Briefing for Foreign Media

Real Audio of Briefing

       (Event joined in progress)

       MR. REEKER: (In progress) -- travel ahead, that, of course, includes also the visit to Brunei July 31st through August 1st where he'll attend, as I said, the ASEAN regional forum and the post- ministerial meetings that they generally have there. So a lot of Asian diplomacy going on in the next 10 days or so. And we'll follow that very closely through your colleagues who are travelling with the secretary and your colleagues on the ground in those places.

       I just wanted to highlight that, as the secretary gets ready to travel. But now I'll be ready to take your questions on that or any other topic.

       MODERATOR: (Name inaudible) -- why don't you start?

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: Chicken.

       Q (Off mike) -- U.S.-Russian poultry war.

       MR. REEKER: Yes.

       Q The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced today that they are, like, very close to --

       MR. REEKER: Resolving it.

       Q -- resolving this whole matter. And I presume, I believe that Ambassador Alexander Vershbow today met in Moscow with some Russian officials discussing this. Any progress on this?

       And secondly, if I may --

       MR. REEKER: Thank you. Why don't I do that one, and we can do your follow-up question, just to get that out of the way.

       The poultry issue with Russia has been one that we have followed very closely. It's of concern to us, the ability to export to Russia chickens and other poultry. We are making considerable progress, as you indicated. We believe we may be close -- can we go with that? Okay. We may be close to resolution with Russia on issues related to poultry trade. And within a few days we should know Russia's answers on the terms of the new U.S. veterinary certificate. That is an agreement that would enable poultry shipments to resume soon. That's what we'd like to see. And as you indicated, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is actually leading the interagency team, along with the Trade Representative's Office, representatives of the Department of State and the Department of Commerce, in working with our staff at our embassy in Moscow on this intensive, daily discussion, sometimes of course involving the ambassador, with our Russian counterparts.

       And the secretary spoke yesterday with Foreign Minister Ivanov, and one of the subjects they did discuss was working towards a resolution of this issue. So we'll continue to watch that closely. And as I said, we're making considerable progress and think we're close to resolving that.

       Your second question. Go ahead.

       Q And the second question, on U.S.-Russian bilateral group on strategic stability, which -- the first meeting of it is scheduled -- September. It is headed by Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, Minister -- both Sergey and Igor Ivanov. Do you at this point of time know when exactly and where this meeting would take place and what agenda would look like?

       MR. REEKER: I don't have with me anything on an agenda or details of that meeting. So I think that's one we can watch for. As you indicated, September sounds about right. I hadn't seen a precise date. But as we look forward to August, we'll try to get you details when that emerges. (Chuckling.) But we'll take the calendar one month at a time here. Thanks.

       Sir?

       Q Greg Torode of the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong. Following the recent Pentagon report, there's been a lot of discussion again about the U.S.-China relationship and whether or not the Bush administration's policies are very much a work in progress. In that regard, I have two questions. Can you sort of characterize the relationship, the Bush approach, as perhaps -- is it one of engagement or is it perhaps something more hard-line?

       And secondly, at this point, in your mind, what are the main differences to mark the Bush administration approach from Clinton?

       MR. REEKER: Let me take your second question first. We don't do, as a matter of tradition, comparisons and contrasting administrations. We leave that to historians, to analysts and indeed to journalists. So I'll let you do that type of thing.

       But I can say quite categorically that the administration remains very engaged in diplomacy with China. China's an important country with which we work on such a tremendous variety of levels, not the least of which is the war against terrorism, where we've been cooperating in a number of fora. We work very closely together on Afghanistan issues. As you'll recall, even back before September 11th, China worked with us in the "six plus two" group for that regional focus.

       We have a tremendous number of economic issues, trade, that we work with China. The relationship is very important and very deep.

       We focus issues like human rights, where we have differences, and we continue to stress our views. So we're engaged in an active diplomacy with China.

       Our policy towards China, our one-China policy, remains as it has been. There's been no change in that in some time.

       It's based, of course, on the Taiwan Relations Act and the communiques that we have with the People's Republic of China.

