*EPF502 02/13/2004
Transcript: State Department Briefing, February 13
(Cyprus, Iraq, Haiti, Liberia, Iran, Israel/Palestinians, Cuba, North Korea, Thailand/Vietnam) (8890)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is a transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:45 p.m. EST

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

Index:

CYPRUS
Agreement on UN Cyprus Talks
Role of European Union / Secretary Powell's Discussions with Other Foreign Ministers

IRAQ
Ambassador Brahimi Consultations / Direct Elections / Transfer of Sovereignty / UN Recommendations / November 15 Agreement
Status of Forces

HAITI
Secretary Powell's Meeting with Foreign Ministers of CARICOM & Canada / Coordination of Efforts
Foreign Police Force
Responsibilities of the Parties to Stabilize the Situation

LIBERIA
Proliferation Security Initiative Ship Boarding Agreement

IRAN
Clandestine Nuclear Activities / Obligation to Meet IAEA Requirements
Next Meeting of IAEA Board of Governors / Report from Director General

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
Commitment to the Roadmap
Diplomats in the Region / Removal of Israeli Settlements in Gaza / Importance of a Negotiated Settlement
Israeli Security Barrier & International Court of Justice Proceedings

CUBA
Release/Transfer of Eligible Guantanamo Bay Detainees / Review of Cases

NORTH KOREA
Visits by Foreign Delegations

THAILAND/VIETNAM
Avian Flu / Foot and Mouth Disease/ Department Communication & Cooperation with Health Officials and Local Governments Regarding Dangers

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can, I'd like to start off talking a little bit about the agreement in New York on Cyprus, and then I'd be glad to take your questions about this or other things.

The United States warmly welcomes the announcement by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today that the parties on Cyprus have committed to resume negotiations on the basis of his peace plan and to submit the resulting settlement to referenda for approval in time for a reunited island to join the European Union on May 1st.

This step came about thanks to the constructive spirit and political will of all the parties. An extremely helpful proposal to create a deadlock-breaking mechanism was made by the Turkish Cypriot side on February 11th and received a cooperative response from the Greek Cypriot side. This allowed the Secretary General to propose a compromise that was accepted by all the parties.

We are pleased that the parties are seizing this historic opportunity to achieve a just and durable settlement to the longstanding division of Cyprus. This will allow all Cypriots to enjoy the benefits of joining the European Union on May 1st.

The United States will, of course, continue to provide appropriate support to reach a successful conclusion. I would point out that, as the President indicated a few weeks ago, we have been actively involved in supporting the Secretary General's efforts. Secretary Powell has kept in close touch with the Secretary General on Cyprus. He has spoken to him just this week on Sunday and Wednesday and twice again yesterday. He has talked this week to Greek Foreign Minister Papandreou. He has been in touch with Turkish Foreign Minister Gul several times, including yesterday. And on the scene we've had Ambassador Weston who has been working up there for us, as well as Ambassador Klosson from Cyprus to help support the Secretary General's efforts and do what we can to help them reach this agreement.

Talks now move to Cyprus on February 19th, where they will start working on the details within the framework that they've agreed to. Those will be led by the UN Special Advisor on Cyprus, Alvaro de Soto, and we will continue to support the Secretary General's efforts and Mr. de Soto's efforts on the island.

Glad to take questions on this or any other topics.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Would you enumerate a little bit more about the EU role in that process?

MR. BOUCHER: I think it's for the Secretary General to talk a little more about the European Union. We have seen, I think, the statements that he's made and that others have made that indicate the European Union's willingness to accommodate a settlement and to provide assistance. The EU, like us, has been supportive of the Secretary General's efforts. And the Secretary General, I think, described how the EU could work on technical aspects, on implementation, and to accommodate a settlement in their procedures.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up.

At this stage, can we say, kind of, the Greek Cypriots' request for EU to be a part of this process has been accepted by the Secretary General Annan?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that I would try to characterize it one way or the other. The Europeans have always been supportive of seeing a settlement. They've always made clear their desire to have a united Cyprus enter the EU on May 1st, and so that's been one of the factors that's certainly been at play.

And as I said, the Secretary General has said they do have a role in helping with these discussions, but let's remember, all of us are helping the Secretary General who is leading the effort. We have a role to play; I guess others, others obviously do as well.

QUESTION: And one more thing?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary Powell have contacts with the EU, officials in EU members like he does with the, all the parties concerned?

MR. BOUCHER: He's certainly been active on Cyprus and talking about Cyprus with a variety of foreign ministers recently, and -- I'm trying to think -- yes, he talked, well, he certainly talked last Friday with the French Foreign Minister de Villepin about this. I believe in his phone calls this week with Foreign Minister Frattini of Italy, it came up. He also talked to the Irish Foreign Minister on Wednesday, Ireland currently being the presidency of the EU, about Cyprus.

