Weekly Briefing for Foreign Media

MODERATOR: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm very pleased yet again to welcome Philip Reeker, the deputy spokesman of the Department of State, who will start off with a few comments and then call on you. Please, as usual, wait for the microphone, and at least in first round introduce yourself by name and organization. Thank you very much. And thank you, Phil.

MR. PHILIP REEKER: Thank you, Peter. It's always a pleasure to come back to the foreign press center, and I'm glad we've been able to continue this. Thank you all for coming. I know it gets busy during this holiday season.

Obviously you are aware that the secretary of state will be traveling next week. He's very much looking forward to this trip to Europe and to Eurasia. He will be attending the OSCE ministerial conference in Bucharest, departing Washington Monday. And then he'll also be visiting Ankara, Turkey and going to Brussels for the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting there -- meeting with our NATO allies as well as partner foreign ministers, and then traveling on to two stops the secretary has mentioned in Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. So, again, an opportunity to discuss the coalition, its work and the campaign against terrorism as well as a number of bilateral and multilateral issues on that trip. The secretary will be back the following Monday night.

I'd also like to just note we've released from the State Department today a statement by Secretary Powell on World AIDS Day which is coming up this Saturday. The theme of World AIDS Day this year is "I care. Do you?" And President Bush and the American people have certainly made very clear that our answer is a resounding "yes," that we care. We're taking action here at home and within the international community, and as Secretary Powell points out, as he did in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly session in June, that our country, the United States, is playing a lead role in creating a new global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. President Bush has pledged $200 million in seed money to get that fund going. More will follow. And next year, through a combination of bilateral assistance programs and our support for the U.N. AIDS effort and for international research, the United States will contribute an additional $500 million to the battle against AIDS. So, I just call that statement to your attention.

It's important, I think, to remember that there are other foreign policy priorities that we're focusing on even as we have to spend a lot of our attention and time on the war against terrorism and our efforts there, but we are deeply engaged in so many other areas of foreign policy, including the international battle against HIV/AIDS because that is so important to our interests and the interests of all of us that share the planet.

So, with those introductory remarks, I'm happy to turn it over to your questions. And I'll start with the lady in the front.

Q Audrey Ferguson, Arab News. The State Department is holding what I believe is the first Iftar dinner this evening. I'm wondering if you could tell us who has been invited and who is going to speak?

MR. REEKER: Just to correct the impression -- this is not the first Iftar dinner. In fact, this is a tradition that's being continued tonight at the State Department of having an Iftar dinner for Americans -- the American Muslim community. Secretary Powell is hosting this event this evening. He will also recognize several Muslim individuals from New York City who were significantly affected by the events of September the 11th. I know there is someone from the New York Police Department, the New York Fire Department and others who have been involved in the efforts there and were affected by the terrorist attacks that affected all of us, of course.

Guests will include representatives of various American Muslim organizations, non-governmental organizations and prominent members of the Arab and American Muslim community. We don't have a specific guest list available at this point, but the secretary very much looks forward to that.

The remarks that the secretary will make are open for press coverage this evening. The State Department is coordinating that. And it really is an event, I think, celebrating the religious traditions of American citizens of the Muslim faith. It's an occasion for celebration and friendship, and the secretary is very pleased to be a part of this. So, he looks forward to that this evening.

Q Carreno with Universal of Mexico City.

MR. REEKER: Hi.

Q Hello. Just -- well, after September 11th there has been all very messy situation on the border with Mexico, and they wonder if there is any time frame or any project to ease the problems there, at least on the American side?

MR. REEKER: Well, certainly we're all aware that since September 11th we've had to take heightened security measures across the board. Really, it's an appropriate response to the attacks against our country on September the 11th, and those measures are designed to prevent further attacks. I think along our common border with Mexico as well as with Canada, which are two very large but very important borders, we've had to institute more thorough vehicle inspections, identification checks for foot travelers. Obviously, those delays that are caused by the increased security, I think are regrettable but necessary things that we have to look at in these days when we face the threats that were so evident September the 11th.

The impact of those, of course, impacts the United States as well as our close friends to the north and south in terms of economic impact. Businesses on the border, on both sides of the border, are clearly reporting signs of decreased sales because of the decreased border traffic. I think the Mexican government is very understanding of our concerns -- of course, the Canadians are too. And we've been working so closely with both of our neighbors, our good friends, on these issues. This cooperation on security measures has been very solid on that. And the enhanced security measures that Mexico has taken throughout Mexico have been very important, I think, in increasing security throughout the entire North American continent, and we'll continue to cooperate.

