National Security Council Briefing for Foreign Media

3:07 P.M. EST

MR. SEAN MCCORMACK: Thanks very much for the introduction. It's a real pleasure to be here. It's my first time briefing here at the Foreign Press Center, and I do plan to make regular returns back here to the press center.

And what I'd like to do is first start off with reading out a phone call the president had with Jordanian King Abdullah this morning. Ari mentioned it in the White House briefing, but I thought I'd take the opportunity since I was here to read it out for you.

This morning the president spoke with Jordanian King Abdullah. The phone call lasted about 10 minutes. They reviewed the progress in the international struggle against terrorism and the situation in Afghanistan. The two leaders also discussed the U.S. efforts to secure a cease-fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and ways to implement the Mitchell Plan. The king expressed his support for the president's effort to fight terror and to revive negotiations between Arabs and Israelis.

Finally, the president thanked the king for Jordan's strong support for the war against terrorism and for assistance in trying to broker a return to the negotiation table.

And, with that, I'd be happy to take your questions.

Q Raghubir Goyal. Asia Today and India Globe (?). Can you describe now where do you stand as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the security matters in Afghanistan, especially the women's rights, because they have the most (vulnerable ?) suffered in Afghanistan? What is the future and the role of the Afghan women that suffered for over five years under the barbarism of the Taliban?

MR. MCCORMACK: Exactly. You make a good point about the role of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime. It was a brutal regime. It was a regime where little girls couldn't go to school. They weren't free to pursue their education and to realize all their potential. And certainly one vision that the president and the international community has expressed for Afghanistan and the future government is that all regions, all parts of the Afghanistan people are represented in a future government, and certainly that vision extends to women in participation in the government. This is one of the issues that is now being discussed in Bonn. We've had initial reports at the Bonn meeting, that all the sides have had positive discussions. There are a number of women on the various delegations that are in Bonn right now. And it's an interesting note that we have women in our delegation as well, our observer delegation to the Bonn talks.

And one other point -- Secretary Powell has expressed the U.S. position with regard to women, the role of women in Afghanistan, the role of women in the Afghan government. It's very important to the future of Afghanistan that women have the opportunities that they actually had before the Taliban regime came into power. A large number of teachers, for instance, before the Taliban came into power were women. And we think it's very important that women have a role in -- an active role in Afghan society, and that they have all the opportunities that they may have had before the Taliban regime.

Q Satoru Suzuki, TV Asahi of Japan. Regarding Japan's efforts to help this campaign against terrorism, U.S. ambassador to Japan, Howard Baker, said reportedly, recently, that he was disappointed by the Japanese government's decision not to send an AEGIS class destroyer to the Indian Ocean for intelligence gathering and other properties. Does the president or does Dr. Rice share the ambassador's disappointment? And secondly, about North Korea, how determined is the president to prevent North Korea's weapons of mass destruction from being transferred to terrorists? Is the president determined to do -- to use whatever means is necessary to deal with North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, as is the case with Afghanistan and maybes Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. First, I'll take the first part first, with respect to Japan and Ambassador Baker's comments, I don't have anything specifically for you with regard to the AEGIS cruisers, but just let me say that the president and this administration have been very pleased by the cooperation Japan has offered to the international coalition in the fight against terrorism. I certainly note the fact that Japan has authorized the deployment of self-defense forces to participate in the war against terrorism, which I think is certainly precedent setting.

And with respect to the cooperation on the humanitarian side, Japan just recently, as you may know or have reported on, co-chaired a conference -- the first conference on reconstruction in Afghanistan. This was an important first step in realizing another track in our efforts -- in the international coalition's efforts with regard to Afghanistan. It will be vitally important to ensure that the international community participates fully in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, certainly as a way to help the Afghanistan people develop their country for themselves, but also to ensure the fact that Afghanistan doesn't once again become a haven for terrorists in the future.

