3:20 P.M. EST 
Real Audio of Briefing
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Center. We're delighted once again this afternoon to have with us Philip Reeker, who is the Deputy Spokesman at the Department of State, and international media star in many of your own international media. So I'm sure he needs no introduction for this crowd. And I'll let him take over right away. And here he is, your friend, Philip.
MR. REEKER: Thanks, David. I just love this big podium, I have got to say. I am so very excited about that.
Welcome back to the Foreign Press Center. It's a great way to spend a Friday afternoon, and I appreciate all of you coming here. Welcome to August in Washington. It is officially August the 1st. So let's hope that we have a quiet August, which is what we always hope for here in Washington.
I know some of you either attended or watched Ambassador Boucher's briefing just a short time ago. So I am here to offer you another chance for questions that we didn't have there. Why don't we go ahead and who would like to begin?
Andrei, do you want to start off?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER: Maybe the volume needs to go up.
QUESTION: My name is Andrei Sitov with the Russian News Agency, TASS. I have two subjects I wanted to touch on. The first one, of course, it's not a quiet 1st of August, for the Russians. There was a terrible new terrorist attack in Mozdok, a hospital blown up, a number of people killed and wounded. I guess you would have some reaction to that?
MR. REEKER: Yes, I don't have all of the details, but we have seen the reports coming from that horrible attack and condemn any terrorism in the strongest terms. As you know, no cause justifies terrorism. And as long as innocents are threatened by terror, the fight against terrorism, against evil will continue. And, as the President has said, the civilized world will prevail in this.
Just recently, Secretary Armitage had another set of talks with his Russian counterpart, the U.S.-Russia Working Group on Counterterrorism met in Williamsburg, Virginia, where we -- we worked with Deputy Foreign Minister Trubnikov to review cooperation between Russia and the United States on counterterrorism.
So this is something that both of our governments working together with so many others around the world, something we take very seriously. And, certainly, in this particular case, while I don't have the details yet, we extend our sympathies to the families of those who were killed, to those that were injured, and to the people in the country that have to suffer this.
We would call on all parties in the Chechnya conflict, as you know, to cease all violence against civilians in Chechnya and anywhere else, and we urge all sides to continue pursuing a political resolution to the conflict.
And you had another question?
QUESTION: Another question, yes, on another subject. Is Iraq and the Russian Embassy there, I understand there is a sort of an issue there for the Russian -- for the Russians. The question is: Do you recognize the embassy as a working diplomatic mission there that has all of the privileges under the international law?
MR. REEKER: I think it may be a question you'll have to pose to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, in Iraq. I know they have been quite clear that they are not able to guarantee under the present situation, under the present security situation, all of the standard diplomatic understandings of security guarantees and other aspects of this. So I don't have a specific answer for you, but it is something that the Coalition Provisional Authority could address.
QUESTION: But my understanding was that the Russian Government took issue with some pronouncements from Ambassador Vershbow in Moscow, that, as quoted -- and I don't know whether the quotes were accurate or not -- but, as quoted, were that Russians then did not recognize the diplomats there as diplomats, and the embassy as the embassy.
MR. REEKER: Well, diplomats must be accredited to a government in Iraq. There is not a full government in Iraq at this point, as you know. The Governing Council -- Iraqi Governing Council has begun working with the Coalition Provisional Authority. And as the process progresses, our goal is to see them work on a constitutional process, and obviously have full sovereignty returned to Iraq with a new representative government that can represent the interests of all of the Iraqi people, so that they can move forward for a secure, prosperous, democratic country in which to pursue better lives for themselves and their children and grandchildren.
So the status of representations to a government that isn't there is something you'd have to talk to the Coalition Provisional Authority about. I am not familiar with Ambassador Vershbow's comments. I haven't seen them. And if you can't provide them for me either, I think we'll just have to wait and see.
Obviously, in due course, we look to having an Iraq with a sovereign government to which other countries will accredit diplomats, just as we expect to have an American embassy in Baghdad in the future accredited to that country. And we have worked with Iraq, as we work with so many other countries.
So we have to let the process play out. We're working very hard within the Coalition Provisional Authority with the support of others in the international community, and with the support of so many Iraqis to bring security to the regions that have not had security in Iraq, and to bring economic recovery to the country.
And we have seen a lot of positive things happening there, in terms of oil refineries that are back and operating, oil that can now be exported to help the Iraqi people utilize that resource over there to boost their economy. And so, more and more, we'll see peace, stability. And in the other sectors we have hospitals operating; we have the banking sector operating; we have schools and universities operating; we have thousands of Iraqi police back on the ground.
