*EPF302 03/12/2003
Transcript: State Department Briefing, March 12
(Serbia, Iraq, Mexico, Angola, Turkey, Libya, Israel/Palestinians, China) (9750)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is a transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
12:55 p.m. EST

Index

SERBIA
Secretary Powell's Statement on the Assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister

IRAQ
Diplomatic Campaigning
Secretary Powell's Contacts and Discussions
Secretary Powell's Meeting with the Arab League Delegation
Efforts to Secure Iraqi Disarmament
British Role in Iraqi Disarmament Efforts
Consideration of Six Points

MEXICO
Involvement / Talks on UN Security Council Initiatives and Iraqi Compliance

ANGOLA
Secretary Powell's Trip to the Region
Assistant Secretary Kansteiner's Travels to the Region

TURKEY
Military Role in Iraq

LIBYA
Assistant Secretary Burns' Meeting with Families of the Pan Am 103 Victims

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
Recent Changes in Palestinian Government / Roadmap

CHINA
Charges Brought Against Charles Lee

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I would like to start out with a statement by the Secretary of State on the assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister Mr. Djindjic.

I was shocked and saddened by the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia who died earlier today after being shot in Belgrade. I want to extend the deepest condolences of the United States to his family, his friends and to the government and people of Serbia.

Prime Minister Djindjic's fearless leadership was instrumental in ending the terrible and despotic regime of Slobodan Milosevic and peacefully restoring democratic rule. I met with him many times. I came to know him and admire him for his wisdom and his courage. His courageous decision to transfer Milosevic to the Hague to stand trial for his alleged war crimes played a crucial role in helping Serbia come to terms with and move beyond its recent past.

He promoted the economic and political reforms necessary for Serbia's integration into Europe and spoke out against extremism in all its forms. He courageously initiated a public campaign to combat organized crime, which threatens every institution in Serbian society.

I count myself as privileged to know him as a friend and as Prime Minister, and all of us will miss him. We're confident that Serbia's political leaders will continue Prime Minister Djindjic's vital work. The United States remains committed to helping Serbia undertake the economic and democratic reforms that will lead it towards a brighter and more prosperous future within Europe.

And now I would be glad to take your questions about that or anything else.

QUESTION: Well, the last sentence probably, at least partly, answers the question at hand, but I wondered what the implications were in this, you know, for maintaining some sense of stability in the region?

MR. BOUCHER: I think first of all, you have meetings going on now with the Serbian Government. They've convened an emergency session with the Serbian Government to decide on an acting Prime Minister. We'll continue to work with the new leadership on the process of political democratic reform, economic reform that's been under way as Serbia comes more and more to get closer to Europe, to being a country within Europe.

I'm sure they'll decide, according to their own procedures, what to do about an acting Prime Minister and elections and things like that.

Serbia, as you know, is now part of the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, and so we've supported the Union. We've called on parties in the Union to continue building those institutions, and we'll continue to work with them on the many things that we have between us.

QUESTION: For the past couple years, around this time, the Secretary has been making a determination as to whether the -- well, I don't know what to -- let's just say Belgrade is cooperating with -- doing as much as it should under US law to continue to receive aid.

I understand that that has now been, that that line --

MR. BOUCHER: I think the law changed it from March 31st to June 15th.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: But we've always said that this process of cooperation is an international obligation that Serbia, that Belgrade has, that all governments in the region have, and that, as we work with them on US assistance, we work on this other matter, these other matters that relate to the assistance, but especially to their international obligations to seek all persons that are indicted for war crimes.

So it's a -- we say smugly, it's a process, and not an event of cooperation, and we will continue to work with them on that. We have seen a certain amount of cooperation, but there are always new things that need to be done, and we do know that Radco Mladic and the remaining two of the so-called Vukovar 3 remain at large, and more work needs to be done to ensure that they face the charges against them.

QUESTION: And do you think that's less likely, that -- does the loss of Mr. Djindjic --

MR. BOUCHER: It's impossible to speculate at this point. I think the government that he put together is committed to carrying on the work that he made, the reform process that was so vitally important to Serbia and Montenegro, to Serbia in this case, but also to continue the process of integration into the international community, to continue the process of integration into Europe, and that includes meeting Serbia's international obligations. It is part of a larger thing, not just a question of U.S. assistance.

QUESTION: How do you assess the stability in the Balkans due to this assassination today?

MR. BOUCHER: The same question I am being asked, I am being asked, you know, three or four hours after an event to speculate on the next 12 years of implications. It's really not -- one's not in a position to do that. It is probably not my job, anyway, to speculate in that fashion. So I will just say that we -- they have a process under way of deciding on their future Prime Minister. The basic policies of Serbia, of reform, of integration into Europe I think are set and shared by other members of the Government. They will decide how they proceed in terms of acting Prime Ministers and elections. But we, for our part, look forward to continuing all the work that is under way with Serbia on matters of reform, on matters of international cooperation.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary of State Mr. Powell was in touch with any official in Belgrade today?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think he has had any contacts like that.

QUESTION: I realize it's months ahead of June 15th, but when you say Mladic and the two of the three Vukovar 3 and what needs to be done, is it fair to say that that is the main outstanding issue now of -- I know that there are others as well, but is that the --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to speculate particularly in regard to the assistance. As I said, this is a process that we're working on, one of the main things we're working on now and talking to the Serbian Government -- have been and will continue to talk to them about is the fact that some of these people remain at large.