       So, I think there's a lot of diplomacy going on between our two embassies, the Chinese embassy here in Washington and our embassy in Beijing, which is very active, meeting with Chinese officials at a variety of levels regarding a tremendous variety of topics.

       All these things are important to us. We're two big countries, major countries, with a lot of interests globally, regionally, bilaterally. And I think that's the kind of thing we're going to continue to do.

       The president has met with Chinese leaders on a number of occasions. We'll continue to have meetings, bilateral meetings, both here, in China, and in third-country locations. Secretary Powell certainly is engaged very much with his Chinese counterpart, whom he speaks with, whom he's met with. And that type of thing will continue as well.

       So, I think there's no doubt that there's very active diplomacy that takes place with China on a broad spectrum of topics and issues, just as it has for many, many years, decades at this point. And we'll continue to do so.

       MODERATOR: Yes, sir?

       Q Thank you. Ben Bangoura, Guinea News. What can we expect from U.S. administration regarding the relationship with Guinea, which this week you mentioned that the elections there, the -- (inaudible) -- election flawed because of the lack of fairness and a single victory of the opposition (party ?). Is there anything we should expect from your government, which has always championed democracy?

       MR. REEKER: Well, as you know, we have an embassy in Guinea, in Conakry, that watches, follows developments there fairly closely and reports back to Washington. And this week, following those elections, (you are aware ?) the embassy put out a statement, I believe, discussed locally the situation after those elections, first of all congratulating the people of Guinea on the peaceful conditions that prevailed during that election. I think that was an important thing to note.

       But we were deeply concerned, and we remain very concerned, about the irregularities in the elections that were reported by the independent press and opposition participants, which included official reports of participation rates that far exceeded the voter turnouts that were actually recorded by the independent sources. And a lot of observers, I think, found it hard to believe that your opposition failed to win a single (uninominal ?) seat. And so, some of those questions have been raised that has led to our expression of concern.

       Overall, I think there was a lack of transparency in the election. And while we praised the peaceful conduct of the election, this lack of transparency casts doubt on the accuracy of the final results, and I think brings into question the fairness of the entire process.

       So it's a disturbing trend that we've seen.

       I think we talked, even from here, last year, last November, when they had the referendum that we found to be flawed in many respects. And the flourishing democracy that we'd like to see in Guinea I think would be well served by a more credible, transparent electoral process, and that's certainly in the interests of all the people of Guinea to pursue that.

       So we call upon the political parties in Guinea, and civil society as a whole, to become more fully engaged in the political process there. The absence of participation of some of those parties in the legislative elections this week we think was regrettable. And we're going to continue to work to strengthen democracy in Guinea through the various programs we have, supporting the establishment of conditions that really lend themselves to a free and fair and transparent election for the presidential election process, which is scheduled to take place next year in 2003. So we'll look to things like liberalizing the broadcast media, the use of a single ballot, transparent ballot boxes, some of the traditional things that have been used in democracies to make sure that elections are free and fair.

       Q Yeah, if I could just follow. In Washington, I don't know if you are familiar with the Citizens Concerned for Guinea. Have you heard anything like that?

       MR. REEKER: I'm not personally familiar with it, no.

       Q Okay. There is an organization being created just to help push democracy better. But their main objective is to have your administration take economic or political sanction against the regime of Conte. Are you ready to do that?

       MR. REEKER: Well certainly it would be premature to suggest that now. I've laid out, I think, our views and our concerns about the process there in terms of a disturbing trend in the conduct of elections, which of course are a vital -- the fundamental basis of democracy, the free and fair and transparent election. So we'll continue to watch that closely. We'll continue to look for others' views and listen to those, but examine those through our -- the findings of our embassy on the ground. Our diplomats there in Conakry are able to get around the country, talk to people, observe what happens.

       And we'll continue to promote the establishment of more solid civil society and create an environment so that the elections next year, the presidential election, hopefully I can come back here and say that not only were they peaceful, but that they were conducted with transparency in a free and fair manner, which is what the people of Guinea deserve in terms of having a solid democracy.

       Yes, ma'am?

       Q Sonya Schultz (sp), CMT Channel 51. My question is on Venezuela, of course.

