Weekly Briefing for Foreign Media

MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to once again welcome Mr. Philip Reeker, the deputy spokesman of the Department of State. Thank you very much. Thank you, Philip.

MR. REEKER: Thank you, Peter, and good afternoon, everybody. I'm pleased to be back here this week, as usual. And today is a special day; we didn't have a regular briefing at the State Department, but here at the Foreign Press Center we're happy to be able to take your questions on any subjects in particular.

I will note at the top we put out a statement earlier from the department regarding a meeting of senior officials on reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. The United States and Japan will co-chair a meeting of senior officials on Tuesday next -- that is, November the 20th -- at the State Department, to discuss reconstruction of Afghanistan. Officials are being invited from countries and international institutions that are likely to play a vital role in the long-term process of Afghanistan's reconstruction. This is just a first step, of course, in a process that we foresee will expand to include all members of the international community committed to a prosperous future for Afghanistan.

The meeting's aim is to develop a common approach to how the international community can initially support rehabilitation and reconstruction in Afghanistan, and then the next steps to bring this about. It'll begin as well the process of eliciting support needed to offer the Afghan people a positive vision for a post-Taliban future.

The meeting's being held, obviously, on short notice in response to the far-reaching developments on the ground in Afghanistan.

We've announced that today simultaneously here in Washington and from Tokyo. And again, expect that meeting to take place on Tuesday.

So with that, I'm happy to discuss that or any other questions that you may have.

Sir? Yes?

Q Hi. (Name inaudible) -- with Middle East News Agency of Egypt.

Just earlier today, as you know, the Israelis had another incursion in Khan Younis refugee camp, and I guess that 14 Palestinians were wounded and one was killed. This comes despite the U.S. call for stopping an incursion, and withdrawing forces, which didn't happen. Do you believe that it would be suitable this time to call on the two sides again to stop violence, or is it clear enough that there is one side which is initiating a provocative action and the Palestinians wouldn't be in a position but to respond to that? Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Well, again, as the premise of your question suggests, I think it's very important for all sides to act in a manner that helps restore calm and reinforces the efforts that are being made to confront terror and violence. We've said before and continue to say that Israel must exercise maximum restraint and discipline in the use of force. At the same time, we've made very clear to Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority that they must act immediately to carry out their responsibilities to find and to arrest and bring to justice all those responsible for terrorist actions and violence.

We do welcome in this regard the recent arrests made by the Palestinian administration, as a step towards improving the security environment. Such positive action, sustained credible Palestinian actions to confront terror and violence, and Israeli steps to avoid provocation and build confidence, will facilitate progress, of course, on implementing the Mitchell Committee report and its road map back to dialogue and negotiation between the parties and ultimately, of course, the goal to get back to a process towards a long-term, permanent-status peace on the basis of the U.N. security resolutions, as we've talked about before.

We are concerned at the new Israeli incursions into the West Bank and Gaza and demolitions of Palestinian homes and properties. As we've said many times before, we think these incursions, these demolitions are provocative and contribute to an escalation in tension. So it's very important that all sides act in a manner that helps restore the calm and move toward those goals which both sides have said they want to achieve. And so has the entire international community.

Yeah.

Q Mr. Reeker --

MR. REEKER: Wait to get the mike there.

Q Sure. Rob Russo with the Canadian Press. Yesterday Canada announced that it's going to send 1,000 soldiers into Afghanistan within 24 hours. Now they're saying they may leave -- they're not being called peacekeepers, but apparently their job is to maintain order. This may relate to your initial announcement. First of all, any idea of what their role might be there? And secondly, given that Canada has taken part, one way or another, in every U.N. peacekeeping operation and has a certain amount of expertise, would they be called upon in some way in Afghanistan in that role once things settle down?

MR. REEKER: I don't really think those are questions I can answer. I refer to you -- refer you to the Canadian authorities that will have to make decisions on what their troops will do. Certainly Canada's work with us in the campaign against terrorism is something we find extremely valuable and have discussed before, Canada, of course, being one of our closest friends and an important member of NATO and important player in the international community. But I'd have to let the Canadian government speak for themselves in terms of steps that they are planning to take in support of any military operations.

The U.N. Security Council yesterday, as you know, adopted unanimously Resolution 1378, which endorses the special representative, Mr. Brahimi's plan to convene a representative group of Afghans to begin forming a provisional government and encourages U.N. members to provide security to the Afghan people and expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid. I think clearly the steps that we've seen on the ground, the steady string of recent military successes are an even more important humanitarian success, giving us more opportunities to move in additional humanitarian support before the winter weather has set in, and we're working very diligently on that through the international aid organizations, through the World Food Program and other things.