So yes, it's been an active subject of discussion with other foreign ministers including European ones, again, all trying to support the Secretary General's efforts. That's what we're working on.

QUESTION: Can we do Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have an evaluation of Mr. Brahimi's talks? And do you have anything more to say about the caucus proposal?

MR. BOUCHER: We look forward to hearing from Mr. Brahimi and from the United Nations after he gets back and gets a chance to share his ideas, work on his ideas with others in New York. As I think he said in his press conference this morning, he'll be talking to the Secretary General within a few days and we look forward to getting the Secretary General's recommendations. And it's only at that point that we and the Governing Council and others, can take those recommendations into account and make the appropriate determinations on how to proceed.

We certainly welcome Mr. Brahimi's expertise and advice. We're pleased that he and his team have been able to hold extensive consultations across a broad range of -- across a broad cross-section of Iraqis about the best way forward for Iraq's political transition.

Along with the UN and the Iraqis, we agree that it's critical to return the government to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. It's up to the Iraqi people to determine their political future, and the UN and Coalition Provisional Authority are helping to do just that.

As far as details on what they might recommend, I really don't want to speculate. At this point, I think it's for them to get their thoughts together and to confer with the Secretary General. And I'm sure they'll be conferring with us and others who are involved in the near future.

Sir.

QUESTION: Richard, in that press conference, Mr. Brahimi has basically said that early elections would be impossible in Iraq. And where does this, as you see, fit with what you're talking with the Shiites and the Grand Ayatollah Sistani?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, one of the benefits of Mr. Brahimi's visit is he did have an opportunity at this juncture to meet with a very broad cross-section of Iraqi society, so he's, indeed, met with the Ayatollah Sistani, but he's also met with many others.

So what he's bringing back, I think, is not only bringing forward the UN's expertise and experience with things like -- matters like this -- but also the views of a broad section of discussion within the Iraqi society, and that's where he's going to have to put together his thoughts on what might work best in that environment.

We certainly have always maintained there need to be direct elections and indeed, that's a feature of the November 15th plan that the Governing Council put out that we worked with them on. We have always, also, looked for an early transfer of sovereignty, and that's why June 30th was chosen, and we devised a mechanism to get there on the transfer by June 30th.

So the question has not been, "Do we have elections or do we transfer sovereignty," it's "How can you do those things? When is it possible to have elections, and is it possible to use that as the mechanism for transferring sovereignty?"

We had concluded and we're hearing, also, from the United Nations in terms of the statements that you cited that, as the UN spokesman said yesterday, there is wide agreement that elections must be carefully prepared and organized in technical, security and political conditions that give the best chance of producing a result that reflects the wishes of the Iraqi people.

The Secretary said yesterday we would like to see elections as soon as possible. So we'll just have to see when they come back what their proposals might be for elections, but how to do this -- these two things that are important to both of us -- the first is to have direct elections and allow the Iraqi people to choose their government, and the second is to transfer sovereignty by July 1st.

QUESTION: He said a lot more about elections and the caucuses. Is the caucus proposal still on the proposal still on the table? At the --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, the caucus proposal's definitely on the table. We think -- we have grappled with these issues as well as discussed them with the Governing Council and so the November 15th proposals, with its elections, with its deadlines and with its caucuses remains not just on the table, but that's what we and the Governing Council have committed to.

Now, we've said we're interested and willing to refine that based on the recommendations that we get from the United Nations, and we're looking forward to hearing from the United Nations. If they have a different way or a better way or a refinement to achieve those goals, we're obviously going to take a close look at it because we think they do have a lot of experience and expertise that we can all benefit from.

QUESTION: I think that, to follow on that, Brahimi was quoted as saying that the caucus proposal would, at the very least, require considerable improvements. Are you open to considerable improvements, radical changes on it?

MR. BOUCHER: You know, we've used the word refinements. They can --

QUESTION: Which implies very little, very subtle changes.

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I wouldn't say that. I'd say considerable refinements might be possible, but the point is that we have to remember what the fundamental goals are, and the point is to achieve those goals, to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government through direct elections and to transfer sovereignty at an early point.

It may not be that you can do both of those things within the time period that we have from now until June.

QUESTION: Are you open to jettisoning the caucuses if that's what the UN recommends?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- let's stay with the word refinements for the moment. Let's see what the UN recommends, and we'll consider anything they recommend, I'm sure, seriously.

QUESTION: And then can -- sorry, may I have one other follow-up on Brahimi's comments?

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: He said that a transitional government would not last long, would not have extensive powers, and would see to an elected body as soon as possible. I'm sure you agree with the first and third parts of that. Would you agree with the second one, that a transitional government should not have extensive powers?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to prejudice what the UN might recommend to us. Let's see how he defines it and what kind of ideas they come up with as to how the transitional government should operate.

Yes, please.