And your second question, with regard to North Korea, the president spoke about North Korea yesterday in the Rose Garden. Certainly on the issue of non-proliferation, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, there's been a source of concern for this administration from the very beginning, and a focus of this administration. The president has spoken out on the issue of terrorist attempts, terrorist organizations' attempts, and specifically al Qaeda's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we have pledged that we will do whatever it takes to prevent terrorist organizations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction or the means to construct, or the materials that go into the construction of weapons of mass destruction. And that is certainly a top priority for the administration. We'll do everything we can to prevent it.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect -- with respect to North Korea, we certainly have concerns about their nuclear weapons program, which was the approximate cause of the KEDO Agreement that we signed with North Korea. And we have expressed in public our concerns with regard to North Korea and their development of weapons of mass destruction, both nuclear as well as biological and chemical. And we have offered to talk to the North Korean government with regard to these as well as other issues, and we have yet to hear back from them on that.

Q Andrei Sitov from TASS from Russia. A couple of questions. First, a technical one in regard to the recent summit. How will the process of implementing the different joint statements and a program of action be set up? Will it be coordinated from the White House? Will it be totally the responsibility of the State Department, or some other arrangement that you have in mind?

MR. MCCORMACK: Did you have any one particular joint statement in mind?

Q Well, there were a number of them beginning with the new relationship, and going on to the new economic relationship, and the bioterrorism and others. These are different. But my question is basically will there be a focal point, maybe for us as journalists, that we can turn to in terms of monitoring the progress of this relationship? And a second one, obviously another interesting area recently has been the relationship between Russia and NATO. So, my question is how does the White House feel the initiative of Tony Blair for involving Russia more in that, and the results of the recent trip by the secretary-general of NATO to Moscow, and other unexpected, I would say, pronouncements from the president of Russia about this, not wanting to join NATO?

MR. MCCORMACK: With regard to the joint statements, I think that it's really indicative of the change in the relationship between the U.S. and Russia that if you look at the range of those statements and the subject areas that they covered. This is not -- this is a broad based relationship now, and it's -- and it is changing in fundamental ways. We've moved beyond the Cold War, and as Secretary Powell has said, moved beyond the post-post-Cold War era. And I think that certainly you saw that at the Crawford summit with the range of issues that we're talking about now. We have made great progress with regard to reducing our nuclear arsenals. We've -- the president is very heartened by President Putin's cooperation in the war against terrorism. In fact, he's noted several times the fact that the first phone call that he got was from President Putin on September 11th and the fact that Russia not only did not stand down -- stand up its forces, it actually took them to a lower level of alert. And I think that that was an important moment in U.S.-Russian relations.

But, with regard to your specific questions about where should you look for -- what various agencies, what various parts of the government should you look for in terms of looking for progress on these things, to get back to my original point, and that is that this is not -- this is a broad based relationship, and I think you look for cooperation and action across various agencies -- on the economic front, for instance, on the military front, on the diplomatic and political front. So, you'll -- you look across the U.S. government. And, of course, the White House and the National Security Council is involved in this entire process through the inter-agency process.

Q And the second one about NATO?

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect to NATO, we -- the president and President Putin issued some statements with regard to NATO and Russia and U.S.-NATO relations in our new relationship communique. And certainly this is a source -- this is going to be a source of ongoing discussions between Russia and NATO. The United States is one member of NATO. You know, certainly we are one among many voices in NATO, and we would like very much to see this relationship between Russia and NATO move beyond the Cold War and the post-Cold War era, and look forward to our -- to discussions between Russia and NATO as well as bilateral discussions between the U.S. and Russia on this issue.

