Briefing for Foreign Media

MR. DENIG:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to the Foreign Press Center.  We're delighted to have with us this afternoon for our regular briefing with the foreign media Philip Reeker, the Deputy Spokesman for the Department of State.

Phil.

MR. REEKER:  Thanks very much,  Paul.  Happy Halloween, everybody.  I was going to try to tell you I was actually Richard Boucher in a Phil Reeker costume, but --

QUESTION:  Where is your costume?

MR. REEKER:  Well, you can believe that if you want.  Anyway, an especial bienvenue to our friends from Canada.  I believe today some students have joined us from Quebec, along with some --

MR. DENIG:  As well as Freedom House fellows.

MR. REEKER:  Freedom House fellows, too.  So it's always good to have visitors to our Foreign Press Center briefing room.

I am pleased to be here.  There are no formal announcements to make today, so I can go straight to questions that you might have.  The lady here was first with her hand.

QUESTION:  Allison Vuchnic of Global Television from Canada.  Canada's Foreign Minister just stood up in the House of Commons and said that Paul Cellucci has assured that the US's new policy to stop and fingerprint Canadians who have Canadian passports, but who were born in Iraq, Iran, Syria, et cetera, that this policy is going to be revoked. 

Is that true?

MR. REEKER:  Somebody had mentioned that Foreign Minister Graham had just made some comments.  Obviously, I wasn't there, nor did I have a chance to see them, so I'm not exactly sure what was said. 

As we have been discussing for a couple of days, we are in touch with Canadian authorities and discussing the implications of our border security policy in terms of what it means and what it doesn't mean for Canadian citizens, and I think we will try to see what we might be able to do to help clarify that.

As you are aware, I think everybody is aware since September 11th, due to the extreme dangers posed by certain terrorist organizations, and very much demonstrated September 11th of last year, the sophistication and the willingness of those groups to take advantage of the open nature of democratic societies, ours as well as Canada's, we have adopted additional border security measures to strengthen border security in this country.

And I think what you are referring to specifically is the national security entry/exit registration system program which went into effect some weeks ago.  So, again, the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is the place to turn for specifics of that and how it's implemented on the borders, at border entry points, including those with Canada.

And as I said, we are discussing with Canada the exact implications of that and we will see what we can do in coming days to help clarify any of them.

QUESTION:  So, as far as you know, this policy still stands?  So Canadians who were born in those countries will still be fingerprinted, potentially deported?

MR. REEKER:  I think you are going to have to talk to the INS about exactly how border entry is carried out at the various ports of entry with Canada in terms of that.  The overall purpose and scope of the system is what I just described in terms of border security, and certain groups that are of particular interest to law enforcement or intelligence are required to provide additional information upon entering.  But the specifics of that is, I think, something INS will have to speak to, and, as I said, as we talk with our Canadian colleagues about how we can clarify that.

QUESTION:  Last follow-up.  Paul Cellucci told the Foreign Affairs Minister that he actually spoke with Secretary Powell and was assured that this policy would be reversed.

MR. REEKER:  I don't know that.  I have not heard, actually, the Foreign Minister's comments, nor have I heard comments from Ambassador Cellucci, nor have I asked Secretary Powell specifically of any conversations he has had with our Ambassador to Canada.  So I would have to check into more details on that.  It's certainly something  we're looking at. 

Up here, sir.

QUESTION:  Rasvan Roceanu from Radio Romania.  Is there any, let's say, limits, any final point for the negotiation in the Security Council?  Because it was supposed to be at the end of that week, now apparently it will be the end of the next week.

And the second question, what about North Korea?  Are there any new developments about North Korea?

MR. REEKER:   Two questions.  Let's first talk about where we stand at the Security Council and the focus on the resolution regarding Iraq.  Secretary Powell has continued to consult with his counterparts from the other Permanent 5 countries.  I believe he spoke with Foreign Minister Ivanov today.  I think we're narrowing differences there. 

The Security Council concluded its read-through of the draft, the US-UK resolution, yesterday.  And we think the meetings have been very constructive and we're considering the further ideas of Security Council partners as we discuss this with all members of the Security Council, and we're taking into account what we've heard.

