Briefing for New York Foreign Media

Later this evening, we hope to e-mail you a transcript of today's briefing.  And it's now my pleasure to introduce the Deputy Spokesman for the US State Department, Phil Reeker.

MR. REEKER:  Thanks, Jim.  It's always a pleasure to come back to the New York Foreign Press Center, an unprecedented second time in one month, I think.  (Laughter.)

MR. REEKER:   So hopefully this is an indication of my schedule of the future, and I can spend more time up here.

Anybody else want to put tape recorders nearby?

I don't have any particular announcements.  I'm sure you're all looking for the great wisdom on the Iraq resolution.  We're watching that quite closely, of course.  I can discuss that a little bit if you want.  I don't think I have any particular news to announce on that front.

I do want to note, and you may have seen from Washington, of course, expressing our regret at the death, the tragic murder of our colleague in Jordan earlier this morning, a foreign service officer, a U.S. diplomat  who was with the Agency for International Development  mission in Amman, who was killed  this morning as he prepared to go to work.

So we've put  out some formal statements on that, the Secretary of State expressing his deepest condolences, and on behalf of all of us with the State Department,  our condolences to the family of  Lawrence (Larry) Foley, who had an outstanding career and a long tradition of government and public service, who was killed there in Amman.  We're working very closely with the Jordanian government in investigating this murder, to determine more about the situation there.

Other than that, I'm happy to just take your questions.   We can start at the front, whatever you're interested in.  Sir?

QUESTION:  Mr. Reeker, one general  question.  What do you think about the possible impact of  the hostage crisis in Russia on the US-Russian relations, and to follow with a more specific question, what do you think about the fact of the use of knockout gas during the anti-terrorist operation there?

MR. REEKER:  Well, I think you heard the President and his spokesman over the weekend talk about our understanding  with Russia about the terrorists' attack.  What occurred in Moscow was clearly a horrific terrorist attack.  Our embassy was closely working with Russian authorities.  They have been working to establish the whereabouts and the condition of American citizens that may have been involved in that.

I think it illustrated once again that we all face the terrorist threat in every corner of the world.  So in Moscow, where 700 innocent theatergoers can be taken hostage by terrorists, it reminds us of what we've been through, certainly here in New York and in Washington, what happened in Bali some weeks ago, tragic consequences  when terrorists take these kinds of action.

In terms of the facts, or the developments in the case, we're still looking into that.  I don't think we have all the facts of exactly how this was resolved  in Moscow, and our embassy will obviously be in touch with them on that.

But I think, again, it illustrates overall the threat that terrorism poses around the world and  why we are so determined to work with friends and allies in every corner of the globe in this in this global war against terrorism.  We've seen the tragic consequences yet again in another part of  the world.

Move down the --

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Yeah.  I  want to go back to -- actually, there are two questions.

I heard on the radio that, relating to the gas that was used, that actually the Americans developed this in the '60s.  It was, you know, on  10/10 (ph) last night.

The second question is related.  Any news on the NATO enlargement and the final list?

And the rest of my questions is, do you have anything on the visit, planned visit of  President Bush to Bucharest?

Thank you.

MR. REEKER:   Sure.  Three parts to that.

I am not aware that we have established any particular facts, and we look to the Russian government on the specifics of  the gas involved in that operation in Moscow,  and so without those facts, I couldn't possibly comment on suggestions, as you mentioned,  in terms of the origins of that.   Just haven't seen any facts on that, so I don't have any particular information on it.

On the second question on NATO enlargement, I don't think I can move that ahead much today, either.  As you know, we look forward to the summit next month.  We're almost in November, so that's coming quite soon, in Prague.  Leading up to that, obviously, we will be working with existing NATO members to announce our intentions for accepting new members, those candidates who will be offered membership in this round of  expansion of the alliance.

The President has said we look forward to a very robust round of NATO enlargement, and we've been working, obviously, with all of the candidate countries on their membership actions plans as they understand not only the commitments and obligations involved in taking on membership, but look at what they can provide to the alliance,
as well.

So I can't give you any news on that, but  be watching in coming days.  The President met last week with Lord Robertson , the Secretary General of  NATO, and they talked about preparing for the Prague summit and the next steps there.

And similarly, I can't make any travel announcements for the President.  He has said clearly he's going to Prague for the NATO summit, but any other stops would have to come from announcements from the White House, so we'll be watching for that.

He's just back from Mexico, from the APEC summit, so  you have to give them time to shift and look to the other direction, but I'm sure that will be forthcoming, coming up.

Sir?

MR. ELLICKSON-BROWN:  Again, now, please remember to identify yourself.