Q Thank you. Ilyana (sp) Pokolov (sp) from the Russian Television. My question is about one of the hot issues of these days, is a question about military commission or military tribunals, and you know now it's a big discussion between the Senate and the White House about the civil liberties. So, what is the position of the National Security Council for this topic? And what will be in the future of how it is going, all this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I guess I can talk to a limited extent about the military tribunals. I'll try not to venture into domestic issues, which really isn't my bailiwick. But, with the president said and the administration has said is that the military tribunals offer the president one option, one possible option with regard to bringing terrorists to justice. And, again, this will be done on a case-by- case basis by the president. He will have to decide specifically with respect to who, if anybody, is brought before a military tribunal. So, the president feels very strongly that he made the right decision in issuing the executive order that allows him to form these military tribunals. And beyond that, I really hesitate to speculate about their possible use.

Q (Inaudible.) I have two questions. You know, there are different views between Turkey and EU on the ESTP. So, what is the latest U.S. position on the ESTP? And secondly, Secretary Powell is going to Turkey next week, and will he bring any message from the president? And what is the agenda about Iraq and the war against terrorism?

MR. MCCORMACK: Iraq, okay. With regards to the ESTP, I think I'm afraid I'm going to have refer you over to my colleagues over at the State Department. On the issue of Secretary Powell's trip, I don't have any specific agenda items for you with regard to his trip and his talks in Turkey. But just let me say that Turkey, throughout this war against terrorism and before the war, before September 11th, has been a stalwart ally of the United States, a key NATO ally, in many regards a close friend of the United States. And Secretary Powell thought it was very important to visit Turkey on this trip. And I think that's really all I have for you on Turkey.

There was another part to what you were saying?

Q On Iraq, and any message from the president?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, with respect to Iraq, I don't think I really have anything more to say on Iraq beyond what the president said yesterday in calling for Saddam Hussein to open Iraq to inspections. U.N. inspectors focus on looking at Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. It's fulfilling its obligations to the international community.

Q Jesus Esquivel from the Mexican News Agency. Sean, two questions on Latin America, one on Mexico and the other on Venezuela. On Mexico, Ari Fleischer last week said the immigration accords with Mexico are still a priority. If it is, do you think we are going to have a chance to get an accord before the year-end, as President Fox said on the White House in September?

And on Venezuela, is the White House really satisfied or upset with President -- with the comments of President Chavez about the war in Afghanistan?

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect to immigration, it's an issue certainly that President Bush and President Fox during President Fox's state visit committed to working very hard on. And that will continue. Certainly in the war against terrorism some of the discussions have also shifted to border security, which we had excellent cooperation with the Mexican government on. But in a phone call after September 11th -- and I don't recall exactly what date it was -- I know that both presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the agenda that they set during President Fox's state visit. And the fact that Secretary of State Powell as well as General Ashcroft will continue to work very hard on it.

On Chavez, I don't have anything for you on that.

Q (Off mike) -- with Turkey's NTV television. A follow-up to the Iraqi situation. Yesterday President Bush was asked by a reporter about what would happen if Saddam Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors in Iraq, and the president said he would find out. Today the Iraqi government issued a statement rejecting the call. So what will Saddam find out? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think -- (laughter) -- in the words of President Bush, he will find out. (Laughter.) Secretary Powell also addressed this last night in his interview on CNN, saying that Saddam Hussein should take from this a very somber and chilling message. And there are a number of various available to the United States and the international community with respect to Iraq. I think it's important to note that it's Iraq that has been in default in fulfilling its international obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions, and we are simply calling upon them to live up to their international obligations.

MODERATOR: The gentleman all the way in the back row.

Q Sean, Herman Pan with CNA. I remember back in Shanghai during a press briefing -- actually it's a background briefing by Dr. Rice -- she said when the president met with President Jiang Zemin, the president said Taiwan should be "treated with respect." That's the exact words, direct quote from Dr. Rice. And that was the say reason why Taiwan boycotted the APEC leaders meeting. And later on in closed-door, off-the-record basis meeting, a senior White House official said that he personally believed that Taiwan mishandled the situation by not -- by trying to set a precedent over there by not sending an economic level official to the leaders meeting. Is that the official White House position on Taiwan's absence in APEC?

