*EPF102 01/06/2003
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, January 6
(Trilateral Coordination And Oversight Committee (TCOG), North Korea, South Korea, Iraq, Israel/Palestinians, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba) (9980)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the State Department transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, January 6, 2003
12:50 p.m. EST

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

TRILATERAL COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (TCOG)
-- Status, Schedule, and Overview

NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA
-- North Korean Requests for Non-Aggression Pact
-- Compliance With International Atomic Energy Agency Inspections
-- International Atomic Energy Agency Board Statement
-- Violation of 1994 Agreements
-- U.S Non-Proliferation Interests and South Korea
-- Potential Involvement of U.N. Security Council
-- Channels of Communication With North Korea
-- U.S. Food Aid to North Korea, Monitoring and Verification
-- North Korean Energy Imports, Conventional Forces

IRAQ
-- Accusations of Inspectors Engaging in Intelligence Gathering
-- Status of Inspections and Meeting With Inspectors
-- Planned Visit of Turkish Officials to Iraq
-- Reports of U.S. Requests for Canadian Assistance
-- Potential Exile of Saddam
-- Oil Supplies

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Weekend Twin Bombings in Israel and Condolences
-- Palestinian Participation in London Meetings on Reform
-- Aid Requests and Talks
-- Roadmap
-- Effect of Weekend Twin Bombings on Israeli Elections

VENEZUELA
-- Violence and Organization of American States Efforts at Resolution

MEXICO
-- U.S.-Mexico Immigration Reform/Bi-National Commission

CUBA
-- Meeting With Opposition Leader Oswaldo Paya

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

MONDAY JANUARY 6, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:50 p.m. EST

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

QUESTION: Maybe you could start us off on the talks by telling us who meets who when and --

MR. BOUCHER: Everybody meets everybody else. Do you have a particular portion of the world you'd like to talk about?

QUESTION: I pass. Let someone else ask.

QUESTION: He's talking about the TCOG. Can you give us -- how does --

QUESTION: I'm trying to ask when do the Koreans come in, who do they see, when do the Japanese come in, is there a trilateral meeting, does it wind up tomorrow, will there be a statement? I don't know what you're attempting -- what you're hoping to accomplish.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, let's just start out on that instead of talks generally.

QUESTION: Well --

MR. BOUCHER: The Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group meetings begin this afternoon with a series of bilateral discussions. The participants will meet with each other this afternoon. I can't remember if we're seeing the Japanese first or the South Koreans first, but that will be held during the course of the afternoon. And then the plenary meeting, meaning all the three nations together, will be tomorrow morning.

As we've said before, Assistant Secretary James Kelly, our Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, is leading the U.S. delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Lee is heading the South Korean delegation, and Director General Yabunaka is heading the Japanese delegation.

The three delegations are here to discuss further coordination of our policies in response to recent North Korean nuclear developments and other issues. We'll, of course, be listening and carefully considering whatever our allies have to say about the next steps and working with them together on how to move forward towards what we hope would be a peaceful resolution of these problems on the peninsula.

Now, does that kind of cover the -- I mean, that's not the details of exactly -- I can't tell you who's meeting at 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock, but generally that's the answer, this afternoon.

QUESTION: Can I ask a weedy organizational question? Is there --

QUESTION: Weedy?

QUESTION: Weedy. Weedy. Getting into the weeds. Is there no three-way at all, even informal, kind of like -- today?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, that's my understanding. There's no three-way today.

QUESTION: No, not even like an informal reception or anything like that? Nothing? Because I understood that there was. Anyway, maybe there isn't.

MR. BOUCHER: I will check if there's anything informal, any kind of social activity that might involve all the delegations. But in terms of formal meetings, it's bilateral today and then trilateral tomorrow.

QUESTION: Well, what do you think of this proposal that the United States give security assurances to North Korea short of a non-aggression pact?

MR. BOUCHER: There have been a lot of press reporting on this, that, or the other proposals that may or may not be made. I think at this point, it's important for us to talk to our allies. As I said, we look forward to listening to them and talking about how we can proceed in next steps.

All of us share the goal of peaceful resolution of the problems created by North Korea's nuclear programs on the peninsula and the steps that North Korea has taken recently. So we will be discussing together how to move forward and whatever ideas people want to bring to the table will get careful discussion and consideration.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Richard, is the US bringing ideas to the table?

MR. BOUCHER: We always have issues that we want to address, yeah.

QUESTION: On the issue of North Korea and coming into compliance again with IAEA --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, certainly we are bringing the ideas that we've expressed publicly, which is that the issue is not non-aggression. The issue is compliance. It's verifiable and visible and prompt dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear enrichment program. That has been our position all along. Others -- I think you've noted at the South Korean statements last week. Others have said that, too, in their view, is where it all starts. And we will be looking at how to push for that and how to try to obtain North Korean compliance with those requirements.

QUESTION: But you're not bringing new ideas to the table?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't -- I thought I started this by saying, yeah, we would be discussing our views on how to achieve that.

QUESTION: But I thought you said that these were issues that you had already discussed publicly, and my question was were you bringing any new ideas to --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- it's not simple to say yes or no, I guess, if you want that fine a tune on it. The process is one of ongoing discussion and consultations with our friends and allies. Remember, we've met with these people a half a dozen times, I would guess, since last fall, since last October. We have had formal meetings several times. I think the last one might have been November, maybe December. And so this is an ongoing process. We meet with our allies and friends in a variety of fora, whether it's travel by us, travel by them, international meetings or these trilateral meetings. So it's an ongoing process of developing ideas and looking for ways to address these issues.

