Weeking Briefing for Foreign Media

3:35 P.M. EST

MR. REEKER: Thanks, Peter. Thanks, everyone, for coming today. Glad I can be here again. Trying to make this at least a weekly event. I'm a little rushed for time today, so Peter will let me know when I have to wrap up. I do have to get on to some other things.

I'd like to just say, before I begin with your questions, that there are subjects some of you raise that I'm just not up to speed on, I'm not prepared to answer, but I want you to know that when we take those questions, we really will make every effort to work directly with the Foreign Press Center to get you answers to those. So make sure you keep in touch with the Foreign Press Center staff on that, and if you haven't gotten a response in a couple of days, they will get on to my office over at the main department, and we will do whatever we can to get you answers on that.

So I don't have any particular announcements, but I'm happy to cut straight to your questions.

Yes, sir?

Q (Name inaudible) -- with the Middle East news agency -- (inaudible).

MR. REEKER: Hi.

Q Well, roughly 10 days ago, actually, the State Department, and you personally, asked the Israelis to withdraw immediately from Area A of the Palestinian. Apparently, clearly this didn't happen so far. What about this "immediately"? Do you have a lack of communication? And I wonder if you have any comment about the daily killing, actually two people were assassinated today, and two were assassinated yesterday.

(Brief audio break.)

MR. REEKER: (In progress following audio break) -- Middle East to see the two sides return to a process where they can resume negotiations and get back to a position where they're prepared to deal with final status issues and come up with a permanent peace solution for the problem that has plagued the region for so long. And, of course, that would be on the basis of the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

We reiterate again that the Israelis should act to complete the process of withdrawal from all Palestinian-controlled areas. It's very important for all sides to act in a manner that helps to restore calm and reinforces efforts to confront terror and violence. And on that end, Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must also act now to carry out their responsibilities and move immediately to find, arrest, and bring to justice all those responsible for, and bring an immediate cessation of terrorist actions and violence against Israelis.

Again, both sides have to do all they can to reduce the violence and restore calm. They've got to break the cycle of violence so that the two parties can get back into the process that they've both agreed is the way they want to go, that is using the Mitchell committee recommendations as a roadmap back towards an opportunity to negotiate direct dialogue between the parties we think is important.

The government of Israel has told us that it does not intend to remain in Area A, and we continue to urge Israel to complete the withdrawal from Area A, and exercise restraint in the use of force to avoid civilian casualties. The secretary has reiterated that message in his conversations with Israeli leaders. Ambassador Kurtzer and Consul General Schlicher remain in close contact with both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. And so we continue to monitor that situation very closely and hope that the sides can move toward the Mitchell Plan and make some progress in that.

Q If I may follow up?

MR. REEKER: Please.

Q Well, I mean, so the administration is sticking to its call for an immediate withdrawal, but does it leave that to the Israelis to decide which place of withdrawal -- which, when, and how they will make that decision?

MR. REEKER: Our position hasn't changed. We don't think that the Israeli policy has helped efforts to restore and maintain calm. All sides have to focus on avoiding provocative actions and work to avoid escalation and tension. Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have got to also take immediate action to get the violence down, to end this type of terrorist activity.

The president has been quite clear, and the secretary of State is also committed to maintaining this firm pressure on the Palestinian Authority to make 100 percent effort to stop the violence, arrest the terrorists, and we're going to make our concerns clear, and make them clear not only in public but also in our conversation with the Israeli leaders and Palestinian leaders as well.

MODERATOR: Sir?

Q Mr. Reeker, I'm AP reporter for Latin America. I just want to jump to Latin American nations.

MR. REEKER: Okay.

Q And as you know, there's going to be an election in Nicaragua this weekend, and there is a potential winner in the former president, Ortega. And in some countries in Latin America they are talking about a potential communist triangle conformed by President

Chavez in Venezuela, Fidel Castro in Cuba, and possibly Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Is in any way the administration, the U.S. administration, concerned about this potential triumph of Daniel Ortega and that potential communist triangle?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think our views on Cuba are quite well- known, and nothing has changed in that regard because Mr. Castro has not seen fit to look to some change in his regime.

I don't want to speculate, as many people have, on scenarios or possibilities. We think there's been tremendous progress in Latin America, tremendous change in the last decade, in terms of democracy. And we've seen progress consequently on the economic front, and we want to see that continue.