My second question. Tomorrow the Congress is going to pass the resolution supporting the participation of Taiwan's -- supporting Taiwan's participation in the WHO, Health Organization, which is affiliated with the United Nations. What's the White House position on Taiwan's participation in this organization?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the second question there, I think I am going to refer you over to the State Department there -- there are a number of issues that we will deal with at the White House certainly, and a number that in future briefings as well as today I will refer you over to the State Department on. One other thing also with respect to that: I think we'll probably wait until the Hill takes action before we actually have any comment on anything.

And on the first part of your question -- I am a little surprised that you actually brought up something that was off the record in a public forum. I think that with respect to Taiwan's participation in the APEC forum, we took the position that this was an issue, both in terms of participation and level of participation, that is traditionally up to the host country as well as participating countries to work out.

MODERATOR: Okay, I think we'll go to Thomas next.

Q Thomas Gorguissian, Al Wafd of Egypt. Sean, in the weeks following September 11, new terms or words became part of the media in public or political discourse, and I will pick out three words: quote/unquote "Islam Muslim world," quote/unquote "Arab Street, quote/unquote "Al Jazeera." Can you tell us what is your or let's say the National Security Council's understanding -- assessment of the definition and the description of these three words?

MR. MCCORMACK: I am not sure of the context of --

Q The context is that: What does it mean for a new dictionary? (Laughter.) Because everyone must have different dictionaries it seems.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, I understand. And I think that these -- what you are referring to started to come up in the context obviously of the war against terrorism. And we have made a great effort to reach out to Arab countries, to countries where people practice the Muslim faith, to explain to them exactly what this war on terrorism is about. And what it is not about is it's not a war against Islam, it's not a war against Arab countries. It's a war against those who wrap themselves in the face of Islam, but then commit acts of terror against innocent civilians. Islam is a religion of peace.

And I think that we have tried -- and I think with some success -- to convey that message to Arab countries around the world, as well as countries with populations that practice the faith of Islam.

MODERATOR: This gentleman here.

Q Jon Zime (ph) with Power TV of Taiwan. Sean, I want to bring you back to Taiwan. This weekend, on Saturday actually, Taiwan is going to have a very important legislature election, and right after that election there will be a high level delegation from Taiwan visiting Washington. Its members consist of representatives from the three main parties there. What kind of a message will you or your colleagues tell that delegation in terms of the cross-straits dialogue, the resumption of the cross-straits dialogue? What can the United States do to promote such a dialogue? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll have to take your question with regard to the delegation -- I wasn't aware of it. Maybe I can get back to you without -- through the Press Center.

With respect to cross-strait relations, our policies are well known. We believe that the issue of Chinese-Taiwan relations should be settled in a peaceful manner based upon the three communiques. So beyond that I really don't have anything -- really anything to add.

Q Laura (Waneja ?) from Agency (sic) France Presse. Getting back to Venezuela, President Bush has said that in this war on terrorism the world is either with the United States or against it. How do you place Venezuela and the government of Chavez on this? Do you think they are against you or with you?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think I can get into a laundry list of who hasn't -- (laughter) -- one side of the line or the other. But suffice it to say that President Bush in his address to Congress, as well as his address before the U.N. General Assembly, has made very clear that the time will come when countries have to choose a side in this war against terrorism, and they will have to demonstrate that through their actions, he said; in particular, the time for rhetoric is over and it's time for actions.

So I think that we'll wait and see which choices countries happen to make. It's important to note, however, that there is not an indefinite amount of time in which countries have to choose which side they will be on.

MODERATOR: Right here in the middle.

Q Malcolm Brown (sp) from Feature Story News. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said this afternoon that to the best of his understanding al Qaeda was still being sheltered in Somalia. Given your limited diplomatic (leverage ?) in a country like Somalia, do you have any options other than a military option, as you extend the war against terrorism, as the president has indicated that he will? And as an ancillary to that, as you do so, how -- what do you say to the Non-Aligned Movement in countries like South Africa, which are uneasy in principle with the application of military force?