All of us have addressed this in very clear terms so far, I think. We've all made clear North Korea has to visibly dismantle these programs. We've all made clear that the reception that North Korea will get, the benefits that North Korea will get from the international community, hinge on their willingness to dismantle these programs. We have all made clear, as the International Atomic Energy Agency Board did today in a very strong statement from a very significant group of countries, that North Korea has to stop violating its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So there are a lot of things we have been doing together within that framework how to continue to proceed that, continue to pursue those goals, continue to work to move forward. Yes, we will be discussing with them how to do that and I'm sure we'll bring our ideas as they will bring theirs. Are we bringing new ideas to break out of the basic policy? No. We have all agreed on the basic policy. The question is how to pursue it.

Howard.

QUESTION: Richard, it sounded like Dr. El Baradei in his press conference just a few minutes ago was explicitly endorsing the US approach, this sequential idea that first North Korea must cease and desist, and then negotiations can occur. Is that your reading of what he said?

MR. BOUCHER: I wasn't watching. I was worried about what I was going to say to you.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. approach, I think, has been based on the fact that we had an agreement with North Korea. North Korea's actions on its nuclear enrichment program is not just a violation of the Agreed Framework, but is also a violation of denuclearization agreements with South Korea and its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

And so what the International Atomic Energy Agency Board focused on this morning was their recent actions by North Korea that prevent verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And what we -- first of all, we deplored the actions that North Korea has taken. The Board called upon North Korea to cooperate urgently, to reestablish monitoring and verification of all its nuclear material; made clear that unless the North Koreans take all necessary steps to allow the Agency to implement the required measures, the North Koreans will be in further noncompliance with its Safeguard Agreement.

So we have welcomed that call from the International Atomic Energy Agency. We think it's very important that the whole Board, a group of countries, 35 countries that represent a broad cross-section of the international community, the whole Board agreed on this unanimously by consensus. This is countries from not only a significant number of members of the Security Council, but also countries from Australia to Malaysia, from Iran to Cuba.

So you've got a very strong statement there that makes clear that North Korea does need to bring itself back into compliance with its obligations that it's violated.

QUESTION: If I can follow up, just to be clear, in the face of this reported South Korean proposal which seems to suggest somehow some simultaneous things happening, i.e., North Korea backs away at the same time that the United States agrees to start talking about some kind of non-aggression agreement, is it correct to say that the United States is still sticking to its sequential approach, that you're not going to deal with North Korea on any level until they stop and back up on the nuclear --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the answer is that there have been too many versions in the press out there of what the South Koreans may or may not have in mind, and that while they all seem to be variations on a theme, I think we owe it to them as our allies and friends, we owe it to them as our partners in this endeavor, to listen to them, to talk to them, to work with them on these ideas more directly. And if there's more to say on it, we'll prefer to say it tomorrow after we've had a chance to really talk to them.

QUESTION: Richard, along those lines, though. Outside of the press, you guys -- outside of the press reporting, which you have obviously been reading diligently, have you -- have the South Koreans presented this alleged proposal to you guys in any forum, or are you expecting them to do that today or tomorrow?

MR. BOUCHER: We expect all the participants in this meeting -- the Japanese, the South Koreans, as well as ourselves -- to bring forward whatever ideas they have about how to move forward. And so I would expect the South Koreans to do it in that forum.

We obviously have regular contact with the South Koreans through our Embassy and elsewhere, but I think the point is that we need a chance to really sit down and talk to them and talk to the Japanese together about how we proceed.

QUESTION: But you're not going into this meeting blind as to what the South Koreans might be coming --

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Okay, just one last thing. Has Kelly's itinerary been fixed yet or is that still up in the air?

MR. BOUCHER: For his travel? I don't think it has, but let me double-check. No, don't have it. Don't have it set at this point.

QUESTION: But it'll be after this week, after --

MR. BOUCHER: Later. In the next week or so, I think I would say at this point.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: Richard, Article 6 of the NPT requires the United States to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. When is the United States going to come into compliance with this requirement?

MR. BOUCHER: Is this a question that arises today, just for the fun of it, or --

QUESTION: We're talking about complying with the NPT.

MR. BOUCHER: I mean, you want to change the subject? I mean, what does that have to do with North Korea's obvious and complete violation of its commitments? What does that have to do with North Korea developing nuclear enrichment programs, pulling out cameras, kicking out monitors and otherwise reactivating their reactor? And I think if you look at the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva -- I'm sure your colleagues in Reuters probably do follow what goes on there -- I think that's where this compliance, this provision of international law is being studied and worked on.

QUESTION: Well, then can I try something else and see if the US adheres to that? You keep mentioning the '94 --

MR. BOUCHER: What, are you going to -- is this a test of the United States commitments internationally?

QUESTION: No, it's --

MR. BOUCHER: What's the issue here? Is it whether the United States complies with broad international commitments given over 50 years? The answer is yes, we do, in a variety of ways and a variety of fora.

QUESTION: The issue --

MR. BOUCHER: The issue right now is --

QUESTION: I know the issue is North Korea --

MR. BOUCHER: -- what to do about a country that has kicked out monitors, pulled out cameras, and violated its agreements not to develop nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: The issue seems to be whether the US will simply declaim and deplore and denounce or whether the US is prepared to do something about it besides rhetoric.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's different.