And so there are a lot of good things happening in Iraq and a lot of good things still to happen in Iraq, and we're very positive about that. There are still great challenges ahead. And we're going to continue to address those, just as the President and Secretary Powell have described.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Hoda Tawfik from al Ahram, Egypt. I want to follow up on settlements please. What's the last verdict? Is it -- again, is the freeze is a must according to the plan, to the roadmap or it's not? And since President Bush said he is committed to monitor the implementation and situation and all that, how did your government handle this with Israelis, and from which point of view that the freeze applies to natural growth or it does not?
MR. REEKER: I am sure you saw Ambassador Boucher's briefing --
QUESTION: I did.
MR. REEKER: -- where this went on for quite some time. And there is really nothing I can add to that discussion.
QUESTION: Yes, but I am not convinced. That's why I am asking you again.
MR. REEKER: Well, unfortunately --
QUESTION: And I think it is not clear what is the position of --
MR. REEKER: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and you brief, and I'll answer the questions when you're done.
QUESTION: No, no, no, I am asking again. It's a follow-up.
MR. REEKER: Are you finished?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. REEKER: Okay. As Ambassador Boucher told you, as you have all read, as you're all quite aware, the roadmap calls for, consistent with the Mitchell recommendations, that the Government of Israel freeze all settlement activity including natural growth.
And Ambassador Boucher said, and as we have said many times, this is not a new issue. In fact, this is a difficult issue that we have been focused on for some time. We need to define what that means, so that all parties are clear on what that means. And so that we can, in practical terms on the ground, make sure that the aspects of the roadmap, the aspects of this particular focus of the roadmap can be defined.
We want to make sure that when everybody says that they accept the roadmap and the steps that the roadmap lays out, that they fully understand what they are accepting, that we make sure that terms are fully defined, so that there can be no doubt about that. And that is why this is an issue that we continue to discuss.
So I would just refer you back to what Ambassador Boucher says, that we want to make sure that everybody knows what it is that is not to occur, and equally as he described it on the other side of the coin, what it is that can occur. And that has to be clearly defined and make sure that everybody is clear on what a freeze means.
And so we can’t give you a particular timetable by that. It is something that the President raised. You have heard him talk about it many times, and it’s something that we will continue to discuss.
But the roadmap is quite clear in making that statement. We just have to make sure that everybody understands specifically what that defines and what that means.
QUESTION: This is (inaudible). What is your reaction? How did you handle it with the other government?
MR. REEKER: Exactly what I said. It’s something that we continue to discuss and define and make sure that everybody can come to agreement as to what that means, so that as it’s implemented, everybody is in agreement that it’s being implemented.
Yeah.
QUESTION: My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds Newspaper.
Mr. Reeker, on the issue of the settlement, I mean, the settlements are internationally known to be illegal, we have – and over the years, we’ve seen them go from being illegal to (inaudible) to now authorized/unauthorized.
Isn’t there an actual definition as to these settlements being really illegal as far as international law is concerned? That’s one.
And after the euphoria of last week, there seems to be some sort of a letdown among the Palestinians, especially in light of Secretary Powell’s interview with Maariv, which, you know, seems to be so heavily, you know, sort of leaning toward Israeli security and neutralizing Syria and Iran and so on, and there seems to be some backpedaling on the issue of the wall. Now --
MR. REEKER: Well, do you want to keep going for a while?
QUESTION: No, no, no.
MR. REEKER: -- or do you want to --
QUESTION: Well, because it’s just the issue of the day.
MR. REEKER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, that’s why --
MR. REEKER: First of all, I think there’s too much obsession with issue of the day. I think the idea that we are backpedaling and where we stand on anything on any given day or hour is really missing the whole point of this.
I have seen so many journalists report that there is stalled progress in the roadmap, or any other aspect of Middle East peace. This is something we have been working on for years -- years, decades -- and to try to rate it or rank it or define people’s feelings, you know, by taking some imaginary pulse at any given particular moment, particularly from a distance away, I just think does not accomplish anything.
What we are looking at is a process. We have seen some progress. We want to see more, and the Secretary has talked about that. Whether he gives interviews to an Israeli publication or an Arab publication or an American publication, he has talked about the progress being made and the obligations that are on both sides, in fact on all sides, including our side, and we have taken on those obligations.
