Briefing for Foreign Media

       (This event recorded in progress.)

       MR. REEKER: -- call at the United Nations on September the 12th and made quite clear the importance of Iraq complying with these resolutions and the importance of the U.N. Security Council taking the responsibility it has to all of us to ensure that those resolutions are complied with, to include Iraq disarming. That's what's important here. That's what we're talking about now, and we want to have a serious, tough new resolution from the Security Council to give Dr. Blix, who briefed the Security Council yesterday and is meeting with Secretary Powell and other U.S. officials here in Washington today -- to give Dr. Blix and his team the strongest resolution that they can have, the strongest mandate to go into Iraq, to be able to go anywhere anytime, talk to anybody, so that we can end this series of games -- the charades that Saddam Hussein has played in the past in terms of these inspections.

       Inspections are a tool towards verification of disarmament, and that is what Iraq is required to do, and that, as the president has said, is what we want to see done. So we're, of course, consulting with the Security Council colleagues, the Perm 5 and other members of the Security Council -- the other 10 members and other countries around the world. But right now, we're focused on that resolution. And Secretary Powell said he's optimistic that we're making progress in our consultations and discussions with others.

       Q So for the moment, you are not looking for, let's say, opportunities to form an alliance in the case of no resolution of the Security Council?

       MR. REEKER: I think we have to look at this one step at a time, and we're dealing with this through the United Nations, with the Security Council, as intense, serious discussion. The new resolution is what's needed. We're talking to others about that. We've made quite clear our view that a resolution needs to, first of all, categorically state what Iraq has avoided, where they are in violation of existing Security Council resolution, what they need to do to come into compliance and that there needs to be a clear statement of the consequences.

       There needs to be teeth in these resolutions, and it needs to be a resolution that gives Dr. Blix the opportunity to examine everything, to have a thorough inspection process, so there's no more exclusion of particular presidential sites or so-called palaces. This is simply a way of game-playing while Saddam Hussein plays a shell game with that. As long as anything were to be excluded, that means it's not a thorough inspection. It raises the question immediately of what is he hiding? Is -- the onus is on the Iraqis to show that they are complying, that they are disarming, as required by the U.N. Security Council.

       Sir?

       Q Thanks. Andrei Sitov from Tass, from Russia. The same topic. You are firmly referring to a resolution, to the resolution, singular. The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the United States is getting closer to the French approach, which has like two stages. Can you confirm or deny that, please, for us?

       MR. REEKER: Well, there are lots of reports out there, and it's not for me to confirm or deny anything. I'll just point you back to what I just said and what the secretary has said in recent comments to the press, recent interviews. We believe that a resolution -- single resolution is the way forward. We've made quite clear what we think needs to be in that resolution. But we're talking and listening to others as part of the consultation process in the U.N. Security Council.

       No text has been formally tabled, as you know. But these discussions are continuing in New York, as well as the briefings we're getting from Dr. Blix. We heard from him yesterday. And as we've indicated, we feel there's a growing consensus, certainly, on the need for a resolution to give Dr. Blix and his team a stronger mandate; that UMOVIC, the U.N. inspection team, cannot simply go back under the former terms of reference. And ensuring immediate, unconditional, unrestricted access to any and all locations in Iraq is one of the issues we're discussing with other members, and we'll continue to have those discussions.

       The discussion that the secretary has raised is the question of, you know, exactly how the language works on these things.

       Q And on another subject -- I'm sorry; I might have missed something. We have a business conference, secretarial-level business conference, in the past two days, mostly dealing with that. Maybe something has transpired, but yesterday there was a report that one of the biggest names in al Qaeda, Zawahiri, was killed as a result of a Special Operations forces --

       MR. REEKER: I wouldn't have anything on that for you. You might want to talk to the Pentagon if you're looking for that kind of information.

       Sir?

       Q Hi. I'm Gabor Horvath, Hungary, the daily newspaper Nepszabadsag. Some 10 days ago, the secretary of State said that by Monday he would know where the Security Council stands on the resolution.

       Actually, which Monday did he have in his mind? And how long is going to last the patience before the United States takes unilateral action?

       MR. REEKER: I don't recall the specific quote, so I can't tell you which Monday he was referring to. But on any given Monday we know where the Security Council stands, where it is at that point.

       And right now we're continuing to work with the Security Council. No resolution, as you know, no text has been formally tabled there. We have been discussing with other members of the Security Council the elements a text that we've agreed to with the United Kingdom, and we'll continue on that process.