The consultations are continuing with a number of countries on how the international community, including the United States obviously, including Canada, can best encourage and support peace and stability in Afghanistan now that the Taliban are withdrawing from many areas. I think whether and how foreign troops will -- or might be involved in this effort will -- still remain to be determined. I think discussions are going on in New York. Our special representative, the coordinator of U.S. policy, Ambassador Haass has been in New York today, having talks with a number of countries at the U.N. Ambassador Dobbins, of course, our special representative out in the field, is in Islamabad. He has met with Afghan groups. He has met with the U.N. representative, Mr. Vendrell, who is also in Islamabad, and of course with Pakistani officials out there. So these efforts continue and we will continue to work on all aspects of our campaign against terrorism and also the humanitarian efforts in support of the Afghan people.

Yes, sir?

Q Mr. Reeker, my name is Halid Assan (sp), Associated Press of Pakistan. I have two questions. They both relate to Afghanistan. The first one being that there are credible reports that the United States during its bombing in Afghanistan has used DU -- that is, depleted uranium, which has been used, I think, in the past twice, in Iraq and Yugoslavia, and it is believed to cause cancer and --

MR. REEKER: Let me just interrupt just to say that that's something I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for. I don't handle operational things. I wouldn't be in a position to comment on that.

Q Can I ask my second question?

MR. REEKER: Please. Maybe I can do better.

Q Yeah, right. Thanks. My second question is that I believe that Pakistan was given to understand that the Northern Alliance will not move into Kabul, and the president himself is on record as having advised this.

And yet the Northern Alliance did move into Kabul, and there were American advisers present. So what does one make of it? I wouldn't say it is a double-cross, but obviously there are some people who were quite surprised by this.

Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Well, first of all, in terms of what one makes of it, I think we see that the Taliban are completely on the run. We've seen the rejoicing that has taken place around Afghanistan as the Afghan people have been able to celebrate the end of that. I think the fall of key cities in Afghanistan to anti-Taliban forces advances our objectives in terms of eliminating the al Qaeda terrorist organization and breaking the Taliban's hold on Afghanistan. I think those are very much the objective of the whole coalition and those of us -- those countries that are important partners in this effort, including Pakistan.

Obviously the structure of the post-Taliban Afghanistan is going to be a question for the people of Afghanistan to determine. But we're going to provide strong diplomatic and economic support for humanitarian purposes and reconstruction, as I just announced this morning, in terms of the meeting that'll be held next week. We want to support the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men and women, and providing substantial local autonomy. These are things that are being discussed with Afghan groups, with -- among countries in the international community. And it's a structure, I think, which all Afghan groups can participate in in some sort of broad forum.

So that's still evolving obviously. On the ground, I think we've made very clear to the Northern Alliance the importance of respect for human rights and discipline. President Bush has made that message clear. Secretary Powell has made that message clear. For the moment, the initial signs I think are good. The Northern Alliance has been keeping most of their forces out of Kabul, out of the main part of the city. Life there, according to reports, is returning to normal. I think there are additional reports that Taliban control is breaking down in the southern part of Afghanistan. Pashtun leaders are emerging. And so we're continuing to do the work on all fronts that I discussed in terms of looking forward to reconstruction, working now on the immediate humanitarian needs, continuing to get the food in and playing a key role working with Afghan groups and others in the international community on helping to forge a future government for a stable, terrorist-free Afghanistan.

So I think we have some major opportunities now. Events have moved quite quickly. We've seen barges coming from Uzbekistan, for instance, in support of the humanitarian effort, and I think that's a very positive development. And we're going to keep at it, following up with our goals.

Here, in the front row.

Q (Name inaudible) -- Nishita (ph) with the Sankei Japanese Daily. My first question is regarding the statement that you put. How many countries do you expect would participate in such a conference on reconstruction?

MR. REEKER: The Tuesday conference?

Q Yes. And could you give us the names of the international institutions that might attend the conference?

MR. REEKER: Sure. Let me run down what we've looked at as Japan and the United States co-chairing this meeting which will take place Tuesday here in Washington at the State Department. As I said, this is a first effort in bringing together countries and international institutions that are likely to play a vital role in the long-term process. And ultimately, of course, as we get into further steps of this, we would expect to expand that to include all members of the international community who are committed to a prosperous future for Afghanistan, who can contribute.

In that vein now, with the United States and Japan co-chairing, we're inviting representatives from Canada; from Germany; Russia; the United Kingdom; Italy; France; Saudi Arabia; Turkey; from the Afghan support group under the U.N. rubric, which, of course, is currently Germany, will be Norway beginning in 2002; the European Union presidency, currently, of course, Belgium in the chair; the European Commission; the Organization of the Islamic Conference chair, which is currently Qatar; the World Bank; the United Nations representatives; the Asian Development Bank; and the Islamic Development Bank, we think can all play a role initially. And of course, that will expand after we have this initial meeting and set up what the next steps will be.

