National Security Council Briefing for Foreign Media

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure again to welcome Sean McCormack, NSC spokesman, who is here to once again take your questions.

Without any further ado, we'll start. Please remember to wait for the microphone and introduce yourself by name and organization before you ask your question. Thank you.

Q Andrei Sitov from TASS. Sean, can we assume that one of the reasons for the recent trip of Secretary Powell to Moscow was to inform the Russians about the decision of the American side to withdraw from the ABM Treaty? And when you withdraw, because the administration has been saying that it's a matter of when rather than if, the six-month period before the actual withdrawal, is it seen as a time of further consultation and maybe making some corrections in the positions, or it's a withdrawal after you announce the intent?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of Secretary Powell's trip, trip to Moscow, as he said before he left, this was part of the ongoing consultations with regard to a new strategic framework and a number of other issues in the U.S.-Russian relationship. I think it's important to point out that the U.S.-Russian relations have, since the beginning of this administration, if you look at them, they've broadened dramatically to include a number of different issues, both before 9-11 and after 9-11.

At the Washington and Crawford meetings between President Putin and President Bush, we issued a number of joint statements covering a number of issues, including economic issues, cooperation in the war against terrorism, talking about cooperation on nonproliferation. They also discussed reduction in offensive nuclear forces. So the relationship between the United States and Russia is a very broad, deep relationship, and President Bush values his relationship with President Putin very much.

And certainly President Putin's phone call immediately after the September 11th attacks was the first phone call from a foreign leader. And President Bush has spoken -- has spoken a number of times how important that was and how that symbolized, really, the differences and the changes in this relationship, as Secretary Powell has said, as we move beyond the post -- post-Cold War relationship.

In terms of the ABM Treaty, we have, as you pointed out -- we have stated that we do intend to move beyond the ABM treaty. This is, in President Bush's view, the best -- the best way -- an important component of ensuring peace and stability in the 21st century. We have said -- President Bush outlined in his May 1st speech that we will conduct a robust testing and evaluation program with the aim of developing limited defenses against missiles launched from rogue states or -- certainly the focus now, in post 9/11, in case those weapons would happen to have fallen into the hands of terrorists.

So with -- yeah -- that said, we have said we intend to move beyond the ABM treaty. That time -- the time is coming when we will need to move beyond the ABM treat. And beyond that, I really don't have anything to add. Anything more with respect to the ABM treaty -- I think that that's something that President Bush, when he decides that he has something else to say about the ABM treaty, you'll hear it directly from him.

MODERATOR: We'll start with you, and then we'll go back up.

Q Parasuram, the Press Trust of India.

I want to ask you whether, when you give notice of withdrawal from the ABM treaty, is that subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, what chances do you have to get it through? Because Senator Daschle is opposed to it; Senator Biden is opposed to it.

And also, President Clinton said that -- what happening with the ABM treaty, you are really stirring a hornet's nest, because the Chinese may build more weapons in order to neutralize what all you're building, and that will stir India to neutralize that, and then Pakistan will follow suit. And so the whole thing will lead to a nuclear race. What do you think about these possibilities?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the first part of your question, about -- just speaking theoretically, from the -- whether or not the advice and consent of the Senate is required to withdraw from the ABM treaty, my understanding is that it's not.

With respect to the ABM treaty and China and India and so forth, we have, from the very beginning of public discussions after President Bush's May 1st speech, made real efforts to reach out to friends and allies and other interested parties around the world to talk about missile defense and the fact that missile defense is aimed at enhancing future stability and security in the world. It's destined to protect against launch of missiles from rogue states, from organizations or groups that may pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction, as well as, perhaps, in the future, missiles as a means of delivery.

So that's the focus of missile defense. It's designed to protect against those threats. It's not directed at any of the countries -- you mentioned China, Russia, any of our friends and allies, India. As a matter of fact, we've had very good discussions with the Indian government with respect to missile defense and talking to them about our plans for missile defense, as well as the Chinese government.

We have reached out to the Chinese government. We've had two delegations to talk to the Chinese government. And I anticipate that in the future, with respect to missile defense research and talking to friends and allies about our plans, we'll continue that outreach program.

