Foreign Policy and the New Congress

 Real Audio of Briefing

       SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much. I thank each one of you ladies and gentlemen of the international press for joining us here today.

       I believe, after January 7th, that we will have a resolution which names the members of our committees and establishes the fact that Republicans have taken control of the Senate committees. And under those circumstances, at some point I will be named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an opportunity that I welcome.

       So, anticipating that, I want to share with you at least some plans that I have expressed to members, as well as to those in the Senate generally and the press, as to what we might do during the first three months of that tenure.

       We tend to want to take a look, and will in due course, at all parts of the world, really a panorama of foreign-policy interests of the United States and other countries. That was my opportunity when I last chaired the committee in 1985.

       Then we brought the administration witnesses, as well as those of previous administrations, people from think tanks, experts sometimes from abroad. These were hearings that were carried by C-SPAN so that they informed the members of the committee and the Senate, but likewise the American people, of areas that we ought to be interested in.

       It also developed a legislative program. Our committee authorizes our government to do certain things in foreign policy. The Appropriations Committee finally passes on the money requirements. But our authorization will mention money. It gives some sense of priority, and it also deals with authorization for the State Department itself for American diplomacy.

       And one of my enthusiasms will be to boost the Foreign Service, to try to make certain our embassies abroad are up to speed in terms of communication here, as well as general repair and security, which has been a preoccupation in recent times, to try to understand the importance of diplomacy and the importance of our having those chances to communicate with leaders, as well as the rank-and-file of the countries.

       But, first off the bat, we will be taking a look at what might be called post-Iraq. I don't say post-war Iraq or post-Saddam Iraq, but perhaps post-disarmament Iraq, a situation at least that may prevail, depending upon contingencies that we will discuss this morning, and that will lead the United States to have to make some very important decisions, along with other nations of the world, about the governance of Iraq.

       To take a hypothetical situation, in the event that there should be a change of regime in Iraq, it is not at all a foregone conclusion what will follow. And that is very important to the rest of the world, in addition to those persons who are in Iraq.

       I would suggest that our State Department and our Defense Department have begun to give some serious thought to that, and I don't want to do injustice to them. But the point of the hearings and the reason for announcing that we will be preoccupied with this subject for a while is to stimulate that planning on the part of our government at whatever level people wish to pursue that, and likewise a strong conversation with other governments throughout the world who have ideas about that, including Iraqi exiles, who have had a meeting during the past week and have been thinking about that issue; people inside Iraq, who are certainly less vocal but on the ground presently and who have a lot to say about that; and the neighbors.

       Now, all of this, it seems to me, needs to be a part of our dialogue and our debate in the United States, because almost any solution that has a comprehensive nature, that has some time line, as I think a solution that is satisfying will, will cost money.

       It will involve commitment of people, either civilian or military. It will involve a lot of diplomacy with every other nation that wishes to be involved. And my hope would be a lot would be involved, that this will be an international undertaking, and that at the end of the day that Iraq will be deemed a successful state.

       By that I mean one that has at least the beginnings of the building of democratic institutions, of market institutions, that has at least a potential for a very vigorous relationship with the countries of Asia and Europe, as well as of the Western Hemisphere.

       That is a very ambitious goal. And I appreciate that many start this quest by indicating that one bad regime might be followed by another, with disastrous consequences or at least a continuing situation there. That, it seems to me, would be a tragedy if the world is to make a commitment at this point to a better Iraq.

       Now, while we're discussing a better Iraq, I want to turn then the committee's attention to progress in Afghanistan. In the same sense that Iraq, a much more complex state, must be a successful state in the world, it is very important that Afghanistan lead the way in its area.

       Afghanistan is an improbable place for the United States to be involved in working with other countries for success, improbable in the sense that we did not anticipate military conflict. We did not anticipate the attack upon our country on September the 11th. Military action occurred in Afghanistan because of al Qaeda camps and the problem of rooting out, at least in the war against terrorism, what was very visible.

       So we went to Afghanistan, and subsequently there have been many debates in our administration and in administrations around the world of how we should progress. I think much progress has been made.

       And my own sense is that we need a more comprehensive plan that shows a sense of stability for the future, that will give President Karzai and his government somewhat more room than simply the governance of the capital city, that will help other nations fulfill their pledges so that roads might be built and the country might see some mobility and safety of passage, that the work with the so-called war lords or others who are in governance begins to lead to a central government that works, a military force in Afghanistan of Afghans that works.

