White House Report: US Midterm Elections, Iraq (Pass Homeland Security Bush's Top Priority Congress)

06 November 2002 White House Report: U.S. Midterm Elections, Iraq (Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed) (930)

President Bush spent November 6 out of the public eye, but phoning candidates of both parties following the nation's November 5 mid-term elections in which Republicans took control of the Senate and retained control of the House of Representatives.

The President "thought that the most appropriate way to mark the day would be with a touch of graciousness. And so the president is not going to have any public statements today," White House Press Secretary Fleischer told reporters.

"After a very late night in the residence last night, the president this morning has been making a series of phone calls to talk to candidates from last night's election. He has spoken to (Democratic) Senator-elect Pryor. He looks forward to talking to other Democrats, as well. He has made additional calls to Republican candidates. He spoke to some 30 or so candidates last night. And that's how the president will spend his day. He has no public events on his schedule for the day."

Bush believes the election results are "a reflection of the strong candidates that we had running across the country, and that the results are really a testament to those individuals," Fleischer said.

At a meeting in the morning with his senior staff, Bush told them that 'the credit goes to the candidates and to those who focused on changing the tone, people who want to work together to get things done,'" Fleischer said. "That's what the president saw as the message from last night."

The 2002 midterm elections made history, Fleischer said, because the historical trend of presidents' parties losing congressional seats in the midterm elections did not take place.

"In fact, for the first time in history Republicans gained seats in the House of Representatives in the midterm election...as well as taking the Senate was the first time," Fleischer said.

But notwithstanding the Republican gains in Congress overall, Fleischer reminded reporters that the U.S. Senate still remains closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, even though party control has switched.

President Bush "thinks it remains terribly important to listen to people in both parties and to work on principle and from principle on behalf of the agenda he believes in," the press secretary said.

But Fleischer said the election results "increase the likelihood of getting things done for the American people. There are many initiatives that could have and should have been done in the last Congress that got bottled up and stopped that now have a much stronger chance of getting done," he said.

Bush's two major priorities are the protection of America's homeland, including its national security, and strengthening America's economy, the press secretary said:"those are the two presidential priorities that he wants to work very closely with Democrats and Republicans alike to make happen."

And the most important item of unfinished business for this Congress when it returns this year to Washington for its lame duck session "is the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, said Fleischer.

"America remains a nation at war, we remain a nation where there are enemies who are trying to attack us, and the President thinks that it remains a vital priority of the Congress this year to pass the Department of Homeland Security(Act)."

United States representatives to the United Nations have presented to U.N. Security Council members a revised text of the U.S. resolution on Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters November 6 at his midday briefing at the White House.

United States diplomats in New York "laid down the resolution today," Fleischer said. "This is a revised text of our resolution that makes crystal clear that Iraq must disarm," he said, adding that the United States is seeking a vote on the resolution on Friday, November 8.

The United Nations discussion on Iraq "has been a long, but a very constructive and important process," the press secretary said. President Bush "made the decision to go to the United Nations. He set this course in motion, and the course he set in motion is now coming to a head."

For six weeks, efforts by President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador John Negroponte, "have put together the key elements of a resolution that we hope will meet with support of all the members of the Security Council," said Fleischer. The resolution the United States is circulating, he said, "takes into account the views that we heard from our allies on the Security Council. And it meets the goals that the president identified from the start.

"From the start the president made clear that any resolution to be voted on had to say that Iraq is in material breach. This resolution does. He made it clear that it had to provide for a very tough inspection regime. This resolution does that. And the president made it clear that there will be serious consequences if Iraq fails to disarm. This resolution accomplishes all of those core principles. And it does so in a way that we believe will also attract the support of our allies whose voices are important and whose voices the president wanted to listen to."

"Under this draft, and as always at the United Nations, it is the prerogative and the right of any member of the Security Council to convene, to hold a meeting as they judge wise and see fit," Fleischer said. "Nothing in this resolution handcuffs the president, and the president thinks it is very important and has committed to further consultations."

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

06 November 2002
State Department Briefing Transcript
(Department, South Korea/Japan/China, Iraq, North Korea, Ukraine,
Cuba, Yemen, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, International Organizations)
(10700)

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.

Following is the transcript:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:55 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman

Index:

DEPARTMENT
Secretary Powell's Travel Plans / Secretary Powell to Remain in
Washington
Under Secretary Dobriansky to Attend Community of Democracies Meeting

SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN/CHINA
Assistant Secretary Kelly's Travel to the Region

IRAQ
Status of UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq / Prospects for UNSC
Vote
Timetables in Resolution / Inspections / Consequences for Iraqi
Obstruction
Secretary Powell's Engagement with Counterparts on UN Resolution
Prospects for Secretary Powell to Travel to New York
Prospects for Military Options
Iraqi Non-Compliance on Other UN Resolutions
Broad-Based Iraqi Opposition Conference

NORTH KOREA
Status of Heavy Fuel Oil Shipments to North Korea

UKRAINE
US-UK Expert Team Report on Transfer of Kolchuga System to Iraq

CUBA
Expulsion of Officials from Cuba's UN Mission and Cuban Interests
Section

YEMEN
Status of US Embassy in Sanaa
Killing of Al-Qaida Operatives in Yemen

NORTHERN IRELAND
Gerry Adams Meetings at the Department

LEBANON
Economic Conference / Economic Reform

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
US Funding of the World Health Organization
Secretary Powell's Meeting with UNESCO Secretary General

MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If I can start, I
have an announcement of both, I think, personal and policy interest to
many of you.

Secretary of State Powell called Korean Foreign Minister Choi
yesterday evening to express his deepest regret that he will not be
able to attend the Community of Democracies ministerial, as planned.
Due to pressing matters, including the passage of the UN Iraq
resolution, the Secretary must remain in Washington at this time.

