*EPF202 04/20/2004
Transcript: State Department Noon Briefing, April 20
(Libya, Israel/Palestinians, Jordan, Syria, Cyprus, Iraq, Thailand, Italy, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, China) (7420)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed reporters at the noon briefing April 20.

Following is the transcript of the State Department briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
12:55 p.m. EDT

BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

LIBYA
-- Progress with Libya/Potential Lifting of Trade Sanctions
-- Discussions Between the Families of Bombing Victims and the Libyans
-- Plans to Eliminate the Exceptional Courts
-- U.S. Diplomatic Status
-- Libyan Status in Patterns of Global Terrorism Report

ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Targeted Killings
-- Final Status Negotiations/Status of Roadmap
-- Loan Guarantees/Settlement Activity
-- U.S. Taxpayer Money for the Withdrawal
-- Creation of a Palestinian State

JORDAN
-- Secretary's Meeting with Foreign Minister
-- Failed Chemical Bomb Attack

SYRIA
-- Cooperation on Iraq Border/Responsibility to Fight Terrorism

CYPRUS
-- UN Secretary General's Report to the Security Council/Annan Plan
-- UN Security Council Resolution

IRAQ
-- Secretary's Conversations with FM's of Countries with Troops in Iraq

THAILAND
-- Troops in Iraq

ITALY
-- Reports of Arms Intercept

LEBANON
-- Clashes with U.S. Security Personnel and Protestors

NORTH KOREA
-- Kim Jong-il's Reported Visit to China

SUDAN
-- Status of Peace Talks/Darfur

CHINA
-- Reports of Censorship of Vice President Cheney's Speech

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

12:55 p.m. EDT

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I realize the Secretary is out several times for you today, answering all your big questions, but I thought I'd appear just in case there is other items on your mind.

George.

QUESTION: Can you say what thinking is going on concerning Libya sanctions?

MR. BOUCHER: Let me give you the rundown of where we stand on Libya. I think the first thing to note is the remarkable progress that we've made with Libya, in terms of the elimination of Libya's nuclear program, the elimination of many of their missiles and programs to convert others, the elimination of chemical weapons that's well underway.

The President, right from the start, made clear that we'll be in good faith in this effort. Libyan determination to do what they committed to do would be reciprocated. So as we move forward, we have talked to the Libyans, as well as to our friends and allies, about things that we might be able to do.

Last month, when Assistant Secretary of Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns was in Tripoli, he delivered an oral message from President Bush to Colonel Qadhafi confirming the excellent progress that Libya has made, and saying that that allowed us to look forward to continued improvements in our bilateral relations.

At that time, Ambassador Burns and the Libyans discussed potential measures to normalize trade and investment, reflecting the growing depth and breadth of our bilateral engagement. Libyan officials highlighted their interest in further integrating into the world economy, and the two sides agreed on the need to conduct further discussions on those important issues.

So we have been looking at potential measures to normalize trade and investment. We don't have any particular announcements for you at this time. But it's something that we're looking at.

Okay. Charlie.

QUESTION: Change subject.

QUESTION: On this?

MR. BOUCHER: On this? Teri.

QUESTION: Are you aware -- I know that this isn't something the State Department is formally involved. But are you aware of the discussions between the lawyers of the families of the victims and the Libyans, which has now extended their payments, I think, three more months?

MR. BOUCHER: We're aware of the discussions, but the determination, the understandings need to be done on behalf of the families by their lawyers.

QUESTION: Are you still concerned, though, about earlier threats made by Libya that I think have since been retracted, though, that they won't continue their payments if the U.S. doesn't move quickly enough or has that -- has that dissipated?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know, don't know if they've actually reached agreement, but we're certainly aware that they've been in discussions. And I'm sure they've been keeping us up to date in other parts of this vast building.

But I think it is important to remember that, right from the start, when those agreements were made that we were not able to give a commitment on a specific timing. We certainly do have the interests of our families in mind as we look at things and we've always supported their efforts. But in this regard, as far as negotiations, their lawyers have to work it out for them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Qadhafi announced that in dealing with special courts and which is sort of like reducing or disallowing the benefit of appeal. Now, coupled with all this dramatic movement or improvement, as you called it, are we likely to see an exchange of diplomatic relations with the United States before the election?