The President has committed himself to doing everything we can to help the parties move forward according to the roadmap, which will bring them to a peaceful situation where we have two states living side-by-side. That is the goal, and everybody shares that goal, and everybody has agreed that the roadmap is the way to get there.
There are responsibilities on all sides. There are responsibilities for the Israelis. We have been concerned about sensitive issues like the fence, and we are going to continue talking about that. We have been concerned about roadblocks and other elements.
On the Palestinian side, we have been working with the Palestinians and the Israelis to see that security progress continues so that we can have an end to the violence but a dismantlement of the terrorist architecture, the terrorist structures that can allow that violence to disrupt the roadmap and disrupt the goals and hopes of the people on all sides of the situation. That’s what we are looking at.
It is not a game of up or down, day by day. It's a game of an overall process to which everyone has stated their commitment and to which we have to all keep working. And I think it serves everybody much better to focus on the goals, and to focus on where we can make progress, and how we can do that and at a pace that the parties are able to do that.
We have set out some goals in the roadmap in terms of timetables, and the President of the United States has said he still thinks it is possible to meet many of those goals. But ultimately that will be up to the parties. What is important is that they reach the ultimate goal and that they keep working on it in good faith to deal with these very difficult issues, to take steps as they can. And we will continue to work with both sides to do that.
Ambassador Wolf is returning to the region where his monitoring group, I think, has been very successful in helping both sides on the security front to work together and keep the violence down, because we've got to get rid of any opportunities that terrorists would have to disrupt this process. And as we have said before, there are enemies of peace out there. There are those that don't want the Palestinians or the Israelis to be able to live in peace and pursue better futures for themselves and their families.
And so that's what we are focused on, and that is what the Secretary has talked about, regardless of which interview he is in. I think if you look back, the Secretary has been very consistent on what American goals are and what we all share as an aim and a hope and a desire for the people of the region. And so to try to do this day-by-day, you know -- someone is up, someone is down -- I just don't think it accomplishes anything.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) very briefly. Since the Aqaba Summit, eight of the so-called, you know, unauthorized settlements were taken down but 11 others were, you know, erected. So, I mean, tangibly, what is the Administration willing to do?
And today the Housing Minister of Israel submitted a secret plan to the prime minister and the defense minister about bringing in thousands and thousands of Jews, as he put it, into the outlying neighborhoods.
MR. REEKER: I don't know about secret plans. Your view of secret plans or others. Our views are clear. The roadmap is clear. And I don't think we base our efforts on what is published in one newspaper or another. What we do is try to follow what has been laid out, what has been agreed to. That is what diplomacy is about.
And there are issues of concern to us. The President has been very clear about, so has Secretary Powell. And the President said the issues of settlements have to be addressed for peace to be achieved, and so there are obligations on both sides. And that is what we'll keep working at.
Our view does not change from one day to another. No matter what you read in the newspaper or what is published in a magazine. Our view remains the same, that the roadmap is the way forward to the goal and the vision that the President of the United States has described and to which he has committed himself and which the parties have committed themselves.
There are, indeed, since Aqaba, a number of positive steps. I think we have to look at those steps and we have to build on those steps and keep moving forward, because maybe that is the only alternative. And that’s certainly what Secretary Powell and President Bush intend to do. There are tough issues ahead, but I think the process is moving forward.
I think the Secretary described it as a ground game, for those of you familiar with football terminology. And you move ahead a couple of yards at a time. You hope you don’t get pushed back, but your goal is continuing down the field in a positive direction, and that is, I think, what we are doing.
Yes, sir, then we will come back.
QUESTION: El Bashir from Sudan News. Sudan Government has rejected the last IGAD document as the basis for any more negotiations. And Danforth said that we cannot wait forever. So is there anything from your side to pressure the Sudan Government to come to the table, or maybe make IGAD change the document to be acceptable to the Sudan Government?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think, as you are aware, in early July there was a round of talks with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD. The Secretariat tabled a draft framework document for the parties to use as their basis for entering final negotiations.
There are outstanding issues like power sharing, wealth sharing, security arrangements, the capital, religion. And we have fully supported the efforts of IGAD, of the Intergovernmental Authority and General Sambeiyo and his process in moving forward.
We view the document as the means which both parties should use to move forward, as well as the most comprehensive approach we have had to date, that addresses the historical grievances that have created the situation and plagued Sudan and cost so many lives.
So we are communicating with the Sudanese Government, as well as with the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement on the gravity of the document and urging them, urging both sides to use this as a final basis for negotiation.