A follow-up?

Q Would you focus on the reconstruction in that conference, or would you also tackle the more imminent issue, such as deployment of multinational forces in an Afghanistan pool?

MR. REEKER: This conference is a reconstruction conference. We noted the resolution that the United Nations Security Council passed yesterday; that is, Resolution 13789, which calls on member states to provide long-term assistance for the economic and social reconstruction of Afghanistan and welcomes initiatives toward that end.

This conference that we've announced, together with Japan, is directly in response to that type of call from the United Nations. It's not a pledging conference, it's not a conference to discuss the political aspects or the next steps in terms of possible security forces, but it's a conference to look at reconstruction, to determine how the process should evolve, what the needs will be, and how we should go about implementing that.

So it's very much a first step. And we're calling it, as I said, quite hastily, given the rapidity of steps -- of developments on the ground in terms of what's happened in Afghanistan. And we have some opportunities now to, as I indicated, do more with the humanitarian work that's been so important, but also see that segue into the reconstruction work that's going to be so important, and to which President Bush certainly has pledged our support.

Q Could you kindly be more specific about the agenda? I mean, would you take up various fields of the reconstruction, such as agriculture or -- well, could you give us some idea about --

MR. REEKER: Again, I think at this stage, this will be very much an initial meeting of policy-level senior officials. We expect our Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, Alan Larsen, to head the U.S. delegation, along with the Undersecretary of Treasury for International Affairs, John Taylor. They will represent the United States. And I think we might expect a similar level from other countries and, of course, representatives from some of the international organizations and international financial institutions, as I mentioned.

I think Secretary Powell made quite clear over the weekend, when he was in New York, that given the developments on the ground, given other factors, in terms of the humanitarian situation, in terms of the weather, the change of seasons, that we want to work with -- I think he put it, "speed, speed, speed." Therefore, we have called this meeting very quickly. We've invited these countries to come. I think it will be, again, an initial thing. I don't have a specific agenda to outline for you. I think we're still developing that with the co- chair and with those countries and institutions that will be part of this, that will be able to send delegations. And I think the United Nations will be able to report on the current situation in Afghanistan, on the humanitarian aspects of our work there. And so Tuesday will be here quite quickly, and then we'll move ahead and see what the next steps are going to be.

Yes?

Q Andrey Surzhanskiy, Itar-Tass News Agency of Russia. Mr. Reeker, obviously, on the U.S.-Russian summit, as many people noticed, both presidents ended their meetings -- today's meetings without any formal accord, without any formal agreement on the ABM Treaty and on the missile defense system.

At the same time, some people at the State Department have indicated a number of times of the intention to invoke the clause in the ABM Treaty which allows to withdraw from this treaty.

So my question to you -- are these plans still in force? And if so, when it might happen? Or something has changed after --

MR. REEKER: I don't think I have anything new to add for you in terms of the summit. I'd want to refer you to all of the transcripts and statements that have come from Washington and from Crawford in terms of the two presidents and their meetings. I don't think we have any new initiatives to announce. We've made quite clear what our goals are with regard to missile defense and other issues.

So I don't really have anything to add at this point, other than to say that all reports from Crawford are that it was an extraordinarily positive meeting. I know a number of joint statements were issued earlier in the week between the two presidents, from both presidents when they were here in Washington, including a joint statement about Afghanistan and our joint agreement on what the future government in Afghanistan should adhere to and what our goals are there. So I don't have anything new to add for you at this point.

Obviously, I think both presidents indicated that this is a continuation of an ongoing dialogue on so many different issues, so many different subjects, between our two countries. And I think we've really seen a positive movement and a realization of the potential we have to work together, not only in the war on terrorism, but in so many spheres and the things that we have in common, the issues that are of importance to both countries that we can work on together.

Yeah?

Q Yes. Gabriel Viarca (sp) from Pagina Doce in Argentina. First, one quick follow-up to the previous question. Beyond what was achieved or not achieved today at Crawford, could you clarify exactly, at least according to U.S. interpretation of the ABM Treaty, how far can the U.S. go in research and testing of missile defense systems without having to formally abrogate the ABM Treaty?

MR. REEKER: I wouldn't be in a position from here to try to explain the technical interpretations of that. There are lots of lawyers and experts at the Pentagon, I'm sure at the State Department as well. That's something I'd have to look into for you.

I think we've touched on those subjects before in special briefings. So we could try to do a little research and see if there's anything specific we could offer for you.

But you had another question.