QUESTION:  Paolo Mastrolilli for the Italian newspaper of La Stampa .

The US Government has repeatedly said, concerning Chechnya, that there is no military solution to that crisis.

Do you know, do we have any explanation whether the hostage crisis was connected to al-Qaida, and do you share the view of  President Putin that blames the attack on international terrorism, and if  it is so, does that change the perspective, the American perspective on the solution of  the Chechnya crisis?

MR. REEKER:  Well, clearly, it was a terrorist attack, the action that took place in Moscow was terrorism, and we condemn terrorism in all its forms wherever it occurs, and that's why we were clear and strong in condemning the action in Moscow.

The exact origin of those particular terrorists and their connections to al-Qaida or other international terrorist structures I don't think I can give you any definitive answers on.

Certainly, we have talked about involvement of certain Chechen elements with international terrorists, and we have called for them to completely disassociate themselves from international terrorists,  but that presence has been known.  It's been discussed in our Patterns of Global Terrorism Report in terms of  international terrorist links in Chechnya, so we'll have to see exactly what emerges as details of  this particular terrorist event emerge.

But clearly, our position remains the same, that Chechen elements should disassociate themselves completely from international terrorist links, al-Qaida or any other links, and our policy remains the same, that we view the Chechnya situation as one that should be settled through a political dialogue peacefully, that there is no military solution to the ongoing tragedy there.

And so we condemn terrorism in all its forms, and we would look again, as we have for so long, to a process, a peaceful, political dialogue to solve the Chechnya situation.

Yeah.

QUESTION:  Hello.   Salvador Camerena from El Universal Mexico City.

Are you disappointed about not having the Mexico support for the US resolution on Iraq?

MR. REEKER:  Well, who says we don't have it?  I think what you have to wait and see is how this evolves in terms of  the process of  the United Nations.  Discussions are ongoing, as you know, today.  Dr. Blix, Hans Blix, the head of the verification mission, briefed the Security Council, and I think we saw his statements, which indicated again the need for a robust new resolution that gives the inspectors a very strong mandate for a tough inspection without loopholes or the ability for the Iraqis to  shift and squirm under that.

The best solution  to prevent a war is to have a tough UN resolution, and as President Bush said when he came to the Security Council and brought this problem before them, there's a responsibility of the United Nations, and  of the Security Council in particular, to take action to see that Iraq is disarmed, to see that Iraq complies with  the things they have agreed to over  a period of more than a decade, and that's what we're working on.  We have what we think is a very good, solid resolution that includes consequences for noncompliance.

And it's absolutely vital that those consequences be part of  this, because it is only when the pressure comes to bear, as we have seen just in recent weeks, that Saddam Hussein and his regime begin to respond to the international community, and begin to look at the responsibilities they have.

So we will continue to work at the Security Council.  That includes with Mexico, obviously, and I think all of you are familiar with the process of the Security Council.  There's discussion and debate and maneuvering.  There are public statements and there are private statements; and as we move through this very important week, as Secretary Powell has said, we expect to see some development, and I just wouldn't call it one way or the other.

This is the opportunity for the Security Council to show its relevance for the United Nations to take the responsibility.

And President Bush brought this situation to the United Nations because he felt from the very beginning that that was the right step, the right process to go through, and obviously he  has said that if the United Nations is not willing to take on its responsibility to hold Iraq accountable, to make sure that the threat is dealt with, the threat from Iraq, then we will look to doing that in our own interest, with likeminded nations.

So right now, we're not going to take tallies.   We're just going to continue making quite clear what we think it is very obvious, that this type of  strong resolution is necessary and it's the best way to avoid war.

The President has been quite clear that war is a last resort.  Secretary Powell has said nobody wants to have a war, but we have got to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses, that he has posed for a long time.  He has defied the international community and not lived up to the promises that he himself made in terms of the numerous Security Council resolution, and the Council has found that he has been in material breach on any number of occasions over the years, and it's time for the Security Council to act, live up to its responsibilities, show its relevance in dealing with this problem.

QUESTION:   Lennart Pehrson with the Sydsvenska Dagladet newspaper.

On Iraq, given that there is still a possibility of a veto against the US resolution, could you give some of your estimates on the effects that would have on long-term US-UN relations, given possibly the reaction from the administration, Congress, and maybe public opinion, as well?

MR. REEKER:  I think that's the kind of analysis, sort of the prejudgment that I, as a spokesman for the State Department, really can't do.  Obviously, there are a lot of  pundits out there, journalists, who get paid to do that.

What I can do is reiterate what I just did in response to your colleague's question of why this is important, the process that we follow, laying out quite clearly that want to bring  this to the United Nations.  That's what we've been doing now for six weeks, negotiating with Security Council partners, and it's something that we need to do.

