Weekly Briefing for Foreign Media

  4:38 P.M. EDT

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate your patience. As you know, the secretary of State just finished his testimony on the Hill, and that was the reason for the delay. I am very pleased again to welcome the deputy spokesman of the Department of State, Mr. Philip Reeker. He will be willing to take your questions. I also want to welcome our guest journalists sitting in our embassy I believe in Costa Rica. Without any further ado, I'll give the podium to Philip, and he'll take your questions as usual. Wait for the mike please, and tell us your name and who you work for. Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Thanks, Peter. It certainly is a pleasure to come back here to the Foreign Press Center. And those of you that we missed over at the State Department this week -- we haven't had as many briefings, as Peter indicated. Secretary Powell has been testifying -- yesterday before the House of Representatives' International Relations Committee, and today of course before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His testimony just ended, and I would obviously refer everybody to those transcripts. The Foreign Press Center will be happy to help you see what the secretary discussed. He commented on I am sure many of the things you are interested in. So I won't try to repeat everything the secretary said. But I am sure we have other issues.

I think because they've been waiting so patiently, I'd like to go first to our friends and colleagues, a special hello to my friend and colleague, Marcia Bossard (ph) in San Jose, Costa Rica, and let the first question for the day go to whoever would like to begin from San Jose.

First I have to figure out how I'm going to hear you. (Laughs.)

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Ah. Hi.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Could you just repeat that again? I missed the beginning -- consequences of --

Q Sure. What consequence in the struggle with economic recession the United States have on Costa Rica?

MR. REEKER: Okay, I am certainly not an economist, and I would be happy to direct you to those with expertise in that field. But I think Secretary Powell has been very clear in saying that it's important, certainly here in the United States, to get back to the world. It's been said that the business of America is business. We have focused so much attention on the importance of trade in our global economy, and the president has been quite clear in saying we are going to forge ahead, even as we go ahead with our campaign against global terrorism. Since we were attacked on the 11th of September, of course people have worried about economic consequences of that. Those forces, the terrorist criminal forces that attacked our country, and in fact attacked the whole civilized world, were going after the heart of the global economy -- the World Trade Center. They were attacking the very things they used in infiltrating our system, the global financial system and other things. So we have to be concerned about that. We are using finance and economy as a tool in fighting terrorism, and we are watching very closely the economy, because, as you indicated, there is impact globally as the economy in this country faces bumpy patches. So we are paying close attention to that. We want to encourage trade. We have been working with our Congress to give the president trade promotion authority, which allows him the opportunity to pursue directly free trade arrangements, trade agreements with other countries. We passed a couple of those quite recently -- with Jordan, with Vietnam. We are very enthusiastic about moving forward with the World Trade Organization meeting that is going to take place in Doha, Qatar in the Persian Gulf next month. It's very important that we move into another round of trade talks, because trade will keep our economy strong. And so I think if we can keep the global economy strong, keep the American economy, which is so vital to the world economy, keep the American economy moving, then you in countries like Costa Rica, in our hemisphere, will be able to focus on your continued work. So the bottom line message is: Keep working. We have got to focus on economic growth, even as we focus on fighting terrorism.

We want to take one more from Costa Rica, and then we'll go to our audience here.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Hi.

Q Notwithstanding the irrational nature of the acts of September 11th, what is the State Department's assessment after 45 days as to why this happened?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think Secretary Powell has addressed this in his recent testimony. These were criminal acts. The terrorist acts that were perpetrated against us have no explanation and absolutely not justification. Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network act on their own secular twisted personal agendas. They don't represent any religion. They try to do this in the name of a cause. And, as Secretary Powell has been quite clear, they are doing it simply out of their own selfish, twisted criminal vision of things. So we are very clear in our goal, and that is to go after those who have attacked us, who have in fact attacked the whole civilized world, to root out the al Qaeda network who has taken refuge in Afghanistan, given safe harbor by the Taliban regime there, to cut them off, using all the tools available to us. Again, there is absolutely no justification or reasoning behind this type of criminal, twisted behavior, creating thousands of orphans in New York, killing thousands of innocent civilians, men, women, children of all ethnicities, of all religions. He killed Muslims. He claims to do this in the name of Islam. And those that know Islam know that he's completely wrong in trying to hijack one of the world's great religions and use that as an excuse for the diabolical evil that he and other terrorists like him perpetrate against innocent civilians in the world. And we are not going to let it happen.

