NSC Briefing for Foreign Media

Real Audio of Briefing

        MR. MCCORMACK: It's terrific to be back with you guys -- two weeks in a row -- this must be some sort of a record. My pleasure to be here. I don't have any opening statements, so I'd be happy to start by taking your questions. Okay, thank you very much.

       Q Andre Sitov from Tass, from Russia. I have a couple of things -- one thing on Russia that I wanted to ask you about, and that's on Secretary Abraham's visit, if you have anything on that, and why they canceled their press conference there. I also wanted to talk to you about the new Office of Global Education that the White House --

       This being the first question, I think I need to start with Iraq. Every newspaper in town is saying an attack on Iraq is imminent.

       MR. MCCORMACK: Mmm-hmm. (In acknowledgement.)

       Q So what can you tell us about it?

       MR. MCCORMACK: I guess on that I am not quite sure why they are saying that. We have tried to make it very clear over and over -- we have been consistent in what we have been saying about Iraq for some time. And as recently as just an hour ago Ari was talking about it, and Secretary Rumsfeld talked about it yesterday. And very simply that is the president has made no decision with regard to military action against Iraq. We have made quite clear and the president has made quite clear that he has a number of different options at his disposal. He has economic actions, diplomatic, political, military -- all at his disposal. He has not made any final decisions with regard to military action. The policy of this administration as well as the U.S. government since 1995 and the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act has been for regime change in Iraq, and that's for a good reason, and that is because Saddam Hussein has been a menace to his own people -- he has gassed his own people. He has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He used them against the Iranian people in the Iran-Iraq War. He is a threat to his neighbors. He has invaded Kuwait -- you all remember that. He is a menace to the international community, and that threat is growing as he pursues development of nuclear weapons. We know or suspect very strongly that he has in his possession chemical and biological weapons or the technology to produce them, and he has showed a willingness to use them in the past. So he and his regime present a threat to his neighbors and to the international community, on top of the fact that he has been pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and on top of the fact that he has shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. We also see that he -- his regime has an association with terrorism and terrorist groups -- is -- Iraq is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. So the case with respect to Iraq is actually -- insurance and -- actually more to do with the Iraqi regime, the current Iraqi regime, is an easy one to make -- he has flouted his commitments under the agreement that ended the Gulf War. He has consistently thwarted the will of the international community, and he has clearly sidestepped the obligation he committed himself to at the end of that war to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction.

       So I get back -- circle back to the original point. I am not sure why there is this I guess fervor in the press to declare a military action imminent. We have been quite consistent in what we've said about it, and there's really no change.

       Q There is (missing ?) one point though that you also made right now about the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups, international terrorist groups. At least some experts suggest that the policy of this administration in declaring the aim of destroying the regime actually drives the regime to this probably unholy alliance with terrorists.

       MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think that Saddam Hussein and his regime have changed their behavior much in the past two years, and that's rather unfortunate, because it's a brutal, repressive regime that is -- that has unduly imposed a burden and suffering upon the Iraqi people.

       Let me make one point -- and this is a canard that is frequently cited -- that the sanctions, the sanctions regime in Iraq is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. That just couldn't be more wrong. And I would use one point to illustrate that fact. If you look at the oil-for-food program in the north of Iraq where that is administered by a group other than the Iraqi regime, Saddam Hussein's regime, those people are doing just fine. They are thriving. They are -- have a growing, developing economy, and they have a quality of life that is much, much better than the people of Iraq where the regime administers the oil-for-food program.

       I think that's just one example of the type of regime that this is, and there -- it is a regime that is willing to impose unimaginable suffering on its own people and then have the gall to go to the international community and blame the international community for the suffering that they themselves had imposed on their own people.

       Q (Off mike) -- Asia Today. Two quick questions please. One, under new Global Communications Agency the president is going to set up, this used to be USIA where we are having this briefing, the United States Information Agency. So what is different from what we had before and now the new one -- how this is going to play a role?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's actually the opposite of global conversations. It is no way meant as a substitute for the State Department's public diplomacy efforts. In fact, it is meant to argument and coordinate those efforts with other agencies. This office demonstrates White House presidential interest in this very, very important endeavor, and that is communicating U.S. views abroad, helping those abroad, countries abroad, the peoples of the international community, understand U.S. foreign policy, understand America, what are our motivations. I think that there are a lot of misperceptions out there. And part of what the Office of Global Communications is intended to do is serve as a coordinating mechanism for the State Department for other agencies that operate in the international community to better communicate our message. It's something that the president realizes we may not have done well enough in the past, and he is committed to making sure that our message is clearly and factually to the rest of the world.