I think the Secretary said in one of his radio interviews yesterday that we would be looking at trying to wrap this up in coming days or a week or so.  I think if you look at the way the Security Council works and the process that takes place at the United Nations, this certainly isn't unprecedented, in terms of time, but I wouldn't want to give it any more specific a timeline because it's just difficult to do.

Our bottom line has not changed and we still think it's very important that we have a clear statement of Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations to the United Nations, to the international community.  There has to be a tough inspection regime.  That is what we owe to Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei of the IAEA for their inspections.  They have made quite clear they would support and welcome having a strong mandate for their work in Iraq.  And there have to be consequences, consequences in the event of new Iraqi violations. 

So a strong resolution is very much the best way to get compliance without conflict.  And I think the Secretary has indicated that it's time to resolve the differences and pass a resolution, and move on with that.

If we can switch to the North Korea subject, I don't really think there's anything particularly new to report on that.  As you know, we have been consulting with friends and allies, and North Korea has got to understand that we will not bargain or offer inducements to convince the North Korean regime to live up to the existing commitments that it has under international agreements that North Korea has already signed.

They must immediately and visibly dismantle North Korea's nuclear program, and I think we have also said before that they need to retain the freeze they have on nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.  And as I mentioned, we are continuing to consult closely with our allies and friends, including Japan, South Korea and China, on next steps.

QUESTION:  But did the United States take any clear measure, for example, to stop aid to North Korea or something like this, something concrete, not only take a position?
 
MR. REEKER:  Well, I think what the President said is, first of all, we would like to see a peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the situation.  But the bottom line is quite clear, that North Korea has got to immediately and visibly dismantle this program for enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

In terms of next steps specifically, we are consulting with our friends and allies and looking at that.  The Russian government has also made some statements.  There is broad support in the international community for this approach, with country after country recognizing the importance of North Korea dismantling and doing so, as I said, visibly, their nuclear program.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Hi.  I have two questions, Mr. Reeker.  First one is that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is now talking about three links.

MR. REEKER:  A what?  I'm sorry?

QUESTION:  Three links.  I mean transportation, air fly and the ship between the two sides of Taiwan Strait.  And because the Chinese Prime Minister insists that the ships be a domestic line, which may exclude all the foreign countries to participate, like UN or AA can not fly from Taiwan to Mainland China.  There is only a company belong the two sides could run these lines.

So I'm just wondering, is there a position from the US side about the three links?  Because I heard a lot of US company that this is not fair for them.

MR. REEKER:  Let me answer that first.  I don't know if we have taken any such position.  Our policy, as you know, on Taiwan is regulated by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three communiqués.  We have a One China policy.  So anything in terms of air links, I would have to check and see if that had been something that had ever been discussed or that we have taken a position on.

QUESTION:  But, so far, you don't have a position on it?

MR. REEKER:  I don't know, is the answer, so I can't give you an answer on that.

QUESTION:  Okay.  The second question is that in the Crawford meeting, the two presidents announced there will be a security dialogue between US and China on the level of the under secretary.  I wonder, could you give us more detail when this is going to be start, and who will be the counterparts who will participate?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I can give you any more detail at this point.  We'll try to look into that.  You know the White House also announced the Vice President's visit, and I just don't have any more details at this point. 

We also announced the next round of the human rights dialogue that will take place in December, I believe.  And that will be led by Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Lorne Craner, and that will take place in Beijing.  Correct?  I can't remember now if we're doing it in Beijing or in Washington.  But we put out a statement on that at the time that we announced it.

But in terms of other details on the security dialogue, I just don't have more details at this point.  I am sure as we move along -- now I'm going to test my memory and see.  In Beijing is where those human rights talks, the dialogue, will take place beginning the week of December 16th.

Over here, sir.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)  I have two questions, two questions about North Korean issue.  Could you tell me what is the United States Government's policy about Charles Jenkins, who defected to North Korea and married the Japanese abductee there?