       Each of these things are not new. They're objectives that have been sought by the international community. But they are expensive. They require, once again, commitment of nationals of many nations, (forward ?) a nation of these views, at the end of the day hopefully a successful state that will be helpful in the neighborhood in the same way that we are most hopeful that Iraq may play that role in a very dangerous neighborhood in which it exists.

       Now, finally, at least among major objectives at the start, we will have before us at some stage, at the request of the administration, the Moscow treaty which was signed by President Putin of Russia and President Bush of the United States. The import of the treaty is to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, and the treaty specifically deals with warheads from roughly the 6,000-each status presently to something in the neighborhood of 1,800 to 2,100.

       In due course, both parties may select to reduce the number of warheads further, and that is always negotiable. But that will be the objective, at least at the outset. The treaty does not have a timetable in terms of how these reductions are going to occur, and some critics have said that the verification procedures are less certain than they have been in previous arms control negotiations with the former Soviet Union and now Russia and the United States.

       I have pledged to the president, when Senator Joe Biden, who has been our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I met with the president and the vice president, Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Andrew Card, just the six of us sitting there in the Oval Office in July, that we would do our best for the Moscow treaty.

       But I also pointed out to the president at that point that in order for the Moscow treaty to be successful, the so-called Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program would probably need to be increased.

       Now, that program, which commenced in 1991 in legislation offered by former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, who was then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has provided for Russia in so-called cooperative threat reduction monies, expertise, contractors, who have worked in Russia to take nuclear warheads off of missiles, to help destroy the missiles; in the best case to, in fact, bring missile fields back into production of corn or sunflowers.

       In the case of Kazakhstan and Belarus and Ukraine, under the Nunn-Lugar Act, all of the nuclear warheads in those three countries have been removed or destroyed. They have ceased to be nuclear powers by their own choice, and given the monies provided by the United States and the expertise that came with those monies.

       In Russia, the reduction, even as we speak, continues with widespread support throughout Russia. And in my trips to Russia in May and August, I had opportunities to visit sites where, in fact, missiles are being destroyed ad seriatim, warheads are being disassembled, and all the problems attendant to that. What to do with the fissile material, the highly-enriched uranium or the plutonium and the storage of that and the transportation are being solved by Russians and Americans working together.

       We have made less progress on chemical weapon reduction, although the international community is very interested in this. Substantial contributions have been voted by the legislatures of many countries. And we are most hopeful at Shchuchye, one of seven locations in which the 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons declared by Russia under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the seven locations for this storage, Shchuchye, one of these, with about one-seventh, and the smallest of the (shelves?), will be a focus for destructive activity in the international community and with sizable appropriations finally approved by the United States in the defense appropriation bill.

       I mention all of this to you because when I visited with the president on this issue in July, he was generally aware of all that I have told you, but very specifically aware after we had had the conversation and really had an impulse that Dr. Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell ought to move rapidly to work with both houses of the Congress to make certain that he had authority to waive restrictions that have sometimes been imposed by the Congress, that he had in the national interest the possibility of working with President Putin to push ahead with obstruction in these areas.

       That authority has not been easy to come by. But let me say, at the end of the legislative day, the president does have a one-year waiver privilege with regard to chemical weapons and a three-year privilege with regard to everything else. And so the program is on track and in more solid condition, with over a billion dollars that will be spent by United States taxpayers this year.

       Now, getting back to the Moscow treaty, the point that I was trying to make is these warheads will not come off of the missiles, the possibility of disassembling them and all the dangers and complexity there, without a great deal more American money.

       We will have to work with the Russians to make sure their input of money is satisfying. But the size of the Russian military budget in comparison to our own is such a disparate situation that there are limits as to how far they're going to be able to go, even if there is political will to do it.

       My argument has been it's in the best interest of our country and the world for these warheads to be taken off of missiles and to be destroyed, to be disassembled, and the highly-enriched uranium to be put in low-enriched uranium form for peaceful use, and the plutonium to be either stored or, in due course, destroyed in various ways that have been discussed.

       We will be a better world because of that if we can do that, and to have control over it all along the way so that other nation-states, suddenly looking for fissile material to enhance either enriched- uranium programs or plutonium programs, will not really have that opportunity.