QUESTION: And so, for instance, you're talking favorably about the '94 agreement because, indeed, it requires, compels North Korea to do certain things. Does that mean the Bush administration approves of the '94 agreement?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, this administration has always -- had always said, until North Korea took these actions and North Korea said the agreement was nullified, we had always made clear that we were prepared to abide by our part of the agreement if North Korea did the same. That had been something that I've stated here a dozen times, without any question.

QUESTION: Now let me ask you something else, one last thing for now. The undercurrent of all this material has been some threats, so let me ask you straight out. Is the US under threat from North Korea? Clearly, South Korea is and Japan is because their missiles can carry that far. Clearly, the US troops are. Is the US itself under threat? Are these talks being held under the shadow of some threat from North Korea to attack the United States? You've already said, Powell has said, we have no intention of attacking them. Are you facing an attack or the prospect of an attack?

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, United States' interests involve the United States, our territory, our contiguous territory, our states which are not contiguous, our interests in trade, in prosperity, in democracy, in freedom around the world, our interests with our allies, our troops overseas. So you can't say, apart from this, this, this, this and this, do we have any interests? The answer is yes. We have a whole panoply of interests in a peaceful outcome to this. We have a whole panoply of interests that are involved in stability and peace on the Korean peninsula. Those interests have been expressed over 50 years or more, including the events of the early 1950s when we fought there for the -- with the United Nations. And those interests remain.

QUESTION: And you have a proliferation interest. What I'm leading up to is South Korea is the one that's under the gun, so I'm wondering why South Korea doesn't get to take the lead and it has suggested a way to try to get this settled. Now, that doesn't mean it's not going to be done that way, but right now everything that's been said in South Korea is being dismissed, you know, sort of tongue in cheek as press reports. I mean, these are more than press reports. This is the position of a government that faces somebody right across its border with a nuclear weapons program.

MR. BOUCHER: Barry, the United States, Japan and South Korea, as well as other governments, have a very strong interest in what goes on on the peninsula. As you correctly point out, the South Korean people, who live under threat of these developments in North Korea, have a very personal and strong interest, as we all do, frankly. Nobody is rejecting anything that's come out of South Korea. I've just declined to get into a back-and-forth with you before we have a chance to treat this -- to treat these ideas seriously, to sit down seriously with our partners in this matter and to discuss them seriously and not treat them as items to be bandied about in press briefings before we have a chance to talk to the people most directly involved with these issues.

QUESTION: The IAEA mentioned that the possible reporting of the issue to the Security Council. Is the United States does have a date in mind to go to the Security Council or do you prefer to deal with this in the region?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency made clear that North Korea needs to cooperate as a matter of urgency with it and to comply with its obligations. And urgent is what we mean. Urgent is what we all said together. They need to respond now. They need to come into compliance or otherwise we, meaning the Board of the International Atomic Energy, would take additional steps which could include, obviously, referring the matter to the Security Council. So they would report the issue to the Security Council when they thought it appropriate.

QUESTION: If that happens, is there a date for that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's any particular date at this moment, but certainly urgent means urgent. We would expect to see the North Koreans comply with this obligation on an urgent basis.

Betsy.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Richard, we've gone back and forth over the last few weeks and the last time I looked, the US position was that the Bush administration would not negotiate with North Korea. Since words are sometimes important, does that allow for any kind of talking, discussion or use of other words besides "negotiate" with the North Koreans to solve the crisis diplomatically?

MR. BOUCHER: I would, I think, make clear that our policy has been that we don't look for -- we're not looking to renegotiate the issue. We're not looking to make some other bargain, to make some other payment for North Korea to come into compliance with its obligations. We do believe that the solution here lies in North Korea visibly and verifiably dismantling these programs. We've made that clear from the start, and I think been very consistent.

The Secretary of State has also been clear that there are channels to communicate, there are people talking to the North Koreans. There are, obviously, channels that they can communicate with us if they want to. But at this point, we have not seen North Korea do anything to indicate they are going to visibly and verifiably dismantle this program. In fact, what we have seen over the last few weeks are a series of steps that unilaterally undermine and violate other obligations that they have to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that is what the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency had to deal with this morning.

QUESTION: Excuse me. Despite what I think have been pretty consistent denials from you and other people, there's another report today, or another report has surfaced today, that you guys are going to withhold food aid to North Korea. Realizing that you're probably going to say the position hasn't changed and that's not true, what's the status of the food donations right now to the WFP in response to their current appeal?

MR. BOUCHER: I may be able to get you more on this later. I think, though, we have addressed it before and you'll see that what we continue to say is in approximately the same terms. We have been a consistently large donor to the World Food Program appeals for North Korea. We have not conditioned this and do not intend to condition that on political factors. We intend to continue to be a large donor.

Exactly how much we can give in any given year depends on the budgetary situation and we are in a position right now waiting for the appropriation so that we can make whatever commitments we will make for this year. Looking at that situation now and seeing if there's not a way to, well, to define further, but we have to have the appropriation. But I think our intention is to continue to support these programs.

Now, we have also made clear that there are a lot of demands on the resources we have and that we want to make sure that the food gets to people who need it. And we have been concerned about monitoring and verification, distribution in North Korea, and that remains a continuing issue and obviously a factor that we have to consider as we look at how to go forward.