We have talked about the merits of the document, what I just outlined here. We have highlighted the fairness of the document and how it is inclusive, and most importantly, I think the document supports the concept of unity. And we thought that that was an important underlying concept for the whole process.
So the coming weeks are clearly, I think you could describe as a time of truth, moments of truth that are emerging both for President Bashir and for Chairman Garang, and their ability to act, their ability to exercise leadership in the interests of their peoples and all the people of Sudan, and embrace real peace, is what is going to determine this.
QUESTION: Are you getting any positive signals back?
MR. REEKER: I believe the talks are due to reconvene this month, in August, and they are going to continue focusing on the draft framework that we tabled, that was tabled by the Secretariat in the talks last month, and we will hope that they move forward. They have the ability to do this. It’s up to them as leaders to exercise their obligations, to exercise their power as leaders and to move forward with this. And that is what we will continue to urge both sides to do.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Thomas Gorguissian, An Nahar, Lebanon. Philip, my first question is regarding the two countries in the region, Syria and Saudi Arabia. It seems that in the last few weeks, it’s not business as usual, I mean, if you put it in a different way. But what if you are asking, like Bernard Lewis, what went wrong with these two countries, from your perspective?
My second question regarding the Secretary’s interview in which he used the, quote unquote, “a piece of trash.” What pushed Secretary Powell to make this undiplomatic approach? I’m not arguing with the one who was described. I am kind of shocked with the person who is describing.
The third question --
MR. REEKER: Why don’t we do a couple?
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. REEKER: -- because on Friday afternoons, my brain is not --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. REEKER: You described the Secretary’s remark, I think, as undiplomatic. I would suggest that Saddam Hussein deserves no diplomacy. Saddam Hussein is one of the most evil people, certainly, of our time, and we are beginning to see more and more of what he perpetrated against his own people.
He pretended to be a leader of a great country. We have always believed that Iraq is a great country, a diverse country with people of education and strong traditions and great resources that they should be using for their own betterment.
Instead, he ruined the economy of the country, he killed thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of his own people, and we are beginning to see the mass graves as they emerge. Sadly, I think there were many in the world that failed for years, for decades, to pay heed or attention to what Saddam was doing to his own people, gassing them with chemical weapons, and to other people in the region, the threat he was presenting.
So the Secretary was, in my mind, absolutely right to refer to Saddam Hussein as a piece of trash waiting to be collected. And we have made quite clear that we stand to help anybody that can help us to collect him. You are familiar with the Rewards Program, Rewards for Justice.
We have already moved forward to pay out $30 million to the individual that helped us to locate the two sons of Saddam Hussein, and it's an award for up to $25 million for anyone that can help us to locate Saddam Hussein. So he's out of the picture, he controls nothing, but perhaps a cheap tape recorder. And the sooner his fate is sealed, then the better for all Iraqis I think.
And your first question was a little more esoteric and --
QUESTION: Saudi Arabia in the last few weeks.
MR. REEKER: And with all due respect to some of the great thinkers on these subjects, I don't think I want to try to get into the type of analysis that some of the authors have done. But I think without knowing exactly what you're referring to, we have continued to work very closely with Saudi Arabia.
President Bush made that quite clear in his discussions with the Saudi Foreign Minister, who visited. We are working very closely with Saudi Arabia on counterterrorism objectives. Terrorists, in particular, al-Qaida, are a threat to both our nations. Certainly, we have seen the results of al-Qaida's nefarious ways here in the United States and in Saudi Arabia.
Let me just remind you of the Riyadh bombing, and point to some of the arrests and other things that Saudi Arabian officials have identified in recent days. So we are coordinating through our interagency process and working with countries like Saudi Arabia and others to fight terrorism.
I think we have a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia in many areas. I'll recall that Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the September 11th attacks on our country, and since then they have worked very closely with us. Our cooperation I think has become even better, and particularly strong since the May 12th bombings that I mentioned in Riyadh.
And so this high level of cooperation I think is well demonstrated, in terms of intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, terrorist financing, military support, humanitarian issues, where we're in agreement. I mean, we have ongoing discussions with Saudi Arabia in all of the fields. It's a strong diplomatic relationship and an important one.
With Syria, I think we have also made quite clear the concerns we have about Syrian policy, and made quite clear what Syria stands to lose by not dealing with some of these issues, particularly with terrorism, and not just making cosmetic efforts to close offices. People involved with these groups that have had a presence in Syria, continue to have a presence in Syria, need to be expelled. That's a step that I think they need to take.