As you know, one of the major aspects of the war on terrorism globally is law enforcement cooperation. And that's something that is vitally important, particularly with our two closest neighbors. And I think at the local level as well there's a lot of binational cooperation between local law enforcement directly on either side of the border.

So, you may want to talk to INS about some of the other aspects of this, but I know that the INS San Diego office, for instance, has been coordinating very closely with the mayor of Tijuana to handle traffic movements and improve flows, given the situation. And also, as you are aware, we have held another round of U.S.-Mexican migration talks, because we want to keep that important issue as something we're working. You know, both presidents, Fox and Bush, have pledged to continue working on immigration reform. And so on November 20th we had another series of talks led from the Department of State by our assistant secretary for consular affairs, Mary Ryan, and so that will continue as well.

Yes, a follow-up.

Q Some people in the American media has termed that Latin American in general, and Mexico in particular, has been losers in terms of the attention -- the U.S. attention in foreign policy. So I wonder what is your view about it? There is obviously a much lesser attention, or resources, or American resources toward Latin America.

MR. REEKER: Well, I think a lot of those perceptions are based on the attention paid by the press, frankly, to particular countries, particular aspects of our foreign policy. As I made clear earlier, we are very much determined not to allow terrorism to hijack our overall foreign policy and we have many foreign policy priorities. President Bush I think made very clear coming into office that Latin America and the hemisphere in general are absolute priorities of this administration, and that it continue to be that way. Just because the headlines of the day happen to shift in their focus to other parts of the world, other aspects of our foreign policy or indeed other aspects of current events, doesn't mean that those countries, those issues are any less important to us.

And so, as I indicated here, cross-border issues with Mexico continue to be things we're looking at, how to adapt that, how to work together with our Mexican friends in adapting to some of the new realities that we have to deal with in terms of security. So, it's no less important. It just may take a different spot in the page or space allocated by your editors for press coverage of such things. But our diplomats that focus on Latin America are very busy there.

You know that the OAS has continued to play an important role. You will recall that Secretary Powell was actually at an OAS meeting about democracy in the hemisphere when the attacks of September 11th occurred. And the entire hemisphere -- with perhaps one minor exception -- has been extremely supportive of our efforts in terms of solidarity and joining the coalition against terrorism.

Goyal?

Q Raghubir Goyal, Asia Today and India Globe. Phil, can you please give us an update on Afghanistan, including the talks in Germany, and also some of the Taliban, including non-Afghans from Arabs and Pakistanis are surrendering, why they are surrendering and what is their future, what will happen to them?

MR. REEKER: I guess I could only speculate as to why they're surrendering. Obviously, we think that's a good thing. I think perhaps they've seen the folly of their ways. They've seen the mistaken path that the Taliban and its followers were taken on by the leadership, by Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists, the criminals who had invaded Afghanistan earlier and brought us to the position we're in at this point. So, I don't have any specific details for you on those surrenders. Those are things I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon or to people on the ground that could give you some of that.

But I think we've been paying a lot of attention to what's going on in Bonn, which has been generally a positive process, where the Afghan representatives there have clearly expressed their desire for an agreement, agreeing in principle on a framework for an interim supreme council, for an interim administrative authority for Afghanistan, and establishment of some broad-based government, which is what we have been talking about for some time now, and using the loya jirga forum to bring that together. They've also been talking about the need for security as part of that in bringing back some true governance to Afghanistan after all the years it suffered through civil war and under the Taliban in most recent years.

I think they're working on some of the more difficult issues now, such as structure and composition of those institutions that they've agreed to in general. And I think the most notable thing is that the various Afghan representatives have continued to display a real spirit of cooperation. We're very encouraged by their efforts and urge them to press ahead. We're also great to the United Nations for their efforts, and the secretary-general, who was here in Washington yesterday, as you know, and his special representative, Mr. Brahimi, I think have made extraordinary efforts along with the staff to organize this conference. Remember, this is a U.N.-organized conference of Afghans, of Afghan parties.

And our observer group, led by our special envoy, Ambassador Dobbins, is there to observe, to continue to engage with different Afghanistan groups, to engage with our friends and colleagues in the international community, because, as you are aware, the president has been quite committed to helping the Afghanistan people, not only with the humanitarian challenges they face in the immediacy, but in reconstruction and rebuilding of Afghanistan, because it is in our interest to see, in the long-term, stability come back to Afghanistan, the opportunity for prosperity, for people to live their lives without the fear and treatment they received under the Taliban, and most importantly without terrorists in their midst.