       I think the best I can do for you is to remind you of what the president said back on the 12th of September when he spoke to the United Nations and spoke to the world and said this needs to be a matter of weeks and days, not months.

       And we are going through this process. You're familiar with the way the process in the Security Council works. It includes a lot of consultations, serious, intense discussions going on in New York, and also among ministers. The secretary speaks regularly with his Russian counterpart, Mr. Ivanov. Certainly spoke already today with Mr. Straw, the British Foreign Secretary. And speaks with de Villepin of France. He's also had conversations with his Chinese counterpart, Mr. Tang. And we've been discussing, as I said, these elements of a resolution with other members of the Security Council as well. So that will continue, and we'll see where we are on the next Monday.

       Q So to make sure that I get it right, there is no deadline, right?

       MR. REEKER: I think, as the president said, we need to be aware of the urgency of this, of moving swiftly and taking action, and that's what's going on. The Security Council is working on this. We are certainly fully engaged in terms of working on this resolution to give Dr. Blix the most thorough mandate possible to go into Iraq to try to carry out the inspections, to see how Saddam Hussein attempts to comply with the disarmament that he's required, as well as other elements under the Security Council resolution.

       Yes, sir?

       Q Yes, if I may jump to Mexico.

       MR. REEKER: Mexico.

       Q Despite a number of efforts by the Bush administration, discussions and negotiations with Mexico, they have been unable to get a solution for the water dispute. Is it the U.S. position that this binational treaty, that goes back to 1944, is it still well-suited to deal with a case in which a country is either unable or unwilling to pay the debt, or do you think it's time to renegotiate it?

       MR. REEKER: Well, I think we have an agreement, that is the 1944 agreement. It's the U.S.-Mexico treaty on utilization of the Rio Grande, the Colorado and the Tijuana Rivers, and there are specific requirements under that treaty.

       And what we have illustrated and talked about as recently as this week as we mark the conclusion of the most recent five-year cycle is that during the past two consecutive cycles -- that's more than 10 years -- the government of Mexico hasn't delivered the volumes of water required under that treaty. And I think the figure, if I recall, is 1.5 million acre feet of water in deficit, outstanding deficit of what is owed. And we've been calling upon the government of Mexico and talking to the government of Mexico about taking steps to rectify that situation, to maintain as a viable framework the transboundary water agreement. And so we'll continue working with the Mexicans on that. It's an important treaty and we have to pay attention to it.

       Yes?

       Q A follow-up to the question?

       MR. REEKER: Sure.

       Q I wanted to know -- Mexico insists that there is no violation of the treaty because, for example, in the State Department there has never been said the word "violation," and in Congress it has been. My question is, what do you consider? Is this just a deficit, or do you say that Mexico is in violation of this treaty?

       MR. REEKER: I think you just answered your own question by saying the State Department --

       Q You haven't said.

       MR. REEKER: -- hasn't (said ?) violation. Congress can speak for themselves.

       Q So Mexico is not violating.

       MR. REEKER: I put out a statement, which I reiterated parts of to you here now, that there is a deficit of water and we want Mexico to address that.

       Q But then Mexico is supposed to be able to address this problem in the next five years. That's not -- and it could be under the treaty.

       MR. REEKER: We think Mexico should address that problem as soon as possible. We think meaningful and rapid steps by the government of Mexico are the way to address that problem and the way to maintain the viable framework of this treaty.

       Q And how are you going to encourage that? I mean, are there any steps or sanctions? Or what could be done?

       MR. REEKER: I'm not an expert on the water talks, by any means. I've made quite clear what our view is, the fact that we have just had the anniversary of the latest five-year cycle. The statement that we put out last week, earlier this week, talked about that.

       For 10 years now, Mexico has failed to deliver sufficient water to comply with its obligations under that treaty. And we believe that Mexico could have managed its reserve system in such a way that sufficient volumes of water were set aside to meet its treaty obligation.

       And so, you know, just as we rely upon other international partners to implement their international obligations in good faith, we're looking to the government of Mexico to engage in immediate negotiations on the plan that the United States has tabled. We tabled a plan for water deliveries for the upcoming irrigation season and measures to address the outstanding deficit, that 1.5 million acre feet. And these talks need to take place as soon as possible. (So ?) as I mentioned, rapid steps are necessary.