QUESTION: You said that the fundamental goals are the early sovereignty and the elections, but maybe they might not be able to be done at the same time. Is there a priority of one over the other to happen sooner? I mean, are you willing --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, you see that the priority as we established it November 15th under commitments in the decisions of November 15th was to do the transfer of sovereignty with a legitimate and solid basis on June 30th and to have the full elections after that, but give them the amount of time it takes to prepare.

QUESTION: There is one deadline coming up. The fundamental law needs to be sort of delineated by the end of this month.

Do you see the fact that Brahimi won't be coming back to the states any time soon, in the next week or so, I think, and then it'll take -- and in a few days to sort of put together what he's thinking about in terms of recommendations, you're really going to come up really close to that deadline. Do you think that deadline could slip? Because there needs to be some sort of agreement on this issue in some form in that agree -- in that deadline.

Do you think that deadline could slip into March?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not predicting anything like that. I think if we're going to make the transfer of sovereignty that we're all working towards, which we need to try to make the transitional administrative law -- and there, indeed, if you look at the news from Iraq, Governing Council is discussing those things; our experts are working with them. The process is underway.

Yes, perhaps some of these outcomes from refinements of the UN visit will need to be integrated into that. But I think everybody is working with the idea in mind that we need to try to make this timetable and we need to try to get this all done by the end of the month. That includes us and the Iraqis, the Governing Council and the UN as well.

So that's what we're working towards.

QUESTION: A follow-on question on the negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement. If the transitional -- do you think the deadline for that also may have to slip?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think we've set any precise deadline for that except the transition itself would -- might necessitate, you know, have certain legal aspects of the Status of Forces. So we're not -- there's no deadline to slip at this point that I know of.

QUESTION: Okay. But don't you have to have a transition government with which to negotiate the agreement before you can do it? And if -- you know, everything's pushing toward June 30. I'm wondering how that's going to work. Who are you going to negotiate the agreement with if there isn't yet an --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, all these things can be prepared and worked on, but, you know, we're working towards that deadline. I don't have any precise mechanisms for you yet.

Tammy.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: Nadia.

QUESTION: If Brahimi is saying that there is a chance of a general election, but not until June 30th, are you willing to move June 30th as a deadline? Can you shift it to, I don't know, to September or something?

MR. BOUCHER: We're not looking to shift the deadline.

QUESTION: At all?

MR. BOUCHER: We have --

QUESTION: And I know it's a consensus.

MR. BOUCHER: We have said that in the November 15th proposal, in the November 15th decisions that the Council made, that we want to make this transition, do this transition, on June 30th. And so that's what we're all working towards. The UN is quite aware of that. I think we've said that's important to us. The Iraqis have said it's important to them. And let's not forget, this whole thing is about letting the Iraqis have control over their own country. If we can move to that on that deadline, we should all work hard to make it. So that's what we're doing, is finding the mechanisms to meet those deadlines and to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Let's see. Same thing?

QUESTION: Yeah, and just a question on caucusism. A while back we asked you if the Administration was open to the idea of having different kinds of caucuses for different parts of the country, having one sort of caucus system here, a different kind of refinement here, and we never really got an answer to that question.

MR. BOUCHER: I think I refused to speculate at the time. And if you don't mind, I'm going to refuse to speculate again. I've said we are open to refinements with the proposal that we made, and we'll see what ideas the UN comes up with. I don't want to speculate on one way or the other of making changes. And if you ask me tomorrow, I promise I'll say the same thing.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, well, that too.

Tammy.

QUESTION: Could you flesh out a little bit what Secretary Powell was talking about yesterday regarding Haiti, and talking to Canada and CARICOM nations about possibly sending foreign police troops down there? Is there -- would the U.S., you know, send police as part of this? I presume this is a topic today.

MR. BOUCHER: This is a topic today. There are discussions already underway in this building at different levels. The Secretary will meet with the foreign ministers of Canada and the CARICOM countries at 2 o'clock. They'll discuss the basic issue of how to bring a peaceful, constitutional, responsible government to Haiti, how the international community can help with that.

We're trying to coordinate our efforts with other governments on supporting a peaceful, negotiated, democratic and constitutional resolution of the crisis in Haiti.

One element, as the Secretary said yesterday, could be police going down to help with that, to maintain order, but I really am not able to take it any farther since those discussions are underway even as we speak. So those are the kind of questions, I think, we'll look to answer after the meeting.

QUESTION: U.S. police?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate. We're discussing the whole issue of how foreign police might be able to help maintain order in Haiti.

QUESTION: But you're not ruling out the possibility? In other words, U.S. police is part of the mix?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not addressing the issue until after we've had these discussions with the other governments involved. That's what I'm doing, or not doing, whichever it is.