       MR. REEKER: Of course.

       Q Is there something new on the relationship between Venezuela and the USAID? Because there are many issues, maybe the USAID? And there is a mission, a team yesterday arrived to Venezuela from the Carter Center, from the OAS and the U.N. Do you have something on that?

       MR. REEKER: Generally, of course, you know, we have a long history of solid, good relations with Venezuela. I think what you're probably referring to in terms of new aspects, we did announce yesterday and we've been talking about for some time -- I think there was a briefing here not that long ago with our USAID associate administrator for Latin America, who talked about assistance we have for Venezuela to support initiatives to foster dialogue and to strengthen democratic institutions in Venezuela: in short, to support democracy there.

       We have the director of the Office of Transition Initiatives, which does this type of thing around the world, going to Venezuela, developing a strategy, as it were, on things we can do to support programs to provide assistance to civil society groups. There's some money that's been set aside to support local organizations, NGOs, in helping promote this dialogue toward democracy and towards reconciliation. Grants will be given out to these groups through the usual standards of AID. It will be working out of our embassy.

       And so we put out a statement yesterday, I think, that -- we can get a copy for you -- that gives a fairly good description of those types of programs in supporting civil society and supporting the things that the other international organizations are doing, like the Carter Center, like the OAS, to help the various parts of Venezuelan society work towards this dialogue, this discussion of reconciliation that we've said for some time is important. And it's certainly part of our engagement in the hemisphere and in other parts of the world to facilitate that kind of dialogue.

       And then I think the OAS, the entire hemisphere, has not only offered to assist Venezuelans but has made quite clear how ready we are to do so and how important we think it is in the spirit of support and concern for the people of Venezuela.

       Q And how you will define the relationship between both countries? Tense, maybe?

       MR. REEKER: I don't think that's a word I would use. I think, as I said, we have strong ties to Venezuela. The peoples of our two countries have a long history of working together on a number of issues.

       We've had disagreements over the years, in recent months included, but we make quite clear our concerns when we have them.

       And one of the things we've been concerned about is the trend toward difficulties in democracy in Venezuela. And we think that's something that the Venezuelan people need to work out through peaceful means, through dialogue and through reconciliation after some of the problems and disruptions that they've experienced in recent months. And that's what we'll continue to encourage, and that's what all of the other actors in the international community who care deeply about Venezuela and their democracy and the goals and aspirations of the Venezuelan people.

       Q Some people -- (inaudible) -- because some people are saying there is two kinds of foreign policy from the United States to Venezuela: before Chavez and after Chavez.

       MR. REEKER: Some people may be saying that, and I think --

       Q (Off mike) --

       MR. REEKER: I've said --- I think I've made quite clear, and I don't think it's worth anybody's time to repeat it all over again what our views are about Venezuela, what our concerns have been and what we'd like to do to help the Venezuelan people have the dialogue and the reconciliation we think they need to have in cooperation with the rest of the international community to work towards strengthening their own democracy.

       In the back, because I know she's going to follow up. Yes.

       Q Marina Mateos (ph), El Universal, Venezuela. To follow up with Sonia's (sp) question, regarding the statement of the State Department yesterday: Could you elaborate a little bit more on -- how is this project going to be developed? This is going to managed by USAID, or is it going to be an interagency kind of project? And what's the funding for that?

       MR. REEKER: I don't know if I have exact figures. I think there may be roughly a couple of million dollars involved in funding, first of all, the plans to see how we can help with these initiatives through our embassy, AID officers can de down in Caracas to look at where they can help -- what NGOs they can work with, for instance -- because we don't get involved with political parties -- neither with the opposition, nor with the government. We generally work with NGOs to help foster the type of dialogue, the important aspects of civil society that we were talking about earlier.

       So at this point, it's just beginning, and I can't give you any real details where that'll go, but it's an opportunity for us to help, working with the rest of the international community and organizations like the OAS to help the Venezuelan people in this regard.

       Q (Off mike) -- director for transitions in democracy of USAID --

       MR. REEKER: No, it's an organization within USAID.