QUESTION: So, if you say you're waiting for the appropriation, have you already floated it up to the Hill or to the OMB, some kind of a figure for how much -- I mean, I presume you're still working on your budget proposal for the upcoming year, right?

MR. BOUCHER: No, this is the 2003 budget. It's still up on the Hill, hasn't been passed. We're under a continuing resolution now.

QUESTION: I suppose in such programs, there's always pilferage, there's always skimming. Has it gotten worse? Is there a point where the US says, hey, this stuff isn't really getting to the people who need it and let's hold it back for a while and straighten this monitoring situation up a bit? Is that possible?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think there's a point at which you say we need to know that this can be verified, we need to know the people who deserve this food are going to get this food, we need to know that there have been improvements in the monitoring situation. And that's what we want to see.

QUESTION: Let me try. Are you saying that there won't be any withholding or not -- withholdings won't work. There won't be any not giving of assistance because of the nuclear situation, but there could be modifications in the amount that you give from what you've given in previous years because of these concerns about the distribution? Is that what you're saying?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's -- I can't define it any more right now because our intention is to continue to be a major donor. We certainly want to see the monitoring questions resolved. If they're not resolved, that would become a factor in determining how to allocate our resources among the many worthy donors. But political factors, nuclear programs, are not the issue here. But we do intend to continue to be a major donor.

Elise.

QUESTION: Even though political considerations aren't a factor, has your concern over the monitoring and the verification grown as this political crisis has grown? Has your concern grown in the last few months?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's not because of any political factors or other developments. Our concerns are based on the inability, we think, in all cases to verify that people are getting the food who needs it. We don't think we're the only ones. Some of the NGOs, some of the other donors, have similar concerns that need to be addressed.

Howard.

QUESTION: With regard to KEDO and the continued construction of the light water reactors, could you clarify what is the US position right now as to whether or not that construction should continue? And if it should continue, why should it continue since the North Koreans have clearly said that the '94 agreement doesn't exist any more?

MR. BOUCHER: The US position is this is an important issue that we need to discuss with our allies and friends and that needs to be discussed among the other members of the KEDO Board. I'm not sure when they will have an upcoming meeting, but I expect this would be one of the questions they would take up when they do.

QUESTION: So you don't want to say what the position is at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that we need to discuss this with our friends and allies.

QUESTION: And why wouldn't you be pressing for an urgent meeting on this topic?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is this is an issue we need to discuss with our friends and allies in these various fora. I'm sure there will be meeting soon where we can do that, not only with our allies like Japan and South Korea in these meetings in the next day or two, but also in terms of the KEDO Board sometime early in this year.

Okay, let's see. Betsy was changing the topic. Is that okay? No, Matt's going to continue.

QUESTION: Just another thing. The last time we talked about this, this came up and I can't -- the last time it had been expressly -- these concerns had been expressed to the North Koreans was, I think, in August or something. Do you know if they've been expressed more recently than that? Now, I realize the year is still quite young, but -- and if there's been a response?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- there has not been a response. We did express our concerns about monitoring and verification of food deliveries to the North Koreans in late August to their mission in the United Nations. I'm not sure if we've reiterated it since then, but there's not been a response from North Korea.

Okay, on this. Terri.

QUESTION: Has the situation deteriorated, though? Because I think what people are asking, this could be just coincidental, a time period with the nuclear program. But is there any way to know whether the situation with monitoring has deteriorated, has gotten worse, since you did express it before the recent escalation of the nuclear crisis?

MR. BOUCHER: I think these have been ongoing concerns that have existed about the programs before and that throughout this year we've started to see these reports and focus on them. But as I said, the food issues are the food issues. Our intention is to be a major donor, to continue to be a major donor. We are concerned about monitoring and we want to see those issues resolved.

Okay, same topic, Mark.

QUESTION: El Baradei said that if North Korea were to come into compliance, its economic and security concerns could be addressed, and he also mentioned a "roadmap." Does this reflect the American position, and can you elaborate on this?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. I'm afraid, as I pointed out to one of your colleagues, I was not watching the press conference that just happened, so I don't have a comment on everything that was said. I think the board certainly made its position very, very clear that North Korea needs to bring itself urgently into compliance and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that is what the Board of the Agency wants to see.

Okay. You had one in there.

QUESTION: Yeah, I was just wondering, with the bilateral and then trilateral talks today and tomorrow, at what point is China brought into these discussions or apprised of what went on and at what level of that plenary?

MR. BOUCHER: We have ongoing consultations with the Chinese and the Russians through our embassies, and so a lot of this material is an ongoing discussion where we may have talks here, but we would also expect to continue the discussion with others.

I'm trying to think. Under Secretary Bolton would expect to be in China on his trip later this month. I'm not sure at this point whether Assistant Secretary Kelly will have a chance to go there next week, or not.

Okay. Joel.

QUESTION: With respect to North Korea, is there any plan to get power from either China or South Korea to diminish the need for these nuclear reactors? And also, have you -- in talking with both the Russians and the Chinese, well, the North Koreans are, it seems they are building up their military even more. Is this saber-rattling a definite concern?