And I think we've had a tremendous unity of purpose in our hemisphere. The Organization of American States has illustrated that extremely well. The charter of democracy that was agreed to in Lima, when Secretary Powell was there, on the 10th and 11th of September, I think, speaks volumes about the progress we've made, about the shared values we have all through this hemisphere.

In terms of Nicaragua, we've made clear concerns we've had in the past, in the history of the Sandinista regime. Our view has also been clear that we will work with the government that's democratically elected in a free and fair election. We are supporting election monitoring for Nicaragua in the upcoming election you mentioned. And so we'll have to see how that goes. I think it's important that the people of Nicaragua take seriously the opportunity to cast their vote and think about their future. And democracy is obviously what we want to see there.

So we need to wait and see the results of those elections. Our overriding hope is that they're free and fair elections. And so we maybe can talk about that after those elections take place next week.

But I do think, overall, in Latin American we have seen such tremendous change in a decade, and really positive change, where the whole hemisphere is experiencing democracy, with the exception one small island south of Florida. And someday we'd like to see change there as well.

Yes?

Q Hi. Good to see you here again.

MR. REEKER: Thank you.

Q Hasan Hazar, Turkiye Daily. Today the Turkish government made a decision to send some special forces to Afghanistan. So what's your comment on that issue?

MR. REEKER: Let me just say that we greatly appreciate Turkey's strong support and close cooperation. As you know, Turkey is a key

NATO ally and a partner in the global campaign against terrorism -- NATO, of course, immediately after the attacks of September the 11th declaring that in fact that attack upon the United States was an attack upon all those in the NATO alliance, all 19 countries.

And so we're grateful for the Turkish offer of support for the coalition's effort, including military forces. I really have to refer you to the Turkish government for specifics on that and the nature of their specific support. And I'll let them speak to that. But it's certainly something we appreciate greatly.

And again, I'll reflect that -- our appreciation for the support of the whole alliance.

I think it's an important example of how the world has come together and the structure that we've built over recent decades like NATO, like the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly, also passing resolutions of absolute support and condemnation for what happened to the United States when we were attacked on September the 11th. So again, our thanks to Turkey for their support. And I'll let them talk to you about the specifics of what they may be offering and contributing to the military side of our campaign against terrorism.

Sir, in the back. Yes.

Q (Off mike) -- more or less conventional wisdom that the United States is losing or has already lost the so-called PR war among the Arabic and Islam world. Do you share this -- do you agree with this opinion? And what is the department of State undertaking to wage this war? What is exactly the mission of Ms. Charlotte Beers, for instance?

MR. REEKER: Mmm hmm. I first of all do not agree with what you describe as conventional wisdom. I certainly read about it in journalistic reports. And it's remarkable to me that we can make these vast judgments about winning or losing, when just seven weeks ago, we were attacked in those remarkable attacks against the World Trade Center and against the Pentagon here in Washington that will remain forever in everybody's mind, the vision of that, the images of that.

Obviously there is a challenge in getting the information, getting our story to the entire world. We do that through a variety of means. One of them is doing just what we're doing now, trying to speak to you, the journalists, whose job it is to act as a conduit of information and facts to audiences all over the world. And that's why we have briefings not only at the State Department, at the Defense Department, at the White House, but also here at the Foreign Press Center to cater specifically to the foreign journalists to give you an extra opportunity to come here.

From the State Department's point of view, our public affairs and public diplomacy efforts are very much ongoing. There's things that we have been doing in some cases for many years. Obviously, with the new focus in the campaign against terrorism after we've been attacked, we need to continue getting our story out. We need to do that in the Arab world, in the broader Muslim world, in South Asia. Those are very important parts of the world. We have long, solid relationships with the peoples and the governments of those areas of the world. Sometimes you're facing very complex information environments where it's difficult to communicate with people in Afghanistan itself, where we have absolutely no quarrel with the people of Afghanistan, but only with those who have invaded Afghanistan and used it as a base to perpetrate the type of horrors we've seen against our country and against others in terms of terrorism around the world. We try to communicate with the people of Afghanistan in a very difficult environment.

Geographically they're very isolated. They've been kept isolated by the Taliban regime, by people who live in caves. And so that's a challenge in and of itself.