       Q (Off mike) -- the new homeland security office and this global communications -- what role they will play on the immigrants or immigration policy in the future?

       MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the Office of Global Communications, I am not sure that they would have a role directly inasmuch as the State Department public diplomacy efforts play informing foreign populations about American immigration policies. I am sure that role will continue.

       As for the Department of Homeland Security, it is an issue we have been reading about quite a bit in the press, and there is a massive reorganization underway, and the president looks forward to signing a bill soon on homeland security in creating this Department of Homeland Security. Some of the functions having to do with immigration, rule-writing and regulation writing will migrate to the new Department of Homeland Security.

       But really to get into a lot of those details, I would really refer you over to the Office of Homeland Security for more information on what they are going to be doing, and also the State Department, which is going to at least as currently envisaged, retain the function of issuing visas.

       Q Hi, Sean. Nadia Chao (ph) with the Liberty Times. Last week, you were here, you confirmed that the White House is really concerned about mil-to-mil relationship with China and think this is important. And there's a report that President Bush might announce this week during a meeting he will request the mil-to-mil relationship to resume as soon as possible. I'm just wondering can you confirm this report?

       And second one is that Secretary Powell is currently visiting South Asian and ASEAN countries. We saw from the wire that he signed treaty agreements with many countries. And I'm just wondering, will this change the presence of the U.S. in this area or any activities, you know, in the future? Thank you.

       MR. MCCORMACK: On the first question on mil-to-mil relations with China, I haven't seen those reports. It's really my remarks from last week are still the same. The president views this as an important aspect of U.S.-China relations that can be beneficial to both countries. I am not aware of any presidential level announcement. I haven't seen anything on his schedule in that regard. It's quite possible that there could be something over at the State Department, or more appropriately I think at the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is really on the vanguard of working with the Chinese government in developing the future and the future agenda of U.S.-China military-to-military relations.

       And as for the agreement Secretary Powell has signed, I really am not briefed up well enough to offer a commentary on that. I know that they did have to do with the ASEAN Forum. Beyond that I don't have any information.

       Q Sonia -- (inaudible) -- Venezuela. On Latin America, what about the cooperation of Latin America in the fight against drugs and terrorism? And the second question is how to reach an effective cooperation with Latin America when one of the main problems is the internal security. And the third one is on Venezuela. How your cooperation would describe the cooperation of the Venezuelan government in the fight against terrorists?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in general, hemispheric cooperation in the war against terrorism has been excellent. It has -- for instance, Canada and Mexico, with which we share borders, have been at the forefront of working with us in ensuring that our borders are built secure, and take into account for the need of free passage of commerce so that we don't hurt the economic exchanges between our two countries. And President Bush has spoken with many leaders in the region,and certainly one of the most important topics, along with economic development and the importance of democracy, has been the war against terrorism, and we have received excellent cooperation from countries in the hemisphere in the fight against terrorism.

       On Venezuela I don't have anything in particular to share with you. I am not familiar with our most recent exchanges with Venezuela in the war against terrorism. But we would certainly welcome any cooperation from any state that sides with the free world in fighting terrorism. As President Bush has said, you are either with us in the fight against terrorism or you are against us.

       Q Lambros Papantoniou -- (inaudible) -- Greek daily. Mr. McCormack, do you have any update on the part of the White House regarding November 17th terrorist organization? And, more specifically, are you planning to ask extradition some of those (assassins ?) over here to the United States, because as you know some of them -- (inaudible) -- Americans?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I don't have any update from last week when we last spoke about this. Certainly it was an excellent operation one the part of the Greek government to investigate and find these terrorists and then arrest them and bring them to justice. Certainly it's very important arrests and it's a blow against terrorists as we all cooperate in the right against terrorism. And as for extradition, I would have to refer you over to the Department of Justice and the State Department. They would really have the handle on those issues.

       Q Vis-a-vis the new Greek ambassador -- (inaudible) -- presented his credentials to President Bush, I was wondering did the president make any remarks during the ceremony?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as is the custom with credential ceremonies, each ambassador presents their credentials to the president in the Oval Office, and the president will usually say a few words -- exchange a few words with each ambassador. Those are exchanges between the president and the incoming ambassador and, no, I am not going to share -- try to characterize them.

       Q (Off mike) -- Ambassador Pearson -- (inaudible) -- met some Turkish authorities in Ankara. Did he bring any special message from the president about Iraq? Are there any U.S. demands from Turkey during the possible military operation to Iraq?