Q Yes. Second was, quickly, can you offer now any kind of breakdown about which countries have offered what for the eventual peacekeeping force in Afghanistan?

MR. REEKER: No. I think, as I indicated, we're not that far yet. Decisions haven't been made. Those are things that are still under discussion. We'll leave it for each individual country to talk about what they may be offering, what they are willing to do.

We're just not at that position yet to determine what a possible force may look like. I think the U.N. resolution, as I discussed, encourages member states to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas in Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital of all the Afghan people. That's an important aspect of that.

So we'll need to let the talks continue as people look into the options we have. There are a number of different discussions going on in Islamabad, in New York, here in Washington, in many capitals. And I just don't think we have a clear picture, a final decision. I know Mr. Brahimi is working on scheduling a meeting to focus on next steps on the political side.

We just discussed our meeting that we'll co-host on Tuesday here to look at next steps on the economic reconstruction side. And, of course, the humanitarian efforts are ongoing there. Even as we continue with our multi-faceted approach to the campaign against terrorism -- the military aspects, but also the financial aspects, the law enforcement aspects that are ongoing -- a number of countries making arrests -- and moving forward on that, because our goal, after all, is to pull out, root out and chop up the al Qaeda network and bin Laden, make it impossible for them to perpetrate acts like we saw September 11th against us or others in the world. And, of course, the Taliban made the decision to side with the terrorists, and they're facing the same fate.

Yes, sir?

Q I would like to get back to you on the referendum in Guinea, and the results came up yesterday, and the "yes" is 98 percent. Would you comment on that?

And also, in two different newspapers published in Africa there was a reference to the letter that Colin Powell sent to President Conte. Would you reveal the content of that? It seemed to be -- like threatening to sanctions?

MR. REEKER: I think there was some confusion over whether there were letters or anything else. Let me just recap what we've done in terms of the issue with Guinea and the November 11th referendum that would permit a third term for President Conte.

Officials from our embassy, senior officials, had made two demarches to the government of Guinea concerning the procedures surrounding the referendum for November 11th. And we understand that other diplomatic missions in Conakry had similar discussions with officials of the government of Guinea.

I think we were very concerned about the lasting effects of a referendum that could be conducted with inadequate and uninformed public debate. And those were some issues that we felt strongly about and wanted to raise and make our views well known.

Obviously the people of Guinea have the right to change their constitution. Our point, and I think I mentioned this a little bit last week, was that we think this should be done in a democratic, transparent way within a constitutional framework, and that any change to the constitution made in an unfair, uninformed process wouldn't contribute to further development of democracy in Guinea. So we made quite clear to the government of Guinea our concerns about changing the constitution simply to perpetuate one person or one party remaining in office. Those are our views, and we'll continue to make those clear.

But I think the references to message from the secretary are referring to those demarches made obviously on behalf of the secretary, on behalf of the United States, but made by our diplomats in Conakry.

Q (Off mike) -- you said you made clear your concern. And the way the elections, the way the process was organized, and what can you tell us? Opposition in Conakry, you know, tried to get people's attention that they were excluded. What's your assessment?

MR. REEKER: I think I made clear what our initial concerns were. I had not heard yet from our embassy a final evaluation of the process. And it will continue to look at the process and what results from it and what the impact of that may be for democracy in Guinea and continue to be in touch and continue to voice our concerns, because the road towards prosperity, towards stability for Guinea, we think, is in following a constitutional process, in being transparent, in being quite clear for all the people of Guinea to understand what processes there. And again, we don't think -- it's our opinion -- that it's in the interest of Guinea or any other country to change a constitution unnecessarily to perpetuate one person remaining in office. It's a concern we have and which we will voice.

Q Thank you.

MR. REEKER: Far in the back.

Q (Inaudible) -- of the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong. There's been a lot of debate in the last couple of days among civil liberties groups concerning the prospect of military tribunals now, given the prospect of closed hearings and a lack of judicial review. Is the State Department worried that it might leave the U.S. open to criticism from countries that it is quite keen to open up in terms of judicial freedom and so on?

And at the same time, has the State Department raised those concerns within the government debate on these tribunals?

MR. REEKER: I think we've been very much involved in the discussions, which obviously deal with the Justice Department and the White House. The military commissions contemplated by the president's order, which was released recently, are designed to provide fair trials. The order requires that there be quote, "full and fair trial." They follow a long tradition of the use by the United States of military tribunals. They're permitted by existing statutes. They're absolutely consistent with international law -- that is, under the Geneva Convention and the customary laws of war.

We have full confidence that any U.S. military commission that may become involved in a judicial proceeding will protect the rights of any defendant who may be designated by the president for trial before them. As you know from reading that presidential order, the president must designate each individual for trial before such a military tribunal. The members of al Qaeda -- those that perpetrated plans, that perpetrated events against us on September 11th -- are, I think, can be called quite easily "unlawful combatants" under the law of armed conflict. And they may be tried for their terrorist acts in military commissions.