QUESTION: Right. I mean, as I recall, there were three, I think, or at least three separate -- cooperation with the ICTY, the -- I can't even remember what the other two were.

MR. BOUCHER: I will have to go back and see if any of that is changed in the law. But, as I said, there are issues that we're working on, both international obligations, also economic and democratic reform. You asked where we stand in terms of cooperation with the tribunal. This is an ongoing effort to work with the government of Serbia on cooperation with the tribunal and these are some of the issues that we're working on with them right now. Where we will be at the moment when we have to certify for assistance, I won't speculate at this point.

QUESTION: -- were about to start these days. Do you see any influence on that?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to speculate on every single aspect of this, whether the Serbian Government is in a position to proceed with those discussions or not. I just don't know. You will have to see, as they make their decisions.

QUESTION: Can we move on to Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: Betsy?

QUESTION: I wanted to do the same thing.

MR. BOUCHER: All right.

QUESTION: Can you say where the process stands for a new or for a revised resolution and a vote?

MR. BOUCHER: It -- I don't think there is too much more to say than we have in recent days. We have been working on this. We have continued to look for a resolution that can meet widespread support. The Secretary has continued to make phone calls, as I think you will hear from the White House, the President has as well. This morning, the Secretary has kept in touch with Spanish Foreign Minister Palacio, with Foreign Secretary Straw. He has also talked to Foreign Secretary Derbez of Mexico. And many of you know there were a number of phone calls yesterday afternoon. And since I can't remember them, maybe one of you will tell me. (Laughter.) We will find that in a second.

Anyway, the Secretary is continuing to make phone calls to Security Council members, keeping in touch with Foreign Minister Palacio and Foreign Secretary Straw because, really, they and their leaders have also been making phone calls. The President and the Secretary are working in tandem on this, but also working with other members of the Security Council to see if we can't come up with ways of signing up additional members of the Council to take a vote. Now, our aim is to continue to seek a -- is to seek a resolution that can get support from other members of the Council.

We know that there's a veto threat out there. Unfortunately, President Chirac has said that no matter what, they are going to veto the resolution. I suppose that factor needs to be taken into account by all those who are proceeding here; but frankly saying that he'll veto the resolution no matter what sends precisely the wrong signal to Baghdad, precisely the wrong signal for those who want peaceful disarmament as, I think it was, the Bulgarian Foreign Minister argued last Friday. In view of Iraq's lack of cooperation it's time to increase the pressure on Baghdad, and that is why Bulgaria came out and supported this resolution.

It is time to tell Saddam Hussein he must comply and that the Council stands by its Resolution 1441. It is certainly not time to tell Baghdad that no matter what anybody says, they are not going to face the pressure. So we are making quite clear they will face the pressure. The President is determined, and if this disarmament doesn't come about peacefully through the UN, then we will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure Iraq is disarmed.

QUESTION: When you say you have to take the French position into consideration, and their position is they veto whatever however you rephrase the resolution, does that, you think, raise the possibility that if you don't have the votes or if you do have the votes you would maybe go without -- do without a resolution? And similarly, did the Secretary find Spain and Britain as committed to proceeding with a second resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: I think Spain and Britain have both worked very hard on this, as we continue to work very hard on this. I don't want to speculate about eventual outcomes at this point other than to say that we have been working very hard to get a resolution that people can support.

As you know, we have indicated flexibility. The British have laid out some of their ideas, which are things that we are working with, that we are talking to them about and talking to others about. But at this point we are trying to line up a formula that can meet with approval and secure votes in the Council. We will see if we can do that.

QUESTION: Spain has come out and said, just in the last couple of hours, that it doesn't think a second resolution any longer is perhaps the best way to go. Have you -- you haven't noticed Spain or Britain -- the Secretary has conversations with Foreign Minister Palacio perhaps losing her appetite for voting on a second resolution?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we have all continued to work on this. I expect we will continue to work on this. Obviously, people can speculate about where this may or may not end up, but our goal is to get a resolution that people can support and to see what other countries will commit to that.

At the same time, I think it is important to remember that we have made clear all along that there is authority in Resolution 687 and 678, as well as the subsequent resolutions of the Security Council, that there is authority in Resolution 1441, which offers two key factual tests that Iraq has not met and which says that if those tests are not met there should be serious consequences. So we have always made clear that a second resolution is desirable. But if the question is, would there be legal basis without it? Yes, there would.

QUESTION: Richard, the Mexican ambassador to the UN has said earlier today that he and other members of the Council or other representatives on the Council expect to see some kind of new revision this afternoon. Is that at all -- I mean, not formally tabled, but just kind of circulating around -- informally circulating around the Council. Is that correct? And also, are you out shopping for other sponsors, other people to co-sponsor?