Recognizing the value of gathering such a unique group of nations, the
Secretary is disappointed not to have the opportunity to join his
colleagues from those countries which have committed themselves to the
protection and promotion of democracy worldwide.

The Seoul ministerial is an opportune occasion to reaffirm the
principles expressed at the first Community of Democracies ministerial
and to put these principles into action to build a more secure and
prosperous global community.

The Secretary expressed his thanks to the Korean Government for its
leadership and hospitality in hosting the ministerial and to the
Korean nongovernmental community for hosting the forum that
accompanies the conference. He has asked Under Secretary Paula
Dobriansky to lead the US delegation to the conference.

QUESTION: Could you now confirm that he was going to China, but won't
go?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we had not fixed the other stops for the trip. At
that point it was being considered, but at this point it's moot.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. BOUCHER: He did talk to the Chinese Foreign Minister yesterday
about the UN resolution, so the Chinese also know that we're not going
there.

QUESTION: Obviously, the centerpiece can't be rescheduled, but
important talks with South Korea about North Korea's weapons program
-- is there any thinking about how to get on that high level with, you
know, the Japanese, too, and other concerned countries?

MR. BOUCHER: We continue our discussions with our partners with regard
to questions of North Korea. We want to make sure that we keep up our
consultations that we've had in the past. Assistant Secretary Jim
Kelly is headed out to the region. Somewhere around here I have his
itinerary. But he'll be, in addition to Under Secretary Dobriansky,
going to Seoul to head our delegation to this important conference.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James
Kelly departs tomorrow for a trip to Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing for
discussions with senior officials in all three capitals. His
discussions will continue our ongoing consultations on matters related
to the Korean Peninsula, also include other talks on bilateral,
regional and global issues.

QUESTION: Do you know if he, the Secretary was, planning talks with
the South Koreans and the Japanese on Sunday, ahead of the KEDO
meeting on Monday?

MR. BOUCHER: We hadn't settled on a final schedule. I think the
tentative one put him in too late to have talks on Sunday. But he
would have, during the course of the events in Seoul, had an
opportunity to talk to his South Korean counterparts, and if the
Japanese Foreign Minister was there, I would assume he would have had
a chance to talk to her, as well.

QUESTION: Were both Japan and China tentative?

MR. BOUCHER: Everything was tentative and now it's not. It's a trip
that we haven't canceled because it was never firmly scheduled.

QUESTION: Well no, wait --

MR. BOUCHER: It was announced once. Seoul was announced. That's right.
Seoul was announced. The other stuff was not. We announced Seoul in
New York when he met with the Korean Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: Richard, you guys have tabled your resolution on Iraq today
and you've also said, and presumably you've done that because you
expect to win a vote, and your Ambassador at the UN has just come out
and said that you do want a vote on Friday. Given that fact that there
will be an up-or-down vote on Friday, I'm a little uncertain as to why
the Secretary wouldn't be able to leave to make a Sunday meeting in
Asia.

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, there's a couple of reasons. One is I can't
promise there will be a vote on Friday. We would like to see a vote on
Friday. But as we've seen in this whole process, not everything
happens precisely on our schedule or anybody else's schedule. So we
want to make sure that -- the Secretary wants to make sure he can
continue to work the process, if it's necessary. But we do expect
we'll get a vote on Friday.

Second of all, after the vote we enter into the period of timetables
that are specified in the resolution. Some of those timetables are
fairly short. We need to spend a considerable -- we'll continue to
expend our efforts to coordinate with other governments and make sure
that the resolution begins to be implemented and is followed, so
there's a lot of follow-up that happens right away.

And third of all, with any of these trips, they are complicated
undertakings, and at some point, you've got to decide and say we're
going to do it this way or we're going to do it that way. And the
Secretary delayed his decision for quite a long time, a final decision
on this, in order to see if there wasn't -- if it wasn't possible to
do this. But we just reached the point where a decision had to be made
one way or the other, and that's what he's done.

QUESTION: Okay. According to the resolution, the first deadline is
seven days for Iraq to say that it accepts this, correct? And during
that time, can you explain what consultation there needs to be done?
It seems to me you just wait.

MR. BOUCHER: We never just wait. We try to make sure things happen on
schedule. We try to make sure that we're coordinating with other
governments so we all know what we're looking for in terms of Iraq's
acceptance; that we all know what we should be saying together in
public; and those who have contacts with Iraq, that we all know what
they're saying to Iraq.

There's just a lot of things that will ensue from this resolution, and
I expect you will find the Secretary will continue to have
conversations with his foreign minister counterparts and continue to
work the various issues that arise.

QUESTION: Conversations, though, that could be held by telephone --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't want to debate this with you, Matt. I'm afraid --

QUESTION: Well, what I'm trying to do is trying to get you to say what
the --

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary --

QUESTION: You said "due to pressing matters, including…" I want to
know what other pressing -- I thought that I was trying to lead you.
What other pressing matters are there, because it doesn't look, to the
average observer, as though the Iraq resolution itself would be enough
to keep the Secretary from being able to make the trip?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm afraid the decision doesn't have to be made by
the average observer. The decision has to be made by the Secretary of
State based on what he thinks he has to do and what he needs to be
able to do regarding this resolution that we've proposed. And if you
don't get the vote on Friday, he can't hop on a plane on Saturday. If
you do get the vote on Friday, there's follow-up to be done.

So, at some point, you have to decide whether you're going to book,
you know, all the planes and the hotels and all that stuff, and you do
the trip one way or the other. This was the point where we had to
decide. And at this point, he's not able to commit, he's not able to
decide that he can really make this trip. He regrets it, but he's got
to be available to do these other things.

QUESTION: So there are no other pressing matters? Iraq is the only
one?

MR. BOUCHER: There are plenty of pressing matters in the world, but
this is the one that would keep him from making the trip.