President Bush has been quite clear that we are in this for the long term, and we are working with a coalition of the entire civilized world, each country contributing in their own way to battling the terrorists on many different fronts -- financial, using information and intelligence sharing, law enforcement actions, arresting those responsible, and of course as necessary very precise military actions. So we are patient and persistent, and we are going to see this through to the end. But there is no reason for this type of thing. This is simply criminal murderous activity from terrorists like bin Laden and his network.

Okay, sir, here. Yes?

Q (Off mike) -- from Italy, the Italy daily -- (inaudible). Mr. Reeker, as you know, Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday in his interview to the USA Today daily, said that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in the -- surprisingly said that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in the process of creating a new government in Afghanistan. As you also know probably, President Putin, after meeting President Bush in Shanghai, surprisingly stated that there is already a legitimate government in Afghanistan, which is the Northern Alliance, ousted by the Taliban in '96. What I'd ask you is whether the United States is still actively promoting a government, the new government in Afghanistan, which is made up of all ethnic groups, sectarian groups and regional groups, and the United States is still confident to be able to get a moderate representation of the Taliban put in that government. Thanks.

MR. REEKER: I think it's quite clear from what Secretary Powell said and what the president said that we believe very strongly that the Taliban government must go now. They have clearly allied themselves with the terrorists, with the al Qaeda network. The president gave them a choice. And so our focus is on having the Afghan people build a broad-based government that can actually offer some government, some stability to Afghanistan. The people in Afghanistan have suffered greatly from more than two decades of civil war, from years of natural disaster and drought, and from five years of terrible rule imposed upon them by the Taliban regime, that nobody chose. We have never selected or favored any particular group in Afghanistan. It's a process that all the Afghan people need to participate in and develop as broad-based a government as possible. And that's what the secretary said. He repeated it again today in his comments up on Capitol Hill. We are working very closely with the United Nations and with others in the international community. We have for many years worked through structures like the 6-plus-2 arrangement at the United Nations -- those countries that neighbor Afghanistan who have a real interest in seeing stability in their region. So what we want to see is a broad-based government in an Afghanistan with some stability, an Afghanistan that has the ability to feed its own people. We will continue our humanitarian support, and the president has pledged our support for reconstruction aid - significant help in that regard, as the Afghan people form a new government in a terrorist-free Afghanistan.

Now, we worked very closely with the Russian government on this too. They've been part of that 6-plus-2 framework. In fact, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage will be traveling next month, the 1st of November, to Moscow for another meeting of the U.S.-Russia Afghan working group to continue discussing with his counterpart there, the deputy foreign secretary, issues of Afghanistan, and continue looking at how we can move forward on this. And obviously the U.N. is playing a big role there. We have met with Mr. Brahimi. We have welcomed his appointment. And the secretary has appointed Ambassador Richard Haass, our director of policy planning, to be the coordinator of U.S. efforts to work with others in the international community, and to work with the Afghan groups to help them form this type of broad-based government.

Q (Off mike) -- from the Mexican News Agency. I have two questions on Latin America, first on Colombia. The ambassador of Colombia yesterday was talking about the possibility of the United States to see the extradition of members of the FARC and ELN. My question is if you can give us more details about it -- or is something new in terms of this international campaign against terrorism by the United States and the cooperation of countries in America Latina.

And a second question. Today on the Hill, during the hearing with Secretary Powell, Senator Helms asked for a quorum of support to Otto Reich on his nomination to be assistant secretary for Western Hemispheric affairs. And only Mr. Helms and another senator raised up their hands. It was evident that there is no support for him, for Mr. Reich. Do you think the administration will continue to support his nomination, or are you guys already looking for another candidate?

MR. REEKER: On your first question, I believe yesterday Ambassador Patterson, in Colombia, gave a speech to a conference in Cartagena on money laundering, and simply restated what as you know, Jesus, is long-standing U.S. policy, that where U.S. courts have indictments against individuals who are in a foreign country -- individuals indicted for drug trafficking crimes and related offenses, that we will seek to extradite such individuals to stand trial in the United States. Any links that those drug traffickers or indicted individuals may have to terrorist groups, such as the FARC or the ELN, or the AUC -- as you know, we designated all three of those organizations as terrorist groups. They could easily -- those individuals could easily be included if they were indicted. As you know, we talked for many years about the links between terrorist groups in Colombia with drug trafficking, with narco traffickers, and our efforts to help Colombia eradicate the narco trafficking there. So I think there was a simple restatement of U.S. policy on that.