MR. BOUCHER: On the second part of it, I am not quite sure I would put it that way. We are looking for people who -- looking for people to stand up in support of this resolution. We are looking for people to stand up in support of Resolution 1441, which the Council already passed. The resolution was a British resolution with, I think, the U.S. and Spain as co-sponsors. Bulgaria has also declared itself a supporter. I am not sure if any other countries have made public statements to that effect at this point. But I don't think the terminology is exactly "co-sponsor." But that does lead me to the answer to the first part of your question, if I could remember it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Informal language circulating --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh. The British, having been the sponsor of this resolution, having been the ones who tabled the language, who tabled the new language last Friday -- as you all know, I think tabled -- have circulated some ideas that might not be part of the resolution. I think they have put forward in terms of some side statement, but have circulated some ideas on tests. And certainly, that's something that we are quite aware of. We have indicated a certain flexibility in that regard, as well as on the deadline issue. But we will see if they actually put forward something more formal.

QUESTION: Okay, so you don't know if there will be a specific piece of paper floating around today informally?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there already is -- ideas floating around informally, they have talked about them in public, they have talked about them in Parliament.

QUESTION: And just on the co-sponsor thing, I mean, yes, the British did propose it, but it was Britain, Spain and the United States on the sheet. What --

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Would you like to have Britain, Spain and the United States and X, X, X, other countries also on that piece of paper?

MR. BOUCHER: That would be great if you've got any. But I think what we are working on is supporters.

QUESTION: Well, it's your job to get them --

MR. BOUCHER: Our job is -- you are asking me -- you are trying to --

QUESTION: No --

MR. BOUCHER: Slow down. We don't make a particular distinction at this point, at this stage in the process between co-sponsors and supporters. We are looking for people who will vote for this resolution.

QUESTION: Richard, you seem to be going out of your way to emphasize the fact that these are -- this is a British proposal and that those benchmarks are British ideas or reflective of conversations with some of the undecided countries. But is -- are the benchmarks as you understand them, are they something that the U.S. has also signed off on? Or is the U.S. also still discussing this with the British?

MR. BOUCHER: I would say these are ideas that are in play that are being discussed. They are not -- I think they are described as tests more than benchmarks. They are -- we -- and there is a distinction -- not much of one, but there is one. And the distinction is that we have always said again and again and again, Iraq needs to demonstrate it has made the strategic decision to disarm, to disarm peacefully, to fess up and get right with the world.

We have argued again and again that the facts of the process, the facts of Iraq's moving around and hiding very dangerous weapons, the facts of Iraq not permitting the inspectors to do their jobs, the fact of Iraq preventing scientists from having interviews demonstrate that Iraq has not made that strategic decision.

And some have said, well, what would demonstrate that they have? And we have said, well, it is quite easy. And I think the British have put forward, have talked about these tests, these examples of things that can be done in minutes, really, can be done any time if Iraq had really made that strategic decision. So we do remain focused on the issue of strategic decision. We think the British ideas are things that Iraq could do to demonstrate that. But as far as whether they become part of the resolution or the resolution package, that is a question of really how useful they are in terms of getting other members of the Council on board.

QUESTION: Some officials have said that they feel quite confident right now that the three African countries, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, are now supporting the U.S.-Spanish-British position. Is this something that you can talk about? And, if so, could you let us know what perhaps changed their minds?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to get into vote counting any more today than I have before. I don't think it's fair to any of the countries involved. The nations of the Security Council, most of them, have taken this matter very seriously, have not said they're going to veto or vote one way or the other no matter what, and the African nations, the Latin American nations, Pakistan, the ones known as the undecided, I think are looking at this very, very carefully. We've had a lot of conversations with them over a number of weeks, and we'll continue to work with them to make sure that they understand what we're doing and that they understand the need to stand up and stand behind the previous resolutions, but that work will continue.

The Secretary, yesterday afternoon, talked to the Guinean Foreign Minister, Minister Fal, among others, and we will continue to keep in touch with other governments as this process proceeds.

QUESTION: Can you way whether or not you feel that you're making progress?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't deny that we are making progress, but I don't want to mislead you into thinking that we have got it in the bag. We stay fixated on the rule, you don't count your chickens 'til the cows come home.

QUESTION: Richard, will there be a vote this week, as the White House --

MR. BOUCHER: We continue to work to get support for this resolution, to get support for a resolution that the Council could vote this week, yes.

QUESTION: By this week, do you mean before the end of Sunday?

MR. BOUCHER: This is another US-European split question, right? Does the week start on Saturday or does it start on Sunday or Monday? I don't know the answer to that, frankly.

QUESTION: Are you considering stretching the March 17th deadline?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have indicated that we, you know, would consider a short extension. We have a little flexibility on that. But no, we are not looking at the other kinds of deadlines that have been proposed -- 30 days, 45 days. There is a decision to be made by Saddam Hussein that he has not made. He has indicated again and again, by his actions, that he is unwilling to accept the whole structure of peaceful disarmament, and it is not hard for him to demonstrate that. It doesn't take 30 days, it doesn't take 45 days; frankly, it doesn't take a week. He could make that decision and make it clear very, very quickly if he were going to do so.

Unfortunately, the facts, as we have seen them for 12 years, as we have seen them since the passage of the resolution, as we have seen them since the presentation of the false declaration, as we have seen them through one, two, three or more reports from the inspectors, as we've seen them from the information that we know, keep telling us Saddam has not made the decision to disarm, and there is nothing that would lead us to believe that he's going to.