QUESTION: You say the thought is, the concept is, the possibility of helping maintain order. There's no order to maintain at the moment because no order has yet been established. So is this police contingent dependent on peace breaking out in Haiti, and so we're talking about several weeks from now?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not speculating on timing, contingencies or any other questions of deployment. Those issues need to be addressed by the parties who might send them and who might be involved.

The issue today is not just one section of how the international community could help maintain order, but rather overall what does everybody have to do to stabilize the situation, to get to a peaceful, negotiated, democratic and constitutional outcome to this. That involves responsibilities that the government has, especially the government in terms of calming the situation and taking steps to end the violence, taking steps to institute responsibility among its own security forces. It has responsibilities that the opposition have to try to maintain a climate of violence (sic)* and reach a negotiated settlement. It has elements that the outsiders can contribute, like the CARICOM is contributing, to try to help them reach agreement.

So what we're doing is trying to look at what we can all do together in a coordinated fashion to, indeed, calm the situation and then to help maintain a stable situation as we work towards resolving the troubles through negotiation and discussion.

QUESTION: Have there been such discussions with the Haiti Government? At the moment, you're talking about discussions between the different mediators. Is the government down there supportive of such a move?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, there has been considerable discussion of the overall move to calm the situation and the government's responsibility is to do that in terms of, you know, many months of activity, particularly the meetings the President had with the CARICOM nations, including President Aristide, in Monterrey when the President and the Secretary both made clear we felt the government of President Aristide had a responsibility, a great responsibility, to take steps to calm the situation.

*...responsibilities that the opposition have to try to maintain a climate of peace

As far as whether this particular element of possible police has been discussed in that channel, I frankly don't know. But again, we'll try to address some of these things after the meeting, rather than while the meetings are going on.

QUESTION: Richard, do you know the last time Ambassador Foley spoke with President Aristide? And if you don't, could you get that date for us?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have it off the top of my head. I'd have to check.

QUESTION: Richard, yesterday an agreement was signed with Charles Gyude Bryant, the new Chairman of Liberia, regarding shipping. They're the second -- they're the world's second largest shipping registry. Are similar agreements going to be made with the Panamanians and other Asian countries?

And we've seen recently the -- I guess in Brazil, the outcome of -- with the airlines what occurs there. And is there a plan in fact --

MR. BOUCHER: Let's answer first questions first, okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Is there a plan in fact where there won't be disruptions?

MR. BOUCHER: I -- no, there are not going to be disruptions because that's why we sign agreements with people. We sign agreements with people so that we can do this in a manner that we all understand.

It's an important agreement, as you point out. This is the first ship boarding agreement that we've reached under the Proliferation Security Initiative -- remember, the initiative was announced less than a year ago by the President -- and that we have since taken it from that sort of general concept to various forms of action in terms of the exercises that have been held, the legal discussions that have been held, the frameworks that have been established, and now the ship-boarding agreement that we've been able to sign with Liberia.

So this is the first one. We are pursuing similar agreements with a number of other key flag states. This agreement is focused on stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction-related materials and items of proliferation concern at sea. It's based on counternarcotics agreements that we have with a number of countries, where we have agreements on boarding ships that might be carrying narcotics.

So it's not aimed against, you know, legitimate commerce or dual-use items. It's based on the need to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

The way the agreement works is that if a U.S.- or Liberian flagged vessel is suspected of carrying proliferation-related cargo, either one of the parties to the agreement can request the other to confirm the nationality of the ship in question, and if needed, authorize the boarding, searching and possible detention of the vessel and its cargo.

Each party has two hours to -- from the time they're contacted -- to respond, otherwise the other one will go ahead and act. A ship boarding request can be made and implemented by either party. The agreement applies worldwide to suspect vessels of both parties located seaward of any states' territorial sea.

So it's understandings that we've reached in advance, just so that if this case arises and needs to be acted on quickly, we can do it under a framework that we've all agreed -- both governments have agreed to in advance.

QUESTION: Do you also want to expand this search at various seaports? And are you getting cooperation from various governments, and maybe unions and others?

MR. BOUCHER: There are a lot of people involved in proliferation security, and a lot of that is sharing information and making sure we have procedures in our various territories that will catch proliferating activities. This particular agreement applies to sea, to ships at sea beyond territorial waters. It's in the nature of what we're doing here.

Teri.

QUESTION: Change of subject? Christophe.

QUESTION: Can I follow up --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) countries. Liberia is number two. What about one, three, and four and five?

MR. BOUCHER: As I said, we're pursuing similar agreements with a number of other key flag states.

QUESTION: Could you say which ones?

MR. BOUCHER: I can't give you a list at this point.

Yes. Christophe, change or same?

QUESTION: Same.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Teri, go.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Iran and the new revelations that the IAEA has made that Iran -- they found plans Iran did not willingly disclose? And could you also share with us the reasons that you have two high officials, Deputy Secretary Armitage and Secretary Bolton saying that they believe that Iran is currently continuing to pursue its nuclear weapons program?