MR. BOUCHER: You took a bit of a jump there. On the issue of suspending or eliminating the Exceptional Courts, that, of course, would be very welcome. So we welcome the announcements. We urge Libya to follow up on these steps with concrete action, and we will certainly follow up with Libya's part of our bilateral dialogue.

In terms of diplomatic relations, as you know, we've expanded our diplomatic presence on the ground in Libya and we do have diplomats there now on an ongoing basis, working on behalf of the United States. And that representation, as well as Libyan representation in Washington, would continue to expand and develop as we go along.

QUESTION: What would Libya have to do to prove to the U.S. that, you know, it is worthy of full diplomatic relations, beyond what they are doing?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the exact -- this is a very complicated subject of diplomatic relations. We have diplomatic relations with Libya. Far as I remember, we never broke diplomatic relations; we just asked another power to protect our interests there while our diplomats were active.

QUESTION: Wait a second. You moved your Ambassador, closed your Embassy, told them to get out of Washington.

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you didn't break diplomatic relations?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What exactly do you have to do?

MR. BOUCHER: You have to tell them, "I'm breaking --

QUESTION: Do you have to say something three times and throw sand in their face?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, something like that. Yeah. But so that's why I say it's very complicated and I don't really want to make generalizations. But the general tenor of things is that as we have moved down this path with Libya, we have expanded our diplomatic presence so it's no longer Belgian diplomats representing the United States and looking after our interest; rather, it's American diplomats who are out there representing the United States, representing our interests. They have expanded their presence, made it more regular as we move forward, and that is a process that will continue into the future as the progress with Libya continues.

QUESTION: Richard, on that, could you just find out what exactly is different between, say, right now, U.S.-Libya, or pre-December, U.S.-Libya and, say, U.S.-Iran? I mean, what was different in that case where there was a -- because there is a -- there is an interests section in Tehran.

MR. BOUCHER: No, that's right. There are interests sections in other places.

QUESTION: In Cuba. Do you have diplomatic relations with Iran?

MR. BOUCHER: You're inviting me to get into a subject that I just said was too complicated for me to try to explain off the top of my head. So both questions are good lessons in compare and contrast, and if we can do that for you, I will.

QUESTION: Richard, just to tie up a few logistical loose ends on the U.S.-Libya diplomatic relations front, are there any Libyans in Washington yet, any Libyan diplomats in Washington yet? Is the U.S. still working out of the Belgian Embassy or has it moved either back to the U.S. Embassy or to some other location?

MR. BOUCHER: Our diplomats are working out of another location. Again, I'll get the exact diplomatic status of whether they're still somehow under the auspices of the Belgians or not.

QUESTION: Libya?

MR. BOUCHER: And as far as Libya in Washington, I'll have to check, don't know.

QUESTION: Is there any new language, you'd say, with Libya's presence on the terrorism list, that they curtailed a lot of these ties, but some still remain?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the language that we have to define where they stand is pretty much what we said last year about the previous years. So our observation at this point is that in 2003, Libya held to its practice in recent years of curtailing support for international terrorism, although Tripoli continues to maintain contact with some past terrorist clients.

QUESTION: New subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Sharon has indicated that Israel will continue killing Hamas members. Are you concerned that Israel isn't listening to your urging it to consider the consequences of its actions?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any observations on that at this point. I think we've made clear our view. I think the Israelis understand very clearly what we mean and what we say.

QUESTION: Do you think they listen to the part more in your statements that Israel has the right to self-defense?

MR. BOUCHER: What they listen to, how they gauge their actions, what they think, what they consider, is a question for Israelis to answer.

QUESTION: On this subject, Richard, the Secretary and the Jordanian Foreign Minister spoke at length about -- well, the Secretary spoke at length about how the United States didn't want to do -- wasn't doing anything to prejudice the final status negotiations. And the Jordanian Foreign Minister said he had been very reassured about your commitment to the roadmap and to the idea that these -- the eventual negotiations not be affected at all by what's happened.