QUESTION: A while ago you said there's a possibility that the British ideas might be in a statement. If that is how it works out, would that mean that the resolution itself would remain intact, or might both happen, changing words and also having a side statement?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, no, and maybe.

QUESTION: So --

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, I couldn't predict the final form of all this right now.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: So any combination of that is possible?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if it's a statement, it won't have any legal -- it won't be legally binding, would it?

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe.

QUESTION: No, no. That has to be yes or no. I don't mean you have to answer yes or no --

MR. BOUCHER: I can't tell you, because I can't tell you what it is.

QUESTION: I don't understand the legalisms of a UN statement.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't, either, and I don't think we're at the point yet, until one defines the package --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: -- to define the exact status of each piece of the package, if there is such a package.

QUESTION: I got you.

MR. BOUCHER: We're still working this.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: And that's really the only message I've got for you today, is we're working.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay?

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. BOUCHER: We're going back to Mr. Weisman, I think.

QUESTION: Richard, could you talk a little bit about how these tasks were developed? For instance, were they developed in consultation at all with the other members of the Council and with the UNMOVIC people, with Dr. Blix, as to what might fly and what might be feasible and how -- were they drawn from the 173-page document? Any light you can shed on that?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I think it's a good question to ask the British Government that has done most of the work on coming up with these ideas. Obviously, we've discussed it with them and they have discussed it with us. The point is that if you look at the requirements of repeated UN resolutions, Iraq's failures, people say, well, what are the things they could do to demonstrate that they had made a decision to disarm; and just looking at the resolutions, looking at the UNMOVIC reports, looking at what people are saying, it is not hard to come up with a list.

If you consider the question of Iraq's -- the repeated requirement through 12 years of resolutions that Iraq pass legislation that makes it illegal to possess or manufacture or have weapons of mass destruction, that was another requirement of 1441. And what happened? Well, the inspectors went to Baghdad and said, you've got to do this. And Iraq said, we'll pass legislation. Then they didn't, they issued a decree. And then people finally looked carefully at the decree and the decree said that ordinary citizens couldn't carry around nuclear weapons. It didn't say that government agencies should not produce or develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

So once again Iraq failed a test that had been out there, so, in some ways repeating a requirement that they make this a matter of national policy should come as no surprise to anyone since it is one of the requirements that Iraq had failed repeatedly and failed recently. So I think if they grow out of all that effort, they grow out of the 173-page report, the basic idea, I think, grows out of the comments by some of the members of the Council who said they were interested in knowing what it would take to demonstrate that Iraq had made that strategic decision.

But as I said, at this point the situation is quite fluid. What the package is going to look like, where it'll end up I really can't predict at this point. These are just some of the ideas that are in play.

Matt.

QUESTION: Richard, I didn't hear you say in response to Andrea's question whether the United States gives its full backing to these six points made by the British and as a follow-up, do you favor --

MR. BOUCHER: We're working with them on this idea of six points, and --

QUESTION: Should there be more?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to say more or less or adjustments to this. This is something that's being worked. The real question is not so much what does the United States think of it, and obviously, it is a British effort that we have been working with them on, but what other members of the Council think of it. Is this what some of the other members of the Council were saying they were looking for when they said they wanted to know what Iraq should do or could do to demonstrate that it had made that big decision.

Okay. We had Phu. No, she's writing. Let's start in the back.

QUESTION: Richard, on Mexico, in the past few days Secretary Powell has been in close contact with Secretary Derbez. You talking about this packages that the United States is offering to different countries -- in regards to Mexico, I understand that the Mexican Government will get some sort of financial aid from the United States. Some talk about $150 million, others about $35 million, and -- is that true?

MR. BOUCHER: That is in no way -- that's not the context -- that is not the context of our discussions, frankly, with any of the members of the Council. We had discussions with Turkey as a frontline state, which were on the nature of understanding that if Turkey was involved in this conflict, there would be economic consequences for Turkey.

Members of the Security Council take on a special responsibility when they join the Council. And I have to say, of all these discussions with countries around the world, particularly the elected members, the members who did not somehow make up their mind in an election campaign last fall, or members who didn't for some reason decide they would veto no matter what, but those who have taken this process seriously are acting very responsibly in the Council, they're exploring all the ramifications. And our discussions with them are about Iraq, about how to get Iraq to comply, about how to get Iraq to comply, about how to get Iraq to disarm, how to remove this danger. And that is the topic that we have been discussing with the Mexican Government. It is not a matter of extraneous matters or other assistance.

QUESTION: And if you'll allow me, there are also reports of the U.S. willingness of granting some sort of immigration. I remember asking you about this before. But then again, some journalists are representing this again, and making statements from -- I mean, officials from the State Department saying that the U.S. is more willing now to get some sort of deal on immigration matters, like work programs or probably not amnesty but some sort of a legalization for Mexican workers in the United States. Is that true?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, as you remember from before -- maybe the other journalists don't -- but as you well remember, I said before and I will say again, that is not the context of our discussions with Mexico about the UN resolution. It is about the responsibility we all take on as Council members. So immigration obviously remains an important subject on the U.S.-Mexico agenda. I don't want to deny that we are ever going to do anything in that regard; in fact, we have been in touch with the Mexican Government every few months to talk about how to proceed on migration issues. And I think the Secretary himself has talked to you a little bit about that in some of the press conferences we had.