       It's an office called OTI, the Office of Transition Initiatives. And that's the office that has done this around the world, where they've worked with countries and regions to offer assistance through nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, generally in supporting democracy -- training for independent journalists, for instance; supporting independent media, which of course we know is a bedrock part of democracy, an important institution; helping with this kind of dialogue that we've been talking about for some months now, in Venezuela.

       And it's what we've talked about before. There's not a whole lot of news in it. I think sometimes these things get a little distorted by some of the media. But it's very consistent with what we've talked about, what we've offered Venezuela and others in the international community have offered as well.

       Q Here's just --

       MR. REEKER: Make it the last one.

       Q -- the last one. I don't know if you could give me a heads-up on an analysis that the State Department is preparing on April 11th event in Venezuela.

       MR. REEKER: I don't think I could. I think we've talked about that at great length. I remember talking about it because I was briefing at the State Department at the time, and we certainly said that there was an importance in following constitutional procedures, in not taking any steps outside of the standard democratic procedures that are part of Venezuela's tradition. That's what we've called for.

       And we've continued to call for, obviously, a dialogue between the various parts of Venezuelan society where there are obviously tensions, where there is concern about the situation of democracy in Venezuela. It's that dialogue that the OAS has promoted and offered to help support, that former President Carter and his organization has helped to support, and others that we've talked about.

       And the Organization of American States, I think, is really very fundamental in this, has been very successful. It's one of the reasons that democracy in this hemisphere has flourished so much in the past decade or so -- because we're able to work together. And when a little help is needed and a little support for civil society to work through some of these problems, that where we like to help whenever we can.

       Yes, ma'am? Up here.

       Q Catherine Drew with Channel News Asia. Thank you.

       I was at a hearing last week on Capitol Hill where Christina Rocca was being asked about Secretary Powell's visit. I know he made some brief comments this morning. Some of the lawmakers on the Hill were wanting -- expressed that they wanted Secretary Powell to press Musharraf on returning democracy and also reining the Islamic militants in on the terrorist attacks across the Line of Control. Is Secretary Powell going to do that?

       MR. REEKER: I think we've been very clear. Secretary Powell himself has.

       First of all, on the importance of returning to full democracy in Pakistan, we put out a statement, I think, at the time of the announcement of the elections, and we hope to see those go ahead. We think that's important for Pakistan's future.

       And certainly what -- one of the things, as the secretary mentioned today, he'll be talking about in both New Delhi and in Islamabad is working to ease tensions. Both sides in the dispute have said they want to engage in dialogues and lessen tension, and that's what we're going to try to help encourage.

       The goal of our meeting in both capitals is, as it has been in the past and will be for the secretary's trip this time, is to work with both countries to make sure they both meet their commitment, and also to discuss our very broad bilateral relationships, because that's important as well.

       So we'll continue the efforts to reduce tension. We'll work on bilateral relationships, as I said, and work with both India and Pakistan on how to develop a dialogue so they can address the issues between them, including Kashmir. And certainly our views on the need to return to democracy in Pakistan are well established, and we look forward to that timetable towards election.

       Q (Off mike) -- obviously the secretary will be at the ASEAN conference making various stops around Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, as you said. What is the U.S. saying going into those meetings, both the ASEAN conference and those other bilateral talks?

       MR. REEKER: I think kind of as Ambassador Boucher did at today's main State Department briefing, I'm going to leave that for the trip and not get ahead of the news too much. I mean, I generally want to say that we've admired what ASEAN is doing to bring stability and prosperity to Southeast Asia. We've seen what ASEAN working with a group can do to help fight terrorism. And I think the ASEAN regional forum this year is expected to focus on counter-terrorism and regional security matters. And so there are a number of issues in that general topic that they'll be able to look at. The following day, of course, after the regional forum, ministerial meeting, is the post-ministerial conference. And I think that's going to focus on regional and international political issues generally; development issues, which, of course, are important; and some of the regional and international economic issues. So they really during that time have a chance to cover a broad spectrum, and I can't at this point predict precisely what the agendas will be. But clearly some of the transnational issues that we discuss so often like counter-terrorism, narcotics, trafficking in human beings and some of the economic matters for the region and globally should be on their agenda. So -- watch that evolve in -- a very lengthy trip. I admire the secretary and -- (laughs) -- my colleagues who are going on that trip.