But this seems to go -- this seems to be contrary to what -- something you said from the podium last week, which was that, in fact, it could affect negotiating positions. And it seems to me that yours is actually the more honest appraisal of it. I'm just curious, how --

MR. BOUCHER: I'd stand up for the honesty of the Secretary above mine any day. (Laughter.) But I don't -- I think it's a bit of a distortion to say -- and the President made clear that the positions that we were taking about realities were not determining the outcome of the negotiation or intended to prejudice the outcome of the negotiation. That's clear in everything the White House said during the Sharon visit and that's what the Secretary has said as well. I believe that's what I've said as well.

QUESTION: Well, you said that it could -- it affects the starting points.

MR. BOUCHER: No, I think it said it obviously would have -- our position obviously has some influence over how these negotiations proceed. There are -- we're pointing out realities. It's -- I suppose, the final analysis would be it's -- there is a certain reality that has to intrude on any negotiation.

QUESTION: Okay, well, then --

MR. BOUCHER: And we think these are ones that do.

QUESTION: All right. Sorry. Then can you say, though, that the -- is it realistic for the Palestinians now to go into final status negotiations demanding the right of return? I think you have to say that the answer is no, right?

MR. BOUCHER: But that doesn't prevent them from doing that and that doesn't prevent them from starting a negotiation -- holding that position and starting a negotiation.

QUESTION: You don't think that your -- that the President's and subsequent statements undercut that at all, and, in fact, even though the Palestinians may have been ready to give that up at some point in exchange for something else, you don't see your statements as having undercut three, five weeks, whatever of hard negotiations --

MR. BOUCHER: It doesn't determine the outcomes of the negotiation. And it's not -- I don't -- I'm not trying to draw too fine a distinction here, so I don't want to get into a long explanation.

I think it's clear that the United States position obviously carries some weight with everybody. The fact that we point to certain realities means that those realities are clear to everybody and they will have an effect on the process of negotiation. But we don't determine what the parties come in with and we don't really determine what the parties walk away with.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me just -- I'll stop after this. But if you're willing to concede that what you said will have an effect on the status of the negotiations, I don't understand how you can, at the same time, say that you're not -- you haven't done anything to prejudice them. I mean, what's --

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, the Secretary this morning said no prejudice to the final status outcomes. I'd look at the way the "prejudice" word was used and, you know, how that was explained during the Sharon visit. But as I said, we don't determine what the parties bring into the negotiation, and ultimately we don't determine what the parties bring out of the negotiation.

QUESTION: But you're helping them facilitate it. I mean, in a lot of these negotiations -- Camp David most emphatically --

MR. BOUCHER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- you're supposed to be an impartial broker. And how can you do that if you already have taken a position in favor of one of them?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've always said an "honest broker," and an "honest broker" is sometimes clear about the realities and sometimes put forward positions, and sometimes pointed out where we think possibilities are and where we think they aren't. So I think if you look --

QUESTION: If I could -- wait, can I --

MR. BOUCHER: -- if you look, anybody who -- I'm not here to quibble over words. Anybody who looks at the action that the United States has taken over the years in these negotiations, our role has consistently been to try to help the parties achieve their aspirations. And, frankly, I would say our role has been to try to help the Palestinians achieve their aspirations through negotiation. We have been honest, we have been fair, and we have, at various times, called them the way we've seen them.

QUESTION: The Israelis are saying that they're going to invest a lot of money into settlements now, in light of the President's endorsement of the Sharon plan, that this will solidify their hold on the settlements in the West Bank. So do you think by them investing money in these settlements prejudges a future settlement?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position on settlements hasn't changed. We still adhere to the roadmap and what it says about settlements.

QUESTION: Could you clarify for us the difference between an honest broker and evenhanded?

MR. BOUCHER: We try to be fair to both sides.

QUESTION: And then I have a follow-up.

MR. BOUCHER: I mean, and it's not -- again, you're asking me to clarify distinctions that we haven't really made. I can't clarify a distinction that I've never felt was important or tried to make clear.

QUESTION: But you just said that we always said that we're honest brokers --

MR. BOUCHER: He said impartial --

QUESTION: -- and with some partiality.

MR. BOUCHER: -- as if we were totally neutral on everything.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: The United States has never been totally neutral in everything in the negotiations. We've always tried to be helpful. Sometimes that means sitting back; sometimes that means getting involved.