So, a terrorist-free Afghanistan is very important. I think the groups in Bonn have agreed on the need for effective security there, and they're continuing their discussions on how to provide security, and also have agreed that the former king, Zahir Shah, could play a role in bringing peace to the country. And so they're going to continue those talks, and we'll continue to watch from here.

Q May I please follow-up, please?

MR. REEKER: Sure.

Q Thank you. How much role the Taliban and the women will play in the new government? And will it going to be a democracy type government in Afghanistan, because the most people who suffered in Afghanistan under the barbaric rule of the Taliban are the women.

MR. REEKER: Exactly. And we've talked about that a great deal. I think you are aware of some of the remarks and events that the first lady, Mrs. Laura Bush, has held in regard to that, to highlight the plight of women under the Taliban, what happened to them in terms of health care, in terms of their ability to work, to care for their families, to express themselves, to go to school, their ability to be a respected part of society. We have been very vocal in stating the fact that we don't believe that a successful reconstruction of Afghanistan can take place without including 50 percent of the population -- that is, the women. So that's very crucial.

On the other part of your question, I think we've been quite clear that there seem to be a role for the Taliban leadership. They have demonstrated exactly what they are about in terms of inviting and becoming one with terrorists. And I think we've all seen demonstrably what they brought to their country, and it's time for the country to be able to move on with a broad-based government. We think democracy has a lot to offer for it. We've been quite clear about that. We will continue to offer our support in the reconstruction and also in helping Afghans to develop a government.

So, right now, developing an interim administration is the important thing. They've agreed on the outlines of the structures they need, and then ultimately that process can lead to formation of a longer range government, and we'll continue to watch that with real interest.

Q (Inaudible) -- from (Dawn ?) Pakistan. Mr. Reeker, there has been a report that the arrival of the Russian troops in south of Kabul, the -- (inaudible) -- sort of took the Americans by surprise and that there was enough concern for the secretary of state to ring the Russian foreign minister about it?

MR. REEKER: I think if you had been in our briefing at the State Department today, you would have heard Ambassador Boucher address that, and that's why I'm glad I can be here as well. The secretary himself has also addressed that issue.

The Russians communicated their intent to begin flights into Afghanistan prior to the start of the operation, and this is very much in keeping with the humanitarian assistance that we have welcomed, that we think is a good idea. You know, the Russians have been a partner in this all along in terms of discussions about the future of Afghanistan, the six-plus-two structure. Opening their embassy is an important aspect of this. These are not military operations. And despite some of the press reports that we read, this does not at all reflect some sort of discordance here. I think Secretary Powell was quite clear about that. He does speak to his counterpart and colleague, Foreign Minister Ivanov, on a fairly regular basis, and they have talked about these issues. We read these things in the press too, and sometimes wonder where the stories come from.

But the Russians have been busy with the airlifting of humanitarian equipment on these military cargo planes. And, of course, there's the presence of a security force to support that activity. I think that's all -- all in keeping with exactly what we would expect.

And certainly on the humanitarian side, we have been doing a tremendous amount working with the other parts of the international community, with the World Food Program, with the United Nations, with many of the non-governmental organizations in terms of supplying 80 percent of the financing and the food for those operations to support the Afghan people, particularly with the winter setting in. We have opportunities now to bring more food in.

I think the World Food Program feels confident that the food can get there, but reaching the people in Afghanistan is still going to be a tremendous challenge. I don't want to underestimate the humanitarian challenge that we all face in trying to decrease the number of deaths this winter from the elements, from food shortages. All of those are things that the international community is working very hard to address, and we'll certainly welcome the Russian participation in that as well.

Speaking of Russians, my friend from the Russian news agency.

Q TASS News Agency of Russia Dimitri Girisanov (ph). As far as I know, John Baldwin and Richard Haass are going to make some two separate trips to Moscow in the coming days. What exactly -- what issues exactly they would discuss with their counterparts in Moscow, who their counterparts would be? And as a follow-up to the previous question, if I may, basically is there or there is not some kind of quarrel between Moscow and Washington on the role of a Brahimi government in the future government of Afghanistan?