In terms of the nomination of Otto Reich to be the assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, let me just refer you to exactly what Secretary Powell said, and that was he met with Mr. Reich -- he very much supported him. He recommended to the president that we -- that he nominate, that the president nominate Mr. Reich to be assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs. He'd bring tremendous expertise in that field. And the secretary absolutely supports that. We have looked to the Senate to schedule la hearing for Mr. Reich -- that's their decision to make. But, as the secretary indicated, we'd like him to have a hearing, and would like the Senate to give their advice and consent to that nomination. So I'll refer you to exactly what the secretary said, his remarks. And obviously that's a question for the Senate to take up.

Q A follow up?

MR. REEKER: Yeah. Sure.

Q (Name and affiliation inaudible) -- TV, Colombia. The government of Colombia -- sections of the government of Colombia are saying that if the U.S. requests extradition for some guerrilla members that are actually -- probably one of them are in the table talking on the peace process, it would be damaging for the peace process that are slow, but going in Colombia. And also, then again, some of them are in the opposition part of the government -- for the government, they are pretty much for the requests of extradition. What do you think about it, because the U.S. has been always supporting the peace process in Colombia?

That's one question. And the second one, do you have an indictment here for one or many of those guerrilla or paramilitaries, and can you give me --

MR. REEKER: In terms of indictments, obviously, you'd need to talk to the Justice Department or law enforcement agencies. That's not something that the State Department is responsible for.

Again, I can repeat our long-standing position, which has been that where U.S. courts indict individuals for drug trafficking and related offenses, and those individuals are in foreign countries, we will seek to extradite such individuals. So I think we're speaking a little bit in hypotheticals here, but our policy is quite clear on that.

And if you want to pursue specifics on indictments of those charged with drug trafficking and related crimes, then I would refer you to law enforcement agencies.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Again, I think we're talking in hypotheticals. What I can do is tell you what our position is, what U.S. policy is, and I just repeated that for your twice now. The Colombian government will have to speak for themselves.

Sir?

Q My name is Nayyar Zaidi, and I represent the daily Jang in Pakistan. There is a statement by Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld, a headline by USA Today and by other papers, saying that U.S. may not be able to catch Osama bin Laden. And my question is, to what extent does the State Department agree with that position?

MR. REEKER: Obviously, Secretary Rumsfeld is in a position to comment on the operational aspects of military action. I think our goal has been stated quite clearly by the president of the United States, and certainly repeated today on Capitol Hill by Secretary Powell, and that is to go after al Qaeda in the first instance because they have attacked us, they have perpetrated this horrible crime against our country, against the civilized world; to root them out where they have refuge in Afghanistan.

After all, they invaded Afghanistan, foreigners in that country, taking advantage of the Afghan people, with whom we have no quarrel, and the Taliban regime, which has chosen to side with those terrorists, with those murderers.

That is our goal. That is what we will achieve. And so we will continue to fight this campaign with all the tools available to us. And there are military tools, which the Pentagon can talk about, but there are other tools, as well, and I think you're quite aware of the financial tools we've used, the steps we've taken with a number of countries joining with us from our coalition that have allowed us to cut off funding, to seize assets, to close down accounts, to make it impossible for al Qaeda and other terrorist networks to transfer funds and carry out the types of things they're doing.

In terms of that, we have over 66 groups or individuals where accounts have been blocked, and I'm told -- I'm just looking at the latest statistics -- over 100 countries are now working with us, searching for and freezing assets. So our goal is very clear; that is, to bring justice to the terrorists, if not bring them to justice. And the president said that when he first spoke to the Congress after the terrible attacks of September the 11th.

That's what we'll do. Our goal is to root out terrorism with a global reach, and we will continue to do that for the long haul. This is not going to be a short, easy campaign. The American people understand that. They're very supportive of the president, of Secretary Powell, of Secretary Rumsfeld and how we are carrying out this very persistent but patient campaign to bring back our security and not to allow the terrorists to threaten us or to carry out the types of attacks they have in so clearly September.

Sir?

Q Greg Turogue (ph) with the South China Morning Post of Hong Kong. I'm interested in your relationship with the United Nations. There have been various reports over the last two days. One, some references to comments from Kofi Annan suggesting that perhaps the U.S. should be more open in terms of its military strategy to help post-Taliban efforts. And secondly, a report in the Financial Times today that in fact the United Nations is very keen for the U.S. to stop -- or to limit attacks on the front line outside Kabul to delay a Northern Alliance advance. I'm interested in both those two points.

MR. REEKER: I think generally, let me remind you and suggest that you look at the secretary's comments. He's discussed that both today and yesterday on Capitol Hill and spoken about the role the United Nations will play. They play a very important role, they have, in dealing with Afghanistan as we've tried to work with those in the international community to explore ideas of what to do about the situation in Afghanistan even before September the 11th.