MR. REEKER:  You asked that question of Ambassador Boucher, and so I will refer you to the same answer that he gave you:  You need to discuss that at the Pentagon.  There is an office at the Department of Defense that deals with those issues.  This is about a sergeant who was in the American military, and so you need to direct your question there.

QUESTION:  But this in Japan, James Kelly was asked by Japanese Government if amnesty could be granted to Jenkins.  Are you conferring about how to deal with this issue?

MR. REEKER:  You would have to ask the Pentagon that.  That is their field.  Yes, the Japanese Government did raise the issue and made some inquiries when Assistant Secretary Kelly was in Japan, and he indicated that he would pass those along to the appropriate authorities at the Department of Defense, which would have authority over that question, that issue. 

Dmitry. 

QUESTION:  Dmitry Kirsanov of Russian News Agency Tass.  Philip, is that true that the US administration is trying to isolate Ukrainian President Kuchma, as Jim Hoagland reported in Sunday's Washington Post?  You have -- NATO, to be more precise.  NATO has already downgraded the level of a forthcoming meeting between the alliance and the Ukrainian, deciding not to invite President Kuchma to Prague.

Is that true?

MR. REEKER:   Well, I think NATO, the North Atlantic Council, did make its own announcement that their view was that a ministerial level meeting at this time, that is, in conjunction with the NATO summit in Prague, that a ministerial with meeting with Ukraine would be the best forum for carrying forward the NATO-Ukraine relationship.

In terms of the US policy, you know we have had some concerns and we have a policy review going on in terms of our relations with Ukraine, our relationship with Ukraine, and particularly with President Kuchma because of some of the concerns we have regarding President Kuchma and some of his policies, including the July 2000 authorization of a sale to Iraq of a Kolchuga radar. 

So I think we remain very much committed to a broad and robust relationship with Ukraine and a strong NATO-Ukraine relationship.  And our policy review is ongoing in terms of a specific US-Ukraine initiative.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  Hoda Tawfik from Al Ahram, Egypt.  Would you comment about Iraq trying to normalize relations with its neighbors, opening the borders today with Saudi Arabia and before normalizing Kuwait the archives and all of that?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I have any particular comment on Iraq and its own relations with its neighbors.  Those are decisions for individual sovereign countries to make.  Our view on Iraq, I think, is well known. 

What we are working on and focusing on now is at the UN Security Council, on a new resolution whereby Iraq will need to live up to its commitments to the international community.  For ten long years, more than ten years, Iraq has ignored its commitments to the entire international community, to the United Nations, to the Security Council, its commitment to disarm, which is the priority here, that's what we're focused on and we would hope that all countries and all members of the United Nations would recognize the need and make clear to Iraq that they need to disarm. 

But we'll focus on this resolution that I just talked about that the Secretary's been very involved in, trying to move forward on that -- a resolution that makes clear that Iraq has been -- has failed to comply with its obligations and that gives a tough inspection regime, a mandate to the United Nations inspectors, and that there are consequences in the event of new Iraqi violations. 

That's all that we're focused on right now in the message that we're sending to Iraq and we think that the whole international community, the Security Council is coming together around that understanding that Iraq needs to comply and needs to disarm.

QUESTION:  You don't think in a way that Iraq is trying to fulfill one of resolutions of the Security Council?

MR. REEKER:  I wouldn't try to do an analysis of Iraq.  They need to fulfill their obligations under these resolutions.  They haven't done so for 11 years.  We're focused on a new resolution that makes very clear what their obligations are and gives a mandate to the inspectors to go in and make sure that Iraq disarms, because that's the key thing.  There's a threat to the United States, to friends, allies, particularly those in the region, from Iraq and Saddam Hussein's efforts at developing and maintaining weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear programs, and that's a threat that we take very seriously, and that the President has asked the United Nations to deal with.

QUESTION:  May I have another question?

MR. REEKER:  Sure.

QUESTION:  What is the problem about the Egyptian television's putting for Ramadan some series of programs?

MR. REEKER:  You're talking about the mini-documentaries --

QUESTION:  Yes.