But in other parts of the world, we try to reach out through local media, through direct contacts, through exchange programs, and we'll continue to do that. We're coordinating with some of our allies. There have been briefings and discussion around town today about efforts we're taking at the White House to coordinate the coalition communications and information operations both here in Washington, in London and in Islamabad so we can take advantage of the 24-hour news cycle, which has become a staple of our modern age.

And so certainly our story needs to be told and understood. Our facts need to be presented. And that's, I think, the key to this, is making sure that people have the opportunity to hear the facts, to know what we're doing, to be reminded of what was perpetrated against us seven weeks ago; that we were attacked, that we're acting in self- defense, and that the whole world, with very minor exception, is on the side of civilization, of the coalition against this, with each country contributing in different ways because everybody realizes, people of all religions realize that terrorism knows no religion, terrorism knows no geography, terrorism is about the mindless killing of innocent civilians -- like what happened on September the 11th.

And so we're working together utilizing all the tools at our disposal, and that includes information tools, and making quite clear what our goals are, how we're proceeding with this, and we'll continue to get that message out in every channel that we can find.

Q Can you be more specific on Ms. Beers' contribution?

MR. REEKER: Charlotte Beers is the undersecretary of State for public diplomacy and public affairs. She was nominated by President Bush because of her tremendous experience in the private sector here in terms of global communications. We can get you her biographic information. I think people are quite familiar with her remarkable career as a real communicator, truly, in a 21st century sense of it, utilizing various media at our disposal. And so Charlotte is focused on working with all the elements in the U.S. government to get our message out, use experience that we have in this country in communicating. I think it's one of the things that, frankly, most people in the world agree Americans do very well.

So I don't have specific items to offer for you. I think in coming days, next week, we expect to talk a little more about some of these things. But clearly the bottom line is about getting out the message to the whole world, to some people who may be more isolated, people who clearly have some mistaken views and erroneous understandings of what it is to be American, what America is about, what our society is about, our values, our policies. And so we're going to continue utilizing all these tools, and Under Secretary Beers is excellently poised working with other experts in our government, with governments overseas, to help get this message out. So we'll have more coming. We'll keep you posted as we have new things to offer.

MODERATOR: Yes?

MR. REEKER: Sir? Bounce over here? Right here and then over there.

Q From the perspective of the State Department -- Mr. Parasuram of the Press Trust of India. From the perspective of the State Department, how do you view the forthcoming visit of the prime minister of India, accepting an invitation from the president?

And secondly, you mentioned quite rightly that it's a 24-hour business, the news is a 24-hour business. And we also have a time difference. Formerly the State Department's briefings were available the same evening, and for one-man bureaus, you know it's not possible to be in every place. But these days I find that sometimes you don't get it the same day. I was wondering whether, with the enormous resources of the State Department, it's possible to ensure that a transcript is made available the same night. It's all ready for the next day because of the time difference if it's done usually.

MR. REEKER: I always have it the same night. But if you're not getting it the same night, we need to find out why and determine that. I think occasionally there are technical problems that may occur in terms of posting the transcript of our briefing when you're not able to be there in person. I can certainly understand the difficulty in covering all the briefings in Washington. But we'll look into that and try to find out. If you want to contact the Press Office, talk to them about that, explain when you've had difficulty doing that, because the transcript is prepared as quickly as possible afterwards. I know many people around the world are looking for that.

On your first question, that is the upcoming visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee, I know that the White House has spoken about this, and the State Department echoes the extreme pleasure at hosting the Indian prime minister. This is a terrific opportunity for us to continue following up on a wide range of bilateral issues that we share. Of course the coalition against terrorism is an important element. India lost many citizens in the attacks of September the 11th in New York, but has also been a very important player in an important region in supporting our efforts against terrorism, which, of course, involve so many different aspects, from intelligence sharing, law-enforcement cooperation to general diplomatic effort at that.

So I think we'll have an opportunity to review that, as well as economic relations -- a whole variety of our broad bilateral relations with India. And the president has said how much he looks forward to receiving the Indian prime minister. So we'll look forward to that and be sure to get you news of those meetings.

I promised to go over here.

Sir?

Q Jose Carreno with El Universal, Mexico City.

MR. REEKER: Hi.