Look at every administration that's done this, Democrat and Republican, over 20 or 30 years. There have been moments when the United States has had to talk about reality and had to tell parties, here is the way we think you ought to go, or can go, or we don't think this is achievable.

QUESTION: Could I go back to the issue of assassination? Israel threatened to assassinate member -- leaders of Hamas in places like Damascus and Beirut. If they do that, how would the U.S. Government view that, if they, let's say, bombed buildings in Damascus to kill someone?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll say, as I have before, what I said to your colleagues: first, I'm not going to speculate on if they do this or that or the other; second of all, our position on targeted killings, our positions on these recent events has been made abundantly clear in public, as well as consistently in private.

I don't think the Israelis are under any doubts about what our position is.

QUESTION: Did you make it clear to them that you wouldn't look too kindly on bombing places in Damascus or Beirut?

MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear to them what our position is, not necessarily what you might be speculating on.

Sir.

QUESTION: In his interview yesterday, Secretary Powell acknowledged Syria's cooperation concerning the Syrian-Iraqi borders and the infiltration there. He was asked, this country of 20 million people and $8 billion only annually, to increase its troops along the borders in there.

Does -- is the United States trying to help Syria maybe make such a decision by reducing its voice, Syria's voice, with the new threats of Israel yesterday through (inaudible) and other newspapers that they are going to bomb the country? Are you going to go beyond saying that Israel has the right to defend itself, whatever?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, we've said a lot more than that. Second of all, Syria's responsibility on the Syrian side of the border is something not only that we all recognize and respect, but something that Syria itself has talked about and said that they want to handled that part of the border, that that side -- they want to handle that side of the border. So we're looking for them to do what they promised they would do.

QUESTION: President Bashar al-Assad and other Syrian officials have been saying all along for more than few weeks now that stability of Iraq is in the national interest of Syria itself, and they are trying hard to do that, to cooperate. That has been acknowledged yesterday also by Secretary Powell, as we said, and Senator Nelson after he met with President al-Assad. I mean --

MR. BOUCHER: That's all well and good.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, are you --

MR. BOUCHER: But it takes more than acknowledgement. It takes action to act in the national interest of Syria.

QUESTION: Well, also the United States has a role with it, as a strategic partner, Israel, to calm it, to stop it from going farther in its aggressions, not only within the Palestinian lands, but also to other countries. I mean, the British didn't do that during the Irish --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, I don't think there are parallels there. The United States has consistently pushed for peace. We've consistently pushed all the countries in the region to live in peace. We've consistently urged the countries to look for opportunities to move forward on any aspect, comprehensively on the peace process, if possible, and we've always made clear to Syria and to Israel that we're wiling to help if they could see ways of making progress.

None of this that you're saying absolves Syria from their responsibility to make sure that its territory, its borders, its policies, its support, its airplanes, its people are not used to support terrorism against other countries.

Okay.

QUESTION: The Secretary yesterday said in an interview that he expected to make a recommendation on what sanctions should be imposed under the Syria Accountability Act in the very near future. Do you think you're going to have that -- has that decision been made yet, and do you expect it this week?

MR. BOUCHER: Very near future. Nothing further to what the Secretary said.

QUESTION: All right. In the very near future.

Can I just go back to a technical point on the -- this will be very quick, I promise -- just on the settlements?

Do you know if the President, if his acceptance of the realities on the ground has done anything to change how you will judge loan guarantee deductions or anything else under the law for -- you remember last year --

MR. BOUCHER: No, the law is quite clear on loan guarantee deductions. We made a about $290 million deduction from the billion that -- or several billion that was available last year. We haven't made any decisions this year, but the law is the same and the --

QUESTION: Right. But so --

MR. BOUCHER: So we would expect to have to do that again this year, based on how much money the Israelis spend in these various areas.

QUESTION: So -- okay. So that the President's acceptance of the reality that some settlements are going to have to remain, you don't think affects how you will interpret that law as to what -- as to which activities by Israel could be harmful to the negotiation on settlements?

MR. BOUCHER: The law is -- says that loan guarantees may be issued only to support activities in geographic areas subject to Israeli administration before June 5, 1967.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. BOUCHER: And then specifies that there will be deductions for activities the President determines are inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the United States and the Government of Israel regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program.