       Without meaningful progress on this, the United States is going to consider taking measures to encourage greater Mexican compliance with its water-delivery obligation. At this point, I'm not prepared to discuss specific action, but I think it's just sufficient to underscore the importance we place on this and the fact that time is moving on, and we need to address this urgently, because we are getting into another irrigation season. And we have tabled a plan for water deliveries, and we would expect to discuss that with the Mexican government.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: I'll let you read the treaty and figure out all the details for yourself, because I'm not an expert on it.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of a particular schedule. I think we're looking for a response from the government of Mexico about meetings on that and to deal with it rapidly.

       MODERATOR: Please use microphones. I got to -- (off mike).

       MR. REEKER: Yeah. I'm going to go to the back, to Jesus, and we'll come back up front, okay? Since we're on Mexico -- trying to keep us in the same general geographic region.

       Q Actually, it's Latin America, although Mexico -- (inaudible).

       MR. REEKER: Okay.

       Q A couple of weeks ago, I went to the State Department, and I asked Mr. Boucher about the corruption situation in Nicaragua, and he was supposed to take a look on that. So my question to you is -- the U.S. government consider now that -- the former president of Nicaragua, Mr. Aleman has been involved in corrupt actions in favor of himself or his family. And I understand that his wife and sister, I think, are in the United States now, in Florida. And the government of Nicaragua is trying to request the -- that the visa of Mr. Aleman has been canceled, or the United States will cancel the visa. So what is the situation right now in this, and do you consider Mr. Aleman as a corrupt former president in Latin America?

       MR. REEKER: I don't know, Jesus, that I would have an answer for that. If there were particular determinations made in terms of a law enforcement matter, that would be a question you'd need to ask the Justice Department. I can check back with Ambassador Boucher to see if anybody was able to find any details on your question from before. I'm not aware that I was given any additional information about it. And in terms of specific people's whereabouts, that would be a domestic question again -- law enforcement that I'm not aware of. So you might try at the Justice Department. I'm happy to look into it.

       But certainly, corruption is something that we have worked with many countries, many governments about. We've talked about the importance of rooting out corruption as far as moving a country ahead that was -- held back so many countries in terms of economic development -- is rampant -- corruption. And I think we've tried around the world to illustrate the importance of transparency, of rooting out corruption in government as well as in the private sector, because that's what's in the best interest of all the countries.

       But specifics on that question, I don't have an answer.

       Q Do you --

       MR. REEKER: Why don't we let somebody else do something? First here -- we'll keep to the hemisphere, and then we can come back to you.

       Right here.

       Hi.

       Q Hi. How are you?

       MR. REEKER: Let me guess -- Venezuela?

       Q (Laughs.) Yes! You got it! Sonia (sp) -- (inaudible) -- El Vision, Venezuela. OAS general-secretary, Mr. Gaviria, will return from a very brief and unexpected trip to Venezuela. And once again, the OAS reached anything in Venezuela? After the OAS, what? What is the proposal from your government?

       And my second --

       MR. REEKER: I think you'll need to ask the OAS about Secretary- General Gaviria's travel there and what they've done in Venezuela. We very much supported his mission. I don't have any facts on his travel. That's why I think you would ask them. Let's see what he says when he comes back, and then see what next steps the OAS considers.

       Our position remains the same, that the OAS, we think, could play an important role. And we have recommended that Venezuela take up the OAS offer to help in terms of the national reconciliation that we think is important for dealing with the problems in Venezuela, keeping in mind the importance of constitutional order and maintaining a strong allegiance to the rule of law and that constitutional order in the country.

       Q Okay. Your government -- to be clear -- still believes that the OAS can play a role in the --

       MR. REEKER: Yes.

       Q Yes, still believes.

       MR. REEKER: We believe strongly that the OAS has demonstrated -- now, I have not heard from Secretary-General Gaviria. You can't ask me to report on something he hasn't discussed yet, if he's just on his way back. I have no information. That's why I would direct you to the OAS to ask those questions to begin with.

       But we have felt that the OAS has an important role to play in the hemisphere, and indeed has played an important role in helping to preserve democracy. The Democracy Charter is a very important development for the 21st century for the hemisphere, and that's why we think that the OAS can go down and make a meaningful contribution to the efforts at national reconciliation in Venezuela, and we would encourage them to take up the OAS on those offers.

       Q Okay. And my second question is, if President Chavez is willing the interdiction flights in Venezuela, if that means that the relationships between both countries are in good health?

       MR. REEKER: I don't quite understand your question.