       MR. MCCORMACK: I have seen some reports out in the news about a letter concerning Iraq from President Bush to the Turkish government, and I am not aware of any such letter. I don't believe those reports are accurate. As to Ambassador Pearson's meetings, I am going to leave it to Ambassador Pearson to characterize and describe his meetings.

       Turkey has been and will remain a valuable friend to the United States, both as a NATO ally and in the war against terrorism. Turkey very well understands the cost -- the terrible cost and toll of terrorism as a country that has suffered from it in the past, and we value very much Turkey's efforts to help us fight against terrorism. Turkey is already a valued friend and ally in ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not inflict more harm upon his own citizens in sponsoring the allied forces in the south of Turkey, which patrol the northern part of Iraq in Operation Northern Watch. Turkey is already providing valuable help to us in that regard. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was recently in Turkey. He had a number of items on his agenda, and I believe Iraq was one of them. He talked about that himself when he was there. But beyond that I really don't have anything further to offer.

       Q Lee Sales (ph) from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. How would you characterize the discussions that are going on in the National Security Council about Iraq? And if, as you say, options are still being considered, is there any sense of urgency to finalize a path forward?

       MR. MCCORMACK: I -- the issue of Iraq has been on the agenda for quite some time. This is not something new. I think the press's attention has turned recently to the topic of Iraq. There have been a number of new stories there. They are commenting on potential war plans. I think we are now up to an invasion force of anywhere from 250,000 down to zero, that would include a long build-up, or maybe not -- maybe no build-up at all -- maybe attacking from three sides to attacking by just Baghdad and outwards. So there's a lot of talk going on about Iraq. There are a lot of people -- President Bush refers to them as level fives and level sixers -- these are people down in the government who are flapping their lips about various things. We really don't have an idea of what discussions are going on between the president and his closest advisors.

       I can only say that Iraq has been and remains a source of concern for the reasons that I have talked about here, and that you have heard repeated many times from different podia. President Bush is, I think as you have all seen, a man of patience, a man of resolve and focus, and somebody who is going to take into account, in whatever actions he takes or doesn't take, the best interests of the United States and its friends and allies. That's first and foremost in his mind of protecting the United States and protecting our friends and allies as well. So if there are any announcements with regard to actions we will take, I certainly will let you know, and I am sure there will be some interest in that as well. But there is really no change from how I described it, and that is the president has taken no decisions with regard to military action in Iraq, and there is a lot of talk about it in the press. But the president is going to do what he thinks is right.

       Q (Off mike.) Between the Pentagon and the State Department, I think there are many still confused about Israel, the potential seller of the Arrow missile system, and India the potential buyer.

       Will the White House have a final say?

       MR. MCCORMACK: I don't believe that this is an issue that we are involved in at the moment inasmuch as it is a discussion in the interagency. Representatives from the NSC might participate in such discussions. But I don't know that it is in fact a matter of discussion in the interagency. I would refer you over to the State Department for any further comment on it.

       Q Sean, Nagi Chen (ph) from Broadcasting Corporation of China. I have two questions for you. The first one. In Taiwan one of the controversial issues is that the United States government is involved in lobbying for the Boeing company regarding China airlines' decision to buy new aircraft. So China Airlines is choosing between the European Airbus and Boeing triple-7. Some Chinese legislators criticized that political forces should stay out of the business decision. Do you have any comment on that? Thank you.

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I haven't seen those reports, but expressing support for American companies abroad is certainly a very important function of what we refer to as a foreign commercial service, a part of the Department of Commerce. But you will find them in many embassies around the world, and their job is to -- one of their jobs is to advocate for American companies that wish to make sales either to the government or to private industry in a given country. I don't know specifically if that is the case with China. I suspect that it may be. These aircraft contracts tend to be sizable contracts, and we certain support American companies making those sales and making those sales within the boundaries of the laws both of that country and the United States. Certainly I would feel safe in saying Buy American. It's good for the United States, it's good for the country that buys U.S. products as well -- quality U.S. products.

       Q Second question. In August, the White House National Security Council will have a new China hand, Mr. Clifford Hart. Could you please elaborate on his background, his job responsibilities? And do you know of if he has Chinese (name ?) ? Thank you.

       MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any information on Mr. Hart joining the NSC. We usually don't talk so much about NSC staff that is coming in. If Mr. Hart is going to be joining the NSC, what we would normally do is put out a brief announcement and put out the short resume to describe his background.