But that basic criteria about deductions are guarantees only for areas subject to Israeli administration prior to June 5th, and then deductions for activities that take place elsewhere. That's, you know, it's been standard in the law and well understood.

QUESTION: Yeah. But so even though -- even though you're accepting the idea that there are going to be -- there are going to be settlements and settlement activity outside that boundary, you're going to still punish -- you're still going to punish Israel for it? I don't see how that's consistent.

MR. BOUCHER: We did not, in the Sharon visit or elsewhere, take a position on specific settlements or specific population centers. We just said they are there and need to be taken into account.

QUESTION: Okay. So even -- all right, never mind.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Charlie.

QUESTION: Did anything come up in the talks between -- when Prime Minister Sharon was in town about U.S. taxpayer money going to help in the withdrawal, cover expenses in the withdrawal from Gaza or the four settlements in the West Bank? If you don't know the answer to it, could you get an answer?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the answer. There was so much briefing done on the visit, I really haven't tried to supplement it with other information. I don't know.

QUESTION: Would you take the question?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll see if there's anything to say. You might ask at the White House as well, since that's where most of the discussion was taking place.

Sir.

QUESTION: Different subject?

QUESTION: Can we stay on this for a minute?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Joel.

QUESTION: Richard, do you have anything to say about a foiled Jordanian chemical bomb attack, where it's said that the WMDs have been brought over the border from Syria, and this chemical bomb could have killed upwards of 20,000 and created a crater of about a half a mile?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything specific on those reports. I would say that the Secretary this morning praised the effort that the Jordanian Government has been making against terror. He noted that there was some, even some activity today in clashes between, at least according to press reports, militants associated with al-Qaida and Jordanian security services.

So we have been very consistent supporters of the effort that Jordan has made to fight terror and we -- the Secretary expressed that today.

Sorry. A follow-up?

QUESTION: Also, what have you said to the Syrian Government regarding this trucking of this equipment?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I don't have anything specific on those reports.

QUESTION: Richard, there is growing popular pressure among the Palestinians on the Palestinian Authority, either to dissolve itself or declare a state on the basis of 242, 338. What is your comment on that, in response to Sharon's violent action?

MR. BOUCHER: I come back to what we've said, that the answer is not to absolve oneself from any responsibility. The answer to building a state is to build a state.

QUESTION: What are the declared states?

MR. BOUCHER: And as to build the -- I'm not -- every question you ask me that says "what if," I'm not going to try to speculate on. What I'm trying to say is, let's deal with the reality. The reality is that the Palestinians are about -- if we can make this work right, are about to take the territory completely into their control, about to see the first time in decades the withdrawal of Israelis from settlements and territories that the Palestinians should have to administer.

They're about to see withdrawal of military forces. They're about to see some withdrawals from Gaza, but also the West Bank. And it's time for the Palestinians, like the rest of us, to focus on making that disengagement work, to focus on building the institutions of a state, to focus on building the security apparatus, the financial apparatus, the educational, health care and other apparatus that can administer those areas in a way that means that those places will be peaceful and prosperous and not a threat to the neighborhood.

It's an opportunity for the Palestinians to set up a state and one that really works, not a time for them to think about abandoning the terrain.

So we will do what we can to support the Palestinians. There are many Arab friends and neighbors of the Palestinians that will do what they can to help them take charge, and we will continue to urge -- and we'll work with the Europeans in that regard as well, but we'll continue to urge them as well to take the steps, particularly over security, that can make this successful, and to take the steps that they need to take to end terror and violence coming from those areas.

Let's go to Teri. I guess he had the first different. Sorry.

QUESTION: About Cyprus, yesterday, the Secretary General, he report on all -- he report to Security Council about the latest situation in Cyprus, and he requested several things, including a peace force and not selling the arms to island. Do you have anything on that?

And also, we heard that U.S. and British diplomats are preparing some new resolution. What is that?

MR. BOUCHER: It's all true.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Yesterday, the Secretary General reported to the Council. It issued a report on Cyprus yesterday, April 19th. He called on the Security Council to review those elements of the Annan plan that called for Security Council action before the foundation agreement could go into effect and before the referenda scheduled for April 21st.