U.N. agencies, of course, are vitally important in our humanitarian efforts which we've been carrying out and taking the lead in for many, many years, long before the terrorist attacks and our focus there in terms of going after al Qaeda and that network.

So I think the U.N. will have a crucial role. Mr. Brahimi was here last week, as you're aware. We met with him in New York. Ambassador Haass was in New York. Brahimi came down here. We're continuing to have talks at the U.N., with other countries around the world, and that process will continue.

I think, quite contrary to the article, or at least the headline, in the newspaper you cited earlier, we have no agreement with the United Nations on limiting airstrikes. We've had extensive discussions on how to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan with the United Nations, as I indicated, but the Pentagon and the president of the United States will determine how to carry out the operational activity of all aspects of our military campaign, but the president will also make decisions, as I indicated earlier, in terms of using other tools in our campaign against terrorism.

So we're going to continue working with the U.N. We're going to work with others as well to help establish that broad-based Afghan government. I think specific courses of action are still being developed there, but our focus remains on our campaign against terrorism but also on the humanitarian effort, which is really quite tremendous, and we are getting more and more food into Afghanistan, working with the World Food Program, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other nongovernmental organizations and international organizations that are so vital to that effort, because, after all, we have no quarrel with the Aghan people; we're trying to help feed them.

Q If I might follow up.

MR. REEKER: Mm-hm.

Q (Inaudible) -- but have the U.N. raised concerns with you on that specific issue of the front line outside Kabul and the advance of the Northern Alliance --

MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of --

Q -- in those discussions you?

MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of that issue particularly or specifically in any way. As I said, we've had discussions on how to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, looking at the post-Taliban Afghanistan and how a broad-based government could be formed representative of all the ethnic and geographic groups there.

So we'll continue those discussions with the United Nations. But I'm not aware that that's the type of discussion that we've been having. We've been focusing on humanitarian issues and focusing on what we can do all together to help the Afghans form this broad-based government, to give their people some sort of semblance of better life in a post- Taliban era.

Sir? Right here. Some of my regulars from the --

Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) I have two questions, sir. My first question is, are you planning to airlift food into various places of Afghanistan when winter comes and you still have difficulty in transporting the food to the inside areas?

My second question is, I understand that the idea of forming the peacekeeping force composed of Afghan people has emerged in the recent days. My question is, did the United States administration give the go signal to such an idea?

MR. REEKER: Let me talk about the first question, and that is the food assistance. As I already indicated, we are doing everything we can on the humanitarian front. The president has made quite clear that we will continue to take the lead in helping the Afghan people, and particularly with food, something we've done for much more than a decade, where we've been the largest providers of food to the people of Afghanistan.

For the past several days, in fact, the World Food Program tells us they've been able to increase the amount of food going into Afghanistan. The daily average is now over 2,000 metric tons. They've also confirmed that one of the major warehouses, I believe in Mazar, has not been looted, and so, as a result, they've given authorization to start distributing food. And I'm told that 20,000 families will receive 50 kilograms of wheat, to last them for a month.

As you may be aware, the U.S. Agency for International Development also recently delivered over 35,000 blankets and other shelter materials into Pakistan for help with the refugees that arrive in Pakistan. And that alone brings our USAID assistance for this fiscal year -- that is, just since the 1st of October -- to almost $28 million.

The Department of Defense has already airdropped, as of yesterday, 821,000 humanitarian daily rations into Afghanistan.

And while that's a small percentage, it's really quite a remarkable thing, and I think you've all see photographs on some of our major newspapers of Afghans collecting the bright yellow packages, the humanitarian daily rations, which provide all the essential nutrients for a full day's meal. So that's one small package. And we'll continue looking at other options. Airlifts are always a possibility. We have made much of our military actions, and strikes have taken out the Taliban's capability to prevent air activity. That is, we control the skies there. And so we're able to help deliver more food and make these drops to the Afghan people.

So we'll keep looking at all those options as winter approaches. Of course, that's crucial. Trucks need to get into Afghanistan. We've been working with the international community, with Uzbekistan on options there with another border so there's another entry point. And that will be a major priority for us now and in coming days and as we get into the winter. So we'll -- we will keep doing that.

Now your first -- your second question had to do with --

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Mmm hmm.

Q What about (airlifts ?) not air drops? (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER: Again, that's a possibility. It's an option. Something one could look at. I don't have any specific -- any specific answers on that at this point. We'd have to look at what the military have in terms of capabilities, what the experts think in terms of World Food Program, other UN and international agencies, NGOs, how they think it's best to proceed with this depending on weather conditions, depending on where we need to get the food, what the needs are.