MR. BOUCHER: The reason they are saying that is because they're being asked by the press, and they're telling the truth in response to the question. That's what the facts are. There has been --

QUESTION: But I asked you to share their evidence.

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I see. What lies below those things --

QUESTION: Yeah, I know. I know why they're saying it. I know why they're saying it.

MR. BOUCHER: -- other than the truth?

QUESTION: I meant their --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, let's look back a little bit. There were three reports last year by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General ElBaradei in which he confirmed that Iran had carried out clandestine nuclear activities, including conducting undeclared uranium enrichment activities and undeclared plutonium separation for nearly two decades.

Iran did so in violation of its International Atomic Energy safeguards, obligations and of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, Iran willfully and systematically hid those activities from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the world.

It's our assessment, and we've shared this with you before, that those activities were in support of a nuclear weapons program. We do not believe that Iran has made a strategic decision to abandon its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Furthermore, we don't believe that Iran has been fully transparent in its October declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency despite the Board of Governors having determined it to be essential that the declaration reflect a correct, complete and final picture of Iran's past and present program.

In fact, it's our judgment, as those officials said, that Iran has continued to hide information from the International Atomic Energy Agency related to its ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability.

As the President said in his speech on Wednesday, A.Q. Khan and his associates provided Iran with designs not only for the older centrifuges, but for more advanced models as well.

So we're concerned that the pattern of Iranian behavior that was documented last year by Dr. ElBaradei, that it is a partial cooperation only after others such as the International Atomic Energy Agency obtained evidence of its undeclared program, that that pattern is continuing.

We also remain concerned that Iran has not met other requirements of the November 26th resolution from the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors, including its failure now to move swiftly to ratify the additional protocol, which it did sign, which is good. And even more troubling, I think, is their failure to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities asdefined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. You remember that was a commitment that they gave when the European foreign ministers were visiting.

So we're looking forward to the next report from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. That report is expected soon. We expect he'll tell the Board fully what the inspectors have found in their ongoing investigation in Iran.

The Board meets again on March 8 to 10, and at that time, the Board can judge whether at that moment, Iran is meeting its pledges. It's very important to us that Iran be required to meet all the elements of the Board of Governors' decisions on this. We know that others share this concern. The Europeans have continued to be involved in trying to ensure full compliance by Iran with the promises that they made when the European ministers visited, and also as members of the Board of Governors, full compliance with Iran -- by Iran to the requirements to the Board of Governors.

QUESTION: Just to be clear, the documents that were uncovered by the IAEA, that's one concern, not full disclosure. But is that also -- and are you also saying that there's evidence that although they said they would, they would stop uranium enrichment or suspend uranium enrichment, you have -- the U.S. has evidence that they have not done that?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, it's not just the U.S. has evidence. I think there has been public disclosure and public discussion where the Iranians have questioned their commitment in that regard --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: -- and tried to define suspension as not meaning suspension.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: And I think there have even been reports they were continuing to acquire equipment --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: -- for that activity, whereas the IAEA and, I think, the European ministers have made clear they felt suspension actually meant suspension. It meant stopping it.

QUESTION: Do you think it could be enough to bring the case to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we'll have to see what the Board of Governors decide. The goal here is to bring Iran into compliance with its commitments, with the requests from the Board of Governors and with the commitments and promises that Iran has made in public.

But that's the context in which the Board will look at the report and decide what the appropriate steps are to try to get Iran to meet its commitments and obligations.

QUESTION: Richard, given the rather long litany that you described of an absence of transparency, of a failure to fully disclose, of a failure to keep to agreements that it made, and of continued pursuit, I wonder why you're not willing to say that the United States Government believes that this should be reported to the UN Security Council and argue for that with (inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, I think the first, the first point to make is that the meeting is several weeks away.

At this stage in the process, I think it's important for us to keep the emphasis on the need for Iran to meet its commitments and its obligations, that we are not going into this meeting on March 8 to 10 based on the promises that Iran made in the past or even some of the steps that it took like signing the additional protocol, but rather going into this meeting with the full knowledge of all the obligations and commitments, and that we expect Iran to meet those commitments, take the steps to meet those commitments.

So at this point, I think that the major emphasis is on encouraging Iran to live up to its obligations so that when the Secretary -- Director General of the agency reports to the Board in March, we can see whether or not Iran has lived up to its obligations and commitments.

QUESTION: So they have another chance?

MR. BOUCHER: The Board will discuss this in March, and it's that point where we'll have to decide what the appropriate steps are.

QUESTION: Well, so, Richard, you're not saying at this point that you've pretty much made up your mind that Iran is not making good on its pledges, and you're not going into this -- you're not going to this meeting with a kind of judgment already that Iran has not complied?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's put it this way. I'm telling you what the facts are today, that Iran has not lived up to its obligations, that that's been a pattern established in multiple reports and we see it continuing. But on -- when we get together with the rest of the Board members and hear from the Director General, that's when we'll have to make decisions about what the appropriate actions are, based on the facts at that point.