And so, I mean, what's important to us, what we stress so often in so many instances is protecting rights of defendants in having full and fair trials. And that's certainly what any tribunal or military commission would carry out if that is something that comes to pass. Obviously, the president has his constitutional authority to direct the secretary of Defense to establish, set up procedures for military commissions, which may be used as an additional legal option for handling cases against al Qaeda members and supporters. So we'll just have to see.

Yes, ma'am. Did you have a follow-up, or -- go ahead.

Q You've outlined and defended the system, but my question was, is the department worried that it's going to open you up to criticism from countries that you generally criticize on human rights, and particularly judicial freedoms?

MR. REEKER: No, because I think as I explained quite clearly, this is very much in keeping with practices, with legal processes that we have stood for in the past and will continue to stand for in the future. So, whether people choose to criticize us would obviously be up to them. But I think once they understand the facts and examine what it is that the president has ordered as an additional tool, something that may be used, a procedure they could establish as an additional legal option for dealing with cases against al Qaeda members and their supporters, I think people will fully understand that this is absolutely in keeping with international law, with the customary laws of war with the Geneva conventions. And we have full faith in the integrity of the U.S. military commissions. These would involve military and judicial authorities, perhaps civilians as well, but it provides an approach, to consider a broad range of evidence, for instance, that will allow us to carry out the justice which the president has said we wish to bring to those who perpetrated these acts of war against us.

Yes?

Q (Name inaudible) -- from Arab News. Hi. Back to Afghanistan, please. Philip, could you clarify for me -- you've talked about the consultations that the international community is having, including the United States, and you've talked about Dobbins meeting with Afghan groups. Are you in direct contacts with the Northern Alliance? What is that -- is there a communication channel open? What is that communication like?

MR. REEKER: I don't have specifics. I think we've been in contact with Northern Alliance people for some time. We've talked about that. I can't give you a list of names. I know that Ambassador Dobbins arrived, as we talked about yesterday, in Islamabad. He had been in Rome, where he met with the former king, with Zahir Shah. He had stopped in Turkey, where he met with Turkish officials, who obviously have an interest in this, have been an important part of this. And then today meeting with the U.N. official, Mr. Vendrell, in Islamabad, as well as Pakistani officials and other Afghan groups. This did, I know, include Mr. Gailani, who has been a long-time Afghan leader. But I'm sure he's meeting with a number of groups. I just don't have a breakdown of his schedule day by day.

Q No specifics about the troops on the ground, the Northern Alliance people; for example, in or around Kabul, and what the communication is like with them?

MR. REEKER: No. I would refer you, I think, to the Department of Defense for that.

Q Okay.

MR. REEKER: Obviously, Mr. Dobbins is in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan. Our director -- administrator of the Agency for International Development, Andrew Natsios, did go into Afghanistan today -- I believe AID issued a statement about that -- to observe some of the humanitarian projects going on there.

He was actually in Afghanistan for a few hours today. So I think these talks are going to go on. We had talks also in New York. As I mentioned, Mr. Haass was there meeting with a number of people and other delegations from other countries that are involved in this.

Q Could I have a quick follow up?

MR. REEKER: Sure.

Q A Time reporter made it into Mazar-e Sharif yesterday and reported that 900 foreign Taliban volunteers had been killed by the Northern Alliance. Are you concerned about what's happening to the takeover? Are you concerned that perhaps there's going to be a bit of revenge going on that you might not be able to -- that might look a bit bad or -- what is the State Department's position on this?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think we've made it quite clear based on what the president has said and what the secretary has said in terms of the importance of respect for human rights and discipline. And I can't verify or respond to reports I haven't actually seen from others that have been there, in what is certainly a part of the world that has suffered greatly for many years, under civil war, under natural conditions, drought and famine, and of course for five years under the Taliban's regime.

I think for the moment the initial signs are generally good. Certainly from Kabul reports I've seen are that the Northern Alliance is keeping most of their forces out of the city. Life is somewhat returning to normal. So that underscores the importance of moving ahead with these meetings, encouraging the Afghan groups to work together to form a broad government, the basis of which we've talked about so many times.

I think all over Afghanistan you're certainly seeing a response from the Afghans, from people who have been invaded in the past by foreign groups like bin Laden's group, terrorists who have used and abused Afghanistan and the Afghan people, and certainly the Taliban regime, which made life miserable for millions of Afghans, used food as a weapon. And as that regime crawls back into their caves and disintegrates, I think we have a real opportunity here to help the Afghan people and help them help themselves.