       Sir, in the back.

       Q Steve George (sp) from (ABC ?) Australia. I'd like to go on to Iraq for a moment.

       MR. REEKER: Yeah.

       Q I'm wondering if I could get you to assess and explain the clearly differing opinions between the State Department, Pentagon, CIA and the White House over dealings with the Iraqi opposition leaders, specifically with reference to Ahmad Shalabi. Can you explain the different approaches that have been taken when it comes to dealing with and trying to unify the Iraqi opposition?

       MR. REEKER: I think first off I have to reject your characterization that there are differing approaches. These things are done as an administration. Each part of the administration obviously has different areas of expertise, has different equities and areas of focus. That's natural. That's why we have different departments in government focusing on that.

       The State Department has had the lead in working with the Iraqi opposition, and it's something we're very determined to do. We have funding from Congress. We have a policy of regime change for Iraq. The president has been quite clear about that.

       We've talked about, quite openly and directly, our concerns about the regime of Saddam Hussein, how he threatens not only his own people, but certainly the people of the region, the stability of the region, and obviously then has global concerns, in terms of his developing weapons of mass destruction; his continued flouting of the U.N. Security Council resolutions and agreements, which he made at the end of the Gulf War; the lack of access for inspectors, which is required under those agreements. All of these things we've certainly outlined and discussed before.

       We work with Iraqi opposition on a variety of levels. The Iraqi National Congress, the organization you mentioned, is one of the groups of an umbrella organization which we've funded, which we've met with, which we've worked with to help them try to overcome some of the shortcomings in terms of financial management and other things that are important in terms of monitoring what happens with U.S. taxpayer funding. We've had an offer on the table for the INC for funding for the last couple of months and haven't had a response to that, as far as I know. I hadn't heard any response had been received, at least through today.

       So, that is something that we continue to focus on. And it's primarily a State Department function, but other parts of the national security apparatus become involved because we're all working towards the same policy, which is in the best interests of American security, and in fact the security of our friends and allies, those in the region and, indeed, the people of Iraq who have been suffering under Saddam Hussein.

       So, that's a policy we'll continue to look at. The president has said all options remain on the table. He has made no decisions. No recommendations have been provided on specific actions vis-a-vis Iraq, but we've made quite clear our concerns and why we have those concerns and why our policies are what they are.

       Q Can I just follow up on that? Are you concerned, considering the apparent imminence of some sort of action directed by the president against Iraq, at the clear state of widespread disunity within Iraqi opposition parties?

       MR. REEKER: Without signing on to any of your characterizations, which one could speculate about and lots of people do, I think we've worked with a variety of opposition figures in Iraq.

       We've got a variety of working groups. We've had some meetings here and in other places on a variety of topics. Judicial aspects was one that we had recently. And there's a whole series of working groups that we've established that each have sort of thematic topics to look at, working with a wide variety of Iraqi opposition.

       I think that's really a question for the Iraqi oppositionists themselves to address is how they work together. Many of them have worked under umbrella arrangements. Others work separately.

       But our policy is quite clear in terms of what United States goals are. And we'll continue to work towards that and to reach out to a wide variety of Iraqis, because it's really the Iraqi people who stand to benefit the most from the regime change that we think is necessary, that is in the interests of security and the future, frankly, of not just the region, but our whole planet.

       Let's go over here.

       Sir?

       Q Going back to Secretary Powell's trip to Asia, is he meeting the foreign minister of North Korea over there?

       MR. REEKER: There's been no discussion of that. I would refer you to the North Koreans for their -- any announcements in terms of attending. They're invited to the ASEAN Regional Forum, but exactly the level at which they plan to be represented, I'm not sure. I don't believe we've had any direct word on that, and there's been no discussion with them about a potential meeting.

       Was there anything else? I didn't mean to cut you off.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: Okay.

       Yes, behind you.

       Q Dobra Kasovich (ph), Belgrade daily, Novosti.

       MR. REEKER: Hi.