Q (Tom Pierro ?) Rinaldi, Italian News Agency Ansa. Two questions. First one related to the ABM. After the president will announce the decision to withdraw from the ABM, there will be for six months still a respect from United States with the ABM Treaty, so there will be no test beyond the ABM Treaty and no base construction in Alaska beyond the ABM Treaty.

Second question is related to Afghanistan. Do you have any comment on this last report from Christian Science Monitor that Osama bin Laden left Afghanistan 10 days ago and is over in Pakistan?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the first part of your question about the ABM Treaty, the question presupposes an action that hasn't been taken yet. As I said to Andrei, we have spoken about our intent to move beyond the ABM Treaty. And anything further with respect to that, the president will have -- anything further that we have to say on that, you'll hear from the president directly when he decides he does have something to say about it.

Remind me about the other part of your question.

Q The news from Christian Science Monitor that Osama bin Laden has already left Afghanistan ten day ago and he is in Pakistan.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. I saw those reports just before I came over here. I don't have any specific comment on those reports, and all I can do is echo what Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz have said recently, I think, as well as General Myers, in saying that every indication they had was that Osama bin Laden was still in Afghanistan. But, again, for any specifics on that, any specific comment on that, I'd have to refer you over to the Department of Defense.

MODERATOR: The gentleman in the back.

Q (Inaudible) -- from Tokyo Broadcasting. On the ABM, the president has said many times that you need to move beyond the ABM Treaty. And when this does happen, what type of cooperation are you looking from your allies? I know, for instance, with Japan, there's quite a bit of cooperation on the theater missile defense. For national missile defense, will you be looking to the allies when you move on to new phases of research and development for the allies to pitch in and to help out with that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that, in terms of the -- you know, we'll continue those discussions that I referred to earlier, consultations with our friends and allies with respect to our plans on missile defense and the development of those technologies, research into those technologies.

In terms of specific plans for cooperation on technologies, again, I'd have to refer you over to the Department of Defense. But certainly the intent with missile defense is that we will pursue a robust test-and-evaluation program on the program. And certainly the Department of Defense will continue to outreach and to work with close friends and allies on missile defense.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right here in the middle.

Q Hanan Obadry (ph) Egyptian Television and Radio. I have a question regarding the president's speech yesterday. Do you believe that Somalia or Yemen, and as we know, there is official mission, like official mission, some of them already there in Somalia. Do you think somehow Somalia or Yemen or any country on your State Department list of countries who are supporting the terrorists will be -- you're going to target them? Are you targeting them or using any kind of reaction? Is there no kind of cooperation with you?

MR. MCCORMACK: A couple of things on that. First of all, we're very much involved in the war in Afghanistan, and we have -- we've certainly met some of our goals with respect to Afghanistan. The first of those was the release of the aid workers that President Bush talked about. We're all very happy that those people are all back with their families, safe.

We are -- our focus in Afghanistan has been to destroy the Taliban regime so that we can reach our ultimate goal of ridding Afghanistan of terrorists, the al Qaeda terrorist network, breaking up that network within Afghanistan and ensuring that Afghanistan doesn't become a haven for terrorists in the future. So we're very much focused on phase one.

Contemporaneously with that, we've been pursuing other fronts in this war against terrorism. The financial front; I think that that's been well-publicized and we've really actually received very good cooperation from friends and allies, countries around the world, in destroying the infrastructure that supports the al Qaeda terrorist network, without which it becomes very difficult for them to operate. Now, we certainly haven't reached our goals on that, but we've gotten off to a very good start with respect to the financial front in the war on terrorism.

The law enforcement front. We have developed excellent ties and cooperation with the countries around the world on the law enforcement front. There have been a number of arrests of al Qaeda members, al Qaeda supporters, around the world. This is very helpful in reaching another one of our goals in the larger war against terrorism, and that is going after al Qaeda cells wherever they may exist in 60 or more countries.

We have arrested well over 300 -- excuse me, let me correct that. Countries around the world have arrested well over 300 members and supporters of al Qaeda, and this is certainly a great indication of the cooperation that we're receiving from countries around the world and really an indication of the willingness and the desire of these countries to join in this fight against terrorism, and they understand that it wasn't just the United States who was attacked. It was countries around the world. It was civilization, freedom-loving people around the world that were attacked.