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect to the specific -- this is kind of a question that has been talked about a lot in the press over the pats couple of days, What's next? And I think that my first reply would focus on the fact that we have a task at hand in Afghanistan, and there's much work left to do in Afghanistan. President Bush has outlined very clearly what our objectives are with regard to what our operations in Afghanistan are, and that is to get the al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, going after the Taliban is a means to that end; ensuring that Afghanistan no longer is a haven for terrorists and al Qaeda. And we still have work left to do towards meeting those objectives. Beyond that, I don't think we are going to talk about what next phases may entail.

That said, there is also ongoing now a wider war against terrorism on different fronts that don't involve military operations. You see examples of that almost daily in the media on the law enforcement side there are many reports in Europe and other countries about members and supporters of al Qaeda being rounded up. The president mentioned just I think yesterday the fact that over 300 members and supporters of al Qaeda had been rounded up around the world. There's intelligence sharing and growing relationships and deepening and strengthening of the relationships on the intelligence- sharing side, which is vitally important in this war, and as we proceed to phases in the war against terrorism.

On the issue of financial -- seizing financial assets and blocking financial assets, I think we have made important progress in that regard. And this is really one of those aspects of the war that may not be so visible in terms of reporting, but it is vitally important. This is really choking off what my boss has referred to as the mother's milk of terrorist networks, and that is choking off their financing. Without their financing, it is very difficult for them to operate. So we have made a lot of progress on these various fronts, and those will be ongoing. The president has said that this war against terrorism may take years, and we are resolved to stick with it, and we believe that our coalition partners will stick with it as well.

You mentioned South Africa. With respect to South Africa, we have actually received excellent cooperation. We haven't -- you know, we haven't asked for any specific military assistance. But on these other fronts that I was talking about, we received very good cooperation in terms of law enforcement and the financial side. So I would characterize the South African cooperation as excellent.

Q I am Arin Basu with Radio Free Asia. Even as we speak the -- in Bonn there is a conference on Afghanistan and the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the alternative interim government. I am wondering, one, what are the White House expectations from the Bonn conference? Are you expecting that at the end of the week that the Rome Group, the Peshawar Group, you know, all of them, will have agreed on a government that could be installed? That's one. How realistic is that? And also, how long is this campaign going to go on, the actual military campaign? And how is that going to be reconciled with the actual reconstruction efforts? I mean, if you are going to have a government that could function in Kabul while the rest of the country keeps getting bombed, there seems to be sort of -- it doesn't seem like a workable situation. So what kind of conversations are you having with the U.N. on this, and how is that going to be resolved?

MR. MCCORMACK: On the Bonn conference, I would say that this is -- you know, the conference is really a first step towards forming a multi-ethnic broad-based government in Afghanistan by the Afghan people and by the leaders of the Afghan people. So Bonn is really a first step in that process, in forming what we have talked about with the U.N. as an interim government.

I think that ultimately what leaders who are gathered in Bonn are looking at is forming something like or agreeing on something like a loya jirga, the grand council, and that will lead to actually making this broad-based multi-ethnic government a reality.

In terms of a time-table, I haven't heard anybody really apply a time-table to the talks in Bonn. We have gotten reports back today, the first day, the talks were very positive. It's going to be an ongoing process. From the international community's perspective, it is led by the United Nations and Ambassador Brahimi. Other interested nations are certainly attending the conference as observers, as interested parties. It is certainly the formation of a broad-based multi-ethnic -- it is very important to Afghanistan -- important to the Afghan people so that they can develop their country, so that they can realize their potentially as a stable, economically developing, terrorist-free Afghanistan is in the interests of the Afghan people, Afghanistan's neighbors, its near neighbors as well as the international community. So I suspect that the Bonn conference is one step in a process that will ultimately lead to the formation of this interim government.