MR. REEKER: I think the simple answer to your second question is there is no quarrel. We are all in agreement. I think, as I said, the Russians have very much been part of the process in terms of the U.N.-based six-plus-two structure, in discussing for a long time now how we can move forward and how the international community can help with Afghanistan. Clearly, many countries have different histories in terms of their approach to groups in Afghanistan, in terms of the concept of recognizing what were former governments and what will be governments. The point is we're all in agreement that there needs to be a broad-based government, that the process taking place in Bonn right now is the process that will lead to that. And I've already spoken to what we've seen as the progress there, and we want to see that process continue. The Russians have an interest in that as well. I do think this will be part of the discussions that Ambassador Richard Haass will have. He is our director of policy planning and also coordinator for our efforts on Afghanistan.

As you're aware, he is, I believe, now in Moscow, and I don't have a specific read-out of with whom he's meeting. You may want to actually check with his Russian host in terms of who his counterparts will be. And he may review a series of other issues. I don't have a specific read-out. Once he's done with those meetings, we could try to see what read-out we get from him in terms of that. Obviously there are lots and lots of bilateral issues that we have with Russia. We have a very vigorous relationship. As you know, our presidents have met very recently. Our foreign ministers, or in our case, the secretary of State, meet on a regular basis. They talk on the phone. They'll be seeing each other in Europe in the coming week. So we have lots to accomplish there.

I just don't have any details on Undersecretary Bolton's travel. He does deal with, obviously, arms control and other issues, and I'll have to look into that one. I wasn't aware of his next planned trip, but we can check on that for you.

Yes, Jean-Pierre (ph).

Q Jean-Pierre Granale (ph), Italian news agency ANSA. Two questions, Phil. First one, back to the Russian-America relations. Does Secretary Powell feel that the new test on missile defense Saturday will have an impact on his meetings with Foreign Minister Ivanov next week? I think they will meet three times at least.

And the second question, regarding Italy, there are rumors in Italy of a new specific terroristic threat addressed to Italian- American interests in Italy, just like at the beginning of October. Are you aware of anything of that?

MR. REEKER: To answer that second question, first, I'm not aware of anything new. I'd be happy to check and see. I think our travel warning, the public announcement we made remains in effect on that because of warnings, indications we had of the possibility of terrorist attacks against American-related things in Italy.

I think it just highlights again the fact that the war on terrorism is far from over. It's a threat to all of us. We saw it, of course, most literally on the 11th of September and what happened in New York and here at the Pentagon, but it's something we have to take very seriously and we are taking seriously and working with Italians and in so many others in so many different aspects of the war on terrorism: intelligence sharing; the law enforcement cooperation that's going on and you've been seeing as the headlines about arrests and, you know, sharing of law enforcement information, which is vital to this. And of course the financial aspects continue to be important, the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373, seizing of assets belong to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, cutting off of their ability to fund these types of operations, closing down accounts. So all of that is really very important.

In terms of the testing, I'm afraid I have to refer you to the Pentagon for details on that. I'm not every familiar of details on that. But I don't think it involves anything new in terms of our discussions with Russia on these issues. I think Secretary Powell has, again, a whole list of issues to discuss when he sees Foreign Minister Ivanov. And the focus of his trip obviously will be the war on terrorism, but other bilateral issues, and I don't think I have anything to add at this point in terms of where we are on getting beyond the ABM Treaty and how we can deal with the threats in the post-Cold War world that we face and our desire to deploy a missile defense system that will allow us to deal with some of those new threats. But I don't think there's anything new to add.

Yes, sir.

Q Yes, Caliu Diarte (ph) from Pagina 12 in Argentina. Just, if you could just clarify what is the U.S.'s definition of the Taliban leadership which will not be allowed to participate in the post-war government, because some -- there had been talk about including moderate Taliban leaders?

Would this black list include commanders who might choose now to defect, say from the defense of Kandahar?

MR. REEKER: I think those are all good questions to ask the Afghans who are meeting in Bonn and who are looking at the structures for a future government. I think it's quite clear to everybody, whether it's we who are fighting the Taliban who have supported the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked it, along with the rest of the civilized world, and those Afghans who suffered under the Taliban, that that type of regime with the way it treats women and other aspects, particularly its embrace of terrorism, is not in the best interests of Afghanistan. I am not aware of a particular black list. I have never heard of such a term. I think it's going to be something for the Afghans to decide as they move forward in this process. But I think in Bonn right now there was a very representative group of a number of different geographically and ethnically diverse Afghan organization structures, and they are working well together, deciding on common goals and common aims. And that is a broad-based government. I think it is quite clear to everybody that there is no place for the Taliban leadership in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

As far as getting down into the weeds of people who choose to have a different approach, that is something that they are going to have to deal with as they look to political structures in a future Afghanistan.

