. We've discussed some of the issues that arrived in this consideration with the Israelis, because it is their request that we're considering. And that's where we stand right now. I can't -- until we have a definitive answer yes or no, I can't give you all the arguments one way or the other. They're still being discussed. They're still being considered. The law's being considered, commitments are being considered, and the issues are being considered. Okay.

Teri.

QUESTION: Change of subject. Has there been any reaction yet coming in here from the decision on the family planning money yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: Any reaction?

QUESTION: Yeah, from other countries. Concern about the money, displeasure with the decision?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't really do a complete check. We certainly -- we've notified the UN Population Fund. We've discussed the issue, I think, in public. I'm not really sure if we've had inquiries from other governments at this point. We provided all the material to our embassies for anybody who might have questions. Our Assistant Secretary duly discussed it with the Chinese Embassy here so that they would understand the decision. So we're making people aware of the decision we made and why we made it.

QUESTION: Did you find out when you told the UNFPA you were going to take away their $34 million dollars?

MR. BOUCHER: Shortly before our announcement.

QUESTION: That must have been very shortly before.

MR. BOUCHER: Shortly.

QUESTION: And the Chinese the same? Or was that afterwards?

MR. BOUCHER: Frankly, not exactly sure of the timing. It was yesterday, but I'm not exactly sure when.

Ben?

QUESTION: There were talks in Denmark on missile defense and I'm wondering what -- you know, if you can tell us anything about these talks?

MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't aware of them. Were they my people or Defense Department people?

QUESTION: I'm not sure.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not sure either. We'll see.

Okay, Joel.

QUESTION: Any statements concerning the new leader of the Anglican Church in England with respect to U.S. policies concerning Kashmir and also the Middle East? He seems to be negative against them --

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the Gaza thing for just a minute?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: This administration has been very supportive of Prime Minister Sharon. The President has met with him six or seven times. The administration agrees with his policies on security first, a new Palestinian leadership. You're not suggesting by your criticism of this act that there's any sort of broader change of policy towards the Sharon government or reviewing policy?

MR. BOUCHER: Fundamentally, the United States and Israel have a long relationship based on our support for Israel and its security and its democracy. The President has made clear in all his statements that Israel has obligations too, that all the parties have obligations. As we look for Palestinian reforms, we look for Palestinians to take responsibility for security by reforming their security services. We also look to Israel to take reciprocal steps, like easing the closures, handing over tax revenue, facilitating movement of humanitarian goods and services. These things remain part of the equation.

The President has made clear again and again all parties have responsibilities, and we look to all parties to carry out their responsibility to create an environment where we can move forward, where we can move forward to achieve real security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I think the statements we're making today about these actions fit within that context.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Change of subject? I believe the Secretary has had a visitor from the Dominican Republic today. Do you have a readout?

MR. BOUCHER: He had a good discussion this morning with President Mejia of the Dominican Republic. I'm glad to hit some of the topics that they discussed, first to note that Secretary Powell thanked President Mejia for his country's cooperation on a whole variety of issues, including law enforcement, regional security issues pertaining to the Dominican Republic's relations with Haiti.

They also spent some time discussing Dominican Republic's democracy and ways to strengthen the rule of law, ways to strengthen economic opportunity for the people of the Dominican Republic. They looked at how to improve the trade and investment climate, steps that both sides can try to take to open up opportunity to economic prosperity.

Elaine.

QUESTION: Now that we know that the North Koreans are coming to Brunei, can I just waste my breath --

MR. BOUCHER: You do?

QUESTION: -- on asking you if the Secretary's going to see them?

MR. BOUCHER: What do we know? We've seen press reports. That's, to us, a little different than knowing. We have no independent information. North Korean representation, of course, at the meeting is for the North Koreans to decide. They are invited to the meeting and we would hope they'd play a constructive role at the meeting. And as far as any further questions, I'd just say there's been no discussion, no discussion of a meeting with the North Koreans at this point.

QUESTION: Can you say if any other confirmed bilats will take place?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. We're sort of putting together lists and discussing various meetings that the Secretary might have out there. As you know, he'll be making a number of stops in the region so he will be seeing a number of his counterparts in their own capitals.

Okay, Matt.

QUESTION: Quite far afield here. The Secretary was engaged over the weekend, and even late last week, in a rather intense mediation between the Spanish and the Moroccans. I'm wondering if in his conversations with the Moroccans the subject of Western Sahara ever came up in terms of if Morocco goes with -- if Morocco would agree to this, to what the Secretary proposed to the dispute, that you would be going ahead with your Western Sahara UN resolution, which you went ahead with yesterday. Is there any connection there?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check if that was discussed in these 30-some phone calls that he made on the subject. I think it was --

QUESTION: It was 30.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we had -- I had 33, 37, and then I counted a few more after people gave me the numbers. So somewhere about 35 or 40 phone calls he made. Somebody added it up. It was five to six hours of conversations on this particular subject. Most of it was very much focused on what the two countries could do, the Spanish and the Moroccans could do, in order to try to resolve this particular issue and get into a dialogue to look at the other issues that they have to discuss.

Whether sometime in that period the issue of Western Sahara came up, I'll just have to check and see.

QUESTION: Well, can you tell us a little about your resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: Not at this moment, but I'll be glad to look.

Okay, last one maybe?

QUESTION: Zimbabwe's leader, Mugabe, is saying he's now being bullied ever since the election. I guess it's been about a month or two since the election in Zimbabwe. What's your reaction to his statement?

MR. BOUCHER: I hadn't seen the statement about being bullied, but he's got 12 journalists on trial in Zimbabwe, so I tend to think that maybe the action is going in another direction.

QUESTION: The European Union, I believe, has imposed some new sanctions on Mugabe and his retinue.

MR. BOUCHER: They have --

QUESTION: Is the United States following suit on this? Do you have any similar --

MR. BOUCHER: They imposed travel and assets sanctions on another 52 individuals yesterday. We instituted our similar sanctions suspending entry into the United States of senior Zimbabwe Government officials in February. And so the expansion that the EU just undertook is something we'll look at and we'll see if we add to ours as well.

QUESTION: So how many -- they have 52 and you have --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not quite sure of the number on our list at this point, but --

QUESTION: But they've gone beyond you?

MR. BOUCHER: I think so, yeah. So we'll look at what they --

QUESTION: So you'll look at it?

MR. BOUCHER: We'll look at what they did and see if we want to add to ours.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:40 p.m.)

(end State Department transcript)

(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