MR. REEKER:  -- that we've produced as part of our public diplomacy, and --

QUESTION:  No, no, not this one.  About the -- during Ramadan, they are going to run some serial of also documentaries, and it will be --

MR. REEKER:  Oh, this is the same question Ambassador Boucher got earlier today regarding -- we were made aware of a series that was going to run, apparently on Egyptian television, on state-run television, that propagated some of these longstanding myths, racist and violence-prone myths, the "Elders of Zion" thing, that we think is inappropriate, as we condemn this type of thing all around the world. 

So we made those --

QUESTION:  But have you seen it?  Have you seen it?  How do you know that it's --

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I've seen it.  I certainly wouldn't be watching it.  But we've made clear --

QUESTION:  It's not out yet.

MR. REEKER:  We just made clear our views on that type of programming.  I haven't -- I don' t know whether it's out yet or not.  Hopefully, it never will be.

QUESTION:  So you're trying to stop it?

MR. REEKER:   I don't think we try to stop anything.  We make clear our views of that type of programming on state television.  We don't think any government should be supporting those types of inflammatory, and simply unnecessary, programs.

QUESTION:  We don't know if it is inflammatory or not.

MR. REEKER:  I never characterized it as whether or not it was.  I simply said our view is clear on that type of programming.  Okay?

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  Munhwa Broadcasting from South Korea.  The US Government is not to hurry or not to drive North Korea policy, comparing to Iraq, and the media reported that this government is trying to consult the issue with South Korea's next government.  That is my first question.

MR. REEKER:  We're consulting with the South Korean Government --

QUESTION:  Next South Korean government.

MR. REEKER:  We're consulting with the current South Korean Government.  That's what we're doing.  That's what we have been doing.   That's what we've always done when it comes to dealing with North Korea and our North Korea policy.  I think you're well aware of the intensive discussions we have with our South Korean allies as well as the Japanese, and in the current situation with many other countries, as well.

Assistant Secretary Kelly traveled to the region.  He was in Beijing.  He was in Seoul.  He was in Tokyo carrying out these consultations.  We're continuing to discuss next steps.  Under Secretary Bolton, in addition to being in Beijing went on to Moscow, to Paris, to London, to Brussels, to make clear our views and to share and, indeed, found widespread support for the view that North Korea must immediately and visibly dismantle its nuclear program.  That's the most important thing and so we'll continue consulting in that vein. 

In terms of the first part of your question --

QUESTION:  In general, yes, that's the first question.  In --

MR. REEKER:  Let me just, in terms of the first part of your question, in terms of the pace of this, Iraq and North Korea are two completely separate issues.  And every issue in foreign policy, just like almost every issue in life, has to be dealt with according to its own individual context.  And that's very much what we're doing.  To try to compare issues like this is a very simplistic approach, really to any problem, but certainly in foreign policy, and you have to look at each situation on its particular background, on the players involved.

And I think we've been quite clear that what we're doing in Iraq involves a threat that we consider serious, that's gone on for more than a decade in terms of Iraq violating specific UN Security Council resolutions, ignoring the international community, and we're working with the international community through the United Nations to have the Security Council live up to its obligations to take responsibility for this. 

North Korea, we've made quite clear our views and we're working, again, with many, many countries around the world consulting and discussing next steps to what we would like to see as a peaceful, diplomatic solution to that problem.

You had a follow up?

QUESTION:  Yes.  In general sense, in light of some urgency, the North Korea's atomic nuclear issue is more fiery than Iraq, so US Government seems to be lingering for us, just prolong to draft the issue.

MR. REEKER:  I think I just answered that.  I don't think we're lingering over anything.  We're dealing with all of these issues as important issues to our security, the security of our friends and allies, in fact, to the whole world.  That's why we're dealing in an international context.  And certainly with North Korea, we are talking quite immediately with all of our friends and allies about this.  We've had consultations at the highest levels.  The President just met with his counterparts from Japan and South Korea as well as others on this subject on the outskirts of the APEC meeting just this past week. 