       Q The interdiction flights, Mr. -- do you know last week was -- Mr. Shannon was there --

       MR. REEKER: Yeah, I -- I --

       Q -- excuse me -- in Venezuela, and he said that Mr. Chavez permit the interdiction flights in Venezuela to fight against the drug --

       MR. REEKER: Yeah. I don't believe we've made any decisions on interdiction flights, on restarting the program before, and I'm not aware of any details on those.

       I'd really refer you to the Venezuelans for their comments on interdiction flights. I'm not familiar with the specifics of what you're referring to.

       Okay. We're going to have to move on and let some of the other people ask questions, if it's all right with you. And we're going to move out of the hemisphere and go over here, and then we'll come over there. Yes?

       Q Thanks. Are you going to guess the country, Philip?

       MR. REEKER: Oh, yes. (Shav ?), you go ahead.

       Q (Chuckles.) Shavat Meherliva (sp) Azertag News. My question is regarding the meeting of U.S.-Azerbaijan economic task force this week that took place in the State Department. Can you tell us anything on the outcome of this meeting? And in particular, was the status of Section 907 touched upon?

       MR. REEKER: I don't think I'm going to have that kind of specificity for you. I wasn't in those meetings. But indeed on September 30th we had the fifth biannual U.S.-Azerbaijan Task Force on Economic Cooperation here in Washington at the State Department. Our Ambassador William Taylor, who is the coordinator for U.S. assistance in Europe and Eurasia -- he co-chaired, along with the Azerbaijan finance minister, Avaz Alakabarov, this meeting. And the main topics covered included macroeconomic and financial policy, trade and investment climate, combatting terrorist financing, as well as U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan. And I don't have it with me, but if you're not familiar, I can get you some updated figures on the current annual U.S. assistance program for Azerbaijan.

       I think this reflected generally the ongoing very close cooperation and coordination that takes place between the United States and Azerbaijan on issues of economic development. And we look forward to that continuing. They already discussed plans for future cooperation, and the next meeting of this task force is tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2003 in Baku.

       Q Phil -- (off mike)?

       MR. REEKER: Yeah?

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: Always together, these --

       Q Yeah, yeah. (Chuckles.) Kenan Aliyev, Turan News Agency, from Azerbaijan also. Is the U.S. government aware that the Azeri government is arresting prominent party members en masse in advance of a planned unauthorized political demonstration which is scheduled for tomorrow? I repeat: This is an unauthorized rally to protest President Aliyev's policy. Does the U.S. government judge these actions as consistent with the international norms and standards for freedom of association and assembly?

       MR. REEKER: We are aware that officials of various opposition parties have been detained by authorities -- that's our understanding -- in advance of that a rally that I believe is planned for Saturday, for tomorrow, October the 5th. We're very concerned by these detentions because, as you know, the United States supports political pluralism everywhere, and in this case particularly in Azerbaijan.

       0Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, these are fundamental rights for all people everywhere, and they are essential to political pluralism and democracy. So we support those citizens in Azerbaijan who plan to exercise their right of assembly under law, and our embassy in Baku is monitoring that very closely. So it's something that concerns us. We've seen the reports about it. We do understand there have been detentions, and we'll continue to watch it very closely.

       Let's move along here. Sir?

       Q Parasuram from the Press Trust of India. Going to a different part of the world. From all reports from the Line of Control, cross-border terrorism is worsening, and also the killings in Kashmir are also on a much bigger scale, obviously to disrupt the elections, much bigger than what we had in Maryland yesterday. I was wondering how the State Department views it.

       MR. REEKER: In Kashmir, I think you probably heard before, and we would continue to say again today, that we condemn very much the extremist attempts to disrupt the elections in Kashmir through violence. It's absolutely unacceptable. We're opposed to all violence in Kashmir. And we reiterate our support for free and fair elections in Kashmir held without outside interference and violence. I think we've always noted that elections in Kashmir alone cannot solve the problems between India and Pakistan, but they are an important step toward a broader political process. And successful elections could pave the way for early resumption of diplomatic dialogue between India and Pakistan, and we will continue to encourage that. But certainly the violence has got to be condemned and every effort has got to be made to stop it and to prevent it.

       On the question of infiltration, I don't think I have any particular new information to share with you. As you're aware, following President Musharraf's assurances in May that support for infiltration across the line of control would be ended permanently, infiltration did decrease and there have been indications that it is continuing. It is, we believe, at lower levels than earlier this year. We, obviously, continue to monitor that very closely.