But the President has been quite clear, if  the United Nations chooses not to deal with the problem, then we will look to do it with likeminded nations that wish to join us.  It's a choice that Security Council members  can take.

To me, it seems quite obvious that, as I said, the best way to avoid war is to have a strong Security Council resolution that makes quite clear what Iraq has violated, gives a strong, complete, tough mandate to the inspectors who can verifiably make sure that Iraq disarms, as they're required to do under existing resolutions, and that there will be consequences for Iraq's failure to comply, and that's what the resolution that we have done puts forward and that's what's being discussed.

I think it really is a pivotal moment for the United Nations.  You've heard the President say this is an opportunity for the United Nations to prove that it can live up to the mandate on which it was created.  Its founders created the UN and gave the Security Council powers to deal with threats to the global peace and stability, like the threat from Iraq, and it's time, after a decade, for the Security Council to stand up and show that it's relevant.
 
QUESTION:  I am Sumi (ph) Richardson, German Public Radio.  A question concerning the resolution and the text the United States put forward last week.  I believe it was the United States who then decided to leave the negotiations of the Permanent 5 and to put this text towards the whole Security Council, to put it to the whole team of the Security Council, if you wish.

Is there any indication that if the discussions within the whole Security Council now won't bear fruit, that the United States might be willing to force a vote to sort of change that text of the resolution to what I believe they call in the United Nations the blue text, printing it on blue paper, and thereby forcing a vote?

And a second question.  Is there any indication -- I heard a rumor, but I don't know if it's true -- is there any indication that the United States might favor meeting on the ministerial level of the Security Council in order to find a solution?

MR. REEKER:  I think on the last part of your question, no decisions had been made in that regard.  I've heard rumors of that floating through the media.

But what we are focused on is making some fundamental decisions now and moving forward.  That's what Secretary Powell has said over the weekend.  It's time for those fundamental decisions.  We've made progress in the last week.  We've narrowed differences down to a few key issues, I think, and there is general agreement in the Security Council that a strong resolution is needed.  And the crux of the discussions, I think really with the entire Security Council, all 15 members, comes down to how we characterize future Iraqi violations and what happens if the Iraqi regime is once again shown to be in violation.

I know we've said it's very important that there be -- that it be quite clear that there will be consequences for Iraqi violation, that they cannot continue to play the same game, that there cannot just be another resolution that will take us back to where we were four years ago, and we haven't moved forward from that.

So to more precisely answer your question on this week, with timing, we've set no deadline.  I think we've all made it quite clear that we just can't have a rolling debate, though.  The Secretary said that this weekend.  We can't have a rolling debate without end.  If the UN doesn't pass a resolution holding Iraq to account, the President has said repeatedly the United States will lead a coalition to disarm him.

So right now, it's the responsibility of all the Security Council members to look at this, to make some decisions and think about moving forward.

QUESTION:  But (inaudible) forcing a vote.  I mean, you have that possibility (inaudible).
 
Obviously, that's -- there's obviously that possibility, but as I said, to cite what the Secretary said, we have set no particular deadline, so I couldn't tell you at this point how it's going to evolve.

Today there was discussion that included, I think, an important briefing by Dr. Blix and now we'll see what the next steps will be.  But clearly, this is a pivotal week, and rather than talk about forcing votes or setting any particular deadline, which we're not doing, just remember that the Secretary has said we can't just keep talking and have debate without end; we need to come to a conclusion.  Either there will be a resolution or there won't be a resolution, and then we'll move on from there.  But this process is wrapping itself up.

QUESTION:  Ian Williams from the Tribune in London.

To be boring, and to get back to Iraq, you have mentioned that you would lead a coalition of the willing.  Could you specify exactly what the legal authority is?  Because I have heard various spokesmen from different parts of the administration, one saying that a resolution of Congress is quite legal authority enough regardless of the United Nations, others saying that this would be derived from the sort of residual invitation to take action over Iraq at the time of the invasion of Kuwait.

What precisely would be the legal authority for military action under those circumstances?

MR. REEKER:  I think we would have to clearly see where we are and what we have at that time.

The President, under the UN charter, has the right to act in our self-defense, and he's got from Congress a very strong resolution that makes quite clear that, first and foremost, Congress wanted the President to take this to the United Nations, to use diplomacy, to exhaust every avenue to force Iraq to comply and to see that Iraq disarms.  And should Iraq not disarm, then we need to look to what steps can be taken to disarm Iraq.

So the choices are there.  I think at this point I don't want to speculate on steps particularly that will be taken, but just to point to what the President has said.  He has the authority that he needs as our Commander-in-Chief to take action deemed necessary in terms of protecting our national security.