Q Two very easy questions. One: This morning the State Department said that a letter from Mexico City to the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo had some sort of suspicious powder. I wonder if you can expand on that, if you have contacted the Mexican government on that, et cetera? And second: How real -- both in Mexico and Canada, the recent talk of the negotiation of a , quote, unquote "security bubble" with the United States or security perimeter. How real or unreal are these negotiations?

MR. REEKER: On your first question -- and we did talk about this earlier at Ambassador Boucher's briefing at the State Department -- our embassy in Montevideo, Uruguay, closed today, after they received a package which contained a suspicious white powder.

Now, as you know, we've had a number of these incidents at our embassies and consulates abroad, just like so many other organizations in many countries have had the "white-powder incidents," as we call them. As a precaution, our embassy staff was evacuated, and the embassy has been closed temporarily. I think they hope to reopen, obviously, as soon as possible.

The package is being tested in Uruguay, at the National Police Laboratory, and we don't have results on that. I do understand that the package containing this envelope originated in Mexico City, but I don't have any more details on it. It's one of those things we will follow up, just as we follow up the results of the testing on that.

The vast, vast majority of these white-powder incidents have turned out to be unhazardous materials. They are, I think in many cases, hoaxes. It's a sick way of distracting people in a time when there is a lot of anxiety based on this -- the real terrorist threats that we've seen, with anthrax and suspicious substances here in the United States and abroad.

I don't have any more details on that, but we'll certainly keep you posted. We've been trying to make available every day the latest updates on issues at our embassies abroad and also the situation in terms of positive tests for anthrax at some limited number of State Department mailrooms.

On the broader subject, I don't have any particular details on that. Obviously, we are looking at a variety of ways of improving security here at home, in terms of our homeland defense. But clearly, our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are part of that. You know, we've been talking with Mexico for some time about looking at border issues and other things.

We work also closely with Canada. And all three of our countries, I think, work closely together. The interest, of course, right now focusing on what steps can be taken to improve security, after we've seen the type of action that can be perpetrated against us.

And terrorism threatens all of us, not just here in this hemisphere or on our continent, but everyone in the world. The terrorists know no boundaries; they know no religion. They are simply criminals, murderers. And so I think the more we can work together, we'll be doing that.

Part of the coalition building has involved working together on a variety of levels, that includes law enforcement, exchange of information, and intelligence. And so while I don't have anything specific to offer you on work within the three countries -- Canada, Mexico, and the United States -- I know it's something that we will continue to pursue with, obviously, our two closest neighbors.

Sir?

Q Dimitri -- (last name inaudible ) -- Russian news agency Tass. Do you have any idea why the Russian representatives -- a Russian delegation was not invited to FATF meetings that took place in Washington these days?

MR. REEKER: To whose meetings?

Q FATF money laundering working group, international -- F-A- T-F.

MR. REEKER: I'm afraid I don't. That's something I could check into, perhaps with the Treasury Department, or if that was carried out through an international -- multinational organization, it's something I'd have to follow up afterwards.

Q Thank you.

MR. REEKER: As you know, we've had meetings going on today with another Russian delegation, that is your Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov, and his colleagues have been meeting this morning with Secretary of State Powell. And I think Ambassador Boucher made some comments on those meetings. And they continue to prepare for the summit meeting between President Putin, President Bush, that will be upcoming in about two weeks time. And Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is departing this weekend for Russia. So we have a lot of interaction going on at so many different levels.

Yes, sir?

Q (Off mike) -- the Italian News Agency.

MR. REEKER: Yes.

Q I have two questions for you. The first one, perhaps Ambassador Boucher already addressed in the briefing, but unfortunately, I wasn't there. The Washington Post today writes about the fact that the United States are now uncoupling the efforts, military and diplomatic efforts, on Afghanistan. In the view of the State Department, is that right, is that approach (finally ?) described or not?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think I glanced at the Washington Post article. There are so many articles on these issues every day, I can't look at all of them.

There are so many aspects, as I've indicated, to our campaign against terrorism. And the president has described those from the very beginning, when he talked about this campaign, about our goal of wiping out, first of all, the al Qaeda network and those that have chosen to harbor al Qaeda, but also eliminating, ultimately, the terrorist threat, so that we can regain the security that we've lost.

That's being carried out in so many different ways, and the military aspect is just one of those.