       Q One more on India?

       MR. REEKER: Yes, sure.

       Q Would you comment on the missile test today in the area?

       MR. REEKER: The -- ?

       Q Missile test by Pakistan.

       MR. REEKER: Oh, the missile test. Ambassador Boucher gave our concerns about that. We've always said we don't think that that's helpful, given the tensions on the region. We note that there were missile tests by Pakistan as well as tests of a missile by India, as well.

       And we've generally said that these things aren't helpful when, as you know, there are tensions in the region. And so we would ask if both countries would consider them. So you can also check Ambassador Boucher's transcript. He talked about that a little bit earlier over at the department.

       We'll just move over here to Lambros.

       Q Lambros Papantoniou, Elettheros Typos Greek Daily, Athens. Mr. Reeker, yesterday my question to Boucher -- why the candidate for the presidential elections in Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, was in the black list of the U.S. embassy in Nicosia. He told me that in the '90s, Mr. Papadopoulos was on the Treasury Department list. Do you know the reason why?

       MR. REEKER: I don't. You'd have to ask the Treasury Department if they had a list with him on it. I don't keep track of their lists.

       Right behind you, and we'll keep going. We'll try to get back to you.

       Q (Patric Javeaux LeMond (ph) ?). Just one more word on Iraq: Listening to what you said, is it correct to consider that in the current phases of discussions, the focus is more on the conditions of the inspections or regulations and the provisions to make sure that these inspections would be airtight and efficient, rather than under "or else" -- what would happen in case of noncompliance by Iraq?

       MR. REEKER: Well, I think we have to look at all of those factors. We've been quite clear -- and I won't repeat it again -- on the three areas that we think the resolution needs to have in it -- that is, what Iraq is in violation of, how they can come into compliance with that and what the consequences will be if they do not meet their obligations under the U.N. Security Council resolution. That's what's being discussed in the Security Council. We're hearing from Dr. Blix yesterday at the council, today in a briefing here in Washington, when he's meeting shortly with U.S. officials at the State Department -- hearing on his findings after his meetings with Iraqis, you'll recall earlier. So we're going to continue looking at that, but again, the bottom line is the importance of giving Dr. Blix a very strong resolution of a new resolution making quite clear his mandate so that he can go in with a tough resolution to back his inspection regime.

       Yes.

       Q Ricardi (sp), Italian News Agency -- ANSA. Any comment about the decision taken yesterday by the Italian parliament to send soldiers in Afghanistan?

       MR. REEKER: I don't know the specifics of that Italian decision, but generally, we've been very supportive of Italians and others who have contributed to the international coalition fighting terrorism, as well as support for the ISAF forces -- the security forces in Afghanistan. So those are important elements. We've seen continuing support from all around the world and that coalition has continued to be very strong.

       And I think it's a sign of the unity across the globe, throughout the civilized world, in fighting this war against terrorism.

       So while I don't have specifics on the Italian agreement, you might want to talk to the Defense Department in terms of coordination on those things. We certainly welcome all the contributions that have been made in that regard.

       Sir?

       Q Ping Liu (ph) of China Times, Taiwan. Taiwan's first lady was here last week, and during her stay in Washington, D.C. we know two undersecretaries of State, Mr. Bolton and Ms. Dobriansky, met her. Did they deliver any message to Madame Chen Wu, or they received any message from her?

       And a related question. When Madame Chen was here, she repeatedly mentioned that she wished her husband could visit here soon. What's the U.S. policy towards such visit? Thank you.

       MR. REEKER: Well, I can answer it very simply by saying our policy on Taiwan hasn't changed; it's the same as it was yesterday, the same as it was before. And you're quite familiar with it, so I won't go through that.

       Indeed, Madame Wu was in Washington. I do believe we talked about the fact that at some social events, I believe it was Undersecretary Bolton and Undersecretary Dobriansky who did chat with her in that context of our unofficial relationship with Taiwan, you know, social discussions. I'm not aware of any particular messages in either direction. I wasn't part of those conversations. But no changes at all to report.

       Next to you. Did you have -- oh, okay. Behind you.

       Yes, sir?

       Q I am -- (name inaudible) -- the Segye Times in South Korea. Today, Assistant Secretary James Kelly met Kim Yong-Nam, head of North Korea's parliament. Do you have any information about their meeting? And do you know whether Mr. Kelly will meet the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il?