But where we want to be is with the United Nations, with a strong resolution.  We want the United Nations to live up to its obligation to deal with this.  And for a decade now, more than a decade, the Security Council has not forcefully dealt with this.  And we've seen quite clearly that Saddam Hussein only responds to pressure and to clear-cut implications of consequences should he not respond.  And that's why we are very seized with the matter.  That's why we took it to the Security Council.  And the Security Council now has an opportunity to decide to move forward or to choose not to act, and then we'll have to see exactly how we proceed from there.  So it's very much a decision that rests with members of the Security Council in terms of taking seriously their responsibility as members of that body.

And I think we've made quite clear our position and followed this in a very structured way that the President laid out beginning with his speech September 12th where, after weeks if not months of hyperbole and discussion in the media, the President has said quite clearly:  I'm bringing this to the United Nations to deal with this problem which is a threat to global security and a problem where Saddam Hussein has spurned the will of  the international community for over a decade now, and it's time to move on beyond that.

QUESTION:  I'm with the People's Daily of China.

MR. REEKER:  Hi.

QUESTION:  Yeah, I have a question of North Korea, about North Korea.  Since North Korea has admitted that their nuclear program is still going on, so have you changed your policy towards North Korea?  And also, their nuclear program, is it negotiable or un-negotiable?  If it's un-negotiable, what's the way out?

MR. REEKER:  Obviously, the North Korea topic was one that was a major focus of meetings in the APEC context and meetings between the North -- the South Koreans, the Japanese and the United States, also the President's meeting in Crawford on Friday with Jiang Zemin, the President of China. 

As we have said many times, North Korea's nuclear activities are a very serious matter, and in the context of these meetings, not only the countries that I just mentioned but other members of APEC this weekend voiced their united concern over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. 

We have been quite clear in our position; that is, that North Korea must eliminate its nuclear weapons program, a program that they have admitted that they are pursuing.  And I think the international community, not just the United States but the international community together, is making it clear that North Korea cannot pursue a business as usual approach and at the same time seek to develop nuclear weapons. 

Obviously, North Korea's relations with the rest of the world, I think, will depend on a prompt, verifiable and visible dismantlement of this nuclear weapons program that they have embarked upon, the enrichment of uranium for weapons purposes.

And I think North Korea has got to understand that we will not bargain or offer inducements to convince the regime to live up to their existing international obligations and commitments to agreements that they've already signed.  I think sometimes we just have to step back and look at what the situation is here.  They are in violation of existing agreements, including the Nonproliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement, the North-South Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as well as the Agreed Framework. 

And so we'll continue to consult.  The President has said quite clearly he seeks a peaceful, diplomatic solution to this problem and we'll continue to consult with our allies as well as with our Congress here at home to determine next steps.

I would remind you, since we're here in New York, that we keep the New York channel, as we call it, open for communications, whether by phone or fax or in person, as needed.  And that's the approach we will continue to take.  It's for North Korea to dismantle in a prompt and verifiable, visible way this nuclear weapons program that they have begun. 

Yes, welcome back.

QUESTION:  Good afternoon.  Thank you.  I would just like to know that what is the latest development about the private container (?) debate (inaudible).  Is there any -- there's nothing in discussion with the Bangladesh Government (inaudible) share (inaudible)?

MR. REEKER:  I'm not sure if I'm familiar with --

QUESTION:  It's the private container (?) in (inaudible) the discussion between --

MR. REEKER:  I'm not familiar with that one at this point.

QUESTION:  And what is the total amount of the US investing in Bangladesh right now?

MR. REEKER:  Well, that is a figure that I couldn't pull off the top of my head.  It's something -- it would be a great job for the Foreign Press Center staff to help you research that.  Our Department of Commerce may have some statistics on US Foreign Direct Investment in Bangladesh that would be of interest.  So I think that's about as good as I can do for you today.

Sir.

QUESTION:  Junming Wang from the Science & Technology Daily.  I have two questions.  The first question is what impact of China and the US leader meeting in Crawford, Texas last week to both sides' relationship?  Is there any change that will happen?

The second question is it is said that China and the US will have a serious exchange events after this meeting.  If so, in what field or what issue?  Thank you.

MR. REEKER:  Well, I think as the President himself said, this was an important meeting.  These summits offer the leaders an opportunity to spend some personal time together, obviously, by definition.  Our relationship with China I think has been on a very positive track for some time now and as two very large countries we have a whole panoply of issues to discuss.  The two Presidents had an opportunity to discuss North Korea and the approach that we're taking that I outlined right here, concerns that China has about North Korea and their nuclear weapons program; an opportunity to discuss Iraq and the resolution clearly with China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council having an important role in that; to discuss the global war on terrorism and things we're doing together, sharing of information and efforts in the financial realm, for instance, to make sure that terrorist financing is stopped and assets are seized.  And so there's a whole panoply of regional and global issues that the two Presidents were able to discuss.