       So we're going to explore all the facets of that, so as a Congress, as a nation, we understand the complexities of what we are doing, the commitment we must make, and then to work with our partners in the G-8, the other seven countries having pledged at the Kananaskis, Canada program to pledge a billion dollars each year for 10 years, the so-called 10-over-10 program, to work with the United States in cooperative threat reduction, but perhaps with priorities that the other countries will deem more important or more appropriate.

       For example, some European countries have wanted to take a look at how tactical nuclear weapons might be destroyed more easily and efficiently or how submarines that are not strategic submarines -- the Nunn-Lugar program can destroy strategic, but not those that are nuclear but not strategic. And many European countries, understanding the environmental hazards of the dumping of nuclear material from the disassembling of these submarines, are very intent on pressing how so- called conventional or dual-purpose submarines might be destroyed.

       Let me cease at this point, now that you have an idea at least of some of our program, and respond to questions on your programs.

       MODERATOR: I'd remind you to use the microphone and introduce yourself and your news agency. The gentleman in the back here.

       Q Nikkei newspaper, Japan. And some of the senators and congressmen are preparing legislation to urge the administration to dismantle the agreed framework related to the North Korea issue. And how would you handle this kind of a movement next year?

       And the second question is that the presidential election in South Korea turns out that the ruling party candidate who supports a sunshine policy has won. Can I get your comment about that?

       SEN. LUGAR: Certainly. On the first issue of legislators who may be in favor of repealing at least United States adherence to the agreed framework, I would oppose that legislation, and I think it's important that we ask North Korea, South Korea, Japan, other partners in the agreed framework, to stay the course -- extremely important that the International Atomic Energy Agency officials who are there at the former plutonium production sites stay there monitoring what is going on, and that other commitments under the agreed framework proceed. That is my personal point of view. I think it's shared by our administration. The president and Secretary Powell have spoken on this issue. So I'll just give some reassurance from the legislative standpoint that that would be my view, and we shall see how that plays out.

       My second thought is -- on the election in South Korea, actually the returns just in -- this is still news that has not reached most American papers this morning, but it does appear that the ruling party's candidate has won narrowly. And my own view is that I feel confident at some point today the president of the United States will call the winning candidate and congratulate him. And, secondly, either the president or Secretary Powell will indicate that we look forward to working closely with the newly-elected president of South Korea, elected in a democratic election, filled with the same vitality that our campaigns are filled with, and that we really must maintain solidarity with that democracy in South Korea, and the results of that election.

       MODERATOR: I think someone in the back here.

       Q Nestor Ikeda from the Associated Press. I cover the Latin America affairs. Senator, you forgot Latin America in your statement, and I understand it's a region that is in a very important place in President Bush's agenda. I have two questions on Latin America, on Venezuela and Colombia. How concerned are you about the political crisis and the oil supply from Venezuela?

       The second question is on Colombia. What is your approach going to be on Colombia for fighting drugs and terror?

       SEN. LUGAR: Let me respond first of all by saying it was a serious omission in my opening statement not to have mentioned this hemisphere. And in fact in the conversations that I've had with both President Bush and Secretary Powell, I have indicated some of you have reported that I believe that we need very strong leadership in our State Department, starting with the assistant secretary of State, who will have a comprehensive view of not only South America and Central America, but our very fine relationship with Mexico. So we will be talking a lot about this. And I would add parenthetically likewise we will have an emphasis on Africa -- perhaps more substantial than the committee has had for a while, with all the complexities, but the possibilities that are there.

       In Venezuela, the United States has weighed in in support of the OAS, with the hope that compromises might occur -- probably leading to an acceleration of the timetable for an election in Venezuela. At this point there has clearly not been an agreement, as we all note. And, as a result, the oil shipments have declined precipitously. The income for the country as well as the continuing potential for widespread disorder and instability in the country. My hope, and whatever constructive thought I could give to this today would be to beef up the negotiations, that it's important that the parties come to an agreement. And the election framework appears to be the best negotiation pattern, without naming the time, the dates, or even precisely the content. That offers at least a way of resolving an issue that otherwise could be perilous for the future of that country. The oil has become such a central focus in terms of both income and authority that that problem will not go away, and will have to be resolved, at least hopefully, in some democratic forum.