QUESTION: Can I say two things? Is there anything he's doing in this
period? I mean, it's before the Council -- the Council is talking
about Negroponte's in charge up there. But has he had a need to do any
buttoning down? Any, you know, making sure that everybody understands
everything the way you might want them to?

And secondly, does the US have a view -- I'm lost on when the
inspectors would go out. He's -- you know, as you say, you want an
accelerated process. He's talked about a red line if they defy the
inspectors. But when do the inspectors go out to start the
cat-and-mouse game?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll try to answer the questions and not deal with all
the premises that may be erroneous.

Is the Secretary still doing this? Is he still working it? Absolutely.
The Secretary has been, first of all, heavily engaged with his foreign
minister colleagues in getting us to the point where we felt we could
put forward a new resolution.

So yesterday he talked to Foreign Secretary Straw multiple times. He
talked to Foreign Minister Villepin multiple times. He talked to
Foreign Minister Ivanov, talked to Foreign Minister Fischer, the
Secretary General of the United Nations, talked to Foreign Secretary
Castaneda, Foreign Minister Tang of China I think I mentioned, and
Foreign Minister Choi of Korea, although that was principally about
the conference.

Today he's continued to make phone calls on this. He's talked to
Foreign Secretary Straw. He's followed up his phone call with Foreign
Secretary Fischer. And so he'll have other phone calls with other
foreign ministers during the course of the day.

So remember, we've been working very intensely. The Secretary has been
very intensely on trying to work out some of the key elements of the
resolution with people who are most concerned about those elements.

At this point, now, we've been able to put all that together with the
discussions that we've had in New York with the Council as a whole and
put it in a draft that we think reflects not only our goals and those
of the British Government and others who want to see a very strong
resolution, but also it takes into account a lot of the comments we've
heard, so that we think at this point we have a strong resolution that
can be -- that can get broad support in the Council and that can send
a very clear message to Iraq that Iraq must disarm.

Now, for many members of the Council, this new version, a slightly
revised version that they've gotten, they are now going to look at.
They are going to look at the whole text in the whole Council, and
there will be discussion on that. As that discussion proceeds, I'm
sure the Secretary will maintain contact with his counterparts, and
also our mission at the United Nations will be discussing things with
other governments.

QUESTION: How do you feel about -- does the US have a view of how
quickly the inspectors ought to get out there?

MR. BOUCHER: The resolution itself specifies timetables. We said, if
you remember, right from the start we indicated that we were looking
for a resolution that had timetables in it, and that's what we've
produced and that's what we think we'll get.

Actually, when the inspectors decide they have to put a presence on
the ground, start setting up, move their people in -- those kind of
detailed things would have to be left to the inspectors. But if you
look at the text, it says the inspectors basically have to be up and
running in 45 days after passage.

George.

QUESTION: One last question on Korea. Was the Secretary haunted by the
specter of having to spend all day in meetings in Korea and then all
night on the phone, given the time difference back to Washington and
New York, dealing with Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: Not really. He has, unfortunately, done that in many
places on many occasions and it doesn't seem to phase him a whole lot.

Charlie.

QUESTION: Richard, this is a follow-up to Barry's question on the
Secretary's use of time. Does the Secretary have any plans or is it
under contemplation to go to New York to work this himself?

MR. BOUCHER: There's no plan at this point to do that.

QUESTION: Richard, why does Germany come into this? Is that because
they will be a member of the Security Council during the --

MR. BOUCHER: The Secretary has had a couple of discussions with
Foreign Minister Fischer about this. He's had discussions with other
nations about this, about the status of the resolution. I think if I
think of sort of every bilateral meeting the Secretary has had in the
last few weeks, whether it was with a Security Council member or not,
they have always been interested in the status of the Iraq resolution
at the United Nations.

And as you point out, Germany will become a member of the Security
Council in January, right? So it's one of many nations that we're
discussing the status of the resolution with.

Okay, Mark.

QUESTION: Richard, you said there would be further discussion. But, in
the US view, can there be further negotiation over the resolution or
are you basically telling other countries this is our best and final?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, we think we have a resolution that should be able
to get the support of other Council members that honestly takes into
account the views that they've expressed and the things that they've
been concerned about, as well as meets the goal that we think many
others share of sending a strong message to Iraq that it must comply,
it must disarm.

I suppose at this stage we would say we'll see what they come up with.
We'll see what's proposed and whether, within the context of that
goal, they come up with ideas that can be further accommodated, we
might do that.

QUESTION: Richard, this is related, but given the fact that Hans Blix
has been duped twice in the past by -- once by North Korea and once by
Iraq -- can you go through the level of detail senior officials have
had in the last six weeks with Mr. Blix in terms of assurances that
should there be obstruction, should there the kinds of things that
you're trying to avoid, he will then go directly to the Security
Council? What kind of assurances do you have?

MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I don't think I can accept your premise.
But the issue is not the inspectors; the issue is Iraq and Iraq's
cooperation and Iraq's disclosures and Iraq's disarmament.

We have always said we've made clear any number of times that if Iraq
is trying to cheat and hide and frustrate the efforts of the
inspectors, they won't be able to verify disarmament. If Iraq is
cooperating, then the inspectors will be able to do that.

The resolution that we put forward makes very clear this is a final
opportunity for Iraq to disarm and to have that verified by the
inspectors in the international community. That's the context.

The instructions to the inspectors are in the resolution, and they say
if there's interference, if there's failure to disclose, if there's
failure to cooperate, you should report this to the Council
immediately. And I'm sure the inspectors, who have said they look for
instructions from the Council, will follow those instructions.

QUESTION: If I can follow up, can you speak to the kinds of assurances
that you've had from Blix in the last six weeks that he would do this?
And I'm not -- this is not something I'm pulling out of whole cloth
here, Richard. The people in the Pentagon are very concerned about
this, that they wonder if Blix would be able to spot an obstruction
if, in fact, he was obstructed.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, first of all, let's remember Iraq's behavior in the
past. You know, they slammed the doors to the agriculture ministry and
left people in the parking lot, and the whole world was watching the
obstruction on TV for days at a time. Let's remember that we all know
about Iraqi intelligence operations that have been conducted against
inspectors. We all know of places they weren't allowed to go, barring
them from presidential sites, for example.