Q One more question?

MR. REEKER: Go ahead.

Q Thanks. About your secretary of State -- he has a big speech that he's going to make next Monday. There are some suggestions that he might leave to go to the Middle East. Can you confirm this? Can you give me an idea?

MR. REEKER: I haven't heard anything about any Middle East travel. But the secretary will be in Louisville, Kentucky, on Monday to deliver a major foreign policy speech. I think we put out a notice about that. I don't have any better information on details of the speech. I haven't seen drafts. I haven't read it. Some reporters seem to be able to speculate better than I can on what that speech will be about.

But it will be a speech about American foreign policy. I think the secretary himself made clear that it will echo from the president's speech at the U.N. General Assembly session on Saturday. So I would recommend that as reading for everybody in preparation for Monday. And stay tuned, and I'm sure we'll be able to get you copies of the secretary's text as soon as it's available.

Let me just go back to -- (name inaudible).

Q Thanks. (Name inaudible) -- Italian News Agency, ANSA. Still on Afghanistan, the Pentagon spokesman yesterday told reporters that the military relations of United States are better developed with the northern opposition forces to the Taliban than with the south forces -- opposition forces. Is that true also from a diplomatic view, there are differences of dialogue with the northern or with the southern forces or the United States?

And second question, due to the light of events in Afghanistan, does the State Department think that the former king has still a role to play in Afghanistan?

MR. REEKER: Sure, first -- on the first question. I have to leave to the Pentagon their discussion of military-to-military contacts and how they handle it. I think it's quite natural that contacts with northern forces may have been more forthcoming in recent times, certainly. But, obviously, as I noted, there are reports that the Taliban control is breaking down also in the south, and we see the emergence of other Pashtun leaders, and I think that's going to be very important, because as we've said, the future of Afghanistan has to be broad based, and so it's very important to engage as broad a group as possible in these discussions.

So again, I'll have to leave to the military the specifics of their discussions and contacts with other military elements. But we're trying to engage as many different groups as possible. Ambassador Dobbins will be doing that. Many of them, as you know, are represented in Islamabad, where he'll have an opportunity to meet with them while he continues to be there.

In terms of the former king, I think he does have a role to play -- he and his followers, as we've said before. Ambassador Dobbins met with him in Rome. The exact nature of that is something that the Afghan people themselves will have to decide together. But, obviously, the former king represents a certain group of people, has some strong supporters, has some experience, and can offer -- and has made clear that he is willing to offer his assistance for Afghanistan.

So, again, the people of Afghanistan will have to determine the structure. But we'll provide the strong diplomatic and economic support to help them with their aspirations.

Somebody who hasn't gone yet, and then we'll come back to you.

Yeah?

Q (Name inaudible) -- Tokyo Broadcasting, Japan. Mr. Reeker, this morning, during a speech delivered at a conference on national security, General Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, alluded to the fact that the informational operation in Afghanistan is not progressing as speedily as could be desired.

Can I ask what the State Department's point of view in this matter?

And secondly, if I may go back to the question of Tuesday's meeting. You mentioned --

MR. REEKER: Why don't I do one, and then we can go to the next one, so we can try to keep them straight.

Q Okah.

MR. REEKER: It's too late in the afternoon for my brain to handle all this.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of General Myers' comments, so I don't know exactly what he may have been referring to or what you're reflecting on in terms of "informational campaign." Obviously, in a country like Afghanistan, that's very isolated geographically, that's been kept isolated by the Taliban regime, we've talked extensively about the difficulty of communicating with all the people there and some of the efforts we've made, both on the military side and through broadcasting -- government-sponsored broadcasting, the VOA, the BBC, but also through other broadcasting.

And I think your colleagues in the media are clearly making great strides in moving into parts of Afghanistan that have been liberated by the Taliban (sic), after most of them, of course, had been kicked out and the international press wasn't allowed into Taliban-controlled areas. So again, I don't know if you have more details on what you're referring to in terms of the informational campaign, but information is very important.

Q I think the general was referring to mainly things have to get -- have to speed up in terms of radio broadcasts, getting the message out.

But if I may just ask a quick follow-up on that, could you just elaborate on the latest developments in terms of sending the message out, informational operation, such as -- is it true that the U.S. started dropping leaflets offering up to $25 million for information leading to --

MR. REEKER: In terms of the specifics of dropping leaflets, I'd have to let the military talk about that. Those are efforts they do. We do have a program, the Rewards For Justice Program, which is administered by the Department of State by our Diplomatic Security Service. There is a reward program of up to $25 million for information leading to the capture, the bringing to justice of key terrorists, including Mr. bin Laden and his circle of friends. If you go to our website, we can give you some more specific information on that.