The Annan plan -- and it was adopted, and yesterday's report described three key areas for UN action and support of the foundation agreements of the areas that you talked about, endorsement of the agreement, establishment of and implementation of peacekeeping operation and an enforceable arms embargo. Those are indeed areas identified already in Switzerland in the plan that was worked out, and that's what he reported to the Council.

The Council is now looking at how we can endorse and support this report and take the action that the United Nations believes we need to take. So we're working with Security Council colleagues on a robust UN resolution that we think needs to be enacted this week. We think the resolution needs to provide the encouragement to Cypriots that they want, that the UN will put its full weight behind the settlement plan and that all parties will meet their obligations under the settlement.

So we are having those discussions in the Council, as the Secretary said this morning, and we believe this is a historic moment for Cyprus. And we look forward to doing what we can individually, but also with our Security Council colleagues to make sure that this moment is not lost.

The Council is having discussions this afternoon about a Cyprus resolution, and as I said, we hope to move it quickly so that it can be clear to all that the Security Council is taking up its obligations as determined by the agreement.

QUESTION: Someone in Greek Cypriot party is -- they are asking to change -- several change in the Annan plan for voting the referenda is the yes. Do you support this kind of request?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't quite know which exact ones you're referring to. As far as the idea of delay, I think we made clear we don't think anything is gained by delay. Most of the proposals that had been issued a while back were delayed for further negotiation. We really don't think that's appropriate.

We think this plan, as worked out, represents the best that the parties could agree to. We think it represents the best additional contribution from the Secretary General. It is the deal. There is no second deal. There is no opportunity. There is no renegotiation. It has been extensively discussed and negotiated, and therefore it's before the people, it's before the voters.

And the voters, we hope, will look at it, will see that there are distinct benefits for Turkish Cypriots, distinct benefits for Greek Cypriots. There are people who will go back to their homes. There are troops that will leave. There are modifications to territory. There are opportunities for Cypriots, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots that have been identified, including endorsed by the international financial community.

And we hope that when people sit down and look at those benefits, look at the commitment that we, the United Nations and the European Union, have the full implementation of all this plan, that they will find it appropriate for them to vote yes and to adopt it.

QUESTION: The Secretary, in his comments earlier, said some things that made it sound as if he spent the last 24 hours with a telephone attached to his ear in calling the members of the coalition. And I don't need a list of exactly who he called --

QUESTION: Excuse me.

QUESTION: What?

QUESTION: Are we still on Cyprus?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Can I do one more on Cyprus?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we'll do one more on Cyprus.

QUESTION: What is there in the resolution that can assuage the Greek Cypriot's fears that Turkey won't withdraw many of its troops?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the key to the resolution is that it provides a strong and a robust endorsement from the Security Council for the plan that was worked out. It provides the assurance that the international community is going to see to the implementation, the thorough and careful implementation of what was worked out, and it puts the Security Council behind it.

So fears that somehow one party or the other wouldn't implement the agreement must also involve not only doubts about the commitment of the other parties -- and I would point out the Turks have indeed stated clearly their commitment to carry it out -- but also, to some extent, doubts about the commitment of the international community to see to the implementation; and that both, from the statements the Secretary's made, the United States has made, the Europeans have made, but also that we can make in a UN resolution, it should be clear to Cypriots that we intend to see the full and careful implementation of the settlement.

Okay.

QUESTION: So has he finished with his calls, I presume, to 32 or 31 foreign ministers?

MR. BOUCHER: He has not finished every single country with troops there. He's talked to, by my count, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve -- I count 13 foreign ministers of countries with, shall we say, substantial numbers of troops in Iraq between yesterday afternoon and this morning.

So he's talked to these foreign ministers, in some cases, presidents or other leaders of these countries. He's basically told them about the appointment, the nomination, the intention to nominate Ambassador Negroponte, our intention to proceed and support the transition, working with the United Nations in Iraq, talked about the security situation there and expressed our appreciation for their commitment, for the work that their troops have been doing in Iraq and will continue to do.

QUESTION: And also asking them if they're -- if they remain committed?

MR. BOUCHER: Hearing from them their commitments as well.

QUESTION: Okay. You wouldn't describe his calls as a pleading with them?

MR. BOUCHER: Oh, no. No.

QUESTION: No?