But that is an issue that needs to be handled between the United States and Mexico because it is important to us. As the U.S. and Mexico discuss what is going on in the Security Council, we discuss what is going on in the Security Council.

QUESTION: Richard, you have asked some governments to expel Iraqi diplomats. Have you asked the same thing to theMexican Government? And, also --

MR. BOUCHER: We have asked governments, without specifying who they are. I am not in a position to talk about one individual government in that regard.

QUESTION: President Fox is undergoing surgery today, back surgery, and probably has to be -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to make this briefing on Mexico, but --

MR. BOUCHER: But it is. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: President Fox is undergoing back surgery today and he might be in the hospital for three days. Is this a setback for the consultations between the United States and Mexico in some --

MR. BOUCHER: We wish him well and we wish him a speedy recovery from surgery.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

MR. BOUCHER: On the back surgery?

QUESTION: Richard, I don't want to parse this out too much, but you said that is not the context of our conversation with Mexico. Are there side conversations that might be taking place outside of the discussion on Iraq that might be covering these other issues?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not trying to play word games here.

QUESTION: Okay. I was just checking.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, there are a jillion conversations every day with Mexico about a hundred different subjects. We have important cooperation with Mexico, we have some differences with Mexico. We work on all these things every day. We have a big embassy down there, we've got consular posts. They take up all kinds of matters with the Government of Mexico every day. But those are handled on their merits, as -- and particularly issues between the United States and Mexico, things where we do find common interest in working these out and working together.

We are able on the basis of that kind of relation to have a good and thorough discussion of Security Council matters. But when we discuss Security Council matters, that's what we talk about. We are not bringing all this other stuff into the conversation.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Sticking with the other-stuff-into-the-conversations category, does that extend to conversations that Assistant Secretary Kansteiner had in Africa, that Mr. Reich had in Chile, and other special envoys that are around the same thing, if not the Secretary's personal conversations with leaders? Are you saying that no economic aid packages have been discussed in these -- in these --

MR. BOUCHER: We have done this about 14 times. I don't really have a different answer for you today than I did all the previous times. We have relationships with these places, we have aid programs with these places, we have high-level discussions and visits with these countries. The fact that those things go on is not a surprise to anyone. The fact that we have been a major supporter of humanitarian assistance to Angola and tried to help Angolan people should come as no surprise. The Secretary visited Angola during his trip last year to Johannesburg. When we went to Angola, remember, and we looked particularly at the situation of displaced persons and orphans in Angola, which the United States is helping with, not only with money but with people on the ground and the embassy people themselves are out there helping.

So these are all things we do. So when we send an Assistant Secretary to a country like that, yes, we discuss the whole panoply of our relations. But I really have to come back again and again though to the idea when we discuss what's going on in the Security Council, we discuss what's going on in the Security Council, that the Security Council decisions need to be based on their merits by the countries that take on this responsibility. We have relationships with these countries that we do work to improve. But that is also part of our broader relationship.

QUESTION: Richard, twice now in your answers to previous questions, you referred to members of the Security Council who are taking this matter seriously, contrasting them with other members that you seem to suggest are not taking this seriously. And then you added in, in an oblique reference to Germany and France the last time, that others are dealing with this responsibly.

What is it that you think the French and the Germans are not seriously about? And what is it that they are not dealing responsibly with?

MR. BOUCHER: I am not going to try to elaborate or --

QUESTION: I'm sorry, you have specifically identified two --

MR. BOUCHER: Let me put it this way, Matt. Germany, as we all know, made a decision during the election campaign before the United States ever brought this issue to the Security Council. We do find the statements that France would veto no matter what disturbing, because we all know that Iraq only responds, only take steps towards disarmament under pressure now. That pressure is being maintained by the presence of American, British, Australian, and other forces in the region.

But to tell Iraq that no matter what, they're not going to be subject to another Security Council resolution, really sends a wrong signal to Baghdad, and we think makes it less likely that we can get Iraq to disarm peacefully.

So that is a policy point of view that we take issue with.

QUESTION: Okay. So you think that the French and the Germans are not taking the issue of Iraqi disarmament seriously and that they are acting irresponsibly by the -- is that correct?

MR. BOUCHER: I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Well, you said it in as many words.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I didn't say it in as many words. I said it in completely different words, and I'm not going to say it your way. Thank you.

QUESTION: Hold on a second. You just said --

QUESTION: You said they aren't taking it seriously.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I've said --

QUESTION: -- concerns you now?

MR. BOUCHER: He says I said it in as many words, and I'm just pointing out I did not say it, I did not use the words as he used them.

QUESTION: You talked about those --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to accept your words, Matt, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: I want to go back to your words, then.

MR. BOUCHER: I've explained the situation in the Council as we see it. I think it is important to analyze these things, positions that governments have taken in the Council, but that's as far as I'm going to go.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, along those lines, then, in terms of dealing with NATO allies in terms of Iraq, several weeks ago, the Spanish Prime Minister, or President Aznar, was quoted as saying he would like to tell President Bush, he would like to suggest to President Bush that one could do with a little less Rumsfeld and a little more Powell.