Q Okay, one quick follow-up. What's in -- would the media reports that said that the State Department was interested in these moderate Taliban -- was this correct? Was is part of the State Department to seek out moderate Taliban leaders, or was this misstated?

MR. REEKER: I am not sure to which report you are specifically mentioning. We have had contacts going back long before September the 11th with the Taliban regimes and representatives of it in terms of making our point clearly. That was that they needed to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions that have been in place for over two years. They needed to turn over Osama bin Laden where he could be brought to justice, as the Security Council resolution demanded. They needed to stop trafficking in narcotics. They needed to start improving their treatment of women. They needed to allow girls to go to school. These are the types of messages that we relayed to the Taliban, however you would describe particular individuals as moderate or not. We also were quite clear that the president said when our citizens were detained along with Germany and Australia, the Shelter Now group, that we needed to see them released. And of course fortunately now they have been.

So in terms of pursuing any particular Taliban, we are still in pursuit of the Taliban that continued to shelter and hole up in caves with Osama bin Laden and his ilk. That is our main goal, as you know. That remains the focus of our military efforts, and of course so many other aspects of our campaign against terrorism -- rooting that out so that it cannot threaten us or others in the world, and to give Afghanistan then, the Afghan people, an opportunity to rebuild, restructure, regovern their country with a broad-based government that actually represents the interests of the people.

MODERATOR: The gentleman here, and then we'll go there.

Q I'm Mahmoud Hamdani (ph) from Pakistan Observer, Pakistan. There are reports, quite credible ones, that some of the Taliban elements have succeeded in sneaking into Pakistan, because there is a long porous border. What does the U.S. government plan to do if they try to create some problem for the government of Pakistan? Is there any understanding between the government of Pakistan and the United States government --

MR. REEKER: First of all --

Q -- to launch a campaign against those elements?

MR. REEKER: I think you are speaking in a hypothetical and a speculative case. I have seen reports suggesting that perhaps those certain Taliban or others had crossed that border, as you indicated. It's a very long difficult to control border there. We have had projects to work with Pakistan to help them in terms of border defense for a long time, but I am not aware of any specific things in terms of Taliban leadership or others that may or may not have gone there. We work very closely with the government of Pakistan in terms of their issues, and we will continue to be in touch with them on that. I think President Musharraf and his government really on behalf of the Pakistani people made brave and important decisions that showed a lot of foresight, forethought and understanding when they saw immediately after September the 11th what the Taliban had created in terms of allowing this type of pestering virus of a terrorist network to remain in Afghanistan, and made the right decision to join us and to be a very active, very important member in the campaign against terrorism. President Musharraf saw that al Qaeda, bin Laden and the Taliban had twisted Islam, had attempted to hijack a religion and to use it for their own criminal secular desires. And I think the Pakistani people have understood that, and our supportive of Pakistan's efforts to support this coalition and to see not only that terrorism is rooted out of Afghanistan, but that now the efforts we are making, not only current humanitarian efforts but our long-term goals to help with reconstruction of a secure more prosperous and above all terrorist- and drug-free Afghanistan can take hold. And we will -- the president has made quite clear we are committed to that reconstruction, and we have already had a conference here to talk about reconstruction and the needs we have, and we are going to move forward on that, and move beyond the Taliban, because I think we have a real opportunity now to see a brighter future in the 21st century for Afghanistan and for the whole region because of the stability it will bring there.

MODERATOR: Sir in the back, and the lady in the front.

Q I am Kwang-jo Goh (ph) from Korea Economic Daily. As far as I know, North Korea rejected the inspection of developing mass destruction weapons, urged by President George W. Bush. After that there is a wide gasp from the South Korean people that North Korea may be the next target after Afghanistan. What do you think of it? What is the view about that? What is the response, reaction to the rejection?

MR. REEKER: I would simply point you to, in terms of your suggestion about targets or next steps in the war on terrorism, point you to what the president and the secretary have said. We will be looking at all countries, all terrorist groups which have a global reach which threaten us. As you know, we have had concerns about North Korea sponsorship, state sponsorship, support for terrorism. That's been an issue. It's something we'd like to discuss with the North Koreans as part of our offer that President Bush has made to have an unconditional dialogue with the North Koreans.