MR. BOUCHER: On the issue of power, I think North Korea already gets a considerable amount of oil and power from China and from others. We've pointed out that any restart to these reactors is a virtually negligible contribution to the electricity supply. It's not going to warm North Korean houses this winter. It's not going to light their schools during the winter. I think the percentage was something like a potential of two or three percent of the energy needs and that's certainly not any significant benefit to restarting this reactor in terms of the losses of North Korea's reputation and ability to get other benefits by its interaction with the international community.

In terms of the conventional forces, which I guess you're talking about on the peninsula, we've always made clear that's a very significant issue for us and that is one of the issues that we were willing to sit down and have serious discussions with the North Koreans on, in terms of the approach we had been prepared to take before we saw this program develop and, therefore, before this made it impossible to proceed on other fronts.

QUESTION: My last one. There has been some talk bandied about, which I'm sure you're familiar with. It seems to be gaining some kind of currency although I'm not sure how serious the circles it's being talked about is in. But have you -- are you aware of these suggestions of the U.S. pull its troops out of South Korea, 30-some thousand troops out of South Korea? And if you are, has that been given any serious credence in the administration? And would it be a violation of treaty obligations? Would the suggestion be a violation --

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not quite sure what we're talking about.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, those things thing. I think we made clear we don't have any intention of doing that.

Okay, Betsy. Change?

QUESTION: On Iraq. Could you give an assessment, please, of Saddam Hussein's speech today? And he accused the inspectors of spying, of gathering information for intelligence purposes. Could you speak to that?

MR. BOUCHER: I think basically, what we need to say is once again we have baseless and false accusations by a leader who has sought to mislead, who has sought to prevaricate, who has tried to deceive the international community. The resolution, the UN Security Council Resolution, gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with UN Security Council requirements, a final opportunity to disarm. That is an opportunity that he should take.

The international community has made quite clear what Iraq's obligations are and the burden rests squarely with Iraq. To attempt to make false charges and divert attention is not to comply with their obligations and is not the way to solve this situation without resort to military conflict.

QUESTION: You're suggesting that his accusations are not -- are a violation of some kind of requirement?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm suggesting that his violation -- that his accusations are untrue, and may indicate an intention not to comply.

Okay, Betsy.

QUESTION: Given that subject about whether he complies or whether he doesn't, later this month there will be a report by the UN on compliance. I realize it's a little early now since that's about two and half weeks off, but has there been any thought given to what the US will do if the UN finds that they have not been able to find anything and that the Iraqis have been helpful?

MR. BOUCHER: There is certainly a lot of thought given to how we proceed in this matter, how we try to make the UN Security Council process succeed in this matter. Our goal remains, as the President said just the other day, to get Iraq to comply, to get Iraq to disarm peacefully and stop threatening its region, its people and its neighbors. That's what we're giving our thought to and how to make it succeed.

We have upcoming meetings with the inspectors and the Security Council. January 9th, there'll be a discussion. January 26th or 27th -- I always get it wrong -- 27th there will be a discussion. I'm sure the Security Council will continue to focus on these issues, on how these inspections are going and what we need to make them successful. Success, in our view, is to disarm Iraq and to identify, verify, Iraq's disarmament.

Mark.

QUESTION: Sort of along the same lines, is the United States Government preparing its own list of particulars that it might make public at some point, in terms of Iraq's noncompliance over the last -- well, since 1441 was passed?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have looked at any number of things. We've stated quite clearly some of the things that we've seen, including the declaration that Iraq made, as a further material breach with material omissions. We have, I think, called them the way we've seen them. We're prepared to do so in the future. But I don't have any kind of list for you today.

Okay, in the back.

QUESTION: On Iraq. The Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Gul, he just finished his diplomatic attack for peace for the Iraq, he called them. And they made several statement in the several Arabic countries, capitals of several Arab countries. Are you happy his diplomatic attempt about the subject? And also did you ask them to deliver some message because he's planning to go to Baghdad also? He announced today? Did you ask him to deliver some message to Saddam Hussein?

MR. BOUCHER: You asked me that before he made the trip, while he was on the trip and now while he's in between what appears to be two trips. I would go back to what we've said before. We think it's important that anyone who's discussing these issues and meeting with the Iraqis make absolutely clear that Iraq must comply with the UN requirements, that that's the only way to bring peace to the region. That would be my only comment on his trip or anyone else.

QUESTION: And also, the Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Yakis, he made a statement yesterday, Turkey is evaluating his right over Mosul and Kirkuk. Do you have any reaction on this statement?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't see the statement. I don't have any immediate reaction here.

In the back.

QUESTION: I understand that Ambassador Paul Salucci and other U.S. ambassadors have been tasked with asking their host countries what they might provide in the event of war with Iraq. I was wondering if Ambassador Salucci has heard back yet, and could you characterize Canada's level of cooperation in this regard?

MR. BOUCHER: I think for Canada's cooperation, what Canada may or may not have said, you'd have to ask the Canadians. I'm not in a position to discuss what any given country may or may not be in a position to do should that come about. We have made clear that we have talked to a number of governments about how we might coordinate if military action proves necessary, but at this point I haven't been going into any specific responses we may or may not have received.

Gene.

QUESTION: Yeah. In your response to the spying question here, it seems to me that you're moving towards complete transparency on the part of the Iraqi Government. This is what you're seeking. Is that -- does that mean that Iraq should have no secrets whatsoever from the outside world?