Q Can I follow up? (Off mike) -- interim government that is then going to -- the loya jirga will happen in three or four months from now, which will then lead to a stable permanent government in Afghanistan. My question is: What is the time table for setting up the interim government? And you know all parties concerned say it is absolutely critical that a government be in place that we can negotiate reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan with. Given that nobody wants to talk about is going to be set up, and that I think is a critical piece of this puzzle of this moment. Somebody has to say by December 15th or 12th or something we have to have an interim government. So then the IBRD can go in and do an assessment of needs and then come out. It's just -- I understand the larger context. It's the details that nobody seems to either know or fill us in on.

MR. MCCORMACK: This is -- actually forming the government is going to be up to the leaders of the Afghan people, and that's what they are talking about in Bonn right now. And certainly I think that we all realize that there's a -- that they need to act with some dispatch in forming this government. And it's ultimately to their benefit and the benefit of the Afghan people, and certainly we'll urge them in that direction.

And, yes, when you ask your initial question -- you talked about aid and the military campaign and so forth. What you have are various tracks that are ongoing. You have a military track that has really over the past two weeks progress on that track has accelerated, and the developments have been very positive. But there's also been great progress on a number of other different tracks. We have the Bonn conference with regard to forming the government on the political track. On the humanitarian front this is something that the international community has been concerned about for some time, even before 9-11, and the United States has been making very large contributions to the Afghan people in humanitarian aid. And certainly that is a high priority here that we haven't really talked about yet, is really ensuring that the humanitarian aid, the humanitarian needs of the Afghan people are met.

And part of what goes into that equation is obviously having a stable new government, a broad-based, multi-ethnic government in Kabul, as well as providing for a secure and stable environment in which we can deliver that humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, and we're making progress on all of those fronts, and we're working with the international community, with the U.N., and most importantly with the Afghan people and their leaders.

Q Associated Press of Pakistan. Could you kindly add something other than what we know from newspaper reports about the massacre of Taliban prisoners of war, mostly non-Pashtuns. They were bombed by U.S. aircraft from the air, and these attacks were being directed by U.S. personnel within this (war ?). It was like a jail riot, but it's unusual that it was bombed by aircraft. How many got killed? We don't have any details. Can you please add something to our information? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Is this with regard to Mazar-e-Sharif?

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: As of when I came over here, I think the fighting in Mazar was actually still ongoing, so I really don't have -- I can't really offer you any more details than have been reported right now. I think that once -- once the situation has been resolved, we'll all have a much better idea exactly -- we'll be able to assess the situation much more clearly. But at this time, I really can't offer any more details than we've seen.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. MCCORMACK: I really -- it's -- right now, there's still fighting ongoing so I can't really offer any more clarity on that.

Q My name is Sujono from Suara Merdeka, Indonesia. I'm just wondering whether his mission is part of the enhancing anti-terrorism coalition policy or an effort to restore or build the security situation between U.S. and Indonesia? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm afraid I don't have anything to offer you on that one.

Q Hello. I'm -- (inaudible) -- Korea Newspaper. Back to North Korea, I have two questions. One is, what if North Korea does not allow U.S. to inspect, how do you read the situation after that? And the second one is that the statement of President Bush, is it just a preventive measure, or was there any reason to believe that the mass destructions produced in North Korea have been transferred to other terrorist groups?

MR. MCCORMACK: With respect to the inspection regime, we have -- there are certain time lines and markers laid out in the agreed framework with North Korea and part of that is an inspection regime. And we fully expect that North Korea will abide by its agreement that they signed with the United States as well as South Korea and Japan. Beyond that, I don't really have anything to offer in terms of what if.

With regard to -- with regards to North Korea and non- proliferation -- I'd say only that, as I started out the briefing with, non-proliferation has been certainly a source of concern with respect to -- with respect to many nations around the world who are pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has been clearly a source of concern in that we -- it's very clear that they have pursued development of weapons of mass destruction, and really I don't have anything for you beyond that.

Q (Inaudible) -- mass production weapons, that North Korea has been transferred to other terrorist groups?