QUESTION: Why the lenience in his case, why giving them more time? Iraq was held to a very stringent standard. And when it failed to, you know, meet its obligations to further disclose --

MR. BOUCHER: You mean why did we let Iraq have 12 years to come into compliance, and we're only giving the Iranians another couple of weeks?

QUESTION: Well, you could --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I got the question wrong. Sorry. I might have misunderstood.

QUESTION: So they have 12 years, is that what you're saying?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not saying they have 12 years.

QUESTION: 2026 is cool with you?

MR. BOUCHER: We're not going to go through 16 resolutions or anything like that. The point -- first of all, I don't think the two cases --

QUESTION: So 12 years is the standard? I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not. The two cases are not directly comparable, first of all. You have, I think, in this matter, action that the Board of Governors is taking to try to get compliance with the requirements of the Board of Governors. That's where the action is centered. The effort needs to be to get that sort of compliance with the IAEA requirements. I don't want to speculate on what might happen beyond that if Iran doesn't meet those standards.

QUESTION: Does the specific fact of what this new technology that's now been discovered is and how critical it is, does that lend weight to -- also to possibly moving it to the Security Council, or does it add weight to the concerns that you have, not just that they lied about something else, but what they actually lied about is quite significant also, isn't it?

MR. BOUCHER: I think --

QUESTION: This huge technology.

MR. BOUCHER: -- that's been true about many of the items that -- the examples that have been revealed over time in the International Atomic Energy Agency's report. That's why last fall the Board of Governors had such a long list of requirements.

But Iran did make commitments that it was going to meet those requirements and take other steps, so that's the judgment the Board will have to make in March: What's the best way to ensure that Iran complies if, at that moment, they still have not?

Sonni.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. believe that Iran had intent to deceive? In other words, these documents were described as "concealed." Are you alleging that there's a kind of concealment program in Iran?

MR. BOUCHER: I described the pattern as being one where Iran willfully and systematically hid its activities from the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think that's been quite clear in the previous reports done by the Director General.

Nadia.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Dr. Hanan Ashwari was at Congress and she painted very grim picture of the situation in West Bank and Gaza. She said that the roadmap basically does not exist except on paper, and there is a political vacuum and there is lack of will on part of the U.S. Government and the EU, and the UN cannot move without signaling from the U.S.

Do you -- and then later on, apparently she met with Mr. Burns. Can you confirm that she did? And do you share this point of view? And what was the talk with Mr. Burns were about?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have a rundown of that particular meeting and I can't confirm it for you. We'll have to check. We often meet with Ms. Ashwari and others, prominent Palestinians, members of Palestinian society like her, so I wouldn't be surprised. That doesn't mean we always agree with them 100 percent.

We do believe that the roadmap is a very important way forward. It's the way to achieve the President's vision of June 24th. We maintain our commitment and our effort to get the parties to implement that.

But the question of resolve, the question of commitment, as we've said, really lies in the hands of the Palestinian Government at this point. We're looking for them to show their resolve, to take actions on the security front, to demonstrate that they're prepared to end the terror, which has stood in the way so often of making progress and achieving the Palestinian state that they want.

Sir.

QUESTION: My question is about the U.S. bases in Okinawa, Japan.

QUESTION: No, no, no.

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: Come back to it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: David.

QUESTION: What can you tell us about the makeup and the mission of the team that the Secretary spoke about yesterday going to the Middle East?

MR. BOUCHER: I really can't say much more at this moment about the makeup and the mission. We have frequent exchanges back and forth with the Israeli Government. As you know, Assistant Secretary Burns was out there in December. This past month, in January, we've had Ambassador Wolf and Ambassador Satterfield out there. We keep in close touch with the Israeli Government and the Palestinian side through our diplomats in the region.

So we'll continue to have people back and forth to discuss these issues. Deputy Prime Minister Olmert was just here talking to the Secretary, and they discussed the ideas that are being put forward in Israel. And so I would expect we'd have other people go out there to discuss those ideas further as this situation evolves. But I don't have any definite travel plans or lists of members who might go.

QUESTION: Are you going to (inaudible) with the Israelis that the proposed withdrawal of Jewish settlements from Gaza not be a last step and that it would be only a first step in this process?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've always put it in that context. We've said it would be, obviously, a good thing to take steps like that that would reduce tensions, that would help to resolve, perhaps, some of the problems. But we've made clear that that needs to be placed in the context of reaching a negotiated solution of achieving the President's vision. And frankly, I think that's been part of what the Israelis have said recently. If you look at what Ambassador Ayalon has said or some of the Israeli officials or Deputy Prime Minister Olmert when he was here have made clear that they're considering these steps, but they see them as part of the long-term goal of achieving the President's vision and resuming negotiations to reach a final settlement.