Secretary Powell has spoken to that. He has visited Syria. He has been in Damascus and made quite clear to most senior levels of the Syrian Government that to have a better relationship with the United States, to take advantage of the new situation we have in the region right now.
With the end of the brutal Saddam Hussein dictatorship next door, this is an opportunity for Syria to return to the mainstream of international affairs, think about why they would want to have the presence of or ties to international groups and address some of these issues with us. And we'll continue to watch that very closely.
In the back, changing subjects, maybe.
QUESTION: Thank you, Phil. Mr. Ikeda, an AP Reporter for Latin America. My question goes first on a country in Latin America, Guatemala -- actually, two questions.
MR. REEKER: Okay.
QUESTION: One on narcotics, and the second on a human rights violator that wants to be president of the country. The first question, as you know, Guatemala is not termed at this time by the U.S. Administration as a close friend in the drug fight. And it means that the country has been decertified in that field. And the government of Guatemala is trying you to reconsider that condition in September. What are the chances for the country to get back its certification on drug fight?
And a second question.
MR. REEKER: Why don't we do one at a time. I can't lay down odds or suggest chances. That's going to be up to an action that the Government of Guatemala can take. Narcotics trafficking is a scourge for our country and for other countries certainly in this hemisphere, and we have been trying to work closely with so many countries to end that.
It's closely tied often with terrorism, as terrorist groups use narcotics trafficking to finance their activities, but it brings hardship to so many people. Crime, violent crime, is closely tied to all of that. So I can't give you any specific answers. What I can refer you to are our regular reports that we put out every year on narcotics, on trafficking, and projects that we have, programs we have working with other countries to try to eliminate that.
Do you want to ask your follow-up question because I think I know where we're going?
QUESTION: Yes, sir. And the second question is on General Rios Montt. He was formally registering as a presidential candidate for the elections on next November. And I understand you have like a veto on that particular politician in Guatemala. And what is your opinion about his registration?
MR. REEKER: Let me first correct any suggestion you have that we have a veto on Guatemalan decisions, Guatemalan internal politics over their presidential election. We have been quite clear in our statements on this. I am sure you have followed them closely, that those are decisions that the people of Guatemala will decide upon, who is their next president.
We would want to see free and fair elections carried out there. We expressed some concern earlier this week about protests, violent protests that seem to be taking place. And there was a certain view. It seemed quite obvious that these were being supported and by certain political groups, and we called for an end to that.
In terms of the constitutional court’s decision, we have taken note of that. And I think my understanding was that there are several legal issues, complicated legal issues that are yet to be resolved. It is certainly important, as I indicated, that the final decision on this matter be made in accordance with the Constitution of Guatemala, and in a manner that upholds the rule of law in Guatemala.
Ultimately, it’s the people of Guatemala who will decide their next president and we are clearly going to leave that for them to decide. We want to have good relations with Guatemala. We want to pursue that. And that is certainly our intention, pursuing that, and dealing with many issues, including narcotics trafficking, that are on our mutual agenda. So I think that is where our position is.
And in terms of Mr. Rios Montt and his history, I think that is well documented, and I would just point you to the history on that.
We will start here in the front with Goyal, and then we will go back and forth.
QUESTION: Thank you, Phil. R. Goyal, India Globe and Asia Today. Two (inaudible) questions. One is that Congressman Tancredo from Colorado, he has a bill in the Congress opposing -- against H1-B visas. And many companies here are concerned because that will hurt, and they cannot bring their temporary workers from overseas, basically, mainly, the Indian companies here, and India will be hurt from this bill if it goes through in the Congress. Any comments on that?
MR. REEKER: I don't. I don’t know if the administration has taken a position on that particular legislation. That is something that is done by the administration. I am not familiar with the details of that. But so -- something we would have to see.
QUESTION: But if administration is for H1-B visas or not, or --
MR. REEKER: I do not think there is such a thing as being for H1-B visas or not. It is a category of visas that is determined under United States law. And in terms of any changes to the current system, I do not have anything to report. In terms of proposed legislation, I cannot really comment on a particular Congressman’s legislation.
The administration, in due course, will take a position on any legislation if it were to get to the point of being considered. I am just not familiar with whether or not there is a position on that legislation at this point or not.
QUESTION: Second, on this registration and new visa rules, on the personal interviews and registration here, many countries are talking against or condemning, including the Bangladesh Embassy (inaudible) is condemning. And they are saying that they are concerned about this legislation here and also in personal interviews back home. So if any countries are diplomatically in touch with the State Department on this issue?