MR. MCCORMACK: I really don't have any information for you on that.

Q Rob Russo with the Canadian Press. Sean, if I could get back to your point about humanitarian assistance, yesterday and earlier this week, Canada, Britain and France stood down troops that were supposed to go into various parts of Afghanistan to help deliver humanitarian assistance. Is that because there's a feeling that that assistance is already getting there, or is it because the situation is still unstable on the ground? And will that assistance be needed later on down the road? Will those troops be needed to go in and stabilize the region? And I have one quick follow-up after that.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure exactly why those countries stood down their troops. You'll have to talk to those various government. But certainly, providing a secure and stable environment for the delivery of the humanitarian assistance is very important, and it's something that the coalition partners are working closely with the Northern Alliance as well as other operations -- opposition groups to ensure that that -- there is that stable environment. And I think that those -- those countries that you mentioned as well as others in the coalition against terrorism stand ready to help assist in providing that secure and stable environment. And, you know, as the situation develops and those forces are needed, I'm sure that they will be ready -- be ready, or we can talk to those countries about whether or not they will be able to contribute to ensuring a secure and stable environment in Afghanistan.

Q One quick follow-up?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

Q It seems since the president's speech to Congress, some Canadians were outraged because he didn't mention Canada specifically in his thanks. And ever since then, cabinet secretaries and the president himself are kind of falling all over themselves to thank Canada at the slightest provocation. Yesterday, Secretary (sic) Ashcroft stopped himself in mid-sentence, as if remembering to thank a long-suffering wife when he was thanking countries. Has there been any kind of specific directive -- (laughter) -- to people that they should do this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think -- I don't think we need any specific directive -- (laughter) -- to talk about the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. There's no closer relationship than between the U.S. and Canada across-the-board. I am not aware of any specific directive.

Q (Inaudible) -- from Le Stampe (?) Newspaper. Almost two weeks ago, the U.S. government asked to the Lebanese one to freeze, to seize the assets of the Hezbollah. The government of Lebanon refused. I'd like to know if since then there has been any change in the Lebanese position? And what is the standpoint of the National Security Council on the policy of Lebanon on this regard? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: With regards to the specific developments since that announcement, the State Department probably can give you a better idea based on their diplomatic contacts with the government of Lebanon. But, with respect to Hamas and Hezbollah, we have said very specifically and clearly that you can't on one hand say that you don't like al Qaeda and then turn around and, as Dr. Rice has put it, hug Hezbollah and Hamas. They've been on the list of foreign terrorist organizations and previously they were on a Treasury Department list of organizations whose assets the U.S., within the U.S., would try to block. The president's new executive order, of course, extends and modifies that, that it will allow the United States to go after the assets of those organizations and groups and individuals who do business with the organizations and individuals that have been listed.

So, again, this gets back to the point that we made. Countries will have to choose what side they will be on in this war against terrorism. And the president made very clear that time -- that time is not indefinite, and that it is important for countries to act and not just offer rhetorical support in the war against terror.

Q Thank you. Let me follow -- (inaudible) -- According to my memory, the Armitage report on North Korea, I remember it was 1998, it recommended that the United States could attack the ships in the sea -- North Korean ships that carry some cargo item or technology or missile to other country. And let me make it clear, if the North Korea won't allow inspectors in, and don't stop before missile technology to other countries, what will Kim Jong Il find out? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, your memory is a lot better than mine if you remember the Armitage report of 1998. Again, I would just -- I would reiterate that we expect North Korea to abide by the commitments that they made in signing the agreed framework, and certainly to live up to international norms guarding against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the technologies related to them. And that also includes the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Q I'm Yochi Nishura (ph) of the Sankei Japanese Daily. In yesterday's press availability at the White House, President Bush referred to Spanish leader who he is going to meet with tomorrow as president of Spain instead of prime minister. I'm wondering if you noticed that, as --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think he actually holds both titles, the prime minister and president.

Q No. No. He said president of Spain twice.