So we're quite (seized ?) with this. The president has been very clear in saying this reflects America, this reflects our values and what's important to us. And as we continue to go after the murderers and criminals that perpetrated these attacks against our country, against all these countries and innocent civilians, we will continue to help the innocent people of Afghanistan who deserve our help.

And your second question had to do with peace-keeping options, I think, roles that might emerge. The secretary has discussed some of those in his testimony. We discussed options and possibilities when we've met with the UN people. We have not established any particular course. We are encouraging efforts of the Afghan groups first to continue working on developing a broad-based government for their country, because the future of Afghanistan is up to the Afghan people. The secretary indicated that there may be a need for UN presence, a significant presence, as you said yesterday, perhaps in Kabul in a governmental/administrative capacity to help the new government. There are options too in terms of peace-keeping possibilities that might be there.

But there are a number of options, the things you mentioned in terms of perhaps different groups that might play a role in peace- keeping. The secretary just mentioned today before the Senate that the -- the possibility of a blue-hatted UN force, but that's a difficult thing to do.

There's also the possibility of a group of the willing, countries that are able to provide forces that could play a role in that. So that's something we need to continue to looking at as this emerges, and that's why we continue to have these broad-based talks with so many people in the international community.

Goyal?

Q Thank you, Phil. Raghubir Goyal, India Globe and Asia Today. Phil, I just came from New York, spent a few days at the United Nations and around New York, and the mood is very low as far as New Yorkers are concerned and also diplomats at the United Nations. And -- (inaudible) -- met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, had a (dinner ?). In early November, head of states are going to gather at the United Nations General Assembly meeting, and the mood is so low that, compared to last year, only about 20 percent of them will be there, head of states and head of governments. And one of them will be India's prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Now, my question is that, one, how this year's General Assembly role will be played by the United Sates because of this attack, and how the U.N. is playing a role. And what is going to -- do you think it's going to be really same way the way meetings were held last year? And two, when secretary of State went to India and Pakistan, he invited the Indian prime minister to -- through a letter he carried from the -- (inaudible) --

MR. REEKER: The president.

Q -- I believe that this is the first time any head of state is coming from the United Nations to the White House, or invited by the president, ever.

Now, is General Musharraf also invited to come to Washington and the White House, or only the Indian prime minister?

MR. REEKER: First of all, I think your questions are better directed at the White House to talk to you about their schedules and their invitations. I don't know if I would necessarily agree with all of the things you described in terms of the history of people visiting the White House after having been to the United Nations. It's a perfect opportunity, often, to meet with people in Washington after they've been in New York.

The United Nations General Assembly is going ahead. It met, of course, and passed a fabulous resolution of support immediately following the attacks on September the 11th, as did the U.N. Security Council. And those resolutions noted, first of all, the tremendous support for the United States, the fact that we had been attacked, and the condemnation of the attacks and of the attackers, the inhuman people that could perpetrate such things against innocent civilians.

The mood I can't reflect upon; I have to allow everybody to make their own interpretation of that. I would suggest that there's a strong upbeat mood in the international community -- and Secretary Powell has talked about that -- in the meetings he's had with foreign leaders, in the tremendous support we have had for the global coalition against terrorism, and that comes from every corner of the globe. And every country, with a couple of minor exceptions, have signed up to be with us, to be part of this effort, because they realize that that is the enemy; that these criminals seek to disrupt and destroy our way of life, our effort to make a better life for people all over the world. And that's why I think we're all working together.

So the meetings in New York City in November -- which of course, as you know, were postponed from when they had been expected to -- will give foreign leaders an opportunity to meet together. I don't have an exact count of how many are expected to be there, and I don't know if we have exact timetables yet for our leaders to go there, but we will be able to announce those in coming days. And it is a good opportunity to meet.

I suspect that the coalition and the campaign against terrorism will be a major topic in their discussions, but there are also many other issues that we need to focus on, and the United Nations is the perfect forum to do that.

So I know Secretary Powell looks forward to that opportunity. He's had contact with so many leaders from countries all over the globe, expressing their support and doing their parts in our campaign. So we'll --

Q General Musharraf has been invited, along with the Indian prime minister?