       In Colombia, Plan Colombia has increasing support in the United States Congress. Plan Colombia is not set in concrete in terms of either the dollars or the personnel or the activities. But I would say, having participated recently with a number of members of Congress in an Aspen Institute four-day session focused on Colombia, in which we heard a number of Colombians, as well as others from the hemisphere, address these issues, and we debated them, there is pretty strong bipartisan support for attempting to give assistance to the newly-elected president of the country, to trying to work through the issues of curtailing the drug business and providing substitute income, and likewise providing a much greater standard for human rights observance. These are not incompatible objectives, but they are complex, and they get to the heart of the whole history of the country, as those who have studied it have reasoned.

       So both of these must be focused, but I am hopeful we'll have a beefed-up leadership in the State Department soon that may be especially timely and helpful in working through those problems, as well as we could have added other problems in the Andean region, and the monumental economic problems in Brazil and Argentina. The whole continent offers challenges, but extraordinary opportunities for turnaround.

       Q Raya Persugun (ph) from Turkish Public Television, TRT. Being a neighbor of Iraq, and in case of a war in Iraq, Turkey will become the jumping-off point, and the Turkish public opinion is wondering at what cost, at what expense. The Turkish economy suffered greatly after the first Gulf War. Could you elaborate?

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, indeed the Turkish economy did suffer, and I think there has been recognition of that in this country, and probably elsewhere. So conversations recently between the leader of the party that recently won the election in Turkey, and our own president, as well as other official meetings, have recognized the economic sacrifice. But they also have recognized the strategic importance of Turkey. And that is why the conversations range broadly, and to the politics of Europe.

       As you know, there was hope on our part, and I think on the part of Turkey's leadership, that we might have sort of a three-part victory, one of which would be a solution between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the future of Cyprus that would be peaceful and constructive, that flowing from that accord might be general support of Turkey and others for Cyprus entering the European Union in the current list that's being suggested. But then, likewise, that a fixed date would be set by the European Union for the serious consideration of Turkey's accession in the year 2005, as mentioned specifically.

       Now, during the week that followed the White House meeting, things did not proceed as constructively as the United States and Turkey had hoped. But at the end of the day at least the EU leadership indicated at the end of 2004 there will be serious attention give to Turkey. Cyprus still is out there for resolution, but there are more constructive statements being made, and perhaps United States diplomacy can be helpful -- and perhaps others in this respect.

       That doesn't solve the problem of the hopping-off place with regard to Iraq, but it does say that the United States is deeply interested in overall objectives of the state of Turkey -- deeply sympathetic to making certain that that friendship and that solidarity is recognized; and finally that we also recognize, getting back to one of my first points, that the future of Iraq must mean an Iraq that has the same boundaries that Kurds in the northern part of Iraq should not be in any way encouraged to consider this is the moment for independence or formation of a Kurdistan involving Iraq, Turkey and Iran -- that the United States would discourage that -- Turkey obviously will discourage that -- that there really has to be a government of Iraq that governs in the best interests of all people who are there -- Kurds, Shi'ite Moslems, Sunnis, the tribes and others. That is reassuring to Turkey. But, nevertheless, Turkey wanted to make certain we understood how important that was that there not be another war going on in the north of Iraq simultaneously with military action that might occur elsewhere.

       MODERATOR: The lady in black there.

       Q Thank you. Elena Sokohlov (ph) of the Russian Television Channel 2 Broadcasting Company. Senator, on the 15th of December, President George Bush has ordered American intelligence agencies to hunt down and kill terrorist leaders around the world if they are captured -- (inaudible) -- too dangerous. And CIA officials -- the New York Times reported that CIA officials may also add names to the list without specific presidential approval, if they are satisfied that they have evidence of terrorist activity. And, as you remember, in Congress it was a big issue about this in the '70s after the order, secret order to hunt down and kill Fidel Castro. Why do you think is it such possible now, and is it some reasonable thing to do this now?

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, I believe the order the president has given is reasonable in the context of the war against terror. I don't wish to overuse a term that has become almost provocative, the word "preemptive," but this is the word that comes to mind. That is, if it becomes apparent to United States intelligence services that a well- known terrorist is in the process of creating more havoc, preparing to kill more people, or create incidents that disrupt cities, then the United States is going to take action to stop that. Now, as a rule, that will be the capture of the terrorists. Terrorists may be taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, interrogated, as are several hundred persons now in that status. And that may be the more humane and efficient way -- in fact, more may be gleaned form the terrorists with regard to other activities.