So we have in the past expressed our concern that neither side impose final conditions on the other. But Israeli moves could -- such as removing settlements -- could reduce the friction between Israelis and Palestinians, could improve freedom of movement for the Palestinians, address some of Israel's responsibilities in moving ahead towards the vision the President described on June 24th, 2002.

So we'll discuss this issue further with them and with the Palestinian side, even as we press and continue to press very hard for resumption of discussions between the two sides, and for Palestinian action on security issues that we believe are essential to really moving forward.

Sir.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary made any phone calls either to the Israeli side or to the Arab side as far as other nations involved?

MR. BOUCHER: Not directly to the Israelis or Palestinians, no. He has certainly continued to discuss these issues with other foreign ministers who are concerned about the situation, but he hasn't been making phone calls himself.

QUESTION: The Saudi Foreign Minister is going to address this, the roadmap and the Middle East problem next week with European officials. Is there any -- is there any discussion with the Saudis on any new movement forward, the Gaza situation, or anything like that?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know to what extent we've had the opportunity to talk to the Saudis about it. Our embassy does keep in touch with them all the time. So I don't think there is any lack of understanding, both of their efforts that they've made in the past and that they continue to make, and of our efforts too.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), have the Israelis informed you what they are planning to do with the settlers in Gaza? Because there is some reports who are saying that they're moving them to a very vital important settlement around Jerusalem and Bethlehem, which makes more tension rather than removing it.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. We've seen those reports as well. And if you look at what the Secretary said yesterday on the Hill when he testified, he made clear that one of the issues that we needed to discuss with the Israelis, to figure out whether this step would move us forward or not, was to find out where these people would go after they left Gaza.

So, yes, that is an issue that needs to be looked at.

Elise.

QUESTION: Once Israel evacuates settlements from Gaza or there is some kind of, you know, temporary arrangement of that for -- what -- but what incentive is it for either side to get back to the negotiating table if there is a reality that's created on the ground?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we have tried to make clear all along, and continue to make clear, that you can't really resolve the fundamental issues without a negotiation, without a negotiated settlement. That's where the President's vision of two states that can live side by side in peace is implemented by the roadmap, because there need to be steps on both sides and discussions and negotiation on both sides to resolve some of these issues.

You may be able to reduce the tension and remove some issues by withdrawing settlements. But in the end, having a final settlement that both sides accept, that's accepted in the international community, that leads to the endorsement and support of other states is going to require negotiation. And that's why it's important to maintain that framework for us.

And as I said, I think the Israelis, if you look at their statements on these matters, recognize that as well.

QUESTION: Richard, with respect to both the fence and a pullout of Gaza settlements, the PA, Palestinian Authority and some Arab governments are bringing this to the World Court on February 23rd. Does it belong in the World Court? And do you see that as a unilateral move that might harm --

MR. BOUCHER: I think -- it was brought to the World Court by the General Assembly and we have expressed our views on that, both in the statement we issued at the time and the written submission that was given to the court. And I think we briefed on that here, so I would just refer you back to those things.

QUESTION: Just on that, are you going to, before the Court, make an oral argument? To follow up on the written submission?

MR. BOUCHER: We notified the Court on February 11th that we do not intend to participate in the oral hearings in this case. As you noted, the oral hearings begin on February 23rd. We did -- we voted against the General Assembly resolution sending the issue to the Court. We continue to believe the referral was inappropriate and may impede efforts to achieve progress toward a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

We provided a written submission on January 30th. We think that provided the Court with important background information on the Middle East peace process, and it identified U.S. concerns regarding the Court's consideration of the General Assembly's request.

Our concerns about the routing of the security barrier and its effect on the Palestinian population and the negotiating process, of course, remain valid and are well known.

I'd point out there were 46 other written statements to the Court that covered a wide range of views. Many of the submissions echoed similar concerns to ours, so in that -- in that circumstance, we don't feel it's necessary to supplement our written views with some kind of oral presentation.

QUESTION: On Peru, do you have anything to say about the growing political tensions --

MR. BOUCHER: He gets to change the subject first.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: About the U.S. military bases in Okinawa, Japan. Is the U.S. considering returning Futenma without an alternative base? And did Mr. Armitage discuss this with the Japanese officials when he was there a couple of weeks ago?

MR. BOUCHER: I'd have to check on how the discussion went on that. It usually does come up in our conversations with Japanese officials, but I don't know if there was any news involved, so I'll have to check.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Peru?

QUESTION: Yeah, on the political tension in the country.

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to get you something on that. I don't have anything off the top of my head. I'm sorry.

Teri.

QUESTION: Ambassador Prosper has just given, I guess, a videoconference, press conference?

MR. BOUCHER: He was going to do a briefing at the Foreign Press Center, is that --

MR. ERELI: A DVC with Spain.