MR. BOUCHER: The United Nations resolution called on Iraq to present a full and final disclosure of all its programs of weapons of mass destruction. And then they went further into detail on that. Now, Iraq has been called upon to do that a number of occasions in the past and has failed to do so, and once again, regrettably, they have failed to do so. Let's remember, the purpose of the inspections is not to play and hide and seek. The purpose of the inspections is to verify Iraqi disclosures, to verify Iraqi disarmament. And that is what is required by the UN Security Council.

Sir.

QUESTION: Okay, I have many reports that South Korea is urging the United States to guarantee the survival of the North Korean regime in exchange, in return for the North abandoning of its nuclear program.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know when you walked into this room, but we did that for about 20 minutes today and about a half hour last Friday, and I'll just stick with those answers for the moment.

QUESTION: Richard, it's been about ten days since we heard that the United States intended to hand over to UNMOVIC that information which they were seeking about various sites. How much of that has now been handed over and can you tell us whether the inspectors have, in fact, followed up on that and visited some of the proposed locations?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position to define that information in any way that would say whether or not it's been followed up on or if they've gone to particular locations or not. I'm afraid that just gets us beyond the range of what we're prepared to do. But we said ten days ago that we were prepared to share more and more information and we have been doing that ever since we said it.

QUESTION: There has been some reports about Bush administration preparing for a new government in Iraq and also other reports from the Middle East that there is talk of Saddam Hussein leaving the country with the help of Russia or going to Russia. Is the United States aware of this? Is it encouraging this? Would it accept this?

MR. BOUCHER: These are topics that we've talked about before to the extent that we can. I would merely repeat today that were Saddam to take the option to leave and to allow people to run his country who would be willing to live in peace with their neighbors and their own people, that that would be a positive development.

I think Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld have both said that it's an opportunity he should take advantage of. But we're not behind those proposals. You'd have to ask the people who are. I think I've seen, actually, groups of Arab intellectuals who've made such proposals rather than any particular government.

QUESTION: Would the United States insist on the people it's training now to run the country or allow the Arabs --

MR. BOUCHER: We've always made clear the future of Iraq needs to be in the hands of the Iraqis, the future of Iraq needs to be decided by people inside and outside the country, and that whatever happens to Iraq needs to be decided by Iraqis. So that's something that I think we hold to around the world, but it's very much true in this situation, as well.

QUESTION: Would you prefer that as an alternative to war?

MR. BOUCHER: We would prefer Iraq to disarm, Iraq to stop threatening its own people and its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. That's our goal in this crisis. However that happens, through a change in behavior, a change in regime, or a change in people, that's our goal is to see that Iraq no longer threatens its people and its neighbors with these weapons.

QUESTION: On that just briefly. Are you saying that the U.S. would be prepared to go along with some kind of an option that would allow him to live with impunity in a third country, without being punished for something? The U.S. is not --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY WOLF: I'm not, maybe, seeing that quite that far in the future. We had a discussion of this last week --

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, I know --

MR. BOUCHER: -- and we all, I think, my bottom line as we've looked at these various ideas that float out there, is that to remember what our policy goal is, which is disarmament.

And second of all, as Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld have said, it's certainly an opportunity he ought to take. But third, just to say let's remember reality here, which is he hasn't indicated any desire to do so and nothing in his past behavior would make you think he would.

So, you know, as far as what that then might lead to and the who, what, when, where, how, what about the longer term, I wouldn't speculate at this point.

QUESTION: You realize that you are in a position, speaking from the podium, to like, kind of push this idea along further if you were to say that, you know, the United States wouldn't really oppose an idea, a situation where Saddam could live in, you know, Belarus or something, without having to worry about being --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to speculate on particular results or specifics.

Okay. We have the gentleman here. Same thing?

QUESTION: What is the United States thinking of importing oil from Russia in the case of war with Iraq took place?

MR. BOUCHER: We already import, I think, a lot of oil from Russia. Do we do it directly? I think so. But Russia's already -- let's put it this way. Russia's already a major oil supplier to the international market. I'm sure that all the various international oil suppliers would try to make sure that prices are stable and use their capacity to do so. I don't know what Russia's particular plans might be.

QUESTION: This is what the United States Ambassador said in Russia.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, and I'm sure he knows probably better than I do on what Russia might be able to do should there be crisis in the oil supply. But we're all interested in having a stable supply of oil and I'm sure Russia is interested in that, as well.

Elise.

QUESTION: New topic. Middle East. If you could bring us up to date on any calls the Secretary might have made, and also what does the administration think of the Israeli response? Do you think the Palestinians should not be allowed to go to London to meet with Tony Blair?

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary talked to Prime Minister Sharon yesterday specifically about the bombing that had occurred; condemned this kind of violence, offered his condolences and sympathy to the Israeli people for losses that they have suffered, these really horrible losses that they suffered over the weekend in these bombings

We have made clear, I think, in our statements that the Palestinians need to do everything they can to stop the violence. The Palestinian community suffers from this kind of violence. It makes it more difficult for them to achieve their goals. And we have made that position very clear.

As far as the meeting in London, we certainly continue to emphasize the importance of reform in the Palestinian community; emphasize the opportunity for Palestinians to talk about, work on and proceed with transformation of their institutions. I would say it's regrettable that the events have brought us to this point, but in terms of the specifics of the meeting in London, I would leave that for the British Government to address.