Human rights is something that we always bring up in our discussions with China, and I think you'll have noticed that we both -- both countries announced scheduling of the next round of China human rights dialogue that will take place in December in Washington.  The last time we had a round of the dialogue was last year in Beijing in October of 2001.  So December 16th, that week in Washington, our Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Lorne Craner will meet with Chinese counterparts and pursue the human rights dialogue which I think is an important step. 

We, as you know, have pressed for some time, pressed China on a sort of results-based process for this dialogue, and over the past year I think we've seen some steps taken by China to address issues that were raised.  This has included a number of releases, some high-profile releases, and of course these issues have been raised in every high-level discussion we have, not just at the highest level with the President, but as we meet on a variety of other issues we discuss human rights.

So I think that gives us one set of discussions to follow up in December in that regard.  But clearly, there's a whole area of -- whether it's economic issues or working together to counter terrorism around the world that we share with China.  And we have a very important, strong relationship and this was a good opportunity for us to strengthen that even more.

QUESTION:  Hi, Robert Poredosh, Slovene Press Agency.  Is there any actual proof that North Korea is continuing developing a nuclear weapon or there might be -- I heard some speculation they might be preemptively bluffing or something like that. 

MR. REEKER:  Well, as you'll recall, when our envoy, the Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, went to Pyongyang, he told the North Koreans that the President had been prepared to pursue a very bold and vigorous new approach to improving relations with North Korea.  However, we confronted the North Koreans with evidence we have that we developed over the summer, last summer, where we realized that they were pursuing this program to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapons program.

And at first -- I think the stories have been repeated many times now.  At first, the North Koreans denied this, and then went away and came back and admitted clearly that they had -- that they were carrying out this program, which we knew from evidence, from intelligence that we had gathered.  They admitted it, and I think at first tried to pass the blame onto us, that somehow it was our fault that they were developing a nuclear weapons program in violation of the various agreements that I mentioned earlier.

Now, clearly that's a reverse kind of logic and it's a program that we now know they have been developing for a number of years, going back some time. 

Somebody's just clicked off here. 

So the proof is that North Korea has admitted to doing this and our position is that they must end this and do so verifiably and visibly, immediately. 

I'll come back up to the front.

QUESTION:  Paulo Mastrolilli, La Stampa again, about Iraq.  Along with the American resolution at the UN there are two other resolutions, the French and the Russian ones.  I know that you don't agree with the assessment made by French diplomats concerning the votes that this resolution can count on as of now, but if at a certain point you would realize or it became clear that the American resolution doesn't have nine votes and the French resolution maybe has it, what would be your reaction?  Would you use the veto to stop it?  Would you go along with that? 

MR. REEKER:  I think, again, that's the kind of speculation I can't really enter into.  That's a popular process at the UN and that's what you guys are paid to do, not me.  We continue to work, as you said, from the US-UK-sponsored resolution, which was put in blue, as your colleague mentioned.  And I still haven't quite figured that out.  It is because it's on blue paper or --

QUESTION:  On blue paper (inaudible).

MR. REEKER:  Blue paper.  Anyway, the text was set down and it's an operating text that you've all seen and has been distributed.  The French circulated last week a non-paper among Council members, and as I understand it, there's a good deal of overlap in that paper with our draft, with the US-UK-sponsored resolution.

Our whole approach is to come to agreement on a resolution that meets our three basic principles.  I think we've been over that, but just to reiterate, it's a clear finding of material breach on the part of the Iraqis; a tough inspections regime to verify Iraqi disarmament; and serious consequences for continued noncompliance.

On the material breach question, which has emerged in some of the discussions and certainly in the press, since 1991, I would just remind you that the Security Council itself has already found Iraq in material breach in nine Security Council resolutions and presidential statements and stipulated already that there would be "serious consequences" in 11 resolutions and statements.  If you add up all the resolutions and statements together, there are 11 times that they have done that.  And the resolution that we're working on, obviously to address some of the other concerns, provides for further consultations in the Security Council in the event of continued noncompliance.

So that's the text that's being worked on.  That's the text that I think all members have been working on on Friday.  They went through in great detail, line by line, to review that.  And while we have put it in blue, we are still able to consider changes, suggestions.  We're still listening to others as we said we would and as the process usually takes place at the Security Council.

But just again, the process can't go on forever so we're going to have to decide at some point whether we're going to have a resolution or not. 