So the instructions here to the inspectors and the instructions to
Iraq are that they should have unrestricted access to people and
places and that the inspectors should report any attempts by Iraq to
impose restrictions.

I think Dr. Blix and his team and Dr. El Baradei have made very clear
that they look forward to having the instructions and the authority
that can be given to them by the Security Council and that they
intended to carry through and follow on that.

Sir.

QUESTION: The resolution text says that inspections are to resume no
later than 45 days following the adoption of the resolution, but is it
the expectation or hope of the administration that they will resume
earlier than that?

MR. BOUCHER: I think I said the actual sort of timetables of how the
inspectors get on the ground and how soon they can get up and running
will be looked at by the inspection teams themselves to get up and
running. Obviously, you know, as soon as they can start conducting
their inspections, I'm sure they will. I'll have to leave it at that
for the moment.

Sir.

QUESTION: Do you regard the resolution that you've submitted to be an
ultimatum, that Iraq has to comply or face serious consequences? And
the reason I ask is because you mentioned in your answer to Eli's
first question that the resolution, in the text, says by this
resolution you're giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply. But
there's no "or else" in that paragraph, and, in fact, the only "or
else" comes in the second to last paragraph which says -- recalls
that, in that context, the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it
will face serious consequences.

Does the United States believe that these two paragraphs, the final
opportunity paragraph and the one that I've just mentioned, are, in
fact, linked together?

MR. BOUCHER: I think --

QUESTION: So, in effect, constitute an ultimatum?

MR. BOUCHER: I think there's a limit at this point to how much we're
going to get into discussing the text and the linkage and the
relationship between elements in public. When we were discussing the
elements of a resolution with the Council, we refrained from doing
that in terms of our public statements.

Now that we're discussing the details of the text with the Council,
we'll discuss that with the Council. And I'm happy to discuss the
major elements of the resolution, but, at this point, sort of
questions of linkage and interpretation I think we need to address
those clearly with members of the Council.

QUESTION: So --

MR. BOUCHER: Suffice it to say what I have said, that we believe this
to be a very strong resolution to Iraq, that it has a final
opportunity to disarm, and if it doesn't take this opportunity there
will be serious consequences either through decision of the Security
Council or through a decision of Council members.

QUESTION: But, okay, so you want to keep it secret what you're reading
-- the way you interpret this?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I just don't feel that the place to have interpretive
debates on the resolution and the text is in a public forum right now
when we owe those answers first to the members of the Council.

QUESTION: Okay, well, all right, fair enough. But, still, I mean,
giving someone a final opportunity to comply without saying that they
-- that something is going to happen to them --

MR. BOUCHER: The President has made very, very clear that, one way or
the other, Iraq is going to disarm; either they disarm in cooperation
with the requirements of the Security Council or they are made to
disarm, either through Security Council action or through action by
Security Council members.

QUESTION: Going back to the Korea question, if I may, just for a
second, is one of the reasons that the Secretary is not going that the
administration has yet to come up with any new policy on what to do
about North Korea's startling admission?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Richard, what's the latest on the delivery of fuel oil,
which is loading? Is it going to go to --

MR. BOUCHER: The latest is what I told you yesterday.

QUESTION: It's loading, and you haven't decided yet?

MR. BOUCHER: Yep.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

QUESTION: The ship is loading, and they haven't decided yet.

MR. BOUCHER: The ship is loading, and we haven't made final decisions
in conjunction with the rest of the board on what to do about
deliveries.

QUESTION: And the actual departure date?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know the actual departure date.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. If that board decides to act on the shipment, is
it a vote where the majority rules? Or can you guys, if you want to,
veto? I'm not suggesting you would, but --

MR. BOUCHER: It's a consensus. It's a consensus, and we would expect,
since this is a cooperative endeavor by many countries who are very
concerned about North Korea's nuclear developments, we would expect to
be able to work this through and reach a common understanding of what
to do.

QUESTION: You may have said this yesterday, but I didn't catch it.
Does the US have a position that it would like the board to adopt on
that shipment?

MR. BOUCHER: At this point, I will just say we're discussing the
matter with other members.

QUESTION: On Iraq, the Chinese Foreign Minister, in his phone call
with the Secretary, he said he still hopes the problem will be solved
politically. What was the Secretary's response to that?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm glad you can quote from the phone call, but I'm not
about to start that today. But we have made clear, the President of
the United States has made clear, that we would like to see this
solved peacefully. We would like to see Iraq comply. We want to see
Iraq disarm. We want to see Iraq cooperate with the inspections. We
want to see the inspectors to be allowed to verify Iraq's disarmament.
The President has made very clear that military force is a last
resort, not a first resort.

QUESTION: I have two on North Korea. Why is the US position something
that you don't want to share, and why would it be not an obvious one
considering the fact that North Korea has obviously broken its
obligation to the United States? And why would the US consider
continuing supplying fuel oil to North Korea?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to argue in favor of any particular
position at this point. Suffice it to say it's still under discussion.
It is a matter we are discussing with our partners on the board of
this organization that includes South Korea, Japan and the European
Union, as well as us. No decision has been reached, but we expect that
the board will decide shortly.

QUESTION: Right, but my question isn't whether or not you've reached
consensus with the other members, but why is the US position something
that you don't feel comfortable sharing with us under the
circumstances that the North Koreans have broken this deal? Are you
saying that there's the possibility the US would support continuing
those shipments?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not supporting or arguing for any particular position
or possibility. And I think when you discuss these things -- and we're
talking about these things with other governments -- we owe it to them
to talk to them and not to stake out a position here. It's a
consultation among countries that are likeminded on the need to get
rid of North Korea's nuclear programs, and we will, together, figure
out the best thing to do and then we'll tell you once we decide.

QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, that may be true, but you are obviously
laying out your case on Iraq. I mean, that's something that's been no
secret. You handed out the resolution today. You're trying to get
consensus there.

MR. BOUCHER: If we put down a resolution on North Korea, you'll get
it, too. The fact is that we are discussing these matters with other
governments. And as you know our practice around here, since you do
cover this building on more than one subject, is that we tend not to
conduct our negotiations in the press room; we tend to conduct them
with other governments, since that's our job.

QUESTION: Richard, can I just go back to the -- and this is going to
be very obvious, but I just want to get it on the record, if I can.
But the US position on the fuel, the actual fuel oil shipment, is that
the delivery isn't complete until the ship has actually docked and the
oil is offloaded, right? In other words, you can -- the ship could
leave, get however far on its way to the port in North Korea, and then
turn around without any problem, right? The ship -- I just want make
sure that delivery for you guys does not mean the ship leaving
Singapore.

MR. BOUCHER: We think the board still can decide what to do about the
shipment of oil while it's on the high seas, yeah.

QUESTION: Since we're so close on the UN resolution, can you just say
what the State Department strategy is for getting Iraq to comply with
its other commitments to the UN, such as the POWs with Kuwait and its
commitment, I guess, in regarding human rights with Kurds and Marsh
Arabs, considering it sounds like this resolution is really going to
be focusing the majority on the disarmament issue?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I'm not going to discuss the details of the text. I
think I made that clear and it's not a public document per se at this
point, although I think many, many people have copies of it. And I
think if you did happen to have a copy, you would see that the Council
maintains its interest in seeing all the resolutions complied with.
And that will remain the case, and I think you will find Security
Council members continue to pressure on that subject.

QUESTION: Well, but just to follow up, though, the consequences though
seem to apply only to what would happen with regard to the weapons
inspections, ultimately disarmament. It doesn't appear, as my reading
it, there would be consequences attached to these other things, as
well.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not, as I said, in a position to go into the detailed
interpretation of particular paragraphs of the text. But I think the
Council has maintained its interest in seeing all these resolutions,
or would, under this resolution, maintain its interest in seeing all
the resolutions complied with.

QUESTION: But are you -- I mean, do the consequences apply for
violations on those things?

MR. BOUCHER: Again --

QUESTION: I don't want to --

MR. BOUCHER: I will leave the detailed interpretation of the text of
that --

QUESTION: It's a fairly straightforward question.

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not a question that I think can be answered
absent the finalization of the text.

Terri.

QUESTION: Ukrainian President Kuchma has now asked the UN to look into
-- the Secretary Council to look into this sale that the US and
British have been investigating. Do you support that? Do you see any
utility in that?

MR. BOUCHER: We don't see that a separate investigation by the United
Nations would be particularly productive. And certainly if the
Ukrainian Government had wanted to clarify matters fully, they could
have done so with the US and the UK team that went out there.

We found the cooperation mixed when we were out there. We found very
good cooperation on some issues such as technical information on
Kolchuga sites in Ukraine, but not on others such as the events
surrounding President Kuchma's authorization of the transfer.

In addition, our team concluded the government of Ukraine's export
control process doesn't have sufficient safeguards to prevent senior
officials or entities from misusing state organs and/or bypassing
export controls.

They failed to provide our teams, our US/UK team, with satisfactory
evidence that the transfer to Iraq did or could not have taken place.
So the question is still open. If they had wanted to answer it they
could have answered while our team was there. We've asked them
follow-up questions now, which they have not responded to. So,
frankly, you know, a UN team -- what would that do that hasn't been
available to them already?

QUESTION: Have you heard any reaction amongst the Council members, or
are they otherwise engaged?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know that there's been any. I haven't seen any
reaction in public.

QUESTION: -- these follow-up questions for weeks?

MR. BOUCHER: No, just the other day. When did we announce we had given
the -- yesterday we gave them the report.

QUESTION: Well, wait a second --

QUESTION: So how long -- I mean, are you angry that they haven't
responded within less than 24 hours of when you posed these questions?
Are they easy yes-or-no questions?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm just noting that they have not responded. They
had ample opportunity to tell us all kinds of information while the
teams were there. They have another opportunity now. So we don't see
much point in talking -- suddenly raising the prospect of a UN team.

QUESTION: Right. No, no, no. But you are willing, before you decide in
your overall policy, you're going to wait until -- to see -- give them
sufficient --

MR. BOUCHER: Answers or, eventually, lack of answers, will have to be
factored in. But no, we're not saying you missed your deadline.

QUESTION: Then can I just ask -- I know that you're going to say that
this is apples and oranges. But why didn't -- why -- when you first
announced -- or when it was first announced that you had authenticated
the audiotape in which President Kuchma authorized the sale of this,
you immediately suspended some aid to Ukraine. I'm not -- why hasn't
the United States done a similar thing in the case of Yugoslavia and
Bosnia, where there were perhaps not presidential authorizations of
transfers, but there were certainly high-level government
authorizations?

MR. BOUCHER: If you remember what I said about the transfers that had
taken place from -- what was it? -- YugoImport and a company in
Bosnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina somewhere -- we had said that there had
been steps taken by the authorities to close down offices of the
corporations, to, I think, fire people. They had instituted new
systems of controls.

And we did, in fact, change the way that some of our assistance was
being provided. So I think we've taken a lot of steps. And, basically,
the difference is we got cooperation and disclosure by the governments
involved to make sure that this sort of thing was understood and
didn't happen again.

QUESTION: Those steps were taken after the -- you and NATO came out
and said that these transfers had taken place. And in the case of
Ukraine, you're not even sure the transfer took place.

MR. BOUCHER: But we're sure that the authorization was given for the
transfer.