So I think we are looking at this quite seriously and we've made quite clear that North Korea needs to immediately dismantle its nuclear program.  So I don't think there's any particular delay on that, but I will let journalists make their own journalistic approach, as you suggest.

QUESTION:  Yes, my second part of question is regarding heavy oil supplies to North Korea.

MR. REEKER:   I'm sorry.  I didn't understand.

QUESTION:  Regarding heavy oil supply to North Korea.  Heavy oil.

MR. REEKER:  The KEDO --

QUESTION:  Yes, KEDO.  Yeah.  I think time is already past to decide whether or not the November portion of aid need to be shipped to North Korea.

MR. REEKER:  I don't know that that time is past.  I don't believe any decision has been made.

QUESTION:  Because, yes, the October portion was sent to North Korea on October 4th.  So this is already the end of this October and if you send heavy oil to North Korea at least by November, the decision need to be done at this time.

MR. REEKER:  Well, I'm glad that you're able to say that, but what I can tell you is that the decision has not been made on that, so we'll leave that for KEDO and the member-governments of KEDO to discuss that.  That's one of the types of issues that we discuss with other governments as we determine next steps, but to my understanding, no determination has been made on that particular or any other particular next step.

QUESTION:  What do you have in mind?  To decide --

MR. REEKER:  I'm sorry to frustrate you, but those are decisions that are going to be taken in due course as we consult with friends and allies and other governments like South Korea, like Japan, and I just don't have any specifics to announce.  We're not going to carry out those consultations in public.

QUESTION:  And the TCOG could be the right time to decide that?

MR. REEKER:  I don't know.  I just can't make any predictions, but we'll continue to have the consultations we've been having at all levels because this is an important subject.

Sir.

QUESTION:  Hungarian Radio, Peter Zentai is my name.  In Hungary, an article which appeared in Foreign Affairs Magazine causing storms, the author is saying that the US Government was not satisfied with what Hungary did for the NATO the past few years, was not satisfied with Hungary's inner politics. 

So what is your comment?  Is it true what the author is saying?  You have not --

MR. REEKER:  I have not read this article.  This is the first I've ever heard of it, so I would have to a look at it.  I'm not aware of any particular --

QUESTION:  Can you comment that Hungary has not lived up its commitments to the NATO --

MR. REEKER:  No, I can't comment that it hasn't lived up to its commitment.  I think we have been very pleased with the expansion of NATO that took place three years ago in 1999.  I think all three countries have made contributions, have understood the importance of the alliance -- Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland all being an important part of the current 19-member NATO alliance.

And we look forward with all of those partners to welcoming in another round of new NATO members, which we'll be announcing in due course with the summit in Prague.

So I couldn't address any of the specific questions in this article.  We would have to have somebody take a look at it, but I'm not aware of anything that reflects on that.

QUESTION:  Just another question.  Because the Hungarian Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister is coming to Washington next week, --

MR. REEKER:  Mr. Medgyessy, yes.

QUESTION:  Yes, and he is going to visit the White House.  And it was a earlier storm that the previous Prime Minister was not accepted by White House.  Has it any meaning right now that Mr. Medgyessy is welcomed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Orban was not really?

MR. REEKER:   I don't know about the earlier situation.  I know the President looks forward to welcoming Mr. Medgyessy, the Prime Minister of Hungary, a close friend and ally as we were just discussing.  So it's normal in the due course of diplomatic relations, and I know we look forward to that next week.

Quickly, and then we'll move back to some who haven't had yet.

QUESTION:  Speaking about Eastern Europe, the OSCE Representative in the Republic of Moldova, who is an American, pushed very hard for a negotiated solution of the conflict in Transnistria, but it seems that the parties simply rejected the American proposal.

What does the US intend to do in order to solve that conflict?

MR. REEKER:  I don't know that I have any real updates on the Transnistria situation.  It is something that we've supported the OSCE efforts in.  In fact, as you say, the OSCE Representative, or the people involved in that, includes an American.

So we very much support the OSCE trying to find a solution to that lingering problem in Eastern Europe, but I don't have any new updates.  I can certainly check back with the appropriate offices at the Department and see if they have anything. 