MR. REEKER: I don't know. I haven't heard of any. I think every country sets its own visa law. I think, as you know, we have been examining very closely, particularly since 9/11, steps that can be taken to increase security to make sure that, as the Secretary has said, we keep open doors but secure borders, and make sure that those who would come to our country wishing us and others that are visitors here harm, cannot do so.
And so one area where we have focused on this is an increased number of personal interviews for those applying for visas. That is taking place at embassies and consulates around the world, and that may be of an inconvenience to some people. It may require a longer period in terms of applying for and finding out the results of a visa application.
But those are realities that we have to face. And I think most countries around the world, most governments, and most people will understand that. This has been forced upon us by terrorists, by those who seek to harm us. Many other countries are facing similar problems as they consider how people enter their countries and how we can check to make sure that those that wish to do us harm cannot in our country.
So the visa process for us is the first line of defense. It is where State Department officials, where consulate authorities are able to gather information to make sure that people who wish to come to the United States wish to come here for the appropriate reasons. And that is a process we take very seriously and would expect that host governments would understand as well.
And, certainly, we realize that it may result in what some people consider to be personal inconvenience, but that is a reality of the situation. And we are working very closely with the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for immigration matters once a person reaches a United States border, in terms of registration and other matters on that. So I would refer you to the Department of Homeland Security on that subject.
Yeah, Andrei.
QUESTION: A question on the two daughters of Saddam who have turned up in Jordan and have given interviews. Has this appearance of them been cleared with the United States by the Jordanians?
MR. REEKER: We do not clear television appearances.
QUESTION: No, I mean, giving them asylum, basically. Is the United States interested in following up on this and maybe interviewing the ladies about what they know?
Is the United States Government interested in the sources of finance for the two ladies for the future, and maybe like freezing those? What is your attitude?
MR. REEKER: As Ambassador Boucher answered just a little while ago to the same questions, you would really want to talk to the Jordanians about information about their acceptance of Saddam Hussein’s daughters and their families into Jordan. We don't have anything particularly right now, in terms of intelligence or law enforcement judgment regarding the daughters. And so I just really would not have anything particular to add to it. It is really a question for Jordanians.
Yeah, sir, and then we will try to get to some others in the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio Sawa. I will go back to the Middle East, if you don’t mind.
MR. REEKER: Sure. I think we are still there.
QUESTION: You mentioned Ambassador John Wolf, that he returned to the Middle East. Did you increase the number of observers that are working with Ambassador Wolf?
And another question: What is next now after the visits of Prime Minister Abbas and Sharon to Washington? What are the next steps? Will Secretary Powell or Dr. Rice or anybody else plan to go to the region to push the parties to stay on track?
MR. REEKER: I don't have any travel to announce for anybody at this point. The Secretary has made quite clear that he will continue to be very much involved, so will Dr. Rice, so will officials on the ground. Ambassador Burns, Assistant Secretary Burns, is in regular touch with the parties. Our Ambassador to Israel, Ambassador Kurtzer, and the acting Consul General in Jerusalem, Jeff Feldman, continue to have active discussions with both sides.
As you repeated, Ambassador Wolf is back in the region monitoring and coordinating to fulfill the commitments, or coordinating the steps that will fulfill the commitments that both sides have made to President Bush. I can't give you an exact breakdown on the number of noses under Ambassador Wolf’s authority, his team there, but he continues to play a very active role there.
And as we said earlier, both sides have obligations, responsibilities and the substance of those things has not changed, and they know what they need to continue working on and we'll continue to have those dialogues. I think you have seen from the President exactly what he promised.
With the two parties getting involved, making their commitments, he has also made a commitment to move forward on this and do everything that we can, and that is what will continue on that. I am sure we will let you know in due course as any travel is announced or other matters.
Let’s pop to the back for a little while and we will get back to the front.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: John Zang with CTI TV of Taiwan. Mr. Reeker, Taiwan’s vice president, who will be transiting through the United States later this month, had planned to transit through four U.S. cities, including New York. Now, our understanding is why the United States has agreed to her transiting three cities, but denied her request to transit through New York, why the denial? Why the denial? What is the rationale behind the decision?
I thank you.
MR. REEKER: I think, as you are aware, consistent with our longstanding policy, we have from time to time approved transit for Taiwan’s senior leaders when they travel overseas for their safety, comfort, and convenience, while respecting the dignity of the traveling. And that's what we will continue to do so.