QUESTION: Okay. But here you have, in the other cases, of transferring
weapons -- banned military items to Iraq -- proved that this stuff was
actually delivered.

MR. BOUCHER: All it seems to me you're doing is pointing out the many
differences between the two situations. It is apples and oranges and
pears and tangerines.

QUESTION: So you don't want to try and explain why you reacted so
harshly immediately against the Ukrainians and not against the --

MR. BOUCHER: I think I explained why we acted in each case the way we
did, and to try to say that you should have done this to that and that
to this is -- it just doesn't work.

QUESTION: I'm not saying you should have done anything. I'm just
asking why you didn't.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Andrea.

QUESTION: Could you explain -- and, actually, Matt just touched upon
it -- you obviously do have proof, you believe, that Kuchma authorized
this, but you don't have conclusive proof that the delivery actually
took place. Is that what you're trying to confirm with the Ukraines,
whether or not, in fact, a piece of equipment, this radar equipment,
actually left the warehouses and went into Iraq? Because doesn't that
make a difference? I mean, Kuchma -- somebody can say go ahead and do
it, and if they didn't execute the order, is he, you know, being
penalized because he said something? I mean, is that what you're
looking for is proof that, in fact, this delivery took place?

MR. BOUCHER: I thought I made pretty clear that one of the main topics
that we were interested in during the course of this visit was to get
information that will allow us to conclude whether the transfer did
not or did take place and whether it could not or could have taken
place.

We found many elements of the system involved that made it impossible
to answer that question. We weren't given the amount of information
that we would have expected to try to answer those questions. And we
found a system that could be easily manipulated by senior officials so
that controls would have been bypassed.

So, yes, that is one of the principal questions we were looking at,
and without the kind of cooperation we were looking for, we're not in
a position yet to answer that question.

On the second part of the question that you asked, I'd have to say
that if we know that a senior official, the president of a country,
made decisions to do this, we have to take that into account as we
look at our relationship with that person and with that country.

Judy.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Last question on this. Have you ever said how useful these
radar systems are to the Iraqis? Do they shift the balance of power in
the no-fly zones?

MR. BOUCHER: I have not been able to confirm -- I told you, as a
government, we're not able to confirm whether the systems were
actually delivered to Iraq and put into use in any particular way. So,
at this point, I just can't say, can't draw any conclusions.

Okay, Judy.

QUESTION: What can you tell us about the Cuban diplomats that the
United States expelled? When did you inform them? Have you heard from
Cuban Government? And who are they and what did they do?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: You'll get the answer to everything but that. We informed
them -- you told me the date.

QUESTION: Friday.

MR. BOUCHER: Friday. Okay.

In response to unacceptable Cuban activities, the United States
decided to take strong action last Friday. The United States declared
First Secretary Oscar Redondo Toledo and First Secretary Gustavo
Machin Gomez, both of the Cuban Interests Section of the Embassy of
Switzerland in Washington, persona non grata requiring their departure
from the United States within ten days from the date of that notice.

These expulsions represent our response to the unacceptable Cuban
activities for which Ana Belen Montes was arrested and convicted. As
you all remember, she was a senior defense intelligence analyst who
conducted espionage for Cuba against the United States.

We call upon the Cuban Government to ensure that there will be no
similar episodes or new actions in the future against the interests of
the United States.

In a separate action, two members of the Cuban Mission to the United
Nations have been requested to leave the United States for engaging in
activities deemed to be harmful to the United States outside their
official capacity as members of the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the
United Nations. These activities constitute an abuse of their
privileges of residence.

The record of espionage by the Cuban regime against the United States
is long. It was marked recently by the October 16th sentencing of Ana
Belen Montes on charges of spying for Cuba. The Montes matter, we
believe, is extremely serious.

Other recent Cuban acts of espionage include the case of a former INS
official, Faget and the "Wasp Ring" case in Miami, both of which
resulted in espionage or espionage-related convictions.

QUESTION: Any reaction?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not aware of any reaction at this point.

QUESTION: Does the US have any control of how many alleged diplomats
they could send here or to the UN? And if you do --

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- since this seems to be their occupation, what, I mean,
these shoes will be filled by similar people, won't they?

MR. BOUCHER: We do have control. We have control on the basis of
reciprocity and we actually have control over the individuals who we
may or may not decide to grant visas to.

QUESTION: In the old days, I mean, with the Soviet Union, you would
often shrink the people permitted to --

MR. BOUCHER: Well, the old days -- we did it a year and a half ago, if
you remember.

QUESTION: That's right.

MR. BOUCHER: But, you know, at this point we've expelled -- we've
asked -- expelled -- we've asked these people to leave within ten
days, and that's the action we've taken.

QUESTION: Richard, when you say in response to the case of Ana Belen
Montes, are you implying that these particular people had anything to
do with that case, or is it purely punitive? And what's the
distinction between those people and the people in New York?

MR. BOUCHER: I will see if I can draw a direct connection for you.
With regard to "in response," I will have to check on that. And
there's some slight distinction because you're under a different
status if you're accredited to an interest section here, essentially
handling bilateral matters versus being at the UN Mission in New York.
We have host country obligations. We have to proceed slightly
differently up there.

QUESTION: But can I just follow up on that? When it says "requested
the ones in New York to leave," does that mean -- do they have to
leave or is -- why do you use this phraseology?

MR. BOUCHER: They have to leave. And the use of phraseology, because
that falls within the -- falls within our obligations as the host
country nation.

QUESTION: Any timeframe for that?

MR. BOUCHER: I believe it's the same ten days, but I would have to
double-check on that.

QUESTION: Are they PNG'd?

QUESTION: And why can't you name them?

MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's because the procedure's slightly different in
New York.

QUESTION: So, but in other words, the bottom line is that all four of
them have been expelled?

MR. BOUCHER: Have been asked to leave, yes.