With respect -- you asked about Somalia and Yemen and specific countries. I really don't have anything for you on what may be next in this war against terrorism. The only thing that -- two things, actually. In the war on terrorism, there are a number of different tools at the disposal of the president and the coalition against terrorism, and I pointed out some of those -- law enforcement, the financial side, as well as intelligence-sharing, going after these cells and groups that are associated with al Qaeda around the world. I think that's probably -- you know -- that's probably --

Q Could you just give me more detail regarding your mission in Somalia and north of Iraq? There are American officials visiting now north of Iraq.

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of Somalia, I've seen the reports. I really don't have anything for you on that. In terms of the delegation, the U.S. delegation in northern Iraq, it's being led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ryan Crocker, and it's part of a long-standing series of consultations that we've had. The last one, I believe -- the last delegation to go into northern Iraq, I believe, was in February, this past February. So this is something that occurs on a regular basis.

The purpose of the delegation is to go there to consult on the status of Iraqi-Kurd reconciliation and to evaluate the implementation of the oil-for-food program in northern Iraq.

Q Satoru Suzuki of TV Asahi of Japan. Sean, two questions. First, I understand Dr. Rice met with the director general of the Japanese defense agency, Minister Gen Nakatani on Monday. What can you tell us about the meeting? Did they discuss the president's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty?

And secondly, when the United States decides to get into phase two of the war against terrorism, how much discussion, how much consultation, is the United States willing to have with the coalition members prior to such a decision to launch air strikes over or against any specific country?

MR. MCCORMACK: On Dr. Rice's meetings, we have a long-standing policy of not getting into what was discussed in those meetings, so I don't have anything to offer you on that. In terms of the next question on Afghanistan, I went into that, I think, in detail, extended detail, on that.

But let me just pick up on one part of that that you mentioned, the consultation with friends and allies. I think that this is a coalition that's been assembled by the president, with Secretary Powell leading the way on assembling that coalition. And I think, as you can see over the past couple of months, the number of visitors that have come through the White House, as well as the State Department and Department of Defense, is an indication of exactly how much the U.S. values those consultations and that close cooperation.

And that certainly will continue on in the future as we proceed in this war against terrorism. President Bush has said that this war against terrorism is going to be a long struggle, a long fight. There's still a lot of work left to be done on a variety of different fronts, and we're certainly going to continue our close work and consultations with our friends and allies around the world.

Q Al Beshir (ph), Khartoum Sudan. Immediately after the vicious September attacks, the 11th, the Sudan government, one of the seven countries on the list of sponsoring terrorism, condemned the attack and offered to cooperate. Secretary Powell welcomed that. But Sudan remains still on the list.

In the last seven weeks, maybe three weeks, there are some reports in the newspapers here, Los Angeles Times and Washington Times and Vanity Fair, saying that Sudan has been offering to help, providing this information about bin Laden and al Qaeda, since 1996, again, 1998, and again, 1999, and until recently. And this was a surprise to us, even the students of Sudanese-American relations.

My question to you, if you take this in account, do you think it's about time to rehabilitate the Sudan? Because it seems like it has been wrongly -- because it has been offering to help, but the Clinton administration, for one reason or another, turned down the offer. Do you have any information about that? Thank you..

MR. MCCORMACK: I can only speak for this administration. I can't really speak to what happened, what went on before January 20th. As you pointed out, Secretary Powell welcomed the statements of cooperation from the Sudanese government.

I think it's certainly important to point out that President Bush, in his speech to Congress, as well as his speech before the U.N. General Assembly, said that states around the world, in particular those states that harbor and support terrorism, have a choice to make. What side will they choose to be on? Do they join in the war against terrorism or do they choose not to?

And President Bush has said that he will be looking for actions from states that harbor and support terrorism, to demonstrate that they are, in fact, allied with the global coalition to fight terrorism and that he'll be looking to those actions. There's time, in essence, to turn over a new leaf, to decide which side a state is going to be on.

And certainly we would welcome actions, specific actions, durable actions, that would give indications of the fact that those states choose to side in the fight against terrorism. But there's not an indefinite amount of time to act. And I think I'd probably just leave it at that.