I am not aware of any recent announcements by Taiwan regarding such plans, but we would refer you to them for any specifics or information concerning travel or possible travel by Vice President Lu or any other Taiwan official. And so we will let them speak for the travel of their own leaders, but we will continue to follow the policy that we have for a long time.
QUESTION: Follow up. Can you confirm that her request to transit through New York has been denied?
MR. REEKER: No. I will tell you exactly what I told you, and that is what we have always tried to say.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Chris Cockel of the China Post from Taiwan. About 10 days ago there was a senior Taiwan official, (inaudible), who was in Washington for various meetings. However, we were never able to find out exactly why he was here or who he met with. I wonder whether you can give us some details as to who he met with and what was the outcome of those meetings, and whether the issue of the referendums was discussed.
MR. REEKER: I really can't. As you know, from time to time, in keeping with our One China policy and our unofficial relationship with the people on Taiwan. We have had particular meetings, but I do not have any details to refer to you.
I think we have made clear our position about referenda. And that was, I think as I said from this podium last week, to refer you back to, what President Chen said in his inaugural speech back in May of 2000, that he would not promote a referendum to change the status quo with regards to the question of independence or unification. We appreciate that pledge and we take it very seriously. And so I just do not think there is anything I can really add to that. We have consistently urged both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan to work to achieve dialogue, and we think such efforts should continue.
We welcome steps that further dialogue. Anything that can reduce tension or emphasize a peaceful resolution and promote mutual understanding is a good thing. And as we have also said so many times, we urge both sides to refrain from actions or statements that increase tensions or make dialogue more difficult to achieve. And, as you know, the United States does not support Taiwan independence.
Yes, ma’am. I think we are keeping on with a theme here, so we will get back.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Philip. Ms. (inaudible) Daily News, Korea. I would like to ask, Under Secretary Bolton’s statement in Seoul yesterday, he denounced North Korea and North Korea leader Kim Jung Il, 41 times when he has address. But in the same time, the State Department yesterday praised North Korea’s acceptance of six-way talks. How can you understand the dubious signals to North Korea, the same State Department officials?
MR. REEKER: I don't think there is anything dubious about it at all. I wasn't counting specific references in Under Secretary Bolton’s speech, but I’ll take your word for it. I think everything Under Secretary Bolton said is certainly backed up by facts and history.
At the same time, we have made very clear about our view in terms of dealing with North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. And, as Secretary Boucher spoke quite extensively earlier, we do welcome the statement overnight about North Korea’s willingness to participate in six-party talks on the nuclear arms program.
We are in very close touch with the Chinese on working out the details of that and pursuing that, and obviously keep in very close touch with South Korea, with Japan, and also with Russia, who will be part of that six-party multilateral talk. The multilateral talks we think are the appropriate diplomatic approach to achieve our goal, which is an end to the North Korea nuclear arms program, and so that is what we are going to pursue right now.
I don't think making clear our views and our positions and our concerns is mutually exclusive from pursuing exactly this process, and so we are welcoming that and we are going to move ahead accordingly. I just do not have anything to announce in terms of more details about those prospective talks at this point.
Ma’am.
QUESTION: Lada Galina, Trud Newspaper, Bulgaria.
MR. REEKER: Hi.
QUESTION: Yes, I would like to ask you about the international debt of Iraq to the other countries, because now there is some opinion that this is dirty debt, except that this is crucial for my country. And what is your opinion, do these debts have to be paid, and when?
MR. REEKER: I do not think those are questions I can give you specific answers to at this point. Obviously, those are things that need to be looked at as we focus on reconstruction and stabilization in Iraq. Those are going to be important questions, and I just do not have specific answers for you.
Obviously, those are things that we are talking to other governments about, talking to international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but I don't have any particular news at this point on how that’s is going to be dealt with.
But certainly, everybody is quite aware of that issue and wants to see people repaid what they deserve. These are important issues, but I just can give you any real answers at this point. So keep in touch.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER: Okay, and then back to (inaudible).
QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio Sawa, in the same area. Did you decide the time and location for the Donors Conference for Iraq?
MR. REEKER: I do not think I have seen anything specific on that, no, not yet.
Sir.
QUESTION: Mr. Reeker, back at Saudi Arabia. There seems to be a lot of heat directed at Saudi Arabia. Some commentators, even prominent members of Congress, are suggesting that the President is protecting his Saudi friends by not declassifying the 28 pages, and that the Saudi Foreign Minister’s demand was no more than a ploy to show that they are innocent and so on.
Are you happy with Saudi performance, or would you like to see -- what would you see? Particularly, what would you like to see them do in terms of, you know, for instance, would you like to see them turn in Omar al Bayoumi?