QUESTION:  And while we're on the material breaches of resolutions, I understand that -- I think I saw as I was coming out in the wires that Ariel Sharon had said he couldn't accept a settlement freeze and he wanted natural growth, which I think is the rubric under which the Israeli settlements have doubled in the last -- since the first settlement freeze was announced. 

Could you comment on whether that would be acceptable for the United States or whether they will have any words with Ariel Sharon about this particular bending of UN resolutions? 

MR. REEKER:  I mean, I am sure you are familiar with our position on settlements and that settlement activity must stop.  I haven't seen this particular development or these reports on it.

I think what people have often done in trying to make this comparison, which is always an attempt to make some comparison with Iraq and Israel, which is a really mistaken attempt -- you have to look at 242 and 338, which are the resolutions that form the basis of the approach to the Middle East, and they're very different in the sense that 242 and 338 explicitly call for a political settlement, a political dialogue, for underpinning in all the subsequent resolutions on the Middle East situation.  And that is not the case in Iraq.  The resolutions on Iraq -- on Iraq's situation have called for explicit disarmament.  And a political dialogue has been called for under the resolutions on the Middle East peace, including the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is one that we have tried to foster.  There have been movements and efforts, as you are well aware of, for a long time.  So they are very much different situations. 

And as you know, we have a process that we are trying to get both parties to move forward on.  Our Assistant Secretary Bill Burns is in the region as we speak, continuing to discuss this roadmap forward in the framework that the President described when he came to the United Nations earlier and talked about what we wanted to see for the Middle East; that is, an independent state called Palestine living side by side with secure borders in peace with Israel.  And that remains the vision that we have, very much what we've called for, what the Arab League has called for, what the Quartet -- including the United Nations and European Union and the Russians and ourselves, the United States -- are working on. 

And so there's a process that we're working for, and underpinning all of that, the processes and all of the roadmaps, are the Security Council resolutions that call for a process to be taken.  Clearly, it's taken longer than anybody would have hoped, and we want to see a resolution, but to try to mix those two situations is really an apple and oranges situation.

QUESTION:  Quick one.  Could you comment on Brazil's presidential elections outcome, especially taking account in the (inaudible) leftist orientation on the declaration that he's going to stand up to Americans in future negotiation on global issues and so on?

MR. REEKER:  I think you'll see a statement that we released formally from the State Department, from Washington earlier today, congratulating the President-elect in Brazil, Mr. Lula da Silva, on his victory in the second round which was held yesterday.  I think we have always said -- stated the obviously -- that Brazil is an important, essential partner in the hemisphere and we are very much committed to continuing the excellent relations with the government and the people of Brazil. 

And so our intention is to engage with Brazil's new leadership at the earliest opportunity and work together with President-elect Lula da Silva and to forge a prosperous, democratic hemisphere based on the shared values that I think we all have.  Some of those are enshrined in the Democracy Charter of the Organization of American States. 

And so we expect to build a strong partnership and again congratulate him on his victory.

QUESTION:  Yuri Kirilchenko, Itar-Tass News Agency again.  Due to this hostage crisis, President Putin failed to meet President Bush at the APEC summit in Mexico.  Do you have any idea when the actual meeting could take place?  And have you heard anything about most recent communications between the two, between Presidents Bush and Putin?

MR. REEKER:  I know the White House announced that the President had called President Putin after the taking of the hostages when the incident first began in Moscow to express our solidarity for Russia in light of the terrorist activity.  I don't know if there's been any more communication since then. 

I know the Secretary has been speaking with Foreign Minister Ivanov on a fairly regular basis.  I don't have his readout of phone calls today or over the weekend. 

Obviously, we had a chance to meet with some Russian officials who attended the APEC meeting in Mexico in the place of President Putin.

And I couldn't tell you when the two Presidents will have their next opportunity to meet, but certainly perhaps on the margins of the NATO summit meeting in Prague there may be opportunities.  But we'll just have to see what the White House is able to announce in terms of our President's travel or opportunities there. 

But they keep in close touch.  I think the two Presidents have a good personal relationship and certainly our relationship as a whole with Russia is quite important and quite positive these days.

Let's go to the back again and then come back forward.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Iraq is a now a very lengthy and serious issue and the whole world is really under serious pressure economically --

MR. REEKER:  I missed the very beginning.  What kind of issue?

QUESTION:  The Iraq issue is a very lengthy and serious issue.

MR. REEKER:  Lengthy, yes.  Indeed. 

QUESTION:  And the whole world, the political and the economic world, is really under pressure.  Honestly, how much time does UN have and how much (inaudible) is there with US Congress on this issue?