       Q (Inaudible) -- Middle East News Agency of Egypt. Following today's bombing in Jerusalem and the Hebron University in Jerusalem, the president described it as a horrendous act of terror. But actually the argument back in the Middle East is that last week's attack in Gaza, the F-16 attack in Gaza, contributed very much to acts like today. And the argument is that the Israelis do have the right to self-defense; the Palestinians do have the right to retaliate for attacks like last week. I'm not sure if you agree with that argument or not, first. And, second, are you making the traditional call on the Israelis to self-restrain, or do you believe they have the right to carry out an attack in the coming days or hours, as very much reported in the news? Thank you.

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you were here when we talked about what happened in the Gaza Strip, and you heard the president. I really don't have anything to add with regard to descriptions of those two incidents.

       What we are focused on and what everybody in the region should be focused on is how to achieve peace. That is what is important. The Palestinian people need to understand that they will never achieve their hopes of a state through the use of terror. They need to make every effort -- their leadership needs to make every effort to end terror.

       The United States and President Bush -- you heard him on June 24th -- stands strongly behind the aspirations of the Palestinian people in their hopes for a state and their hopes for a better life. It's been too long that these terrorists have -- for too many years they have hijacked the hopes of the Palestinian people. Terrorists and terrorism are going to get the Palestinian people no closer to achieving their hopes for a Palestinian state.

       Now, what we are focused on, and what President Bush is focused on, and what those supporters of peace in the region are focused on, and I would include among those numbers, and it's not exclusively these people -- King Abdullah of Jordan, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, President Mubarak of Egypt -- and I can keep on going down the list. These are leaders who are interested in bringing peace to the region. We are working with those leaders as well as other leaders in the region. We are working with the international community to implement in concrete ways the vision President Bush laid out in his June 24th speech.

       I think one thing that gets lost in a lot of the news reports -- people talk about time tables and making a Palestinian state a reality as soon as possible -- I think what gets lost when people are talking about this is the fact that President Bush himself weighed out in his June 24th speech a timetable of his own. He said if all parties work hard and endeavor and focus on bringing peace to the region that there could be a Palestinian state realized in three years. And even sooner than that there could be a Palestinian state with provisional borders and other aspects of its sovereignty to be defined in a period less than that -- maybe a little bit more than half that time -- half that three years. So that's what we are focused on, and we are making progress in that regard. We are working with those Palestinian leaders who are emerging and who are empowered to talk about building new Palestinian institutions that will serve the Palestinian people -- not just one person but the Palestinian people and their hopes for a better future, about working with governments in the region and the Palestinian people to draft a new constitution; on security forces that work to prevent terror and protect Palestinian neighborhoods as well, and all the people in them; and working to build all of those institutions that will eventually serve a Palestine. That is what we are focused on.

       Q Thank you. My name is Ju (ph) from Chosun (ph) Daily, North Korean newspaper. As you know, Secretary Powell met with the North Korean foreign minister -- (inaudible) -- yesterday. How do you evaluate the meeting? And could you tell me about the next step your administration is preparing in the context of resuming official talks with North Korea?

       MR. MCCORMACK: I think most of you have seen the news reports from Brunei -- and last night our time Secretary Powell had a 15- minute informal chat with the North Korean foreign minister at the beginning of the ASEAN Regional Forum meeting. He noted the recent statement that the North Koreans have made. He reaffirmed the president's policy and said that in future discussions the United States would want to emphasize a variety of matters including proliferation, a mutual commitment made under the agreed framework, as well as conventional forces. As for any follow-on meetings and travel, we would consider the statements that the North Koreans made in that meeting. I think as a practical matter Secretary Powell will -- has a couple more stops in his trip. He is going to come back to Washington. He will sit down with the president as well as the other members of the national security team and consider what next steps we'll take.

       Q (Inaudible) -- newspaper, a Japanese daily paper. I have also a question about U.S. and North Korea's relations. It is believed that there could be a nuclear crisis next year if the U.S. and North Korea fail to resume the dialogue. What do you think how seriously the United States thinks about these relations? And what kind of steps do you think the U.S. might take to persuade North Korea for international inspections of nuclear weapons?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well certainly the kind of bundle of questions that you raise are related to a lot of the things that we want to talk to the North Korean government about. And a lot of what you referred to -- the inspections -- really come under the rubric of the agreed framework, and that is something that we want to talk to the North Korean government about. I think if you recall this past spring we had put out a statement with regard to North Korean compliance with the agreed framework. We will continue to meet our obligations under the agreed framework as long as the North Korean government does. And I would only repeat my previous answer about North Korea -- what next steps we take, and add only that we will work very closely with our allies in the region -- Japan and South Korea -- on whatever next steps that we take. Their role and their voice in this regard in our dealings with North Korea is very important.