But I think we want to make quite clear and publicize that, because that's, after all, the goal of such a program is to offer to those that are willing to help us in our goal of bringing bin Laden and other terrorists to justice, to offer that type of reward. And we'll evaluate any information that can be given to us through that.

Q In terms of speed, are you satisfied with --

MR. REEKER: Well, I think we see things move quite quickly on the ground. Seems like just a week ago, perhaps -- I don't know -- you guys weren't talking about it, but a number of journalists were questioning the efficacy of the campaign, of the military things, questioning the decisions, lamenting how things were going. One can never know how these things are going to develop. But the secretary indicated on the weekend we needed to proceed with speed.

That's why we and Japan have pulled together quite quickly the invitation for this initial meeting on reconstruction that'll take place next Tuesday. It's why I think so many in the international community are working overtime in New York and other places to discuss next steps, to work with the Afghans to bring them together. I think it's very important to see developments progress on Afghanistan, even as we continue to press our campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban, which continues to protect them.

Q If I may still ask my second question --

MR. REEKER: Sure. Right.

Q -- in terms of Tuesday's meeting, you mentioned it's going to be very much a first step.

MR. REEKER: Yes.

Q So what could be the biggest expectations in terms of the results of this first -- of that very first meeting?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think -- let me stress again that it's not a pledging conference, so people shouldn't be looking for some specific dollar figure or something. I think we need to give attention -- because of the fast-moving developments there, we need to give attention to achieving a seamless transition from our humanitarian relief efforts, which we will continue, as we've made quite clear, but also segueing that into reconstruction and development, and addressing this in some sort of integrated manner, and preparing to help with Afghanistan's recovery, which of course is going to be a long-term, sustained global effort.

So I think that the first thing that we'll look at is trying to evaluate what needs to be done, what are the important elements in a reconstruction campaign for Afghanistan, and then determining how we will try to proceed with that, working, obviously, with some flexibility, but looking for input from those that can offer it and see where we move from there. Yeah.

Everybody's gone once, so we can go around again. Sure. One, two three.

Q Mr. Reeker, is there any possibility of the U.S. government assembling a package, complete with personnel and hopefully necessary implements, to come to the aid of the Afghan hairdressing and barbering trade, which is unable to meet spiraling demand? (Laughter.)

MR. REEKER: Well, I think what we've seen are some remarkable pictures of people embracing their freedom.

Now, hairdressering and barbering is not something that I have to worry about all that much, but I certainly sympathize with those in Afghanistan, the men and women who have been denied basic human rights for over five years now. And I think the rejoicing that we've seen in the streets with music playing, with children able to fly kites, with women able to receive medical attention, with children able to get education -- people are realizing all over the world what a repressive regime the Taliban had imposed upon the people of Afghanistan, the fact that they deserve so much more. So we will continue to do what we can to help them.

And it just highlights the fact that the Taliban not only perpetrated this against the people of Afghanistan, but of course supported the terrorists who perpetrated their crimes against us and against the whole world on September the 11th. So we're quite pleased to see them retreating, to see the people of Afghanistan liberated, but we're not going to stop with our campaign until we've succeeded in fulfilling our objectives.

Yes, sir?

Q Just a word from the content of the speech Mr. Powell will be making on Monday. Can you just tell us whether or not the secretary has finalized that speech, because until yesterday, we were advised that he's still working on that?

MR. REEKER: I think he's still working on it. If -- while I haven't asked him directly, he's clearly been in Crawford with the President and with President Putin and his counterpart, Foreign Minister Ivanov. That could be one of the reasons that he hasn't chosen to finalize his remarks for Monday. But I'm going to leave that to him, I think. We'll have to all wait for the news to happen.

Q Yeah. And can you just tell us whether the content of that speech, whatever that content is, is it simply U.S.-inspired content or is it based on consultations with Arab countries? Had the U.S. enlisted backing of the key Arab players to -- in such a way that they will support the steps the U.S. will be asking?

MR. REEKER: We rarely look, I think, for other countries to draft our speeches. Our secretary and our State Department are quite capable of handling that themselves. The secretary has been so engaged on so many levels in our war on terrorism, in issues like the Middle East, in issues like Africa, HIV/AIDS. We've just completed a very successful World Trade Organization meeting, which I think gives us great potential to move forward in the new round of trade discussions. So there's so many areas of U.S. foreign policy that we're focusing on.

Obviously foreign policy is a reflection of our conversations and diplomatic contacts with other countries, and I'm sure much of that will be reflected in the secretary's comments, which, as I said, I think will go on from the remarks the president made in his speech before the general assembly and be a major statement of U.S. foreign policy. So we'll just have to wait til Monday and see what that is.