MR. BOUCHER: A DVC with Spain. With Spanish reporters?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: Ah. Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: He's going to do something at the Foreign Press Center, too, I think.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, he's already announced, now, that there will be an administrative review system set up at Guantanamo. Is that something coming out of the State Department? Could you expand on that?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think the basic announcement is coming out of the Defense Department. I think Secretary Rumsfeld is making a speech in Miami today where he'll talk about this issue. And I believe he would have already done so by now, but I have to check the exact timing.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: The, I think the point that we need to make is that we have already released some, I think it's 87 at this moment, people who were being held at Guantanamo, that there are many others who are eligible for release or for transfer back to their home countries if we can work out arrangements with those countries.

Our goal is to return as many people as we can to either normal life or to their home countries for whatever legal procedures might be appropriate there. There are some that we won't be able to do that with -- people who are still dangerous, who are not cooperating, or who remain a danger as long as this war on terrorism goes on. But we are -- we have released many and we are preparing to release more or transfer them to their home countries, provided we can get the arrangements worked out with those governments.

QUESTION: But this thing -- what he's talking about is that once a year these people will be able to come before a board --

MR. BOUCHER: Oh.

QUESTION: -- and state their case, right?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, the ones that we feel are still -- are, you know, still dangerous or can't be released at this moment. Nonetheless, we look to reviewing that on a regular basis, I think, once a year in a proceeding where they would get to talk about themselves. Foreign governments would be able to come and provide any information that they might have on what they might do or what they might know so that we can indeed review these cases and see whether it's not possible to end the detention.

But fundamentally, we do need to make sure that the people who are still dangerous are not let out to go and --

QUESTION: Will they have access to any -- I'm sorry

MR. BOUCHER: -- conduct acts against us.

QUESTION: Will they have access to any legal counsel in this year-span?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as that particular proceeding, I'm not sure if there's legal representation or not. Of course, the people who are referred to military tribunals have already been given -- will be given, if there are further people, the right to counsel and access to lawyers.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Two Japanese official went to upcoming, just, you know, two weeks ahead of six-party talk. It's a kind of a bilateral issue between North Korea and Japan, but can you say anything about the implications for the six-party talk? I mean, it's a kind of a good sign?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sorry. About what?

QUESTION: Oh -- can you say anything about the implication --

MR. BOUCHER: Of what?

QUESTION: -- Japanese, of their visit to Pyongyang for six, another six round, six-party talk?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't think so. Not at this moment.

QUESTION: It's not a good intention by North Korea or --

MR. BOUCHER: I -- there have been a variety of visits. As you know, there have been some Americans who have visited there not so long ago. Interpreting what it means to the North Koreans, I think, is something I'll leave to North Koreans and to commentators who are more willing to speculate than me.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah. The last one. Last two.

Sir. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Richard, there seems, and I did bring this up once and Adam referred, said, "Why do you bring this up," but both Thailand and Vietnam are holding a joint cabinet session with regard to this Asian flu and now there appears to be a foot and mouth disease in the area in Vietnam. And they've already slaughtered 80 million chickens, and it's even swept to -- different flu -- to the state of Delaware here in the United States.

Have we been asked to put in assistance? And the particular cabinet meeting isn't necessarily regarding these medical issues; it's on security. Are we going to be checking hard on some --

MR. BOUCHER: I really, I'm -- this question that Adam asked you is growing in my mind. Did you answer it, or not?

QUESTION: No, he somewhat sidestepped it.

MR. BOUCHER: We posted an answer at the time?

MR. ERELI: I took the question, but --

MR. BOUCHER: All right, we took the question and we posted an answer.

QUESTION: But it's getting progressively worse now.

MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, the question of Avian flu is a concern of ours. You might check with the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. We have very close ties with health officials in Asia. We did -- when I was in Hong Kong, we had the outbreak there. Our CDC was very heavily involved in working with local health officials. I'm sure they're doing that again this time.

Our embassies keep in touch with local governments about the dangers involved to make sure that the cooperation between all the countries is the maximum that we can provide in the circumstance.

Okay, who was the last one?

Back there. Nadia.

QUESTION: Just two more questions. One is about -- we heard that the son of Colonel Qadhafi, Seif Al Islam is visiting the U.S. soon. Can you confirm that he's coming? Is he coming in an official capacity? And second one, the much talked about --

MR. BOUCHER: That's a new one on me. I have not heard that and I -- you'd probably have to check first with the Libyans, but -- no.

QUESTION: You haven't? Okay. And second, the much talked about (inaudible) television that, in every speech we hear recently, hear the name. So we're really excited, want to do a story about them, but so far they refuse to give us access. I mean, maybe you can use your connection to see if you can go and interview some people there I wonder.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I haven't asked to go out there myself. They're kind of busy right now, but I think that's between you and them. Sorry.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:37 p.m.)

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau 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