MR. BOUCHER: He's comparing notes with other committed countries, countries who are standing there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Each -- you know, there are a few of them that have some issues and concerns about the security situation, talked that through with some of them. But I think he heard overall a lot of strong commitment, a lot of people understand the importance of what we're doing there. A lot of people understand that they -- the commitment that they have made to maintaining forces in Iraq and helping to bring peace and stability to Iraq is in the interests of their own country.

QUESTION: Do you know if he talked to the Thai?

MR. BOUCHER: He talked to the Thai Foreign Minister this morning.

QUESTION: Can you just run down the list of 13? Would you mind?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Yesterday afternoon, he talked to the Foreign Minister of El Salvador, the President of Dominica, the Foreign Minister of Norway, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, the Foreign Minister of Hungary, the Foreign Minister of Portugal, Foreign Minister of Poland, Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Foreign Minister of Holland, Netherlands, Foreign Minister of Romania. The Thai Foreign Minister, the Philippine President, and the Ukrainian Foreign Minister were this morning; those last three are this morning.

QUESTION: When you said he heard their commitments, were those explicit commitments to maintain their forces in Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: In most cases, yes, explicit.

QUESTION: And others -- so who didn't?

MR. BOUCHER: Obviously, when you talk to different people, the conversation evolves differently, that sometimes it was an unstated assumption. As I said, some of them do have concerns about the security situation and may, you know, be looking at that. But I would say that he heard a lot of very strong support for continued efforts there.

QUESTION: But all explicitly or implicitly gave you to understand that they would keep their troops there?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to try to speak for every single country. That's the problem with making these sort of gross generalizations. I can say there was a lot of support, there is a lot of commitment, and there is a lot of determination there among the members of the coalition.

QUESTION: Richard, there are a lot of different ways to support the efforts, which is a very general phrase. You can support the efforts by writing a check from, you know, Chicago.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, there are a lot more people. This is among troop contributors. There's a lot of commitment and support to maintain -- helping maintain security there through the provision of troops.

QUESTION: Is anyone saying they might have to pull out troops?

QUESTION: How about this, Richard?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not trying to speak for every single country and every single policy and every single might, maybe, could, consider.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: I acknowledged there are countries that are concerned about the security situation there.

QUESTION: Well, let's put it this --

MR. BOUCHER: And I think you're all aware that Thailand, you know, Thailand has had concerns regarding the security situation in southern Iraq and its possible impact on their mission. But again, we appreciate -- like others, we appreciate Thailand's contribution and the important role that they have played there.

QUESTION: Well, given what the Secretary heard, are you at all concerned that the coalition is going to be -- there's going to be another reduction or erosion in the number, a number reduction in the --

MR. BOUCHER: We have always made clear individual countries who remain will make their individual decisions based on their mandates, their authorities, and their individual situations. We are not at all concerned that the strength of the coalition will not be maintained.

We are, how should I say, satisfied that we got strong responses from coalition partners, satisfied that we got very strong commitments and that the coalition partners with troops on the ground understand the importance of the contribution they're making and are intent and committed to maintaining those.

QUESTION: Do you have reason to believe that one or more other countries may decide to --

MR. BOUCHER: Again, I'm not --

QUESTION: I'm not asking you --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm hard pressed to try to speak for countries and what they may or may not do.

QUESTION: Well, you just spoke to -- you just spoke for Thailand, so perhaps you went down the slippery slope yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I probably did, and I apologize for it, but I promise I won't do it again.

QUESTION: Richard, were these calls designed to say, listen, we know it's getting kind of ugly out there, really want you to stay the course, or was this -- was this specifically because of Negroponte and to inform them about the announcement?

MR. BOUCHER: It was both. Not it's getting ugly down there, really want to -- but it was -- it was designed to talk to coalition partners who we recognize are also involved in what has been for a couple weeks a very difficult situation, and more difficult than before.

It's to compare notes on the situation, to compare notes on how we move forward, because we are all committed to moving forward politically, as well as in terms of bringing the security situation there, and it's most important to talk to the people who have troops on the ground who are playing already an important role, making an important contribution, in order to work with them as we move forward.

Teri.