QUESTION: Have you asked the Israelis or mentioned to the Israelis the possibility of them reversing their position on this? You said you wanted this meeting to take place when it was proposed about two weeks ago.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. We certain welcome the initiative of the British Government. We welcome the efforts that are being made to try to promote reform in the Palestinian community and certainly have been supporters of the discussion in the Palestinian community itself about reform. In terms of the specifics of this meeting, though, I think the British Government has addressed it with the Israeli Government. Foreign Secretary Straw said he sought clarification of the announcements. So we'll leave it at last for the moment. We're in touch with the British. We're in touch with the Israelis.

QUESTION: You're not -- are you not joining in this --

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we regret that events have brought us to this point. We're in close touch with the British, but at this point the specifics on the meeting have to rest with the British.

QUESTION: So you are not contacting the Israelis to persuade them on this issue?

MR. BOUCHER: We have discussed the issue with the Israelis. We're certainly interested in the views that they have. But at this point, in terms of the specifics of this particular meeting, I would leave it to the British.

QUESTION: Well then, let me just get back to what you're saying then. It's regrettable that events have brought us to this point, but you don't think it's regrettable that the Israelis are not allowing the Palestinians to go? In other words, are you saying that the Palestinians have brought this on themselves?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not -- I'm saying what I did say. I'm not saying any of the other options that you're offering --

QUESTION: Well, yeah. Which is specifically not that this --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, which is not a thousand things, but it is one thing and it's what we're -- we have to say about it today.

QUESTION: Well, let me put it this way, then. Do you think that not allowing the Palestinians to go to this meeting in London is an appropriate response by the Israeli Government to what happened yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll stick with what I said on the meeting in London.

Arshad.

QUESTION: Another topic. Can you tell --

QUESTION: Can we stay on Israel?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you view the bombing, regrettable as it may be, one of the consequences that you're always talking about of Israeli actions in Nablus in which they destroyed the center of the town and so on, since the two bombers came from Nablus?

MR. BOUCHER: There's no justification. There's no excuse. There's no pretext that justifies in any way this kind of horrible attack on human life. And to link it to any action that anybody else has taken is just morally reprehensible.

QUESTION: So it happened without any cause or any reason?

MR. BOUCHER: You can do all the historical analysis you want, but, in our view, nothing justifies going out and slaughtering innocent people in this manner.

QUESTION: -- there's an Israeli delegation that I believe is here?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is budget buys, I guess they're --

MR. BOUCHER: U.S. and Israeli officials are meeting this afternoon in Washington to discuss Israel's current economic situation and Israel's expected request for supplemental assistance. The U.S. delegation will include officials from the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget. We'll refer you to the Israelis for the specifics of their delegation.

QUESTION: Who is taking the lead on the U.S. side in that? Is it a Treasury thing?

MR. BOUCHER: I would imagine the White House is, but I'll have to check.

QUESTION: You don't know if they're here, what the venue is?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know venue either.

QUESTION: And how long? Is it just today?

MR. BOUCHER: I think they're in town for a couple days.

QUESTION: Are they meeting here?

MR. BOUCHER: I was just asked that. I said I didn't know.

QUESTION: I was writing.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Anything else. Okay, are we changing topics now?

QUESTION: Can I just ask one more on that?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you still -- you're still hoping to give Israel as much as you can afford? You're hoping to come as close to meeting their request as you can?

MR. BOUCHER: We always try to do what we can to help our friend and ally.

Okay. He has dibs on changing the subject when we do.

QUESTION: Do you think the latest bombings will affect your decision to roll out the roadmap at the end of February?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to speculate on where we go next on the roadmap. We've said that the roadmap was substantially agreed and that we wanted to work more on some of the elements of it, particularly -- particularly, I can't remember. But remember we had identified a particular area that we wanted to further develop. But we'll continue to do that work and decide along with our partners in the Quartet when it's appropriate to make it public.

QUESTION: But do you think that this bombing is a setback?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate. This bombing is certainly a setback to Palestinian aspirations, because we know that every time we see this kind of violence, it makes it more difficult to achieve the vision that the President has laid out of two states living side by side in peace.

Sir.

QUESTION: The Palestinian president has condemned the latest bombing in Israel.

MR. BOUCHER: And we noted that in our statement.

QUESTION: And but the Palestinians, they have been silent and quiet for so long before this bombing while the Israeli raids and this destruction and assassinations continue. Are you sort of concerned that maybe what the United States has mentioned to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before that he should consider the reactions and consider the consequences of whatever he takes, are you reminding him again of that?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always made clear that reactions, consequences, need to be considered. Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel has a right to take actions for its own security. But we've made clear in all our discussions with the Israelis on these issues that they need to bear in mind that actions have consequences and that they need to consider what the consequences might be of their actions.

We have also emphasized, I think, again and again, the need to be very, very careful about civilian casualties and to make sure that whenever they have occurred that they be investigated and that all steps be taken so that the civilian casualties don't occur.

QUESTION: You don't ask them to withdraw or to take any practical steps on the ground to stop these violent actions?

MR. BOUCHER: We have made very clear that both sides have obligations, that both sides have responsibilities as we proceed. The roadmap makes this clear. The efforts of our diplomacy make this clear. And achieving Israeli withdrawal, achieving a settlement based on the basic tenets that have been laid down, that remains our goal and that remains what we're trying to work for.

What we've had to point out again and again as this kind of violence has occurred, though, is that achieving that vision, achieving that settlement, achieving that withdrawal is all made more difficult by this kind of violence.