       But in an extreme case the United States is saying essentially, as opposed to letting the terrorists go free, or the operation continue, it will be stopped -- even at the pain of killing the terrorists. And I think we all live in a world in which we live that terrorism was not occurring, that these tough choices didn't have to be made, but this seems to me to be a reasonable decision.

       MODERATOR: Okay, we'll go to the gentleman --

       Q Hi, senator, my name is Silvio Careo (ph). I'm with CNN Espanol. I have two questions for you. The first one is on your consultations with the White House regarding Iraq. Are you satisfied with the consultations so far? And how do you expect them to go from now until January? And the second one is on Senator Lott, if you could comment on whether you think he should stay, go, resign -- your thoughts on that, please?

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, on the consultation process with the White House, with the Defense Department, the State Department, NSC, I appreciate very much the calls that I've received, the meetings that I have been given, the briefings I've been promised, in the event I want to stop by before work or wherever. And so there has been an openness that I appreciate. I am not chairman of the committee yet; I am potentially the incoming chairman. But I think there has been a recognition on the part of administration officials, with whom I have had good relations before, but they have been much more forthcoming. The numbers of these conversations and briefings have increased. So I appreciate that.

       On my colleague, Senator Lott, I have indicated in each of the press conferences I've had on the issue that Senator Lott's characterization of the election of 1948, and the Strom Thurmond States Rights Party having any good result for America, is just simply historically wrong. Now, I think it's morally wrong. I think he's wrong. I advocated that Senator Lott indicate that he thought it was wrong; furthermore, that he was wrong if he made similar statements in 1980, as alleged, or at other times. It's wrong all the way across the board.

       Now, having said that, in his leadership role, having admitted that he was wrong, and apologized for that, it's extremely important he outline -- for himself, for the Republican Party, for however he wishes to characterize it -- how advances in civil rights are going to occur in this country, how a sensitivity for people who are in poverty and who are of color are going to be enhanced. That is a tough agenda. We are in not a recession, but an economic slowdown -- health care, education resources -- various other things that often speak to the issue of enhancing the position of minorities in our country are under some pressure. That's true for people who may be in the Caucasian majority likewise. But therefore he has opportunities here. He has not fulfilled that part of the agenda yet, although I sense that he is trying.

       So, as a result, I am prepared to listen some more to what he has to say, having been I think fairly severe at the outset in terms of condemnation, which I think most Americans share -- at least a large majority of any poll that I have seen.

       Q Thank you. Andrey Surzhanskiy, Tass News Agency of Russia. Mr. Lugar, I have two questions. First one on the Moscow Treaty and in your remarks you touched upon this subject. When would you expect the ratification by the Senate of this treaty? Do you anticipate any hurdles? And is it going to be a mandatory dual-stage, it will stay untouched? And, secondly, there was a lot of talking among the experts about possible cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in building a national defense system. What's your understanding? Does the Bush administration really want to cooperate with Russia on this issue? Thank you.

       SEN. LUGAR: On the first issue, that will be guided in part by the desires of the administration -- that is I suppose specifically Secretary Powell will indicate when he or others would like to testify before the committee, and we will try to work through our schedule, which is not that arduous. This is a high priority item, and this is why I brought it up this morning.

       I anticipate that the United States Senate will ratify the treaty by far more than the two-thirds majority by the time we are completed with it.

       Now, I do not know at this point whether senators will offer reservations, amendments, other parliamentary tactics. I would hope that they would not burden the treaty with extraneous material. That is, it is not meant to be a general foreign policy debate in which we talk about the Middle East and Asia and what have you and trying to stay with our bilateral relationship with Russia in this treaty. So I will try to defeat amendments that take us astray. The United States Senate, as all of you have followed and have come to recognize, is an unusual body, first of all because we have the rule of unlimited debate. No other body in the world has such an idea. You have rules committees, limits. So once we start one of these debates on the Moscow Treaty, there is no end to it, unless we have some control of agenda and finally the cloture ability -- that is, 60 votes to stop extraneous debate, as we may see it.

       Now, having said all of that, I anticipate a good result, and at a fairly timely pace.