I think on the inspection question that you indicate at the beginning, there's certainly no change in our policy on that, or toward North Korea in general. You will recall that the 1994 agreement, the agreed framework between the United States and the DPRK, stated that the DPRK must come within full compliance with the safeguards agreement it concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 1992. And in order for the IAEA to implement the safeguards agreement, it is going to have to undertake a number of verification in North Korea. That's just simply a fact and part of the need under that agreement. We continue to urge the North Koreans to start their cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency now. I think the verification activities, if you talk to the IAEA, could take more than three years, based on experience they have had with other countries. And in order for the compliance to occur in a manner that keeps pace with the schedule for the nuclear power plants being built in North Korea by the KEDO organization, it's important that the North Koreans cooperate now. So I think it's in their own interests, in keeping with the agreements they made with us and with the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 1992 to move forward on that, because according to the agreed framework, only when North Korea has fully complied with its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency will North Korea receive the key nuclear components necessary to make the reactors operational. It's in their interests and it's in all of our interests to work on that.

MODERATOR: Sir, then we'll go back there.

Q (Inaudible) -- Shida (ph) of Sankei Shimbun, Japanese daily. Going back to the Russian issue, a senior State Department official was quoted as expressing his concerns about Russian intentions to reaffirm its recognition of the Rabbani government. He was quoted the day before yesterday, Tuesday. And today the secretary of State said that he was not concerned at all. And you emphasized that here was no significant difference between the U.S. and Russia on this issue.

Could I take it to mean that there was -- this issue was solved between then and now?

MR. REEKER: No. I think what you need to do is first of all focus on what the secretary of State has said clearly on the record, and the difference between what the secretary of State says through all of the journalists on the record, and an unnamed official who says something in whatever context that was said I think makes you point to the secretary of State. And that's clearly describing, as I did earlier, the way we feel about this. Again, there's a context here, and it's important for everybody to look at the fact that each country in the world, and the United Nations itself, has a different history in terms of recognition in the diplomatic speak of governments or groups in Afghanistan. We recognize countries, nations. We have always recognized Afghanistan as a country. We have not extended full relations, working relations, to any government. Other countries had done that, and the United Nations has a particular arrangement -- I don't know the details, you would have to ask their credentials committee up at the U.N. for the Rabbani, so-called Rabbani government dating back to the pre-Taliban era. And for other countries -- Russia included -- that is simply a fact of their history, of their diplomatic history, and their diplomatic engagement. The important thing to look at - -and the message that we have given, and I think everybody has given, including the Russians, is that we need to look at a broad-based government fully representative of the diverse ethnic and geographic groupings in Afghanistan, a government that can offer indeed governance to that country that has suffered so much, perhaps with a lot of distribution of power to local levels, which I think is always a successful thing to try. But al of that is stuff for the Afghans to work on. And our point has been, and everyone in the international community is in agreement that we let the process in Bonn go forward. It's a U.N.-coordinated process by Afghans. Let them make those determinations. And if they develop an interim administrative authority and move into something for a more long-term government structure, that is when we can all look at the more detailed legalistic diplomatic recognition questions. So I really don't think there's any difference there at all, and again I caution journalists from drawing too much out of these things in terms of specific things. We have all agreed, and there are plenty of on-the- record statements from everyone in the six-plus-two, from the G-8 foreign ministers and others, on what should happen in Afghanistan.

The other issue of people's history, individual countries and their histories with Afghanistan and different groups there and how they recognized or worked with those groups, is just that: up to those countries. And so now we need to see the Bonn process move forward, and then we'll go from there.

MODERATOR: The lady at the back.

Q Seko Kan (ph), Kyodo News, Japanese news wire. President Bush signed the 2002 appropriations bill for State, Commerce, Justice yesterday, which came to his desk without controversial provision that would have banned departments to use public funds to fight lawsuits brought by former POWs in forced labor. What is your view that was the decisive factor to convince Congress to drop that provision?

MR. REEKER: That's a question you'd have to ask Congress.

I can't speak for them. I know what our position was. The president signed the bill and was happy with it. And I just wouldn't speculate on that process. But I'm glad we now have a budget bill, and Peter and I can get paid.

Sir?