MR. REEKER: You'll need to check with the White House on the specifics of those --

Q And if I may follow on Afghanistan, please, everybody in the area is trying to have their own favorite type of future Afghanistan, of the government in Afghanistan. Now what's Afghanistan -- I mean, are we talking to the Afghanis? Not only in Afghanistan, but also here we have so many of the moderate Afghanis. What they are telling me -- that education is the main key, that if the U.S. can do a favor to Afghanistan, it will be the education, to educate those

Afghanis, because they had been or they have been educated in wrong way, so far -- all those training schools, like yesterday at the House International Relations Committee, Edward Royce said that there are over 4,000 --

MR. REEKER: Yeah. Do you want to -- we're running out of time here, so we want to focus on the question.

Q Yeah. What kind of government or future of Afghanistan that we are looking --

MR. REEKER: Well, I think I've made that fairly clear in my response to earlier questions. And so if you want to just check the transcript, I'll just try to say that our goal is as broad-based a government for Afghanistan as possible; a government that represents all the Afghan people, the diverse geographic and ethnic mix that characterizes Afghanistan; and a government that can bring stability and order, and actually govern and offer something to its people. And education will be a crucial thing to focus on as that government takes shape and is able to bring stability to the country.

And we're there to help with reconstruction. The president has made that quite clear. So we don't favor any single faction. We're talking to many many factions, different elements of Afghan society. Focussing on our humanitarian aid for the Afghan people now, and we're going to keep up with that.

MODERATOR: In the back. Sir?

Q Thanks. (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Thanks. Two questions. First of all, does the State Department see any clear relation between the lack of military initiative of the Northern Alliance and the lack of an agreement of a new government in Kabul after the war? And second question: How are you measuring the impact of the length of the campaign and lack of military success so far on the cohesion of the alliance?

MR. REEKER: Well, first of all, I would dispute the suggestion of a lack of military success. Obviously, you can go to the Pentagon, which they have everyday, and hear their briefings, and I think those officials have given quite good accounts of the tremendous successes we've had, what we've done in a very precise way, how we are being very focussed in our military efforts there, and obviously the Pentagon can address those operational issues much better. Of course, now, I've already forgotten the first thing. Just remind me.

Q The relations between the lack of military initiative from the Northern Alliance and the lack of an agreement --

MR. REEKER: That's also a subject I don't think I would be in a position to address. I can't speak for the Northern Alliance or do the type of analysis that you are looking for on that. I think it's one of speculation. Our goals in Afghanistan are quite clear. First of all, in our campaign against terrorism, we're there to route out, cut off, render incapable of attacking us.

Again, the al Qaeda network and the Taliban that have supported it, have taken that side. Then I've also talked about our goals for humanitarian assistance and in the longer term for an Afghanistan that has a stable terrorist free society with a government that represents as broad-based a coalition as possible.

Sir?

Q (Off mike) -- first one is, there has been some concern expressed by a small number of countries about the holding of WTO meeting in Qatar. And I want to know what the position of the United States on that, and what effort the United States is exerting to ensure the holding of that meeting in Qatar is held, as opposed to elsewhere?

My second question --

MR. REEKER: Could I answer that one first so I don't forget that, before we go on? First of all, the WTO, Mike Moore, director of that organization, based in Geneva, has announced that the meeting will be held in Doha, Qatar, and we have every expectation to be there. We're going to send a delegation. The U.S. Trade Representative's Office could probably give you more details on our delegation, but we expect that to go ahead. We think it's an important meeting, and we think the government of Qatar needs a lot of credit for all the work they've done in preparing for an excellent meeting there.

So we'll be there; we expect to see other members of the WTO there. And, you know, we look forward to that, because the president said it's very important that we move forward with trade. As I answered your colleague from Costa Rica who asked a question about that, that is going to be a vital element in reenergizing the world economy and getting back to what we know can be a very positive rate of economic growth. Trade is going to be vital to that.

Second question?

Q My second question is, what is the current status of Qatar's diplomatic, military and political standing within the alliance?

MR. REEKER: I think it's -- they've been very supportive. Every country, as you know, plays a different role in the campaign, in our coalition; they'll be called upon to do different things at different times. We have made it a policy, basically, of not speaking for other countries in terms of the steps they've taken; we leave that to them. But we have very close relations with Qatar. And as I said, we look forward to being there for the World Trade Organization meeting. And they're an important country in an important part of the world, and we will continue to pursue our strong relations with them.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Marilena Madeiros (ph) with -- (inaudible) -- Venezuela. As part of the long-term strategy, is the U.S. government planning to build up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? And if so, are negotiations going to take place not only with Mexico and Canada, but with Venezuela?

MR. REEKER: I think you're on a subject that is totally out of my reach. The State Department doesn't do the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I'd refer you to either the White House or the Energy Department that may be able to talk to you about issues like that.