MR. REEKER: I think I really do not know what I can add to what the President of the United States has said most recently, to what the Secretary of State has said. The President made quite clear that with his responsibilities there are certain things that we have to keep in classified channels, and he is not in a position to release information about sources and methods that could affect our ability to continue pursuing terrorism, continue pursuing the war on terror and those that have perpetrated it, and so that is a reality.
I think you heard the Saudi Foreign Minister hear that from the President and understand that that is the President’s position.
As I have already said here, and we have said so many times, we have had a close working relationship with Saudi Arabia in the global war on terrorism, and that involves so many different areas of that effort, financial areas, where we are able to cut off funding, where we are able to seize assets of terrorist groups and individuals, in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, I might add, and Saudi Arabia has played a role in that; in looking at charitable organizations and making sure the charitable organizations, or funds donated to charitable organizations are going to what they are to be going to and are not diverted to other organizations or other activities.
I think I already mentioned that if you just look at the type of intelligence sharing, the type of law enforcement sharing that we have talked about to the extent that we can get into details of those things , and things on the financial front as well as military support, that we have had very good cooperation, a high level of cooperation from Saudi Arabia. And we continue to have ongoing discussions on terrorism-related topics, including the financial discussion.
We have a joint working group that focuses on our counter-terrorism work together. We utilize those structures, we utilize our diplomatic contacts to move forward in that regard. And Saudi Arabia, particularly since the attacks in Riyadh, has demonstrated and made quite clear statements about the threats that terrorism represents to Saudi Arabia and the people of Saudi Arabia as well as for many others in the world. So we'll keep working on that together.
As the President indicated soon after September 11th, this is not going to be a short fight but it's something that we will see through. We will continue to work with countries all over the world in this coalition in implementing the various UN regulations and the other efforts that we have to knock out this terrorism, because the killing of innocent people is not justified by these groups. And indeed, we have made a lot of progress.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
MR. REEKER: I think you have heard it from every corner in Washington. You keep asking. I don't know what else one can say. I also want to ask you guys what's your point?
QUESTION: Thank you, Phil. Vincent Chan with the United Daily News, Taiwan.
There were two high-level Chinese officials in charge of their Taiwan affairs visiting here last week.
MR. REEKER: The week before I believe.
QUESTION: On the 21st as far as I know. Well one of them is the director for their Taiwan office of China's State Council, Chen Yunlin, and this was his first time to visit Washington, DC, and his visit was generally considered to press Taiwan through the United States. How do you see his visit?
MR. REEKER: I think I answered that last week because I was asked last week, I think it was on Friday. So we can get you the transcript and that takes care of it.
At a certain point the news passes me by and I have to move on, and I just don't remember the details of that visit or any other. But if we look it up in the transcript, I think you can get things. At a certain point, if I carried it all with me, I wouldn't know where to stop and I would never make it. So it was one of the ones.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) from (inaudible) Pakistan. I had a question on the friction on the Afghan-Pakistan border (inaudible). When pursuing al-Qaida, Pakistani forces, they might have crossed (inaudible) delegation, whatever. I mean what is the problem if talks held between the three parties?
MR. REEKER: I don't know if I can give you any particular readout. As we have discussed before, it is a difficult border in terms of its rugged terrain and specific demarcation. So it's something that needs to be pursued.
In terms of discussions between the Government of Afghanistan and the Government of Pakistan, to the extent American or Coalition troops are also in the region, we enter into appropriate discussions as well. But that is the forum where these things should be discussed, and I just don't have any particular readouts for you. I direct you up to the region where they could talk about that.
QUESTION: One more? Thanks. Chris Cockel from China Post Taiwan again.
In the answer to my previous question, you used exactly the same words as the recent Pentagon report about China's military power, urging both Taipei and Beijing to avoid provocative statements or actions.
MR. REEKER: It's amazing how unified American policy is, and consistent too. Yeah.
QUESTION: My question, would the State Department regard a referendum on Taiwan's fourth nuclear power plant as provocative?
MR. REEKER: Oh, I do not think I want to try to parse it. Our views are what I have said. I don't know anything specific about that. Let me just leave it where it is and what our views are about referenda, what our China policy is, that is one China policy. You are all familiar with it. I am glad to see that you recognized the Defense Department and the State Department have the same policy, which is correct, because that's the policy of the President of the United States. But in terms of that type of narrow specificity, I just don't have anything on that one.
Anything else?
Great. Then have a great weekend.