The future of Afghanistan is something that's first of all concerned us for a long time. As you know, there have been methods to discuss this issue. The United Nations has overseen the "six plus two" mechanism, for instance, where the six neighboring countries of Afghanistan, and Russia and the United States, have met on a fairly regular basis under the U.N. auspices to discuss what to do with Afghanistan.

But the Afghan people have suffered greatly for two decades, at least -- civil war, now with natural disaster and drought -- and of course, the last five years under the Taliban regime have seen an extraordinarily discouraging loss of basic human rights for the Afghan people, where food has been used as a weapon.

And while we have done all we can to provide food and humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people, we've continued also to consult on the future of Afghanistan, and those consultations are aimed at creating a broad-based government for Afghanistan, and those continue with the Northern Alliance, with other organizations, with the king in Rome, with other Afghan groups, with others in the international community. We have a lot of discussions. Ambassador Haass, as I think we've discussed here before, our director of Policy Planning at the State Department, has been appointed the secretary's special representative, the coordinator of our U.S. government efforts at helping the Afghan people form a broad-based government that can provide some stability, some security, and -- perhaps above all -- a terrorist-free Afghanistan in the future.

So those continue. The U.N. special ambassador -- special representative, Mr. Brahimi, is traveling in the region now.

I don't think that one can draw too close a connection always between the discussion and the search for a broad-based government to come into Afghanistan, to provide some stability, to govern, to provide governance for the people of Afghanistan, with some of the specific aspects of our campaign against terrorism, including the military aspect. I leave it to the Pentagon to first of all make the decisions, but then also discuss the operational aspects of our activity. They're very focused, they're extremely targeted in what they're doing to eliminate the ability of the -- first of all, the al Qaeda network to operate, removing their command and control ability.

And that goes for the Taliban, which have basically allied themselves -- which are just about an extension of the al Qaeda network.

That's what the military is doing, and I talked about what we and the rest of the international community are doing with the various Afghan groups inside and outside of Afghanistan to look at the future.

Q My second question is on Italy. The fact that the State Department put Italy in the first group of countries for the revision of the visa waiver program, does it mean that the United States are not satisfied with the Italian participation in the global coalition against terrorism?

MR. REEKER: Absolutely not. And the Italian participation, just like our Turkish allies, our Italian allies have been extraordinarily supportive, and we're appreciative of that support. It's very important not to try to mix issues.

And Ambassador Boucher did discuss a bit the visa waiver program at today's briefing, but I'd be happy to go over it more. The law which allowed the visa waiver program requires that over the next five years, we review every country that participates in that program. There are 29 countries that participate in that. And we have to review the continuing eligibility of those countries a minimum of once in every five years, so that basically means that each year, we're going to do six countries. And what we did announce, we put out a statement I believe on the 31st -- on the 30th of October, two days ago, announcing the periodic review of this, which we carry out, in conjunction with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but also with the specific countries. And so Italy is one of the six countries, the first six that we're reviewing along with Argentina, Belgium, Portugal, Slovenia and Uruguay. And it's an ongoing process. We're going to end up reviewing all 29 of those countries. The selection, by the way, of the first six was made prior to September the 11th, so even though I already said it, that just gives you one more indication that there's no connection to the campaign against terrorism and the efforts there, and all aspects of the country's participation will be reviewed in that process, working very closely I think with the country, because it's an important issue for those countries too.

Q Just a follow up.

MR. REEKER: Sure.

Q (Off mike) -- follow up on this review. And what are the guidelines that the Department of State is following for reviewing?

MR. REEKER: Well, we have a standard set of criteria that countries meet to be eligible for the visa waiver program, and each of the 29 countries that participate has met those criteria.

In order to qualify for the program, every country has to meet criteria including effective border control, law enforcement, traditionally low visa refusal rates for citizens of that country, reciprocity for U.S. travelers, passport security. One of the requirements is to have machine-readable passports in place or be developing that type of program. So all of those countries, all 29 countries met those criteria and were made part of the visa waiver program.

And under the law that was signed last year, October 2000, we have to review them. Within five years, we have to review all 29 of them, so as I said, that means about six per year. And we'll work with the INS and with each government, those six countries this year, to review all of these criteria. And it's a fairly systematic thing, and next year there will be another six countries that we'll do, continue to do it that way, in accordance with our law.