QUESTION: Well, you, PNG'd two of them, but you're saying that you
can't technically PNG the UN people?

MR. BOUCHER: We can request people to leave the United States for
engaging in activities deemed to be harmful to the United States
outside of their official capacity. And as such, that constitutes an
abuse of their privileges of residence, so --

QUESTION: Right. But it's not really --

MR. BOUCHER: It amounts to the same thing. They will have been
expelled once they leave.

QUESTION: And can I just -- and this may go to Jonathan's first
question, so you may not be able to answer it. But the two from the
Interests Section here are not being accused of activities
incompatible with their diplomatic status; is that correct?

MR. BOUCHER: It does go to the specific question, "Can I make a
connection to the Montes case?" Or, in other words, he asked, "Can I
make a direct connection to the case or are they just being expelled
in retaliation." I said I will have to check and see if I can specify
more specifically.

QUESTION: And the two in New York, can you also check and see if they
have any connection to the Belen Montes case or if that's just
something completely separate?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, they were engaging in activities that were harmful
to the United States. But, again, whether I can link it to this
specific case I have to check. I'm sorry, I don't know.

QUESTION: Richard, what kind of proof is there that these two
individuals in New York engaged in espionage or anything related to
that?

MR. BOUCHER: In activities deemed to be harmful to the United States?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. BOUCHER: We know.

QUESTION: And how long has this activity been going on?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I'll be in a position to describe their
activities or what we know about their activities, but you can be
fairly confident that when we do these things, we know what we're
doing and we know why we're doing them.

QUESTION: Can you give us any kind of -- do you have any other --

MR. BOUCHER: It's right back to the questions I've just been asked. I
will try to get you -- see if there's more I can provide, but I'm not
anticipating a whole lot.

George.

QUESTION: You described the Cuban record of espionage in the United
States as being long. Isn't espionage the kind of thing that most
countries, including the United States, do?

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Without admitting to any particular activity, I would say
that if you see -- it doesn't -- and nothing means that we should
accept a pattern of active Cuban espionage against the United States
without taking actions of our own when we see this happening. That
involves, where we can, arresting and prosecuting people who are
engaging in espionage against the United States and, in other cases,
expelling them.

Terri.

QUESTION: Oh, wait. Eli wants to change the subject.

MR. BOUCHER: Eli was going to change the subject.

QUESTION: The Iraqi American author Kanan Makiye sent an e-mail
yesterday to senior State Department officials urging them to try to
use their influence to call off the November 22nd Iraqi opposition
conference in Brussels. He claims it's a sham conference that would
grant 40 percent of the votes to an Iranian-backed opposition group
called SCIRI and doesn't really have room for true Iraqi democrats.

Do you care to respond?

MR. BOUCHER: There have been -- as you know, we've been working with
six different opposition groups on the issue of the future of Iraq.
And they've been working, in particular, with each other attempting to
organize conferences and make progress towards examining the future of
Iraq from a constitutional and democratic basis.

We had a meeting on August 9th with Under Secretary Marc Grossman,
Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and other US officials where
we asked the leaders of these groups to work together to hold a
broad-based conference of the Iraqi opposition.

The groups are the -- we've met with the leaders of the Constitutional
Monarchist Movement, the Iraqi National Accord, the Iraqi National
Congress, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Six leaders agreed to do so. They've been working over the past few
months to organize such an event.

Our understanding is that there are still differences among the Iraqi
opposition as to the proposed conference. We expect them to work out
these problems in an open and democratic manner.

It is a matter of discussion with the administration and we'll be
keeping in touch with them as far as our thoughts and how they can
work this out so that we have a conference that has the widest
possible representation and the best possible outcomes in terms of
moving forward together towards planning a future for Iraq that
doesn't suffer from the current regime.

QUESTION: Since Iran is the topic, I've got just one follow-up.

MR. BOUCHER: We're on the topic since you asked, didn't you?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: I did raise it, sorry. Makiye's issue in these e-mails that
he writes is he really thinks that it's moving towards these
discussions in a post-Saddam Iraq, towards a kind of ethnic federalism
-- that there would be a certain guarantee of a number of seats or
percentage to different ethnic groups in Iraq, and he wants it to be
something else.

Do you have a position on this question, which is his big issue?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that fundamentally the future of
government in Iraq needs to be worked out by Iraqis both outside and
inside the country, that these discussions are important. Open and
democratic discussions are often noisy and messy, but they are the
best way to arrive at some kind of solution that can meet the needs of
all the various groups and parties inside and outside Iraq.

So we encourage them to work together. To the extent that we can be
helpful and present ideas or make suggestions that can help them work
together, we want to do that.

But fundamentally, these issues need to be resolved among Iraqis and
they need to come up with a system that can be broad-based and that
can have a role for all the different people inside Iraq.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MR. BOUCHER: Terri.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Is there any follow-up on Yemen from
yesterday? Did the embassies close today for security reasons?
Anything you can now say about whether there was or was not US
involvement?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't say anything I couldn't say yesterday, but
today I can tell you the status of the embassy because we've got
developments there. The US Embassy in Sanaa was closed to the public
on November 6th while the Embassy conducts a thorough review of its
security posture. The mission will be closed Thursday and Friday as
part of its normal weekend schedule and they will determine the status
for Saturday during the course of the next day or two.

The American community has been informed of this through the Warden
system. American citizens needing emergency services can always
contact the duty officer at the embassy. The US Embassy in Sanaa has
been at a very high state of alert for a long time. The Embassy
constantly reviews its security posture and takes additional steps as
necessary, though I can't get into a discussion of specific measures
they might be taking.

I would note that Yemeni support for Embassy security needs has been
and continues to be excellent, and we appreciate the efforts of the
Government of Yemen in that regard.

QUESTION: And I bet this one will be a short answer. Anything you can
report on -- anything you can say on reports that al-Qaida was trying
to acquire Stingers?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I don't have anything on that.