       Q Hi. The question on Mr. Lagumdzija's visit today, Bosnian prime minister. What issues have been raised? And more specifically, have you discussed the question of war crimes, more specifically, the location of two most wanted war crime indictees, Karadzic and specifically Mladic?

       MR. REEKER: The secretary had indeed just finished his meeting with the Bosnian foreign minister just before I came over here to meet with you, so I didn't have a chance for a detailed readout. But I did pass Ambassador Boucher in the hall. He had just come down from the meeting. So generally, there was a discussion of the range of bilateral and regional issues that we discuss in these meetings with counterparts. Obviously, a discussion and focus on the war on terrorism. That's been important -- Bosnia's role in supporting us on a variety of levels has been important, when you remember all of the steps that are part of our war on terrorism -- the financial tools that we're using, the law enforcement and intelligence sharing that's so important.

       Trafficking in persons is also an issue that we raise with Bosnia. It's a topic of great concern to us, that we've talked about from here, and has affected Bosnia and Hercegovina as well. And certainly the importance of apprehending those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and especially we're talking about Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, that's something we have raised repeatedly, we talk publicly about quite often and that we consider very important.

       We generally have reviewed -- and I believe the secretary had an opportunity to review a little with his counterparts -- the reforms over the last year and a half and how they've brought Bosnia closer to lasting peace and prosperity and put the country more on the road toward European integration, which is something we think has been important. And certainly the secretary reiterated our continued commitment to promoting stability in the region, in Bosnia-Hercegovina itself. And so that's the type of discussion we had, and we look forward to continuing our strong relations with that country.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: I don't have a location to offer you. If anybody has one, you can give me notes after the briefing.

       Let me just go to this gentleman back here, and we can come back. Yeah?

       Q Sujono, Indonesia. Regarding Secretary of State Powell's visit to Indonesia, I'm just wondering what message he carrying and what topic will be discussed. Does it include the possibility of restoring military-to-military contact and lifting arms embargo?

       And the second question is whether do you have any information concerning Omar Shishani, arrested in Detroit, and he's just traveling from Indonesia. He brought, I think, bogus cashier's checks.

       MR. REEKER: I've read about that in the press. That wouldn't be a State Department issue. I'd refer you to law enforcement officials, who might be able to provide you more information on that particular case. You might want to check with the Department of Justice on that. The State Department I don't believe has had a role in that.

       On Indonesia, I think, as you know, the U.S. strongly supports Indonesia's democratic transition.

       We've been providing assistance to help develop a variety of civil institutions and peacekeeping capabilities in Indonesia.

       You mentioned the Indonesian military. We think that it's an institution that's played an important role and will continue to do so. And we want to increase cooperation and interaction, but we have to do that in ways that are consistent with existing U.S. law and policy. So that's something that we are always looking at. We need to see more progress, I think, in addressing some of the concerns we've had about accountability for past abuses.

       But I know it's a good opportunity to discuss the continue war on terrorism and efforts Indonesia has been taking, as well, in terms of that. We're all quite aware of the threat that terrorism has for so many countries around the world. And the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in countries literally around the globe is something we've talked about at great length and usually comes up in our bilateral discussions and, indeed, in multilateral fora.

       So it's a great opportunity for the secretary to visit Jakarta. And beyond that, we'll just have to let him go there and see what he has to say after he's had his meeting.

       Sir.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: That was an easy question.

       Q (Off mike) -- around the world. (Inaudible) -- is unilateral, imperial, hegemonic, et cetera. What could be the view of the State Department on that? What is the position of the State Department on that? And I would like also to ask you about -- if you could define the role of the relations -- let me use the word -- between General Powell and the rest of the U.S. government.

       MR. REEKER: Well, I think -- the second one first: The secretary has a tremendously strong relationship with his counterparts in the rest of the government, certainly, all of them working for the president on behalf of the American people. And for the secretary, that is carrying out American foreign policy, being the president's chief foreign-policy adviser.

       And he's worked with most of the people in the National Security Council for many, many years. If you look at Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and other members of the Cabinet, the secretary's known them, worked with them for a long time. And so I think we have a very strong national-security apparatus that brings together all the different pieces that are so important for conducting our foreign policy and does that very efficiently and very -- you know, on behalf of the American people to try to carry out what's important for us. And part of that is being very much engaged in the world.