Yes, sir?

Q Stefano Marci (ph), Italy, Il Tempo. On the same subject --

MR. REEKER: All the Italian --

Q Yes.

MR. REEKER: -- (inaudible word) -- today. Yes, please.

Q We know there are those criteria for the eligibility for that program, but what we don't know yet is according to what criteria the Department of State has selected six countries for the first review. And I would like to ask you whether this selection, selection of these countries could be motivated by the wish on the part of the United States to put some pressure on those countries to improve their respect for those eligibility criteria.

MR. REEKER: I just wouldn't want to read too much into it. We had to select six countries because you have to start somewhere. And I'm just not in a position to go into how they selected these six. Ultimately, within five years, all of them will have been selected. So I don't think there's any particular reason to try to define how we chose the first six.

You know, as I said, these countries were selected prior to September 11th. There are a number of factors that I mentioned that go into being eligible for the visa waiver program. Obviously, all 29 countries met those criteria or they wouldn't be in the program already. And under the law, we have to review those things. And so we've chosen these six countries, including Italy. We'll be working closely with the Italian government in reviewing all of these things, in reviewing security of documents, in reviewing the other factors -- visa refusal rates, law enforcement cooperation.

And so I don't think anything should be particularly read in or out of those selections.

Six countries were chosen, and we'll proceed with that, and then we'll do six more when we move into next year.

In the back. Yes, ma'am?

Q Huyn Kew Lee from MBC-TV, Korea. The North Koreans recently changed their attitude toward the dialogue with United States. Any comments and your reaction on this matter?

MR. REEKER: I don't think there's anything new to add on that. The president has made quite clear that we desire to have a dialogue without preconditions and that we would hope to have a positive response from North Korea. We haven't had that response, so we will continue to look for that response. We think it would be important to pursue that dialogue. We also think it would be important to see the peninsula discussion between North and South Korea continue because we think that's very important. And we've said before how much we appreciate the support of South Korea and the president there and his efforts -- the Sunshine Policy. So we'll continue to hope for a positive response from the North Koreans.

Yes, sir?

Q (Inaudible) -- with Middle East News Agency. Well, actually the message we get from the State Department and the White House is that Egypt is doing what it is expected to do in terms of fighting terrorism and cooperation with the U.S. But the message we get from the Congress is that there is some sort of an increase in the way of criticism, and actually leading members like Senator McCain and Senator McConnell and other senators as well -- they started criticizing Egypt and saying it's not doing enough, along with Saudi Arabia, of course. Do we have here a gap? Do we have a loss of communication between the administration in one part and the Congress in the other? And is the administration doing enough to let the Congress people know what Egypt is doing?

This is one thing, and if I may add to this, we have seen an increase -- some increase, and I'm sure you are aware of that -- in the press pieces and pieces in the press criticizing Egypt for its political system in one part and for condoning the political message of bin Laden, for talking about Middle East peace and the need to push it forward. Does any of these pieces reflect the official line of the State Department?

MR. REEKER: No. I think we've been quite clear, not just now in the campaign against terrorism, but earlier where we've always talked about Egypt as being such an important partner in the peace process in the Middle East. And certainly since September the 11th, Egypt has been supportive, been cooperative, has condemned the attacks, has condemned terrorism and al Qaeda and bin Laden.

I think we've heard voices out of Egypt, not even the government voices, but also talking about how this type of attack does not represent Islam, for instance. A number of scholars and Islamic experts from Egypt, which is an important voice in the Islamic world, have talked about that.

We have made it a real practice not to try to describe what other countries are doing, but -- other than to say that we're satisfied and appreciate the support of Egypt. Similarly, you've seen many press reports about Saudi Arabia, and we've been quite clear -- the secretary of State made quite clear again yesterday that Saudi Arabia has done everything we've asked them to do. In terms of a coalition against terrorism, we may have more things we ask them to do in the future, and with Egypt.

Remember, there are so many different aspects to this. There's law enforcement cooperation. There's intelligence and information sharing. There's financial steps that are being taken all around the world, some 150 countries that are taking action in the financial world to close down the ability of these groups to operate.