In light of the comments that the Secretary of Defense made yesterday about the British, I'm wondering if the State Department is now ready to sign onto that, which you weren't before when I first asked the question.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to accept your formulations on this matter or any other today. I'd just point out that you should see -- look at what Secretary Rumsfeld said yesterday, both in the briefing and in the statement to be issued later.

QUESTION: Richard, can you tell us about this aid package for Pakistan, $30 million, that's been reported today as being signed with the Ambassador and Pakistani officials?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'd have to look at that. It's probably an allocation of money under the general program, but I'd have to look at it.

Okay. Let's see. We had some folks in the back. Sir.

QUESTION: Yes. The Turkish Foreign Minister (inaudible) earlier statement about Turkish military action in Northern Iraq. He said that, as Turkey is an independent country, whenever and whatever she can feel that their security is under the danger, they can enter Iraq or respond to these dangers.

Do you have any reaction?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not going to try to react to statements. I think our basic policy position is well known on this. I didn't see the statement by the spokesman, and frankly, I'm not necessarily going to react to your version of it. I'll have to check what it is. But I don't think there's really much of an issue here. We have worked closely with Turkey. We have talked a lot with Turkey about developments in Iraq, about what we would all like to see in Iraq in terms of a unified state that has a place for all Iraqi people to participate.

QUESTION: And also --

MR. BOUCHER: And that basic outline of policy is one that the United States and Turkey share.

QUESTION: Also, yesterday, your statement about Cyprus, you know, blaming the broken negotiation for the Mr. Denktash, do you think maybe they might have some obstacles in the Turkish Parliament which you are asking for some permission, air corridor and the land, the territory to use?

MR. BOUCHER: What I what? Was I looking to create obstacles in the Turkish Parliament? I'm not playing games with the Turkish Parliament. I'm just giving you the facts the way we see them.

QUESTION: Yes. Has the State Department prepared a legal opinion on whether or not the use of force, should the President make that decision in Iraq, would violate the UN Charter's prohibition on transnational force if there's no imminent threat; and could you comment on the international legality of what looks to be this decision?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I've already explained before the authorities that are already there in UN Security Council resolutions. I'm sure those UN Security Council resolutions are entirely consistent with the UN Charter, so I don't -- I'm not even sure a question like this arises.

QUESTION: Well, if I can follow up, though, there is a debate right now in the Security Council on this question, and there is a divided Security Council, and the French have threatened to use their veto. The President has said that he is prepared to act without the blessing of the Security Council.

It seems to me that, given that situation, the State Department would have some sort of position or opinion on the international legality of this sort of thing, and if you can comment on that, given --

MR. BOUCHER: I already did, twice.

QUESTION: You did. You said that there were other Security Council resolutions, which other members of the Security Council have not shared your interpretation of, that Iraq constitutes an imminent threat.

MR. BOUCHER: I -- you say there's a debate in the Security Council on this issue. I beg to differ. I have not heard members of the Security Council in the context of these discussions debate the clauses in the UN Charter that deal with transnational use of force. That's the first time I've heard the phrase today, frankly.

QUESTION: You're --

MR. BOUCHER: But at the same time, I think we've made very clear, the President has made clear all along that there is ample authority under the Security Council resolutions. Other governments have held that position, as well.

And in the end, under the UN Charter and under the President's constitutional responsibility, he bears the responsibility to protect the United States.

So there is, we think, an ample basis in international law for any action that we may decide we have to take. What's under debate at this point, if you read the resolution that's been presented by the British and the discussions that have happened since then, is whether the Security Council members are prepared at this point to make a finding that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity. That has been the question of discussion at this point. We think the facts have made that abundantly clear. Others may be shying away from those facts.

Elise.

QUESTION: EU Commissioner Chris Patton said today that if the United States proceeds and goes against the Security Council resolution, uses force against Iraq, it will be impossible for the EU to raise money for humanitarian aid and reconstruction for Iraq and aid for its neighbors.

Are you worried that even if you can assemble a coalition of willing states to use force against Iraq, that the backlash for going against the Security Council will hurt you if you need to reconstruct the country?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- I didn't read the remarks as quite so definitive. I would have to look at them again.

QUESTION: When he said, "virtually impossible," I thought that was pretty --

MR. BOUCHER: I would have to look at them again, see the context of it.

Certainly, one of our views, one of the things we are concerned about is the welfare of the people of Iraq. And as you know from the various briefings and statements we've made, we have done extensive preparation to make sure that their humanitarian needs are taken into account; that first of all, any military action minimize civilian casualties. Second of all, that we are ready with humanitarian assistance and food distribution and those kind of things that will be necessary to be reestablished quickly; and that ultimately that Iraqis get their country back and that they get a chance to control their own future and control their own resources.

We have made extensive preparations in that regard. One would hope that other governments, other countries, other organizations would be also interested in helping out the people of Iraq recover from the difficulties of so many years of misrule and mismanagement, so many years of wastage of their resources.

We have had discussions already with various international organizations, with various other countries and groupings about the prospects of humanitarian relief and reconstruction issues. And just as I think we have said, we are quite sure there will be others with us if it's necessary to take military action, I would say it is quite clear, also that there will be others who are interested in helping the people of Iraq recover from the many years of mismanagement that they have suffered.

QUESTION: On Libya, do you have any more information about the -- what's happening between Libya and the United States?