       Now, with regard to the sharing of systems, this issue arose again in a topical way yesterday when the president and Secretary Rumsfeld spoke about potential deployment of elements of missile defense in the United States in the year 2004. My understanding is that a number of authorities in Russia recall the very idea that you had; namely, that there could be elements of missile defense -- or however one wishes to characterize this technology -- that could be performed cooperatively with Russia. The United States has suggested cooperation with a number of countries in terms of missile defense. Since we have a very strong relationship in these issues with Russia, it is logical that we would want to progress and to discuss this some more, and my guess is that it will be, that there will be a constructive view toward that cooperation.

       MODERATOR: There, further back there.

       Q Khaled (Abel-kain ?), with the Middle East News Agency of Egypt. In the outgoing Congress we have a number of decisions and resolutions that are passed both by the House and the Senate in support of Jewish, or Israel, and we didn't have a lot of balanced positions. We had the Syria Accountability Act, we had some moves against the PLO, against the Palestinian Authority; some moves in favor of moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem. In your assessment, in the coming Republican-led Congress, should we expect any like balanced moves in terms of the Palestinian-Israel conflict, or that's like that's a far-fetched idea? This is first.

       Second, in your knowledge of the Congress, when both the House and the Senate pass resolutions on things related to Middle Eastern issues, does the Congress collectively speaking care very much about the public opinion in the Arab world, about its image in the public opinion in the Arab world? Thank you.

       SEN. LUGAR: Let me say with regard to the list of these resolutions, many of them, if not most or perhaps all of them, were what is called "sense of the Senate," or "sense of the House," or "sense of the Congress." In other words, they have no legal authority in terms of compelling the administration to do anything. Nor do they spend money. But they were expressions -- points of view at that particular point in the life of the body.

       Now, it's always a good question, one that I often ask -- I don't mean to be a scold about it -- the rest of the world might be listening to all of this. In other words, there are other people out there in the world who might not look favorably upon our editorializing on every subject. But that doesn't seem to inhibit many members from doing this. They, in fairness, feel strongly that some country, some individual leader or what have you has done something that was bad. And so as a result they want to condemn this or advise them to do something else. And sometimes these things are picked up, and they do inflame public opinion -- not only in the Middle East, but in Asia or Africa or South America for that matter.

       The Middle East is important because there is obviously great tension for many reasons: the Israeli-Palestine conflict is clearly one of these. It is sort of prime focus for many people in Egypt, but Egypt has a comprehensive view, we hope -- the leadership of President Mubarak has been fairly substantial -- in many countries over the course of time, but still lots of sensitivity in Egypt on these issues, which I recognize, which I wish my colleagues did.

       Now, about the Republicans, what they will do about all this, I think the prime thing we can do is to work with Secretary Powell, whether it be on the so-called road map that he discussed again yesterday -- the roadmap of potential negotiating points with the Palestinian Authority and Israel, or some other formulation that may come along. Secretary Powell indicated yesterday he did not see official or public negotiations on the road map until after the Israeli general election was concluded, which is going to be toward the end of January. That was a disappointment to many who would like to see a lot more progress in the next six weeks of time, and informally there may be -- at least I have some assurance from the State Department that whatever the secretary said yesterday about public negotiations does not obviate the possibility of some private work, which I would encouraged.

       Now, having said I would encourage it, it will be as a Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. We will try to at least not guide but advise our members as to constructive things that might occur in the Middle East, but likewise that influence public opinion of many countries that currently have a hostile view of our diplomacy or of our overall stature in the situation. I'm aware of that.

       And the whole public-diplomacy effort in the State Department is trying to gear up to be more sophisticated and more thoughtful. Each of you may be helpful in giving us advice as to how we could do this better.

       Q Thank you. Maggie Chan (ph) with Broadcasting Corporation of China. Senator Lugar, regarding missile defense, Taiwan is facing great missile deployment threat from China. Do you think Taiwan should be included in the U.S. missile defense system?

       And the second question is, there is a possibility that Senator George Allen might launch a Taiwan caucus, a Senate version of Taiwan caucus. What is your view on such caucus, and what do you expect from that? Would you join or sponsor? Thank you.

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, with regard to the second part of the question, I would not plan to join Senator Allen's caucus, but then I'm not a joiner generally. Caucuses are formed of people who have enthusiasm for a particular topic, and often this does bring more to the fore. It sort of informs colleagues that a certain number of people are interested in a subject, as opposed to it being simply a lonely individual with a point of view. So I don't deny the value of this.