MODERATOR: Right here.

Q Samir Nader of Lebanese TV, LBC. Did you reach an agreement with the Lebanese government regarding the role of Hezbollah?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware of any particular specific discussions with the Lebanese government. I have to refer you over to the State Department. But again, Hezbollah and Hamas have been placed on -- they have been on the list of terrorist organizations. They were put on the most recent executive order of the president as terrorist organizations, and in fact, which would allow the United States to go after assets of not only those organizations, which is under a previous executive order, but as well as those groups, individuals, organizations that have associations with those groups.

You know, as we have said, the administration has said, you can't say that you're against al Qaeda and turn and hug Hamas and Hezbollah. There are no good and bad terrorists. And I would just say, again, that, you know, we have asked states to join us in this global fight against terrorism and we would look for the support of any states in that fight against terrorism.

Q The leader of Hezbollah said yesterday that they are not involved with any terrorism of global reach. All they are doing is liberating Lebanese territory from Israeli occupation. And they wanted proof from the U.S. administration that they are doing terrorism. Do you have any proof of recent terrorism that they were doing?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I have to refer back to the State Department's, you know, list of terrorist organizations. It's a long, involved process looking at information from a variety of sources, and those decisions aren't taken lightly as to which groups are on this list. I would just leave it at that.

MODERATOR: And right right here.

Q Dawn Tenier (sp) with CNN Espanol. First of all, how does the Bush administration read the situation in Venezuela, specifically seeing Chavez dressed in a fatigue uniform hugging the Cuban leader, Fidel Castro? And also, within that question, can you comment on the general strike in Venezuela?

And a second question --

MR. MCCORMACK: I thought that's -- that's the third question. (Laughter.)

Q Oh, sorry. Third question, different topic. Has the Bush administration discussed any willingness to bail out Argentina if it needs to, just like it did with Mexico, seeing the sad shape of the Argentinian economy and how it could affect the rest of the region?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll start with the last one first. I'm going to have to refer you over to the Department of Treasury to talk about Argentina and working with international financial institutions.

In terms of the work stoppage in Venezuela, you know, our view is that this is part of the larger ongoing democratic dialogue in Venezuela and that we're going to continue to watch the situation closely as to what develops in Venezuela. And really, I think it would probably be inappropriate to comment any further.

Q Castro in fatigues?

MR. MCCORMACK: Castro in fatigues. I don't have anything for you on that.

MODERATOR: Hoda.

Q Hoda Tawfiq, Al Ahram, Egypt. Does this administration see any similarity or any connection between the war on Afghanistan and the war on the Palestinian people, taking into consideration that the war on the Palestinians, they are under occupation, and the war is being waged by American arms, F-16s and missiles and all that?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, this is -- the Israelis and Palestinians have an ongoing political dialogue that dates back to the Oslo process. And both sides have committed to seeking a peaceful resolution to their disagreements. We've seen much progress and a lot of discussion over the years with respect to that.

So I think the characterization is certainly different with respect to that ongoing dialogue and that we certainly hope will continue and get restarted. General Zinni is working very hard in the region to bring the two parties together, to talk about security cooperation, which is really a first step towards rebuilding the trust and confidence between the two sides, and ultimately getting to a political dialogue, resumption of political dialogue, getting into the Mitchell process.

In terms of the situation in Afghanistan, our goals in Afghanistan -- I've talked about our goals in Afghanistan. It was an act of self-defense going after al Qaeda after they launched attacks against the United States and killed thousands of people here. And, you know, our goal is to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't become a haven for terrorism in the future and to rid Afghanistan of al Qaeda and the terrorists that reside there now. We're working towards our goals. We're making good progress. But we're not done there yet.

Q Does this mean that the characterization that they are waging war on the Palestinians, the same like what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan -- it does not stand, does it?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, as I said, I characterized the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians as one of an ongoing, long-standing political dialogue, a political process. And we certainly hope that they can get back to those discussions of actually talking about the issues, the real issues that they have to discuss. And the first step in that is really working with General Zinni to get back to a dialogue about security cooperation.

Q And the last part of the question, -- (inaudible) - about using your arms on other people?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything for you on that.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Nadia -- (inaudible) -- with the Liberty Times. We know that U.S. and Russia has almost reached agreement to cut the nuclear arsenal.