QUESTION: On another subject, do you have any information on reports that the Italian customs service has seized a ship headed for the U.S. state of Georgia which had 8,000 Kalashnikovs on it, but said that it -- its custom form apparently said that it was having light guns? They've now taken the ship into custody.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have anything on it. I just saw the press reports. I don't have anything from here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Elise.

QUESTION: Do you know anything about clashes between U.S. security personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and protestors?

MR. BOUCHER: Not that I have heard, no.

QUESTION: Richard, do you have any comments concerning the last day or two, comments concerning, I guess, delicately, Spain?

I know President Bush has been talking to the new administration, but they say their first efforts are to talk to Morocco. But does that square with Spain's NATO commitments if they make an abrupt change in how they're dealing over Iraq and other matters?

MR. BOUCHER: As far as Spain and Iraq, we talked about that yesterday. The White House has talked about that. I don't think I have anything to add to it.

QUESTION: Right. But if --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware that there's anything new with Spain and Morocco. They certainly have been talking to each other and we welcome that process.

QUESTION: Do you have any other non-updates on Kim Jong-il's May confirmed/unconfirmed visit to China?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything new on that. I don't think there are any new briefings or reports on that that I would report to you.

QUESTION: Any readouts from Sudan?

MR. BOUCHER: Readouts?

QUESTION: I mean from -- yeah, from the talks that are being held now.

QUESTION: Is he still rewriting his submission?

MR. BOUCHER: What?

QUESTION: He said a couple weeks ago he thought it was going to be -- he said publicly he thought he'd be writing it and rewriting it on the 19th, and we're now at the 20th and I figure he's probably still working on it.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. We'll announce the appropriate decision at the appropriate time.

As far as the talks go, certainly we know that the Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and Army have not reached agreement in Naivasha and that is disappointing. The parties do continue to negotiate. They continue to negotiate the same issues they've been discussing for the past two weeks: Sharia law in the capital; the governorship of two areas, the Southern Blue Nile and the Nuba Mountains; and several power-sharing issues.

We understand the parties are actively engaging with a mediation team, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, to try to resolve these issues. We strongly support the involvement of General Sumbeiywo and the mediation team. We hope that this will produce results imminently.

In terms of Darfur, nothing new. I think both we and the United Nations have requests to the Government to go into Darfur. We'll see how those things come out. We're looking for prompt access.

QUESTION: Can I just go back to Naivasha for a second?

MR. BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You're disappointed that they have not reached an agreement yet. Weren't you disappointed that didn't reach an agreement by December 31st, the deadline that they had given to the Secretary, and disappointed about a month later when they didn't meet another deadline, and then again about a week later, and then just this past weekend when you -- two weeks ago, your colleague said that he thought it was time by the end of the week, and then that went by and then you removed your special envoy or whatever he was called.

MR. BOUCHER: Our team, actually, at that point.

QUESTION: Right. And then they went back.

MR. BOUCHER: One of them went back. Yeah.

QUESTION: Still -- one of them went back. And still got nothing. So do you see one side or the other as the problem in this?

MR. BOUCHER: That's what we're called upon to report to Congress, and when we have that report we'll make that declaration at the time.

QUESTION: At this moment in time, do you see both of them as being intransigent, or just is there just one side?

MR. BOUCHER: At this moment in time, since the report is under preparation --

QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking about a report. I'm asking what --

MR. BOUCHER: You're asking me to answer the question that will be answered in the report, and the appropriate time to answer that question is when the report is done, when the full analysis has been made and the conclusions --

QUESTION: So there is something that could -- there is something that could happen between now and tomorrow, short of a peace deal that could affect the way that you write the report?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not predicting anything.

QUESTION: You used the word "imminently." You said that you hoped that something would bear fruit "imminently." Do you have any reason to expect that they're going to reach an agreement imminently, or is that just your hope?

MR. BOUCHER: After the history that your colleague just recounted, I think it would be foolhardy to expect, but we certainly hope they would. We think the issues are defined, the issues are clear. The involvement of the mediator is such that they could reach agreement and we would hope they would take the opportunity to do so.

Okay, I guess we've got one or two more here.

QUESTION: Richard, Vice President Cheney's recent trip to China and Beijing, is there any need to criticize the state media in China? They say -- there are news reports saying that his speech was censored.

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to look into that for you. I don't have anything.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:35 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