QUESTION: Do you view the -- what just occurred in the Middle East, these bombings, as a juncture where it's going to interfere with the Israeli elections by various terrorist groups, and do you see that this bombing with these groups, it was deliberate in trying to derail these London so-called peace talks?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I find it very hard to speculate on the motives of people who would go out and slaughter so many innocent people. I can't imagine in my own mind any motive, any justification that would lead one to that kind of action. I just can't speculate.

Okay. In the middle here.

QUESTION: Okay. It's about the situation in Venezuela -- two people dead over the weekend, President Chavez saying that the situation will be normally in a few weeks. The U.S. insists to call for early elections is the solution there?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been very supportive of the efforts of the OAS Secretary General and he has been working with the sides on trying to achieve and negotiate a solution, an electoral solution, a peaceful solution, a democratic solution. That's what we have supported as his efforts to achieve that.

We have been extremely concerned about the violence that occurred last Friday and Saturday. There were three deaths, more than 60 people injured. Both marches -- more marches and demonstrations are planned by both the government and the opposition. Violent attacks on peaceful marchers are unacceptable and only lead to more confrontation and conflict. We have urged both sides, continue to urge both sides to exercise democratic freedoms responsibly and to refrain from further violence.

We think, more than ever, with the outbreak of violence, they need to focus on a negotiated solution through the good offices offered by the Secretary General, and we think, once again, the Government of Venezuela has a special obligation to protect all Venezuelans as they exercise their rights.

QUESTION: It's about Ecuador. Do you know what has been happening with the investigation which involved U.S. diplomat Peter Kamilowicz?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know about that situation. I will see if there's anything I can say. If there's an investigation going on, we normally don't say much.

QUESTION: Also another question on Venezuela and then Mexico. Are you aware of any request of political asylum from a high rank official from Venezuela that had fled Caracas after accusing Mr. Chavez of some sort of -- after accusing Mr. Chavez of helping al-Qaida and Las FARC in Colombia to -- of supporting these two groups financially?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not particularly aware of any individual like that. I would say, though, that we don't normally comment on any request for political asylum, so even if I look into it, I doubt if I can get you anything, frankly.

QUESTION: Then, in Mexico, there's -- we haven't seen any concrete results in immigration matters with the Mexican Government last year. Can we expect any progress in the next few weeks and the next few months? I know that the U.S. Government is very busy with Iraq and the Middle East right now.

MR. BOUCHER: I think if you remember from the Secretary's meetings and the President's meeting in Los Cabos when we were down in Mexico last fall, both sides made very clear we wanted to see how we can move forward on these issues. The Secretary remarked that we had seen the need to put in place a number of security measures on the immigration front after September 11th, and that now that we had done so and we were able to look at more to how those security measures would affect the various patterns and travel of different groups and different people, that we could start to look again at how to get back to the migration agenda with Mexico.

So it is something that both governments wanted to get back on track with and continue to work on, and let us hope we can find ways to make progress during the course of the coming weeks, months and year.

QUESTION: Richard, just one more question, a follow-up.

MR. BOUCHER: When was the Binational Commission? End of November. I should have cited that, as well. Not only Los Cabos, but also the Binational Commission at the end of November.

QUESTION: Any meetings scheduled for the next few weeks? And the next question is I understand that the United States and Mexico are working on some sort of program for Mexican workers that work in the United States legally and then went back to Mexico and never receive any retirement benefits. Do you know anything on that?

MR. BOUCHER: On upcoming meetings, we have meetings at different levels at various times. I'll have to check and see if there's anything working or expert level coming up.

As far as the question of workers' benefits, I think that's the Social Security agreement, isn't it? Yeah, let me double-check on that and see where we are.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary emerge from his meeting this morning more enthused about Project Varela than ever before?

MR. BOUCHER: It was a very good meeting and I think we heard a lot from Mr. Paya about the efforts that he and others in Cuba are making to try to bring about peaceful, democratic change in Cuba. And that was one of the most important aspects of the meeting was to hear directly from courageous people who are involved in trying to bring about peaceful, democratic change in Cuba and to offer our support and encouragement.

The Secretary expressed his admiration for the efforts that Mr. Paya is making as an organizer of Project Varela, a petition drive which provides a way for the Cuban people to express their desire for a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy. It's part of growing opposition in Cuba and is receiving increasing international attention. As you know, the European Parliament has awarded him the organization's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, and in September 2002, the National Democratic Institute gave Paya its Harriman Democracy Award.

So we expressed our admiration for his efforts, our support for the efforts of Cubans themselves to bring about peaceful and democratic change, and to take hold of their future, to take responsibility for their own future.

QUESTION: Is that support going to take any concrete -- is it just moral support or is there -- I don't know if it's possible to -- for there to be any other kind of support at the moment.

MR. BOUCHER: Nothing like that was discussed in this particular meeting. I would say, though, that the U.S. Government does have programs to support peaceful and democratic change in Cuba, and those are a matter of public record.

In the back.

QUESTION: The Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Yakis, also today he said that Turkey ready to or can play some mediator role for the Mr. Saddam Hussein if he wants to go to exile, give him a safe passage. Did you still -- are you giving this kind of chance to Mr. Saddam Hussein?

MR. BOUCHER: We had that conversation 20 minutes ago, maybe it was a half hour ago. I'll go back to the answer I gave then.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on the extradition of the three men in Hong Kong?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't, but I should, and I'll get you something.

Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)

(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