You know, the action now of U.S. will have an impact on the potential agreement. But the second question is, after U.S. drove back from the ABM Treaty, what will be the framework that prevented the proliferation of missiles in the next step?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the second part of the question, you know, I'd refer back to what I talked about at the beginning of the briefing here. We've stated our intention to move beyond the ABM Treaty, and that time is coming. That time is near. But in terms of anything beyond that, I think we'll wait for the president to decide when he has something else to say.

And on the first part of your question, I'm not sure I understood exactly what you were getting at.

Q I mean, U.S. and Russia has almost reached agreement to cut their nuclear arsenals. Will the action from U.S. have an impact on this potential agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Will the action from -- certainly we're --

Q If you do the ABM, if you withdraw from the ABM, will that have an adverse effect that -- (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think both President Putin and President Bush, at the Washington/Crawford summit, said that they intend to move forward with offensive nuclear-force reductions. We've already stated the range to which we're going to reduce our forces. And President Putin has said that he intends to reduce Russian forces to a number that's similar. He hasn't come out publicly with a precise number, but we certainly look forward to hearing that number and have every expectation that we will.

MODERATOR: Over here.

Q Let me follow up on the ABM questions. My name is Sugimoto with the Asahi Newspaper, Asahi Shimbun from Japan. Is President Bush hoping that the Russians will understand or accept his decision to withdraw ABM, if and when indeed it takes place?

MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly we have -- I think we've exhausted the ABM topic. You know, again, the United States and Russia have a broad, deep relationship that is multifaceted and has a number of different areas of cooperation. And certainly, just in the administration of President Bush, we've seen that relationship change and grow and deepen. We have every expectation that it will continue to do so.

Q It may be too early to exhaust this subject. You mentioned that the consultations with allies and friends are ongoing on the ABM issue. But after you mentioned that, I started trying to remember which is the latest that I heard about it. At least since 9/11, I don't really remember hearing anything on consultations on ABM issues.

MR. MCCORMACK: I meant the consultations on missile defense.

Q Missile defense. And can you tell us which countries you have consulted with recently on this subject and which countries you may be planning to consult with on this in the near-future?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the process of dialogue with respect to missile defense and development of missile defense is something that the president started immediately after his May 1st speech and something that's going to continue into the future.

Some of these consultations may be very public. There were well- publicized visits to the European countries, to Japan, to India, to South Korea, and a number of other countries. Other consultations may take the form of ongoing diplomatic dialogue that you may not see. But be assured that we're continuing our discussions with countries around the world who have an interest in missile defense. We certainly welcome those discussions and look forward to their continuation.

Q One more question on ABM.

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, one more? That's it?

Q Parasuram Press Trust of India. This is to ask -- (inaudible). Suppose the United States is able to have an effective self-defense system. Will this be available also to your friends and allies -- (inaudible)?

MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly part of our discussions with countries around the world that are interested in missile defense has been talking about our plans and our robust testing and evaluation program. And certainly we're making progress, but we have -- there's certainly much work to be done. And if we do get to the point -- once we do get to the point where we have developed effective technologies, we certainly would, I imagine, welcome the opportunity talk with other countries around the world about missile defense, about effective missile defense technologies and how there might be fruitful cooperation between the United States and other countries around the world.

Q One more on ABM. We'll try. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, okay. All right. (Inaudible.)

Q Both you and Ari have said that the next word we hear on this will be from the president. And I don't think anybody has asked this directly, so I will try.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

Q When do you expect that we might hear something from the president? Might it be days, weeks, end of the year, beginning of next year? If you could give a general time frame of when there might be something coming up. And if you can't say anything specifically about that, what elements would the president like to see fall in place before an announcement is made? Or have all elements fallen into place and it's just a timing issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Does anybody else have any other ABM questions? (Laughter.) Again, I don't have anything for you on timing, so that's going to be something that President Bush is going to decide, and we'll certainly let everybody know when he has decided that he has something to say about it.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: He will let you know when he has something to say about it.

MODERATOR: ABM -- (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else?