       And I think left and right, the stories of so-called unilateralism -- just become a sort of bad habit amongst a lot of the pundits and talking heads and, indeed, journalists around the world, because right here, we've been talking about the vast array of diplomatic engagements that Secretary Powell and, indeed, may of his colleagues within the United States government are undertaking: traveling to South Asia, where we've been dealing with -- working with two countries, India and Pakistan, to encourage them to have a dialogue, because that's important to us and it's important to them, and it's important to the world; going to East Asia, where he will attend this type of regional initiative in a multilateral forum to discuss a broad array of things: the war on terrorism, where we have led a global coalition, with almost every country on the planet contributing to this common cause for the betterment of mankind, if I may be so bold.

       And that type of engagement with American leadership, which the world calls for and which we are ready to provide in so many fora, I think is very indicative of what this administration is indeed about once you go below some of the headlines and the sort of invective that we all read about.

       So, we stay very focused on the goals that the president has set for us in terms of our engagement with the world, in terms of our leadership, in terms of dealing with issues that affect Americans, obviously. The American people, for whom Secretary Powell, the president, the entire Cabinet serve -- for all of us that serve in government and certainly from the State Department, that is our dedication, is to look out for the interests of the American people, for our security, for our prosperity and, indeed, to promote our values abroad and to make quite clear what America is about.

       And so, that's what we do every day as we engage at the highest levels with the secretary making trips as he has, or having bilateral meetings with his foreign minister counterparts as he did again today; at the public level, where we can talk to journalists like yourselves who are able to then pass along messages to wide audiences around the world; and at all levels, we try to promote that.

       So, I certainly reject the notion that we read about, this sort of (unilaterist ?) idea. I think it's just bad. It's an idea, it's a theory, but it doesn't add up when you look at the types of engagements that we're having. And Secretary Powell plays a very important role in the administration as the president's lead foreign policy advisor and chief diplomat.

       Nan (sp), and then we'll go back to Dmitri (sp).

       Q Thank you. And I have a quick question. The EU's action on Zimbabwe and its sanctions brings -- sort of highlights, I guess, the fact that it's been six months since the U.S. announced that it was going to impose further financial sanctions on some of the key players in Zimbabwe. Can you update us on the sanctions, what's happening with that, and why the delay? Why the very long delay?

       MR. REEKER: I don't know that one can describe delay. These are sort of legal matters that have to be taken in a very careful, well- reviewed manner. We talked a little bit at the department yesterday or the day before about the latest additional EU sanctions.

       We've noted that, we certainly applaud that, and I think we said at the time that we would be looking perhaps at similar things. So I don't have anything additional to announce now, but we do have very similar sanctions on a number of people, and we'll have to compare lists, see what steps the EU has taken and where we might do more --

       Q (Off mike) -- it will take a long time.

       MR. REEKER: Well, it's something that's constantly being reviewed. I mean, these things -- as I said, they're legal processes, and anyone that's aware of how these things go understands that you have to be very precise, very careful. And we have been working very closely with the EU and keeping in touch with the EU generally and with specific members, I'm sure, like the British and others on that.

       We've made our concerns quite clear about the situation in Zimbabwe. The erosion of democracy; some of the problems that have been brought on that country by the Mugabe government in terms of the some of the policies -- the draconian rules against journalists, for instance, the detention of a number of journalists tried on what seem to be rather trumped-up charges -- these are things we've spoken out about quite publicly.

       And the sanctions we've put in place, the travel restrictions for Mugabe, his family and his cronies are well-known, and other steps we may take we'll make public at the appropriate time.

       So -- I promised Dmitri and then back -- yeah?

       Q I must apologize, since I'm going to ask you a somewhat hypothetical question.

       MR. REEKER: Uh-oh. The old hypothetical -

       Q Yeah.

       Foreign Minister Ivanov is meeting with Secretary Powell in Brunei after traveling to both South and North Koreas. Do you think that there is any chance Ivanov would pass to Powell some kind of message from North Korea? Do you think he would try to mediate your contacts with them?