MR. REEKER:  Well, if you go to the congressional resolution, the Congress gave the President broad authority but asked him to pursue this issue through diplomacy with the United Nations and to report back to the Congress, and so that's why the President has brought this to the United Nations and he will have to report back to the Congress.

As I said earlier, I can't give you an exact timetable but I think the Secretary has made quite clear, the President has made quite clear, that we can't just have an endless debate in the Security Council; we need to make some decisions whether we're going to have a resolution or not.  We have what we think is a very good text, a solid text that meets the criteria that we think are important to actually have a new situation; a good, new resolution that will make a difference that can hold Iraq accountable, that will have in it the serious consequences if Iraq should continue to fail to comply with its obligations to the international community and to the Security Council in particular.

So we will have to see what evolves in coming days and then what steps we will take.  But it is a situation that has been around, that's been around for far too long. The threats that Saddam poses are ones that we cannot just ignore.  And as the President has said and other officials have said, the only thing we don't have -- the only option we don't have is inaction.  We need to deal with this.  We are all too aware of what can happen when a terrorist, for instance, turns an airplane into a weapon of mass destruction.  We saw that just over a year ago here in New York. We saw in Bali what happens when a terrorist turns a car filled with explosives into a weapon of mass destruction in a horrific attack on holidaymakers in that resort. 

And just imagine if Iraq is able to develop a nuclear weapon to give to terrorists to perpetrate something like that.  The events that we've seen would pale in comparison.  So it's something we have to deal with and we need to take action, and the Congress has given the President authority to take action and the President has gone to the United Nations and said live up to your founding charter, live up to your obligations, deal with this situation.  And we have been going every extra mile to work with and hear ideas from all of our Security Council partners to address their concerns, as well as meeting what we think are the important criteria to have a new resolution that will really make a difference and has the greatest opportunity to prevent war by having a solid resolution.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) the ultimate goal of the US is to democratize the countries, even democratize the whole Muslim world.  So there must be a plan to do it.  Is that plan being made in the administration?

MR. REEKER:  I don't want you to get ahead of yourself.  What we are focused on is disarming Iraq.  That is something that has been pending, has been required under Security Council resolutions for more than a decade, and that is the focus now.

We have said quite clearly that the people of Iraq deserve better leadership than that of Saddam Hussein, who has channeled the tremendous resources that that country should have at its disposal, he has channeled those resources into attacking his neighboring countries over the past two decades and to developing weapons of mass destruction, squandering the resources that should make for a better life for the people of Iraq, having them live under the most abysmal situation in terms of human rights. 

And the horrors of that regime, I think, are often forgotten or they've been there for so long that they get sort of swept aside in the global discussion of Iraq.  But it is something, if you go back and look at the record of that regime and how he has treated his own people -- the threats that he poses to the region and to the world as a whole.

So we are trying to deal with this one step at a time, working with the international community to resolve this threat.  The President has said that if the international community as a whole does not want to take this on, then we will work with others that want to work with us to see that Iraq is disarmed.

So that is one step.  In the future -- and there is a future no matter which way this goes -- we think there is a future for Iraq without Saddam Hussein and we have been working with Iraqi opposition groups on a number of projects.  We have the Future of Iraq project.  That's what it's called.  In fact, these working groups that are part of that project on a number of topics have been meeting quite frequently and quite intensively for some time.  Just this past week, we had a meeting of the working group on economy and infrastructure and there are a number of other working groups as well.  But I think it made real progress in planning for a future Iraq without Saddam Hussein. 

And obviously, democracy is the way to go.  Democracy will provide for the people of Iraq the type of life, the type of leadership, that they deserve and give them an opportunity for a prosperous future where human rights are respected, where all ethnic groups and minorities are respected.  And so we'll continue working with these various groups as they plan and think about how they would put into place the necessary structures of a solid, democratic civil society in Iraq once there is a change of regime there.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER:  There are a number of these working groups. This is largely an effort of the various Iraqi opposition groups, many of them from all over the world, that we've tried to encourage to come together, that we've provided some funding for, to make this process happen.  And there are various NGOs that can contribute to that as well.

And obviously, in a future Iraq free from Saddam Hussein, as we have in other parts of the world, we would be there to offer our help with the rest of the international community in helping to restructure Iraq.  With the resources that Iraq should have at its disposal, we think that they could rebuild a country that would have a more positive focus for the people of Iraq.  They are the ones who deserve most to be liberated from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein.  They are the ones who stand to gain the most from having democracy, from having a new future without Saddam Hussein and without his weapons of mass destruction. 