Q (Inaudible) -- Italian news agency ANSA. When and if the president will announce the withdrawal from the ABM, do you expect that all the disarmament treaties will be respected, even if there are treaties that the United States has not ratified?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure. Do you have something specific in mind that you're referring to?

Q The START treaty, for instance.

MR. MCCORMACK: The START treaty is something that the United States has ratified and is party to, and I certainly expect that that will continue. As a matter of fact, START -- the limits under START have just actually come into force.

MODERATOR: Thomas, do you have a question?

Q Associated Press of Pakistan. Can you, Mr. McCormack, add anything to published reports in the last several days about Osama bin Laden being in possession or al Qaeda being in possession of material which can -- is capable of being made into a dirty bomb?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any comments referring to any specific report. I think we've seen a lot of them over the past several weeks. We certainly take the threat of al Qaeda, the stated threat and the stated intention of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, that he and his organization would pursue development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, biological -- we have to take that seriously.

We know that he's made efforts to do so. In the first World Trade Center bombing trial, one of the witnesses for the United States government laid out very clearly at least one of his efforts to acquire, I believe, some radiological material. We don't know if he was successful or not.

But again, I would just reiterate the fact that we take these threats seriously and we'll do everything that we can to prevent al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and other terrorist organizations from acquiring the know-how, the means and actual weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and should they have actually acquired any of those things, to prevent them from using them.

MODERATOR: Right here.

Q Norman Fu with the China Times of Taiwan. Two questions. First, can you describe for us -- you know, share with us a little bit about the cooperative relationship between Dr. Rice and Secretary Powell? I ask you this because in the past, you know, there has been all this rivalry and competition, as in the case of Kissinger versus Rogers, Brzezinski versus Vance. So apparently the relationship is not like that this time around. And this is my first question. The second question --

MR. MCCORMACK: You're absolutely right. (Laughter.)

Q I'd still like to hear your comments.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

Q My second question. Recently there was an election in Taiwan, and the party in power won decisively. And this seems to further complicate Taiwan's relationship with China, because the party in power does not subscribe to the so-called one-China policy.

There is now a group, a delegation here in town, led by some high-ranking people from Taiwan. And my understanding is they will be seeking meetings with administration officials, including White House. Do you have any comment on the election result of Taiwan and whether or not anybody from the NSC will be seeing them?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of meetings, I don't have any information on that. And a specific comment on the election, I don't have any comment on that. I will take the opportunity to restate U.S. policy, that we adhere to the one-China policy. It's based on well- known documentation, the Taiwan Relations Act, as well as the three communiques.

And certainly we have a great interest in seeing maintenance of a peaceful dialogue, cross-strait dialogue, the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan strait. And any change in the status of the relationship between China and Taiwan should be through peaceful dialogue and have the support of the Taiwan people.

Q The first question. You don't have much to say?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. This is actually a welcome question. It's usually more about kind of rating who's up and who's down in the administration, who's dominant. I really can't speak to, you know, kind of past relationships. Certainly I've read all the same books that you have.

Dr. Rice, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, have, I would say, just from close-up observation, an incredibly good working relationship, close working relationship, respectful. They all understand very clearly their roles within the administration, and they're all very respectful of that. And I can only comment from, you know, what I've witnessed close-up.

Just one example of the kind of close coordination among the three of them is that they start every morning with a conference call. They talk usually around 7:00 or 7:15.

Q Every morning?

MR. MCCORMACK: Every morning that it's practical. I don't know; sometimes when one or more may be traveling, it may not be practical. But that's certainly not the only communication among them during the day. I know that Dr. Rice, speaking from an NSC perspective, is on the phone with Secretary Powell and Secretary Rumsfeld, on many days several times throughout the day. Of course, now, since September 11th, they also meet every single day when the president convenes the National Security Council meetings. It's really an extraordinarily good working relationship.

Q On Iran, there are lots of reports quoting U.S. officials that Iran is playing a helpful role regarding the war in Afghanistan. If this is so, do you see any potential for any opening or improvement in relations between Washington and Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, with respect to U.S.-Iranian relationships, certainly our -- we are open to -- this is long-standing policy -- open to discussions without precondition any time, any place, anywhere with the Iranian government; something that's well-known and is long- standing policy.