       But at the same time, it's not really helpful, if you're chairman of the committee and there are caucuses conceivably that have conflicting views. We really try to adjudicate the merits there.

       Now, with regard to missile defense in Taiwan, this is clearly a question of statecraft that I will just say, frankly, is above my pay grade. We're going to have to work with the secretaries of State and Defense, and finally presidential decision-making, as to really what kind of a system, if there is to be one, should be implemented, how extensive, who is to pay for it.

       And clearly it will be, with regard to relations with the People's Republic of China, in addition to Taiwan, with some sensitivity to our friends in Korea and Japan and elsewhere; in other words, those in Asia with whom we are closely allied, because it's obviously an extremely sensitive issue and will not be approached without, I think, a great deal of diplomacy.

       MODERATOR: (Inaudible.) Please keep your questions short. We're running short on time. The lady right here.

       Q Sonia -- (inaudible) -- Global Vision, Venezuela. Back to Latin America. Mr. Lugar, Latin America has always considered the American foreign policy more reactive than active. And you will assume the Congress in January. Can we expect any change in the relationships toward the region? And can you have any comment specifically on Venezuela?

       And my second question is, is there anything to say about the new position or anything about the new assistant secretary of the Western Hemisphere, or is Mr. Otto Reich coming back to the position?

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, on the second issue, the president of the United States will make a nomination. And I've indicated publicly that I believe that someone I've termed a big leaguer, somebody with the general capacity or rather overall advocacy, would be more appropriate for that role. So I've not been silent on the issue.

       But that's not my call. The president makes the nomination, and I pledge to have a hearing of our committee. I'll not make an arbitrary judgment as an individual about Mr. Reich or anybody else. We'll have a hearing. We'll have a vote, the members of our committee.

       I think -- I got so excited about that part. What was the -- Venezuela to begin with and whether we're going to do more. I hope so. But, once again, this really is the president's call and the secretary of State. Now, I've been offering advice publicly. I've done so again today; that I think we have to be much more vigorous, hands-on, deeply interested. Hopefully the people understand the countries of Latin America and are able to articulate this to the American people so that more of us understand why this is important.

       I think it's very important, as one who was involved in all of these election procedures throughout the 1980s, in which one country after another adopted a democratic framework, had free and fair elections; it was very exciting. I have a sense that in the '90s we sort of forgot about all this. We said, "You're on your own. Do the best you can." People have done fairly well, but there are some problems now. We really have to take a more vital interest.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Slobodan Palovich (sp). I am with Southeast Europe News Service. Senator Lugar, I'd like to ask you -- it's my first and only question -- about Kosovo province, which is on paper still part of Serbia and Yugoslavia, but in reality for more than three years it's under total U.N. control. How do you see the further American involvement in Kosovo and Balkans, having in mind that it looks like the strategy of the U.S. government is to get out as soon as they can from the Balkans and leave this hot potato to Europeans? Thanks.

       SEN. LUGAR: Well, indeed it has been, if not the strategy, almost the pledge of various administrations, the last one and this one, for American involvement in the Balkans to wind up, to become less, for people to come home, from the very beginning of the whole operation, as you can recall the reluctance of the United States to become involved in Bosnia, quite apart from the problems in Kosovo.

       But we became involved. We became involved because European friends finally said to us, "You have to be involved. We cannot solve it." And so, reluctantly, we became involved. And we still are.

       Now, I don't want to predict the number of months and years, but I would say we probably have involvement for quite a while to come. It is very important, in the same sense that I talked about Afghanistan being a successful state, that the work that has progressed in the former states of Yugoslavia be successful. And that work, still a lot of it lies ahead, some very heavy lifting.

       So my own point of view would be that we do need to continue to play a constructive role. Now, we always need to be looking to others in Europe, and many have been very, very helpful, and increasingly so, in difficult problems. We've come into the Macedonian situation, quite apart from Kosovo.

       And so the internationalization of this, our diplomacy in working with others, has to be stressed. But at the end of the day, other countries need to have confidence that we are not headed for the exit stage left as rapidly as possible, that there is a staying power for success.

       MODERATOR: I'm sorry that the senator's schedule means that we have to break off at this point, but I'm sure we can rely on him to return in the not-too-distant future. Thank you very much, Senator.

       SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much.