       MR. REEKER: I don't really have much information. You are correct, as we discussed, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly is in Pyongyang. I believe he's still there at least for a few more hours today -- or that is Saturday, which it's already Saturday, I believe, in Korea. He'll be leaving Pyongyang and going to Seoul where he will discuss his visit to Pyongyang with our allies in South Korea, and then he'll go on to Tokyo before coming back to Washington. So I can't really go into the substance of his talks. I don't have any particular readouts of the discussions.

       I know that he met with the North Korean first vice foreign minister, Kang Sok Ju, and other than that, I don't have any of the details. So that's something -- we'll have to let his trip finish and let him report back to the secretary, and then we'll see what we can tell you at that point.

       Now, anybody else? Or we can go back to Mexico. First there, and then we'll -- we'll get there.

       Q (Laughs.) Ming Wei (sp) with Taiwan TV. Sorry. I got another follow-up on Taiwan.

       MR. REEKER: Okay. Mm-hmm.

       Q So would the State Department welcome President Chen's visit to Washington?

       MR. REEKER: You know our position on Taiwan, and I just don't have anything to add in terms of any changes. I don't know of anybody's plans for any visits.

       Okay. Go ahead.

       Q Yes. Maria Isabel Gonzalez with Reforma Mexican newspaper. My question has to do with Brazil. I wanted to know --

       MR. REEKER: Not Mexico? Okay.

       Q No, not Mexico this time. You know, there are going to be elections in Brazil this Sunday --

       MR. REEKER: Sunday. Right.

       Q -- and it looks like Lula da Silva is going to be the winner. My question is, what do you think or what's the plan of the U.S.? What would be the relationship, the political relationship, between the U.S. and Brazil with Lula president?

       MR. REEKER: Let's let the elections take place. And before any of you can try to write something about Reeker meddling in the Brazilian election, the United States wants to see democratic elections take place in Brazil, and we're confident that those will go ahead on Sunday, as they've announced. I just can't give you a reaction to an election that hasn't taken place yet, so you'll have to wait until at least Sunday. And it may be Monday morning before we have a chance to really look at that. But I'm sure we'll be able to say something next week.

       Anything else?

       Q Yes --

       Q What about the Turkish elections of November 3rd? The military is very much involved -- (off mike) --

       MR. REEKER: November 3rd? We have a long time to wait, Lambros, till that --

       Q No, but we -- we have a long way, but as you know, the other day --

       MR. REEKER: So I don't have anything to say about the Turkish elections.

       Q (Off mike) -- from the race. And that's why I was wondering, from the free election point of view, what is the position of the U.S. government as far to have a democratic process?

       MR. REEKER: I'm afraid I just don't have any details on the process under way in terms of Turkey and its elections. But we have every confidence that they will go forth again. They're very important, and we'll watch that. But I -- we'll wait till it gets, again, a little bit closer. I'm barely into October. I can't talk about November yet. So --

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. REEKER: Do you have one last one? (Pause.) Okay. I'll quit while I'm ahead.

       Q Yes. (Laughs.)

       MR. REEKER: Sure. (Laughter.)

       Q Yes. The other day Assistant Secretary Otto Reich in an interview spoke about corruption in the hemisphere and about not giving money to those countries where there's corruption.

       And he mentioned not only Aleman and Menem, but he mentioned Salinas, in Mexico. My question is, Salinas is not president anymore, so what would be done -- what's the relationship going to change, or is there anything in the U.S. that is against Salinas?

       MR. REEKER: I -- I'm --

       Q Because Salinas has always been like the (bat in the pitcher/ bad in the picture ?), but there's never been something little.

       MR. REEKER: Yeah -- no, I'm not aware of the particular comments. And if you want to check back with the press office, they may have something more specific on that. But I really don't know the context in which Assistant Secretary Reich was speaking. And as we all know, it's all about context.

       One last one. Yeah.

       Q (Off mike.) The president of Russia, Putin, just revoked the decree which was signed by President Boris Yeltsin in 19 -- I believe -- 91 or 1993, which was giving the full support for the activity of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, American-based media organization in Russia. He said they're not going to -- because he said basically was giving the radio --

       MR. REEKER: Yeah, this issue came up at Ambassador Boucher's briefing, and neither of us was aware of it. I've seen no details about it. I've only heard about it through you and your colleagues who asked earlier. So I'm afraid I can't tell you. But we'll look into it, and they may post something this afternoon from the press office if we're able to look into it and come up with a response or an answer, figure out what the facts are.

       Okay. Well, thanks very much. Bye.