With respect to the war in Afghanistan, there have been some positive signs of cooperation in terms of Iranian offers of cooperation with regard to potential search-and-rescue missions of any downed pilots, coalition pilots that may have been conducting operations over Afghanistan.

As you know also, the Iranian government -- Iranian government representatives were present in Bonn for the discussions on forming an interim authority in Afghanistan. And, you know, I really can't characterize their role, but certainly the overall outcome of the discussions in Bonn was positive.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, you know, I would characterize those two specific cases only and wouldn't necessarily expand it beyond that.

Q (Off mike.)

MODERATOR: Please wait for the microphone.

Q Hanan al Badr (ph) again, Egyptian Television. President Bush has just asked yesterday Dr. Rice and Mr. Ridge to start kind of talks with many countries regarding the arms control. Is Israel or any Arab countries, including Egypt, will be involved in such talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: President Bush, in his speech at the Citadel yesterday, as you pointed out, has directed Dr. Rice and Governor Ridge to conduct a comprehensive policy, a non-proliferation review policy, looking at efforts to stop the flow, to prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction to those who might use them for terror at home and abroad.

That's really something that, you know, he announced yesterday, and it's really just at the very beginnings. Certainly people are working hard to find what the terms of reference and the scope of what this review will be, but I don't have any more details at this time.

Q Is Israel going to be -- (inaudible)? Have you asked for venue review in this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, this is something the president just announced yesterday, and I don't have any further details in it for you. It's something that we've just begun. And maybe when I come back here in the weeks to come -- I'll be here the week after -- I don't know -- week after next; probably in January.

Q I don't know if I'll remember the question.

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, that's right. I don't know if anybody else will be here. You can ask me next year. (Laughter.)

Q I will. Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

MODERATOR: Any more questions?

MR. MCCORMACK: Questioned out. Ah, Samir.

MODERATOR: Wait for the mike.

Q That's number five.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, that's right.

Q Regarding the characterization of the role of Chairman Arafat, do you see any satisfaction, any things, improvement in what you're asking Chairman Arafat to do? I mean, are you seeing any positive signs that he is taking action? Or are you still focusing on characterizing him -- criticizing him?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think what President Bush and the administration have asked Chairman Arafat to do is to act, take steps to act, to end terrorism. And it's very important that he do so. This goes back to the attacks in Jerusalem, I believe, about a week ago, a little over a week ago. He and the Palestinian Authority have to take steps to act against terrorism. And his actions will be judged on the basis of results, the results being the end of terror.

These attacks in Jerusalem were not only an attack against innocent civilians, but they were also an attack on Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. It's a challenge to his leadership. And it is incumbent on Chairman Arafat to act to stop these acts of terrorism and to show his leadership in doing so.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thanks a lot.

Q (Off mike.)

MODERATOR: One more for Andrei.

MR. MCCORMACK: One more for Andrei. Yeah, this goes against the rule. Never take the last question.

Q I just wanted to ask your opinion. I was surprised at how many questions were asked about NMD and ABM. How do you explain this? To me it looks like worry around the world about the American plans for NMD. You say that these plans are supposed to enhance peace and security. Why should people be worried? Why should have so many questions from around the world?

MR. MCCORMACK: Andrei, my opinion isn't important. (Laughs.)

Q Yes, it is. You speak for the White House.

MR. MCCORMACK: President Bush has, I think, laid out very clearly the reasons why the United States will pursue a limited missile defense. It's intended to protect America. And we'll discuss protecting our friends and allies from launches by rogue countries and perhaps attacks using weapons of mass destruction.

And I think that the attacks of 9/11, using airplanes as weapons against our way of life, attacking freedom itself, is really an indication of how dangerous and how real, how real the threat could be of attack from ballistic missiles. And just imagine if those missiles had been launched by a regime like the Taliban or the Taliban or al Qaeda had gotten its hands on weapons of mass destruction and been able to use missiles to attack the United States or our friends and allies.

I think that that really points to the fact that missile defense is important. It's important to be able to defend ourselves against these types of potential attacks. That was true before 9/11, and certainly the events of 9/11 have put into high relief just how critical it is that we do pursue missile defense.

MODERATOR: Mr. McCormack, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you.

END.

Copyright (c)2001 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.