       MR. REEKER: That's a question you'll have to ask Foreign Minister Ivanov. Truly hypothetical, and I couldn't try to answer it. I know he and the secretary meet quite regularly. They meet and see each other quite often, and I'm sure are looking forward to another opportunity to meet in Brunei.

       Yes, sir?

       Q Thank you. As a part of your war again terrorism, I understand that you are getting ready to provide some assistance in some countries in Africa. The list goes from Angola to Cameroon, Cape Verde, Kenya, Mali -- (audio break) --

       MR. REEKER: (In progress following audio break) -- that would be something that actually we have to look to the Transportation Department, because I think it may be through them that those programs are worked out. Generally, where countries have sought assistance in counterterrorism efforts, we try to see what we can do to help. So I can't give you a specific thing. We can try to run it down and see if the State Department has anything more on that. But I would suspect that those are countries that made known to us their interest in upgrading airport security. It's something we've been focusing on domestically here in the United States. And wherever we can we try to help other countries meet those same needs, because we've all seen how important airport security is in the fight against terrorism. I think it's quite important.

       Q A quick question on the peace process in Angola. With the assassination or death -- (off mike) -- doesn't seem to be well grounded at this point. Do we know what is the problem in Angola, why the rebels are still not accepting to disarm?

       MR. REEKER: I don't think that's something that we can know. I think you have to ask them. We've continued to encourage that process to move forward. There's been some promising development, and we want to see that. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner was recently in Angola and continued to make our point quite clear that they've got to work towards that. He met both of the -- with the government and with the UNITA group and has encouraged them to keep moving in that direction. So we'll continue watching that very closely. It's -- you know, the people of Angola suffered terribly under this civil war, which cost untold numbers of lives and robbed the Angolan people of the opportunity for development and the road toward prosperity, which they really deserve, a country that should be able to focus on its youth, on its resources, to move toward better lives for all its people.

       And that's what the process is all about and that's certainly what we've encouraged. And it's really up to the two sides to continue working at.

       Yes, sir?

       Q Sorry, I want go back to Iraq, if I may. I was wondering if you could clearly state for me the American -- the administration's feelings towards the question of whether there is sufficient evidence against Saddam Hussein at the moment to justify American military action within that country, or whether between now and whatever decision may be made, America would be looking for other evidence which would justify an invasion or a military action.

       MR. REEKER: Well, again, it gets back to a basic hypothetical that you're making. We've made quite clear what our concerns about Iraq are. The president has been very forthcoming about that in very straightforward language. The entire international community is aware of those concerns, and certainly the neighborhood around Iraq has been very aware of those concerns. They remember well what that regime did to its neighbors, what it did to its own people in terms of using chemical weapons against Kurds within Iraq, against Iran. So we've seen that type of evidence and we're well aware of the efforts by Saddam Hussein and his regime to develop nuclear capabilities, biological and chemical weapons as well. Those are real concerns to us.

       Weapons of mass destruction and the support of terrorism, which he has also shown quite well, the means to deploy those weapons, to use them against his neighbors and others, is something we all have to be aware of. That's what the president's talked about. In terms of that, there is ample evidence. We've put out tremendous amounts of material over the years. Certainly even since I've been working in this capacity, we've had a variety of briefings and other things to demonstrate what Saddam has done in terms of flouting U.N. Security Council resolutions, and other things. And if we're able to bring forth additional information in time and that's appropriate, we'll see if we can do that as well.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: Again, I don't know, you know, what you're suggesting. You're proposing some sort of hypothetical. We've talked about --

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: It's totally a hypothetical. We have talked about what our concerns are. The president has said in terms of defending our security, we keep on the table all the options before us, but we've made no particular decision, nor have recommendations been made on any particular decision to take.

       So by definition, that does remain hypothetical. But what we have made quite clear is our concern. We're watching this very closely, and we talk to other countries -- friends, allies -- other countries about that concern. And plenty of others in the international community have voiced their concerns about Saddam Hussein as well.

       One last one or wrap it up there? Okay, thanks very much.

       Q Thank you.