So I think many Egyptians understand, the Egyptian government understands that groups like bin Laden, people that have no religion, that can claim no true nationality, are a threat to all of us. They're a threat to Egypt. They're a threat to the United States, as we've seen. And we're going to continue working together with Egypt.

I don't think I can comment particularly on the press commentary. I have no control over what the press chooses to write, just as we have no control over what the press chooses to write in Egypt. I think that's the job of journalists -- to try to write stories that reflect facts. And we would hope to have the same thing happen in Egypt, in stories that talk about the United States and our policy.

On the question about Congress, again, I can't speak for the Senate or the House of Representatives, or for individual members of Congress. But we do try to keep them very up-to-date and briefed on what's happening in the coalition. I believe officials were again on -- from the State Department were on Capitol Hill again today, meeting with representatives and senators, because it's very important, as you know, in our system that Congress play a full role in that. So we do our part to keep them informed, and I think our private statements reflect what I'm saying in public about the support we've achieved and the support we expect to continue.

If anything, I think the support from around the world for the aims and the goals of the coalition and what we are trying to accomplish in terms of cutting off, cutting out the terrorist threat has only grown. It's continued to grow, because people are reminded -- even if the press forgets, people are reminded of what happened September the 11th, and they realize what a threat we all face from this.

MODERATOR: (Off mike) -- a couple more.

MR. REEKER: We've got time for perhaps two more if there is anybody.

Right behind you, and then we can go with you again.

Yes, sir?

Q Greg Turogue (sp) with the South China Morning Post of Hong Kong.

MR. REEKER: Okay. Go ahead.

Q I have a question concerning North Korea. Has the changed environment since September 11th -- is it going to make it more difficult to seriously get moving with normalization talks with North Korea, particularly the issue of North Korea remaining on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism?

MR. REEKER: I think it follows onto what your colleague just asked a couple of questions ago. We've made quite clear our desire -- the president himself has made quite clear -- to pursue a dialogue with North Korea. We reviewed the policy there and announced that we would like to have a dialogue to discuss matters of concern, and obviously, terrorism and state sponsorship of terrorism is something that is of concern to us. We haven't had a positive response to our offer for an unconditional dialogue, but we'll continue to wait for that and hope that we get one.

The goal, of course, of our efforts, in terms of terrorism, long before September the 11th, was to try to eliminate the threats. That's why we have a list of state sponsors of terrorism. The goal is to get countries off that list, and that's what we'd like to see. And I think we're able in dialogue to be very clear about what steps countries would need to take in terms of making the appropriate changes in the way they deal with the world -- to be removed from that list. So, in the case of North Korea, we, as I said, hope to have that dialogue. We've made that offer, and we'll continue to wait for a positive response from Pyongyang.

And I believe, sir, you had the last question, unless there was somebody that hadn't had a chance.

Q Yes. Thank you, Phil.

My question is about Venezuela. And as you know, there is a long list of developments of friction between the governments of Caracas and Washington. And the last two are related to the war on terrorists.

President Chavez was criticizing the way the U.S. is waging this war. And secondly, the U.S. ambassador in Caracas was called by the foreign minister to talk about not looking at -- into these Venezuelan offers.

How would you term the current relationship between Venezuela and the U.S.?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think the important thing to focus on is that we've had a long-standing and serious, important relationship with Venezuela going back through history. It's been of great value to both our countries. We would like to continue a mutually beneficial relationship.

As I think we've commented from the department, we are surprised and deeply disappointed about the comments that President Chavez made on October 29th.

And it's important for everybody, including President Chavez, to understand that the war against international terrorism is an issue of fundamental importance to the United States, and anything that deters or detracts from the endeavor could have a negative impact on our relationship.

In terms of our ambassador, we have asked Ambassador Hrinak to return to Washington for consultations and to discuss the current state of our bilateral relationship with Venezuela. She arrived in Washington this morning, and she expects to return to Venezuela once her consultations are complete.

So again, we want to have a continuation of our long tradition of strong relations with Venezuela, but we are disappointed at the comments that President Chavez made on October the 29th. And I think it's a reflection of how seriously we take our war against international terrorism, how important that is to us, and as you've seen from virtually all the countries in the world, how important everyone in the civilized world takes this effort because they realize what this is about, they understand that our goals are: to be able to live in security and move forward, working together in an international community for peace and prosperity.

Q Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Thank you very much.

Q 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.