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

Q Thank you. Hoda Tawfik, Al Ahram, Egypt. You just mentioned that the president called King Abdullah of Jordan. And the president is going to meet with Prime Minister Sharon next week. My question is, Arafat excluded from the contacts of the White House? There's a lot of points concern in the recent tragic events by both sides, and how does the White House assess this to interfere or reflect on the mission of the American delegation over there? And also, we are not quite clear about the terms of reference of implementing the cease-fire and the Mitchell plan. Do the steps go simultaneously, or one after the other, or really, what are the terms of implementation? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Certainly. Let me start with the last part first. In terms of -- in terms of the discussions about the security situation, the Tenet work plan, and the Mitchell Committee Report, those are things that Assistant Secretary Burns and General Zinni are going to be talking about, both with the Israelis and the Palestinians. And what President Bush has made clear is that both sides need to make efforts to reduce the levels of violence. And on the Palestinian side, the president has called on Chairman Arafat to make 100 percent effort to reduce, to end the violence, reduce the violence, and to have those -- that effort reflected in reality, tangible results. And these are the types of things --

Q (Inaudible) --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, these are --

Q This side do this, and the other side do the other at the same time.

MR. MCCORMACK: These are exactly the types of things -- the issues that have been under discussion between the Israelis and the Palestinians and which we've also been involved in. Director Tenet was in the region earlier, and these are exactly the types of things that he was talking about and that the delegation that is out there now is going to talk about. The first step, though, however, is the need to end the violence, to make 100 percent effort to reduce that violence, because without that, you are never going to get into the Tenet work plan as well as the Mitchell plan.

You mentioned recent actions in the region, and I think that -- with regard to the mission -- and I think that really only highlights the urgency and the need for the violence to end in the region so that discussions between the Palestinians and the Israelis with regard to -- with regard to the Tenet and the Mitchell -- and, you know, and at the end of that, final status negotiations based on U.N. resolutions can take place. So, it really is important that the sides make every effort to have good discussions with the delegation and move forward and address the security situation.

Q (Inaudible) -- with Arafat?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the contacts with Arafat, when we have meetings to announce, we'll certainly let you know.

Q I'm -- (inaudible) -- from Pakistan Observer. I have two questions. President Bush the day before yesterday urged the American nation to be prepared to make more sacrifices as the American forces are zeroing in on Osama Bin Laden. Is he apprehending some nuclear attack from Osama Bin Laden? Does he mean because there have been minimal casualties in this war against terrorism of Americans, why did he warn the Americans to be prepared to make more sacrifices? He was clearly referring in terms of life loss.

And my second question is that how many Taliban or al Qaeda activists have been captured so far by the Northern Alliance or the American forces inside Afghanistan? And when are they going to be extradited to America and when are they going to be tried by the military courts here? Thank you.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, with respect to the president's statements yesterday, it was just something that he wanted to prepare the American people for, and he did so in his speech before Congress immediately after September 11th. And it is -- he thought it was important that the American people understand that this war on terrorism is going to be a long war, it may be a difficult war, and it may certainly involve sacrifice. And as you pointed out, that my involve further loss of American lives as well as lives of other nationalities that we've already experienced in the World Trade Center.

I think that, you know, because certainly we envisioned at some point there were going to be military operations, and in military operations there's always the danger of losses -- loss of life of American forces. And in -- thus far, I think that we've been quite fortunate and the number of casualties have been rather small for the types of operations that we've been undertaking. But, we still have much work to do in terms of military operations, and those military operations, by their very nature, entail risk, and risk to the military forces that are executing them. And, not only that, that this also involves sacrifice in terms of the family members of those military personnel and others who are involved in this war against terrorism.

So, the president just thought that it was very important to prepare the American people for that. Certainly we will do everything we can to avoid loss of life, but again, these types of operations, it is unfortunately a sad reality that those things may occur.

MODERATOR: Thank you all very much.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thank you.

 END.

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