Q The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Agreement with Mexico was done through the American --

MR. REEKER: I'm sure, as we negotiate agreements with countries, the State Department, as the leader of U.S. diplomacy, would be involved in that. But I don't have any specific information on that.

I think those agencies might be able to help you.

This lady here, please.

Q As you know, yesterday the Senate approved a partial waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. And a number of senators indicated that that would uphold both Armenia's and America's interest in the war on terrorism. So I wonder what your reaction was to that.

MR. REEKER: Mmm hmm. As you indicated, yesterday the Senate did --came to some compromise language on that bill, and we welcome that action, since we think it's a crucial, critical element in our war against terrorism, and we think it'll make a contribution to peace in the Caucasus as well. So we welcome that action, and we look to the Senate to finish the process on that.

Q My second question was, I gather from press reports today that the government of Armenia has reacted -- (inaudible) -- and I wondered if you had any --

MR. REEKER: I hadn't seen those reports, and I'd be happy to check into that if you want to be in touch with me tomorrow back at the department. We can look into that. But it's certainly something that we welcome, and we think everyone in the Caucasus should be pleased about it.

Let's go to someone who hasn't had a question yet. Let's go back to Costa Rica next.

Q (Inaudible) -- Associated Press of Pakistan. The secretary-general, UN secretary-general's special representative on Afghanistan, Ambassador Brahimi was in Washington and held a string of meetings at the State Department. Could you please tell us something what the state of play is, where things stand, if they have a better plan than appeared to be the case last time? Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Well, again, I think I've probably answered that question a little bit earlier in this session. We did meet with Mr. Brahimi. We certainly welcome his reintroduction to the process of looking for ways to provide a more stable environment, a terrorist- free environment in Afghanistan. We did have meetings here Friday with him. I'm sure we'll have meetings in the future, just as we had other meetings with others in the international community and a wide variety of elements of Afghan society. At this point, specific courses of action are still being developed. Our goal, again, is to work with the UN and others to help the Afghans establish a broad- based government. The future of Afghanistan is up to the Afghan people. We are consulting with friends and allies on how best we can help them achieve that goal.

As you know, meetings have taken place with different groups of Afghans in Peshawar, upcoming in Turkey. That's an important process, and we have processes too to continue a dialogue with the UN, with Mr. Brahimi and others in the international community. But there's no specific course of action at this point. Our goals, though, I think are quite clear and are joined by the UN and other leaders around the globe.

Yes, next you, yeah.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Uh-huh.

Q You mentioned the -- (inaudible) -- meeting. In his testimony before the House yesterday, Mr. Powell seemed to indicate that the United States had asked Pakistan not to let this meeting be held in Pakistan. Would you like to elaborate on that? If so, then what could have been the reasons for American reservations?

MR. REEKER: I don't know that I can really elaborate on what the secretary said. I'd just refer you to his remarks. I think for many Afghans, it was important to hold that meeting. They've met in Peshawar. And we welcome the effort by Afghans to work together. As I said, that's going to be the fundamental driving force in allowing them to build a broad-based government that's representative of the Afghan people and can pursue a more stable, secure Afghanistan that's free of terrorists. That's our goal, and we'll continue, as I said, to work with all involved in this.

And Pakistan has an interest in this as well. They've been a partner in the "six plus two" process, where the United States and Russia have joined the six countries that neighbor Afghanistan. After all, the future of Afghanistan is going to be important for the future of the region and all the countries in the region, as well as other countries in the world have interest in seeing stability and, most importantly, a terrorist-free environment evolve in Afghanistan. That's what we'll keep working on.

Can we go to -- back to Costa Rica, if there's another question there, or is that too late?

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Can you hear me? (Pause.) Can I hear you?

(Pause.) Maybe they can hold up a sign with the question.

Q (Off mike.) Can you hear us now?

MR. REEKER: Yes.

Q Hello.

MR. REEKER: Hi.

Q Okay. (Inaudible.)

MR. REEKER: Great.

Q So there have been U.S. attacks in Afghanistan in which children have accidentally died. Do you consider this a violation of international humanitarian law?

MR. REEKER: We take every precaution in our military action to prevent the loss of innocent life. What we're doing in Afghanistan, as I indicated, is waging a campaign against terrorists, against people -- against a network of criminals who attacked our country on September the 11th, who killed thousands of innocent people, without any regard to their status, simply for the sake of killing, simply for their own aims.

We're acting in self-defense in Afghanistan. Our goal is to root out those terrorists and those who support them, the Taliban regime.