Back up here.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible) Richardson, German Public Radio.  A question specifically of German interest.  Joschka Fischer is coming to Washington this week, first visit after the recent elections in Germany.  As we all know, there has been some tension, cross-Atlantic tensions between Washington and Berlin.  What is your prediction about this meeting?  Is this really the beginning of the thawing of the ice, however thin I think it might have been?

MR. REEKER:  I normally don't make predictions, but what I can predict is that Foreign Minister Fischer will meet with Secretary of State Powell -- that takes place, I believe, on Wednesday -- and expect the two leaders, who have already a relatively long history together, and so they'll be able to deal with all kinds of things on our agenda.  Obviously, we have a very important shared agenda.  Germany is an important ally, a member of the NATO alliance, an important economic trading partner.  We have a whole host of issues.   I'm sure we'll discuss Iraq and other global issues of interest to both countries and other topics of mutual interest.

But I wouldn't want to predict any particular outcomes from this.  These are important meetings and I think we'll hear from both leaders in due course after they've finished their meetings.  But again, we do look forward to receiving the German Foreign Minister in Washington this week.

QUESTION:  Paolo Mastrolilli, La Stampa.  A few days ago while in Moscow, the Italian Prime Minister said that as of now Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction anymore and then said that he was actually reporting the position of President Putin.  I would like to know if US had clarification with the Italian Government since then and if that declaration has changed in any way your perception of the Italian Prime Minister.

MR. REEKER:  I think I recall the report of the remarks, and then I recall some reports that clarified those remarks to say that wasn't at all the position of the Italian Government or Prime Minister Berlusconi, or of the Russian Government, for that matter.  So I don't know that I can parse exactly that.  I have to let the Italians speak for themselves.

But I think we've had a very strong relationship with Italy, who has also recognized the dangers that Iraq poses to all of us, and certainly the Russian Government has understood that. We are working, obviously, closely with the Russians at the Security Council -- they are Security Council members -- and discussing different views and thoughts on the ultimate goal there.

So my recollection of those remarks that were reported or attributed was that they were later clarified by the Italian Government.  And so I think the important thing is to have an inspections regime so that we can see and know verifiably that Iraq has disarmed.  If Saddam Hussein has nothing to hide, then he should be perfectly willing to stop playing the games that he's played and to have a rigorous inspections regime that can go anywhere anytime to verify that he is not hiding anything. 

But we can't have a repeat of the previous situation where we have excludable zones, presidential sites -- all kinds of stipulations, all kinds of song and dance and subterfuge on the part of the Iraqis.  We need to have a very solid, tough resolution that makes quite clear the mandate for the UN weapons inspectors, and I think Dr. Blix has echoed that in his remarks even today after his report to the Security Council. 

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER:  My recollection is that the Italian Government itself clarified that.  I don't think it's been an issue for us.  I think we have a very solid understanding from the Italian Government of the threats that the Iraqi regime poses.  So I would just refer you back to the Italian Government.  I do recall that there were reports of one sort and then clarifications of another saying that that was not at all what the Prime Minister had said. 

And we have learned to focus on our own discussions rather than reading every report that comes out of there, with all due respect to all of you in your profession.  There are an awful lot of reports out there. 

So we'll continue to keep in touch, obviously, with the Italian Government as well as this process moves forward.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  Is there anything in the discussions you have had with Dr. Blix that have indicated that it will be difficult to pursue that inspections, that strong and tough manner that the US has said?  Because earlier on, he indicated that it would take a substantially longer time to accomplish the goals than the timeframe that --

MR. REEKER:  I just have to refer you to the public remarks that Dr. Blix has made.  He reported to the Security Council as a whole, not to us but to the Security Council, and I think has made clear that he and his team would welcome a strong resolution that would give them a clear mandate without some of the loopholes that I think we've seen before where the inspection regime was not successful.  And of course, since 1998 there have been no inspections. 

So we want that language that is in the resolution, we think is quite reasonable.  We need to have a tough inspections regime.  We need to give Dr. Blix and his team that tool to make their inspections useful. 

But in terms of his specific remarks, I'd let him speak for himself, and I think he's done that even today in terms of what he and his team feel they need from the Security Council to carry out the mission.  That's why we want the Security Council to give them this new resolution.  We think they deserve that to carry out this very important task.

Anyone else?

(No response.)

MR. REEKER:  Great.  Well, thanks for coming.  See you next time.

MR. ELLICKSON-BROWN:  One announcement, by the way.  I just want to remind everyone we do have digital photographs now of all our events here.  So those of you who have not yet met our Technology Coordinator, Jon Wyett, should make sure to introduce yourself to Jon -- he is right over there -- if you have any needs in terms of recordings, digital photographs or anything of that nature.