Q I am Jin Kim (sp) from the Chosun Ilbo, daily news of Korea. President Bush asked North Korea to allow the inspection of the weapons of mass destruction. When he mentioned about the inspection, does it include also the inspection on the biological and chemical weapons of North Korea?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think -- I don't have anything specific to offer in terms of North Korea and any particular weapons program. Our concerns about weapons of mass destruction and attempts by countries to develop those are exactly what President Bush is referring to. And that's something we are concerned about. And we have a number of issues with North Korea that we would like to discuss. We've offered to have a dialogue with North Korea to see how we could address some of those issues and how our relationship could move forward. And up to now, the North Koreans have not responded positively to that offer.

So we'll continue to have our concerns. We'll continue to desire to talk about them. I think the president was clear and -- that we want the opportunity to verify that weapons of mass destruction are not being developed in -- anywhere around the world because of the danger this poses to all of us. So it's in that spirit that he is talking about those issues, and it's in the spirit that we've stressed for a long time that we would like to have a dialogue with North Korea. These are some of the issues we would like to raise, but it's a dialogue that we offer without conditions, and we will -- hope that the North Koreans would respond positively to that.

Q Parasuram, the Press Trust of India. I was wondering whether you're in touch with the Nepalese government about the very serious situation that has arisen there of the Maoists insurgency. You know that Nepal is a very strategic place, and what happens there has impact on the stability of the entire region.

MR. REEKER: Yeah, I think -- for those of you that haven't followed, but it -- there have been a number of tragedies and deaths. Maoist insurgents detonated two bombs yesterday, I believe, at a Coca- Cola plant in Kathmandu yesterday morning. There was extensive property damage. In this case, I don't understand there were any injuries reported. There have been a number or reports of clashes with Maoist rebels and the Nepalese army and police forces at several locations.

I don't have a lot of details on that, but we have in the past and I'll continue to condemn most soundly attacks like this and to call on these Maoists to pursue their goals peacefully within the democratic framework established by Nepal's constitution. We very much support the Nepalese government's efforts to protect its citizens and its officials. As you know, there's been a state of emergency there, I think since Monday. The U.S. embassy, just to note, in Katmandu has restricted travel for our personnel there outside of the Katmandu valley because of the security concerns brought about by these attacks, and we issued a public announcement earlier this week noting for all Americans that they should review their plans to travel outside the Katmandu valley if they're doing that.

We have been in close touch with the Nepali government. We're considering provision of non-lethal equipment assistance to Nepal based on request submitted before the collapse of the cease-fire -- that is, before these current Maoist attacks took place. And we're also considering plans to provide Nepal with development assistance directed toward immediate high-impact job-creation programs that will promote development and improve living conditions for Nepalis (and/in ?) rural issues. There are no final decision on those matters. They're things we're looking at, discussing within our national security structure, but also, of course, with the Nepalis, and we will try to make assistance available on an expedited basis. But at this point, we'll just have to see when that -- (inaudible word).

Q Can I just follow it up?

MR. REEKER: Mm-hm.

Q You have appealed to the Maoists to follow the constitution.

MR. REEKER: Mm-hm.

Q Is there any country in the world where the Maoists have followed the constitution? Are they not, by the very nature of their ideology, (wedded to ?) violence?

MR. REEKER: Well, I think it speaks for itself, but we'll still make that appeal. There is a constitution, there is a structure, to deal with these issues. It's similar to so many other situations in the world where the role of violence must be condemned. It accomplishes nothing. We have structures within individual countries and internationally to deal with issues, to deal with political concerns, to deal with goals that groups may have.

And that's the way they should do it, not through wanton violence that results in the death of innocent persons and indeed only leads to, you know, despair, destruction, and a complete drain on economies when countries need to be focusing most on development and economic reconstruction to provide for their population.

Yeah?

Q Back to the Middle East. I'm wondering if you could comment on the announcement today that there was a recent bus bombing in Israel. This was followed by attacks yesterday. And there's some feeling that Arafat is unable to control some of the more violent factions in Palestine since the assassination of the Hamas leader last week. Can you comment on how this is going to affect the peace talks that are taking place, now that General Zinni and Ambassador Burns are there, and maybe talk about what's happening there in general?

MR. REEKER: Well, obviously, I don't have the details on those. I think the breaking news was coming just as I was coming up here about an hour ago. This violence is dreadful, and I'll be looking into the details of that.

But certainly we condemn the violence, this tragic loss of life that leads to nothing -- again, a situation that needs to be resolved by getting the violence down and by moving into a peaceful negotiation.