The Department of Defense has made very clear the U.S. military goes to every length to avoid any innocent casualties or injuries, and we regret very much every time an innocent person is injured or even killed in that action. We regret that very much and we do whatever we can to avoid that. We are waging a war, not against the Afghan people, because we have no quarrel with them; in fact, we are doing everything we can to feed them, to shelter them, to help them, working with others in the international community, to also see that they have a better future, a future that is not scarred by being in a country that has taken in foreign invaders, these terrorist groups that have done nothing for them but to bring them even more misery under a regime like the Taliban.

So our goals are quite clear, and I can say quite categorically that we do everything we can to avoid any accidental civilian casualties in this. And we will continue to pursue that policy even as we go after those who have attacked us.

Sir? Over here.

Q (Name and affiliation inaudible.) Last week a letter was received in Argentina that contained anthrax and was sent from the United States, apparently from Florida. This raises the possibility that these attacks with anthrax that have been seen in the United States might extend to what in a previous context were called soft targets, targets -- (inaudible) -- the United States, that for that reason might come under attack. I know you don't like to deal with hypotheticals, but what sort of support would the State Department advocate, support, such as law enforcement or financial, for countries that come under this kind of attack?

MR. REEKER: Well, we have seen a tremendous number of these anthrax scares all around the world. Many of our embassies have received mysterious, suspicious packages. There have been scares with white powder. And you've seen here in Washington, of course, what we're dealing with, which is clearly terrorism. The links of anthrax cases to September the 11th or other aspects of terrorism are not clear. That's something that the law enforcement officials are working on very closely. The White House has addressed that issue. Clearly, we'll need to continue to be in touch with our friends and partners overseas, with other countries, if they experience these things.

It shows once again that the reach of terrorism can be global, it's not isolated. Terrorism knows no geography, just as it knows no religion. And this is vicious, criminal behavior without justification. It's uncivilized. It's inhuman. And in fact, it's evil. And that's what we're fighting against. So we will continue to work here as we deal with these anthrax cases using all the resources we have in our health care community, our scientific community and our law enforcement community, and I'm sure we'll look to sharing information with others that experience these kinds of things.

We need to focus on establishing the facts and then look to taking the appropriate steps to stop those that are perpetrating these types of evils crimes.

Q (Off mike) -- contingency plans for the boosting of defense in these threatened countries?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think we're quite happy to work together with other countries as we all face this type of threat. I don't have anything specific to offer for you, but I'm sure we're in touch with other countries. In fact, today, at the State Department, we held a briefing for diplomats from other countries to just bring them up to date on the security and health-related issues, many of those diplomats obviously residing here in Washington, where we've been dealing with this anthrax situation. So we're trying to share information, and we'll continue to do that. And we're keeping all of our posts, all of our embassies and consulates abroad up to date on developments here. We had today at the State Department the first case of an employee who tested positive for anthrax at an off-site facility, a mail-handling facility in Virginia. And that individual is currently hospitalized and being treated, but did test positive for anthrax. And where or how he was exposed is still not known. But we're obviously working very closely with health authorities to try to determine that as well as with law enforcement, and our mail-handling employees are taking antibiotics beginning yesterday. Antibiotics were being distributed to those that handle mail, and we're not accepting any mail at this -- at the department at this time.

One more question. Can we go to somebody that didn't have one? Sir?

Q (Inaudible) -- in London. The question concerns Cyprus, where for 27 years, they've been pursuing some resolution to their problem through international institutions, international law. Two years ago, roughly, the government side lost a small border post to the north. And it seems to many perhaps that those means are not paying off, whereas terrorism can focus positive attention in terms of aid to countries like Afghanistan. How high is Cyprus now on the U.S.'s agenda? And how -- is there going to be a change in emphasis for such an approach as the Cypriot approach?

MR. REEKER: Well, I'd like to dispute any suggestion that terrorism focuses positive energy on anything. Terrorism is something that is entirely negative. It's criminal. It's murder that we've seen. And we're going to do everything we can to put a stop to it. But that doesn't mean we're going to allow the terrorists to hijack other foreign policy priorities. In fact, we continue to pursue all of the important aspects of our foreign policy, and Cyprus is one of those. We've taken a great interest in Cyprus. We'd like to see a resolution there, as you know. I don't have anything new to announce, other than that we continue to support the UN process. And everybody needs to do what they can to use that process to move towards a peaceful resolution of that.

So, we'll continue to focus on that and so many other aspects of our foreign policy because it's important to us, just as it's important to us to get back our security and continue this effort, and we will be victorious in our campaign against terrorism, and take these threats away.

Thank you all very much. Look forward to next time.

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.