MR. BOUCHER: The simple answer is no. Assistant Secretary Burns is just back. He has a meeting this afternoon with the families of the PanAm 103 victims. We will look at the progress that was made. It was agreed in London that each of the governments would go back, each of the representatives would go back and discuss these matters with their own government.

Assistant Secretary Burns will be discussing the progress that was made in London. He'll be discussing within the U.S. Government and we will evaluate it, look at it closely, look at it very carefully to make sure that all the requirements of the UN resolution are met.

QUESTION: But still, the dilemma -- Iraq accepted the responsibility -- Libya.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think Iraq is going to accept any responsibility for anything, even this.

QUESTION: Sorry. If Libya accepted the responsibility, do you think that it will be out of the loop?

MR. BOUCHER: It would be what?

QUESTION: Out of the loop. I mean, they will not be persecuted?

MR. BOUCHER: There are clear requirements in the UN resolution and we will evaluate the reporting from London, what Mr. Burns tells us about his discussions in London. We will evaluate that progress very carefully against the standards in the UN resolution and the others, as we have explained it before.

QUESTION: Was there any outcome, then?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't know until we've had a chance to evaluate the information whether -- what to call this.

QUESTION: Do you think that would be most likely to take days, weeks, months? Do you have any sense of the timeline?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: That long? Months, even?

MR. BOUCHER: No, one or the other. I don't have any way of predicting exactly how long right now. It's not an instantaneous sort of thing.

QUESTION: We shouldn't expect anything imminently, then?

MR. BOUCHER: That would, imminent, imminent.

QUESTION: I just want to go back to Iraq for one second. In Geneva today at least one human rights group, maybe others, have come out and expressed some concerns that in your lobby -- that the session of the, of your favorite Libyan-chaired organization in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Commission --

MR. BOUCHER: The Human Rights Commission.

QUESTION: -- that you guys might be less inclined to take on the Chinese and the Russians, say, in terms of sponsoring resolutions about their human rights practices because of Iraq and what's going on in the Security Council. I know what your answer is going to be, but I need it for the record. I mean, what can you say to address those concerns?

MR. BOUCHER: We will look at each of these situations on their merits and decide what the appropriate action is in the UN Human Rights Commission session.

QUESTION: And -- entirely unrelated to Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: And we will look at each of these things on their merits.

QUESTION: On the question of whether or not the U.S. supports the British Six Points, you said that we're working with them, but that -- that the U.S. is working with them but you want to know is what the other members of the Council are looking for. Is that a direct link? Will the -- is that what the U.S. is waiting for, to see if it gains the support of the other members to support these Six Points?

MR. BOUCHER: I think what I would say is we have looked -- we have said the United States is willing to consider, willing to be flexible when we consider ideas that can help gather the proper support in the Security Council, and it's on that basis that we are discussing these and working on these. That -- this has been an evolving process. The situation is fluid. I don't know if the Six have evolved or changed since I have been up here, but I don't know that they have, but as we all know, this has been an evolving process.

We are working with others on this idea. Certainly it is a conjoined effort with the British to develop this into something that other members would support.

QUESTION: Do you have an indication that the Six Points have mustered some support on the Security Council?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't seen anybody declare themselves in favor of them yet, no.

QUESTION: What's your feedback on the recent changes in the Palestinian Government as by appointing a new prime minister and is the administration still working on the roadmap now?

MR. BOUCHER: I talked about this quite a bit yesterday and I think I would first refer to you to that, those statements. We have emphasized, I think, all along the importance of the Palestinian legislature appointing an empowered prime minister and we certainly welcome the changes that were made in recent days.

We are carefully examining the amendments to the basic laws that were adopted by the Palestinian legislative council yesterday. This does provide for a significant shift in authorities to the prime minister regarding important issues such as public order and security, oversight of public institutions, appointment of the cabinet and legislation. But obviously, what's most important is how those functions are exercised on the ground.

QUESTION: Are you still working on the roadmap?

MR. BOUCHER: Still. Absolutely. And we have talked about this, the Secretary talked about this a week ago, I think, in testimony. The President has talked about it recently and mentioned -- made clear his personal commitment to move forward with the roadmap, to move forward on his vision of two states that can live side by side in peace. The roadmap is the way to get there and the elements of the roadmap, in fact, some of them you could say we've been working on in trying to end the violence, trying to move forward, help move forward with the transformation of Palestinian institutions, the task forces are still running trying to take care of humanitarian situations. But we also look forward more -- to make more progress specifically down the road of the -- down through the elements of the roadmap and address some of the tougher issues to come.

But we have made clear the progress overall in Palestinian aspirations, progress overall towards the vision of two states living side by side, it is simply impossible as long as the kind of violence continues that we've seen in the past.

QUESTION: Richard, you have not been talking about authorizing, getting authorization to the prime minister of Palestine future and for negotiations. You are just putting all these things you just said, but you did not say about --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not giving authorization for anything. The legislature empowers him. He has got broad powers to conduct the business of the Palestinian Authority, to manage the affairs of the Palestinian Authority. We certainly look forward to dealing with the prime minister in that capacity.

What -- whether that leads to negotiations or not, I suppose we'll just have to see.

Mark.