Both sides have agreed -- and the entire international community has supported the road map which is there, the structure for moving into a process where they can get back to a dialogue, direct discussion that can lead to a comprehensive peace and deal with the fundamental issues, because both sides, the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, need to live side by side in that region.

As the secretary said in his speech last week, this is exactly what we want to promote, and this is why we've sent General Zinni, along with Assistant Secretary Burns, to the region. They have met this week with Prime Minister Sharon, with Foreign Minister Peres, and with Chairman Arafat, as well as other senior Israeli and Palestinian leaders. General Zinni is going to continue to meet in the region with Israel and Palestinian officials. And again, his immediate mission, as the secretary said, is helping the parties achieve a durable cease-fire, working the security structures that are present on both sides and which are bolstered by the Tenet work plan to make that happen.

Assistant Secretary Burns, as you're probably aware, is in Egypt today, and he's met with President Mubarak there, and he's traveling on to Jordan tomorrow, then to Saudi Arabia on Saturday for consultations on bilateral issues in those countries, but also on regional issues, including the Israel-Palestinian conflict, obviously, to talk with those governments, and also about our international campaign against terrorism. And we expect Assistant Secretary of Burns back here on Sunday; that, of course, prior to Mr. Sharon's meetings here on Monday.

So I think, once again, just to stress, the mission of General Zinni is to help the two sides, the parties, achieve a durable cease- fire because there's got to be an end to the violence to help them move along the lines and into the Mitchell plan.

A follow-up?

Q My second question is about Iraq. For the past two days, the U.N. Security Council has been debating Iraq. There is some question in the Middle East as to what America's perspective is right now. There are some rumors flying about retaliation. I wonder if you could talk about the U.S. position on Iraq?

MR. REEKER: Well, I don't think I can add to the dialogue and discourse that both the president and the secretary have had, as well as their spokesmen, this week. We continue to watch Iraq. We have no illusions about the regime of Saddam Hussein and the evil, in fact, that he represents; his attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction; his history of attacking his own people as well as his neighbors, of threatening stability in the region. It's quite clear what Saddam has on his mind, the type of regime that he maintains there, which suppresses the people of Iraq. And so we've kept them contained, since kicking them out of the country they had invaded a decade ago, and working, again, in a different type of coalition in the Gulf War.

We welcome the Security Council's unity in our new approach to provisions of humanitarian goods to Iraq. The resolution that they worked on now I think takes a very significant step forward. The council -- as you know, the Security Council agreed to adopt, with refinements that might be agreed over the next six months, a goods- review list and associated implementation procedures. This will effectively lift sanctions on purely civilian trade with Iraq and focus controls on the militarily useful items, those things that we'd be most concerned about that would matter to Iraq's efforts to re-arm, since Saddam's nefarious attempts in that regard.

So we're very pleased, I think, that the Russians have now joined a consensus on the benefits of a goods-review list, and we'll use now the time over the next six months with this kind of unity to further seek improvements in international controls on the Iraqi regime. You know, the bottom line is Iraq has never complied with the obligations that it's required to under UN Security Council resolutions, and when they have complied, it's only when faced by a very united UN Security Council. And so that's what we're going to move forward with.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. REEKER: Uh huh. Okay.

Q Phil, will the United States stay within the coalition, or would it go outside of the coalition in regards to Iraq?

MR. REEKER: Again, I don't know what you're referring to, I mean, in terms of -- it's this hypothetical that everybody keeps trying to talk about. We keep our eye on Iraq. The rest of the world keeps their eye on Iraq. We're working at the Security Council to continue the controls on Iraq and do that.

I think we have time just for one more.

Q I have a quick one. It's on Bangladesh.

MR. REEKER: Mmm hmm.

Q Under this new government of Khaleda Zia, minorities, especially Hindus, are under attack, and they're fleeing Bangladesh and they are crying for international help actually. Now what the United States is going to do about that, because it's urgent, what they are calling for?

MR. REEKER: I'm not aware of the particular situation there in recent weeks. It's not something I've looked at. We could check into that. I think we've been clear in our calls not just in Bangladesh but around the world for tolerance, for respect for human rights, respect for international religious freedoms and the norms that that contains, and I think that's important for Bangladesh to pursue those aspects of a democracy so that they can move ahead too and deal with the problems they have -- the need for economic development and reform. And we'll continue to make our views clear and to continue our dialogue with Bangladesh on a variety of issues in our bilateral relationship.

I think that wraps it up.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Phil. And we hope we see you back soon.

MR. REEKER: Always a pleasure.

Q Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

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.