       Q Norman Fu with the China Times of Taiwan. In April last year, this administration, especially President Bush, personally approved what they call a robust arms sale package to Taiwan, including eight conventional diesel engine submarines. However, the problem is the United States no longer makes traditional diesel engine submarines.

       Since then the Pentagon has been involved in trying to get the Dutch and also the Germans, who make these submarines, to agree to sell the -- you know, the blueprints for the building of these submarines in the United States. However, out of consideration for their ties with the People's Republic, they have refused to let the U.S. make use of those plans for the construction of submarines. So my question, simply put, is whether there has been any progress, or whether this problem has been resolved. Has the U.S. found some source which can provide the technical know-how for the building of these submarines to satisfy Taiwan's needs and also to keep the United States' promise?

       By the way, I have seen a report Israel has indicated its willingness to help, because it has this so-called Dolphin-class conventional submarine. I don't know whether the U.S. is going to, you know, approve of the Israeli plan to get involved in this project.

       MR. MCCORMACK: Wow. (Laughter.) I think I'm going to have to give you an answer that may disappoint you, and that is refer you over to the Department of Defense for most of the details -- you are asking me for detailed information. And really that is the Cabinet agency that is responsible for working with the Taiwanese on fulfilling their request and our pledge to supply them with diesel submarines. We are committed to doing everything we can to fulfill that commitment. We made that commitment. We still abide by and stand by that commitment. But as for the details of exactly what steps have been taken and what discussions they've had, I think I'll leave that to the Department of Defense to comment on.

       Q Sean, one more on --

       MR. MCCORMACK: You already asked two before. (Laughter.)

       Q Sorry. The president is going to have on August 13th an economic forum in Waco on his ranch. Now, most of the world economy depends on the U.S. economy. Is that -- the economic forum will focus also on the world economy and how the oil -- a disruption in the Gulf oil, or are they to -- is he going to have any discussion with the world leaders on this forum?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you are kind of getting me out of my land a little bit. I -- this is really a forum that is being organized by the White House, for those of you that don't know. They're going to be held down in Waco, Texas. I think it's August 13th -- August 13th. It's going to bring together business leaders, union leaders, economists, leading figures in the U.S. economy for a discussion about economics and the economy.

       I don't know that we have really gone into exactly what the agenda items are going to be, and if there is going to be foreign representation. I don't believe so, but you know I can't rule that out. And the White House press office will really have more details on that as we get closer to the date of the forum.

       Do we have anybody else who hasn't had a question?

       Q Andre Sitov again, the Russian question.

       MR. MCCORMACK: The Russian question.

       Q Have you heard any reports -- yeah, have you heard any reports from Moscow as to how well the talks went between the secretaries of energy?

       MR. MCCORMACK: No, I haven't. I haven't had a chance to -- I know that certainly they are talking back with the Department of State back to the White House on their discussions. I just haven't -- I haven't talked to anybody about what sort of progress they've made.

       Q And what about this Office of Global Communications? Has it been decided who will be heading the office and how it will work and how it will coordinate with your office? Will we talk to them?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Good question. I'm not sure. You're certainly always welcome to talk to me. You can always give me a call. As for coordination, yes, it will be coordinated very closely. On who will head it up, we don't have any announcements in that regard. We'll put it out -- I know that it's always frustrating -- White House personnel announcements.

       Q (Off mike) -- Belgrade daily -- (inaudible.) Yugoslav coordinator and Serbian coordinator for Kosovo is in town, and he should have meetings with the National Security Council. What are the issues that are to be raised? And also how would you characterize the overall situation in Kosovo?

       MR. MCCORMACK: Hmm, you've got me stumped. The -- as for the meetings, I'm not aware of them. I can go back -- I can go back and ask, and you can give me a call at the office and I will try to track down some information for you.

       Last one, back here. Okay?

       Q Hungarian National Radio. Peter Zenta (ph) is my name. Would you comment -- what is your opinion, what is your government opinion that your new NATO allies, first of all Hungary, has decided not to buy American fighter planes but Gripen, the Swedish ones? And now I understand that Poland, the Czech Republic, and not including this group of countries, OSEA, (ph) is pondering about not to buy American fighters. What kind of message does it have for American? So, your comment I am interested in.

       MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly it's -- that is a choice for the Hungarian government as well as the other governments that you listed there. They are free to make whatever choice they think is in the best interests. The leaders will make that choice on behalf of the people of their country. We respect whatever decision they arrive at. We only ask for free and open competition to put our best foot forward to allow our companies to put their best offer and their best products on the table. And, beyond that, I'd just encourage everybody to buy American.

       Anything else? Thanks a lot.