Sir.

QUESTION:  Beraud Pickert from Die Tageszeitung in Germany.  Yesterday, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer met with Secretary Powell.  Afterwards, both described their relationships as improving and as taking some steps to improve this poisoned relationship.  Do you think so also?

And which role can Colin Powell play in the current government, mostly to convince the President to normalize the relationship with the German Government?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think it matters what I think.  Whatever the Secretary said yesterday is what I think. 

We all heard -- we'd be happy to get you the transcript, if you need it -- the Secretary and his comments and Foreign Minister Fischer's comments.  They had a good meeting.  I think they covered a wide range of issues, including NATO issues and the upcoming summit, since we are a NATO alliance and NATO allies.  And they discussed the alliance.

They discussed, of course, Iraq.  I think the Secretary brought Foreign Minister Fischer up to date on our views about Iraq, which I have reflected on here; a little on the Middle East; and of course, Afghanistan, where Germany has had an important role. 

And as the Secretary pointed out, and I think Foreign Minister Fischer echoed the same sentiment, they were able to have open and candid discussions, conversations.  And the Secretary made quite clear that there are, from time to time, even in the best of relationships, disturbances.  There are points where countries will have disagreements and we are confident that in due course we will get over these disagreements, we'll find ways to resolve the differences that may arise.

So that is what we will continue working on.  We have a busy agenda with Germany in so many areas -- political, economic, defense, social. 

And as far as the Secretary's role, he will continue to be the President's chief diplomat in charge of foreign relations on behalf of the President.  So we expect him to keep up that role.

Anybody else?  Yes.  One, two.  We'll go front and then back. 

QUESTION:  Giampiero Gramaglia, Italians News Agency ANSA.  Has Secretary Powell any plan to travel in Europe before the NATO summit?  And will he travel with President Bush?  Any steps on the European region of President Bush? 

MR. REEKER:  I don't have any travel plans specifically to announce for the Secretary, and certainly not for the President, since that would come from the White House.  Obviously, everybody is aware of the NATO summit in Prague coming up the 21st and 22nd -- is that right? -- of next month, of November.  But at this point, I just couldn't predict the Secretary's next travel.  We'll watch for that.

Sir, behind you.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  My name is Endule from ECTV, Ethiopian TV.  What is your reaction from the Eritrean Government's response for the last statement on detainees for the US Embassy employee who was detained on October 11, 2001, and other humanitarian issue on the journalist in Eritrea?

MR. REEKER:  Well, obviously, we are disappointed, I think, with the response that we've heard so far.  Our statement -- and we can get a copy for anyone that's interested -- made quite clear that these employees of the American Embassy have been detained far too long without charges.  We are very concerned about this and we want to see them released.  We are very concerned about the future of democracy there, and this type of activity is not something that we think should be condoned. 

So we stand by our statement and Ambassador Boucher has addressed that, and we will continue to raise this with the Eritrean Government as often as we have the opportunity.

Anything else?

Yes, sir.

QUESTION:  South Korean Minister of Reunification said that Under Secretary Kelly did not pass exact message of North Korea with respect to the uranium enrichment, I mean that his comment is that Kelly's message a little bit picked up an advantage of US interests and he did not transfer the North Koreans' exact verbatim. 

What do you think about that?

MR. REEKER:  I haven't seen those remarks from the South Korean Foreign Minister and that's contrary to everything --

QUESTION:  Minister of Reunification.

MR. REEKER:   Ah, then I haven't see those.  I definitely haven't seen those remarks.  I haven't seen remarks like that from any South Korean minister, and it doesn't at all reflect the reality of the situation. 

As you will recall, Assistant Secretary Kelly, his first stop upon leaving Pyongyang was in Seoul, and I know quite well that we had very serious conversations, as we had had before leading up to his visit to Pyongyang, with South Korea and, I think, made quite clear exactly the response that he had gotten in North Korea, the response of the North Korean officials when we presented them with the fact that we knew about their program for highly enriched uranium for making nuclear weapons, and how they at first denied it, and then came back and admitted that they had this program. 