QUESTION: The British Government has been urgently pushing for the roadmap to be published and it sounds from your comments today as though the British requests are being ignored. Is it the intention to wait until after --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't --

QUESTION: -- after Iraq is resolved before that's --

MR. BOUCHER: I have to say, I don't think I said that, nor did I say anything like that and if you'll remember what I said yesterday, maybe it was the day before, the stories that said we were holding off until after the Iraq question is resolved are not correct. We've been working to move -- looking to move forward on the roadmap.

We've always said that it was important to bring the violence down, it was important to allow the Israelis to conduct their election, it was important to see change and empowerment in the Palestinian community. We're starting to see those things now. We'll be in touch with other members of the Quartet and other people working on the roadmap to decide how best to move forward on these issues.

QUESTION: There's a report out there, I'm wondering if you could comment on the validity of it that you guys along with the Japanese and the South Koreans are working on language for a Security Council resolution on North Korea that would express serious concern about recent developments. Is that correct?

MR. BOUCHER: We -- well, as you know, the International Atomic Energy Agency Board referred the matter to the Security Council. There have been discussions among Security Council members. I think there have been P5 meetings on this. Clearly as we go through all this process, we keep in close touch with the Japanese and the South Koreans, but I wouldn't say that we're at the point of seeing a resolution right now.

QUESTION: Okay. In those discussions, though, has that -- I guess this is kind of an obvious question, obviously a resolution has been raised, so?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Oh, it hasn't?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I would say we're not at the point of seeing a resolution.

QUESTION: Is anything on paper?

MR. BOUCHER: Is anything on paper? There's a jillion papers on every topic in creation.

QUESTION: Are there ideas? On North Korea, I'm sorry. I'm following on that.

MR. BOUCHER: Again, we've had some discussions with other members of the Security Council. Whether anybody's written anything down yet, I don't know.

QUESTION: Several news organizations today, they report that including the State Department and some American organizations, they are contacted with the Iraqi high-ranking officials and these generals to -- if the war is Iraq, the fact immediately. Can you confirm?

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't -- no, I wouldn't be able to talk about anything like that. Whether it's true or not, I don't know.

Okay. Sir.

QUESTION: Richard, you've been discussing, I guess, the last half-month what the willing countries are going to do, but are you in any way and what efforts are being made to talk to the members of the General Assembly at large? And also, do you see any credence in any of the developments with the Arab League? Also with the Canadian plan and other aspects of other particular plans?

MR. BOUCHER: I would be here all day if I commented on everything that's been said by everybody but as you know, the past two days there have been extensive discussions with other members. The Security Council has been in open session. There have been a lot of people speaking out on the subject of Iraq and what to do about it, how to ensure Iraq's disarmament. There have been a lot of voices of different kinds, some say continuing the inspections, some say it's time to deal with the situation.

I think we've been pleased to see quite a number of countries coming out in support of the need to deal with the situation and do something about it and to stand up for the Council's previous resolutions. So that discussion continues. We're always there. We're always listening. Our mission in New York is always reporting back to us on those conversations, so we're interested in what other countries have to say and are paying close attention to that debate.

As far as the Canadian ideas, no, I don't have anything new to say on that. I think that's been discussed before.

QUESTION: What about the Arab League delegation? Why --

MR. BOUCHER: The Arab League delegation -- we had a very good discussion with them last Friday. The Secretary met with them in New York, had an extensive discussion with them about what they were trying to do to secure Iraqi disarmament, to get Iraqi compliance. Had another -- an equally extensive discussion with them on the Palestinian situation and how to proceed along the lines of the roadmap, how to proceed to try to get some movement on -- between Israelis and Palestinians.

QUESTION: But their aim was to come to Washington to meet the President. Why they were not extended this thing?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. We saw them in New York. That's where they were.

QUESTION: Richard, there have been many reports out of Beijing about Charles Lee saying that China plans to put him on trial. Do you have anything new to say about him and particularly on what he is being charged with?

MR. BOUCHER: I had the whole rundown yesterday. I don't have it with me. We'll get it to you after the briefing, but we've been paying close attention to that. We've had consular visits with Mr. Lee. His case was moved up to Yangzhou even though he was arrested in Guangdong. And we have been paying close attention to his situation.

Just one more.

QUESTION: -- something that you answered before, but I just got your answer before, but during the weekend, Ms. Rice admitted in one of the Sunday talk shows that the United States is willing to talk about different issues, financial matters with different countries to gain their support -- talking about the undecided countries and basically going back to Mexico. Without -- I'm sorry for being so persistent. I'm just trying to do my job.

So --

MR. BOUCHER: That's okay.

QUESTION: -- is there anything that you can tell us that will give us some sort of light? You just said that you haven't said yes or no, we're talking about A, B, C, or D, you just said we're talking about all different matters.

MR. BOUCHER: All I can tell you is that every single conversation that I'm familiar with, with the Mexican Government about the issues at the United Nations has been a conversation about Iraq, has been a conversation about how to secure Iraqi disarmament and how to work with other Council Members to secure that disarmament.

QUESTION: So there's no immigration matters, no financial aid --

MR. BOUCHER: Not in any of the conversations that I'm familiar with.

QUESTION: -- nothing, zero dollars? Nothing?

MR. BOUCHER: Not in any of the conversations I'm familiar with.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(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