And this is the last two. Wrap it up from there.

Q Here's a question for you.

MR. REEKER: Okay.

Q You talked about the efficacy of the campaign. Does that mean that the U.S. military will rethink what it said about bombing during Ramadan?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think that remains very much as we said before.

Ramadan is something to which we'll be sensitive in terms of its importance as a holiday. But I think in conjunction with many leaders in the region, many leaders in the Islamic community, there's an understanding that the terrorists don't celebrate Ramadan, because a terrorist has no religion. And in fact, that terrorists like bin Laden clearly aren't representing Islam or the true tenets of Islam.

So I have to leave it to our operational officials, the Pentagon, the president, to make those decisions. We will continue to move forward with our campaign because we're acting in self-defense. We were attacked. We are determined. And we are persistent and patient in achieving our goals and regaining our security. I think we'll just see what develops. Certainly we've had some positive developments on the ground in recent days, but it's not over with al Qaeda, it's not over with the Taliban, and we're going to stick with what the president said our goals are.

Yes, sir? Last one.

Q This is a couple. Do you want me to give both to you at the same time?

MR. REEKER: Let's do one and then the other one. Yeah, we'll -- I'll allow that.

MODERATOR: Mike, please.

Q If I can just skip back to my colleague's questions about the military tribunals and your response. Can I take from that that you believe that these tribunals would be a suitable forum to perhaps bring bin Laden to justice? And has any specific preparations been made in that regard?

MR. REEKER: Well, I'd really refer you to the fact sheet that the White House released in terms of this presidential order. It was a military order by the president of the United States, in his capacity as the commander in chief, to establish military commissions to try, to bring to justice suspected foreign terrorists. It was technically a military order on the detention, treatment and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. The president signed that, I believe, day before yesterday, and there's a fact sheet from the White House that will explain more of that to you.

What it does is instructs the Department of Defense to set up and establish procedures so that these military commissions can be used as a legal option, giving us that option for handling cases against foreign terrorists, al Qaeda members and their supporters. They're designed to provide fair trials. It's very much based on a long tradition used by the United States of military tribunals, permitted under existing statute and very consistent with international law. And again, the president made quite clear that there must be a full and fair trial. So these commissions as they're set up as an option would provide a full and fair trial because that's something that we think is going to be very important in terms of justice.

Q But can I infer that bin Laden, being a member of al Qaeda, would be -- somehow would fall into that --

MR. REEKER: It's certainly an option, right. To specifically (answer you ?), it could certainly be. If he should be brought to justice, this would be an option that we would have in terms of following a -- you know, this process for a full and fair trial, because he, as other members of al Qaeda, are combatants, unlawful combatants under the standard law of armed conflicts.

Q And my final question. Have you had any protests or complaints from abroad about the notion of bringing in 5,000 Arabs and Muslims who are here as visitors, for questioning?

MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of any particular ones. I know you're referring to things that the Justice Department has talked about, and I'd just -- I'd refer you to the Justice Department to see if they have. In fact, I'm not aware of formal government-to-government conversations on that subject. So I don't have anything further on that.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

MR. REEKER: We can take one last one from my friend here, because if I don't, he'll never forgive me!

Go ahead.

MODERATOR: The mike's coming.

MR. REEKER: Sorry, Yolanda (?).

Q Thanks. Only two things quickly, if you can clarify --

MR. REEKER: Oh, just two -- (laughter). Okay.

Q One is that the president of Pakistan is blaming the United States that there is a betrayal, means the United States betrayed them because of helping the --

MR. REEKER: One of your colleagues asked that, so I'll let you get the transcript on that.

Q Okay. Another one is that there are reports that some of Taliban members are fleeing across the border into Pakistan, where they come from, according to the reports. So what is the future now -- I know you must have answered in many ways -- but what is the future of -- (inaudible) -- what we call Taliban, their students, where they really come from, across the border? And what is -- (inaudible) -- and where do we go from here, as far as hunting them or against -- (inaudible).

MR. REEKER: Yeah. Our goal has been quite clearly stated by the president, by Secretary Powell, and others, and that is to end this type of terrorism with a global reach. We're focusing on al Qaeda, we're focusing on the Taliban as it gives protection and safe haven to al Qaeda. They've made that decision, the leaders of the Taliban movement, just as they made the decision to bring so much despair to the lives of the Afghan people, they made the decision to embrace fully these foreigners who invaded their country, criminal elements like bin Laden, murderers. And so they are being treated in the same regard.

And our goal remains what it always has been, and that is to root them out so that they cannot perpetrate this against us or others in the future. So we'll continue to go with that as our goal and look at terrorism all over the world.

Thanks very much.

MODERATOR: Thanks very much, Philip.

 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.