So I think that's what we've been quite clear about, we've certainly shared with our friends and allies as a part of the consultations now that I mentioned earlier.  We're still undertaking to determine what the next steps will be in that.

QUESTION:  Have the allies the full context of what North Korea said?

MR. REEKER:  Yes, I would presume that's what -- I wasn't there, but I'm quite confident that we have very open and full context discussions with our South Korean allies, with our Japanese allies, with other friends on the matter, of North Korea and their need to dismantle their nuclear weapons program.

Anything else?

Yes.  Sure.

QUESTION:   I'm thinking what would be the follow-up to the project or the plan you presented to the Arabs and to Israel concerning the peace process.

MR. REEKER:    Oh, you mean Assistant Secretary Burns's trip recently?

QUESTION:  Yes.  And Israelis are saying in their newspapers that Ambassador Satterfield will be going soon, or by the end of -- by the middle of the next month.

MR. REEKER:   Ambassador Burns just got back.  In fact, he got back, I think, last night.  He was in the office this morning.  And I think it's a little too early to determine next steps.  Assistant Secretary Burns, of course, was going to brief the Secretary today on his trip throughout the region.

I think I would just reiterate what we've said for some time, that we are and will remain in close contact with both parties to try to advance the strategy that supported by the parties and by the Quartet, that is, by not just the United States, but the United Nations, European Union, the Russians. 

I think Assistant Burns had very constructive meetings in all of the capitals, in discussions with representatives of the Quartet, as well as regional leaders on the elements of this roadmap that reflects the Quartet plan, and of course would ultimately realize the vision that President Bush put forward; that is, for a final settlement based on two states living side by side in peace and security.  And these, of course, are going to be based on the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, 242, 338, the President's speech which was June 24th, as well as the Saudi and Arab League Initiative.  All of those pointed to this and would incorporate, as well, I think, the Madrid terms of reference and previous agreements between the parties. 

So the goal remains unchanged; that is, to end the violence and terror, lay out a path to end the occupation that began in 1967, to resume security cooperation through reform of Palestinian institutions in preparation for statehood and a final, negotiated settlement, which, as the President said, could be achieved in three years. 

So I think that approach will clearly lay out obligations and responsibilities on all sides and is aimed at a comprehensive peace which provides security for all the states in the region, which is, if you'll recall, what was called for at the Beirut summit, in the Declaration of the Beirut Summit. 

So we'll remain engaged with the parties.  As I said, it's a little early to announce any next step travel in terms of our officials, but I'm sure there will be at some point and we'll let you know that as soon as we know.  But we'll remain in touch with those in the region and in the rest of the international community on this approach.

QUESTION:  Do you see a time, a time when this should be put into implementation by the parties?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I can give you a more specific time.  The President has said, and the Quartet and the rest of the players in this, I think, have all said that this can be done in full in three years to have a final settlement.  But the specifics in terms of timing, I don't think I have anything more.

QUESTION:  But if we don't start, how can it end?

MR. REEKER:  That's a very good, obvious statement.

QUESTION:  I heard that you wanted to start like in January or December?

MR. REEKER:  Yeah, I don't have any dates or specifics to share with you, so when we do have more steps, I will be happy to see what we can do.

QUESTION:  But is a timetable in the plan?

MR. REEKER:  I don't have any dates to share with you.  We've had discussions.  This is a roadmap based on the Quartet plan which outlined a broad timetable that everybody would like to see and feels that this can be accomplished, but in terms of  specifics, I'm just not in a position to get into that at this point.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR. REEKER:  Any last?  The gentleman over there.

QUESTION:  Do you have any information on the 16-years old Canadian who is detained for the moment in Guantanamo Bay as The Globe and Mail report yesterday?

MR. REEKER:  I don't.  I can't verify any of those.  I would have to refer you to the Defense Department, which handles the Guantanamo Detention Facility.  State Department hasn't been able to take those questions. 

Okay, I guess that wraps it up.  Have a good day.

Thanks for coming.  Happy Halloween.