QUESTION: Is there a new --

QUESTION: Can we go back to the --

QUESTION: Well, can I ask --

QUESTION: INC?

QUESTION: No, the security concerns. Does it have anything to do with
an unusual event the other day or is it longstanding uncertainty about
Yemen's capabilities?

MR. BOUCHER: Whenever there are events and press reports one way or
the other that may or may not link us to these events, we always look
at our security situation and our posture. And obviously, we need to
respond to whatever environment there is in the nation that we're
located.

QUESTION: Well, on that. Well, you know, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz
yesterday seemed to have let the cat out of the bag on television. And
I know that it's a different building, but you do work for the same
government, and presumably the State Department and the Pentagon like
to coordinate things so that your diplomatic efforts aren't, you know,
undermined by things that may cause you problems diplomatically.

In light of what Deputy Secretary --

MR. BOUCHER: Is there a question hidden somewhere in here?

QUESTION: -- Wolfowitz said yesterday, do you still have the same
response you had to questions yesterday about the practice of targeted
killings?

MR. BOUCHER: I have no different answer today than I had yesterday. I
think we answered all those questions yesterday about targeted
killings. And as far as other things about the events in Yemen, I
continue to have nothing for you on that.

QUESTION: But Richard, this does bring up an issue because it's
happened a number of times, especially in recent months. When the
Pentagon says something, is there some -- I mean, the State Department
wouldn't automatically also say on the record, as a general
meta-question? I know this is --

MR. BOUCHER: As a meta-question, I don't think I can deal with it as a
meta-question. I'm sorry. We coordinate with the White House all the
time. We coordinate with the White House, the Pentagon, the other
agencies. But if you want to follow up on a particular remark made in
a particular place, you can go to that particular place and ask your
particular questions.

QUESTION: But, I mean, in terms of a public record -- and I will drop
it after this -- a public record of the US Government, if the Deputy
Secretary of Defense says, you know, says something, does that then --
that does not then translate or filter into the daily State Department
press guidance? I mean, it wouldn't be like then, okay, that's a fact
we talk about now?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not here to repeat remarks made by others, I'm here
to give the information on the subjects that I can deal with and
subjects that are within our purview here at the State Department. I'm
not going to -- just because somebody at the Pentagon might talk about
this, that, or the other involving matters that are under their
purview doesn't mean I'm going to brief on them over here.

QUESTION: No, but it also doesn't mean you should purposely ignore
them.

MR. BOUCHER: It doesn't mean they're going to brief on diplomacy.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: You know, they don't have to explain my statements when
they go brief over there. They don't have to explain how close we are
to an Iraq resolution when they stand up and talk over there.

QUESTION: But you're basically ignoring what was said yesterday. So my
question would be this. Have you gotten inquiries --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm ignoring the follow-up questions because I'm not in a
position to answer any more questions on this than I did yesterday.

QUESTION: Has the State Department, which is the primary liaison
between this government and foreign governments, received any
inquiries from foreign governments about the comments that Mr.
Wolfowitz made yesterday?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know.

QUESTION: Can we find out?

MR. BOUCHER: Maybe.

Betsy.

QUESTION: Has Gerry Adams been here for talks today with State
Department officials?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, he was meeting with Richard Haass today.

QUESTION: Can you tell us something about those talks?

MR. BOUCHER: I would have to check on when it was, or when it is, and
see if I can get --

QUESTION: Well, I saw him this morning, so he's --

MR. BOUCHER: I think they're not over yet, according to my able and
well-informed staff.

QUESTION: Another thing. The administration's post-election, Turkish
election statement, would that now be altered? Is there a reason to
alter it in light of the leader saying that he will not commit Turkey
to supporting the United States in a war against Iraq? He gave an
interview to the AP and he said don't count on us.

MR. BOUCHER: Every day somebody gives an interview and answers
hypothetical questions. We have not asked people to support a war
against Iraq because we've not decided on a war against Iraq, as you
very well know. And so I'm not going to try to speculate on what
people may or may not do under circumstances that may or may not
occur.

QUESTION: Would you be more comfortable if he said, "We're a strong
ally of the United States and we'll consult with them and try to help
them," even though you haven't decided what to do yet?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure, whatever happens, we'll consult very closely
with Turkey, and I'm sure Turkey will want to consult very closely
with us.

QUESTION: By the way, still no -- Grossman doesn't go there; that's
still true?

MR. BOUCHER: That's still true.

QUESTION: Richard --

MR. BOUCHER: We've got four or five -- okay.

QUESTION: I've been trying to go back to this INC thing for a long
time.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm here at the pleasure of the press corps. I'm not here
to --

QUESTION: Did the United States play -- what role did the United
States play in the deliberations over the last few weeks over the
composition of this conference in Brussels?

MR. BOUCHER: The United States has been in touch with these parties
since earlier this year and, as I said, we had a meeting with them in
August. We keep in close touch with them. There have been six main
groups that we've been working with.

We have always encouraged a broad-based conference that involves as
many people as possible, as appropriate, to get the work done. And we
think there needs to be a proper mix, but ultimately they decide on
the composition and how they want to go ahead with meetings that they
might want to hold.

QUESTION: Okay. Did you consider the proposed --

QUESTION: Who finances this conference? Do we pay anything?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I don't think -- this is not one of the
working groups of the Future of Iraq, so I don't know for sure who
pays for this.

QUESTION: Do you consider the proposed composition to represent a
broad-based conference?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to try to comment on their composition at
this point.

QUESTION: Okay. And does Mr. Pearce plan to sort this out?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure Mr. Pearce will remain in touch with all the
various parties involved as they try to sort it out.

QUESTION: So you're not using the influence of the State Department to
squash the conference -- quash the conference?

MR. BOUCHER: Neither quash, nor squash, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Sir.

QUESTION: On a different conference, did the US decide if it's going
to participate in the Lebanese economic conference that is supposed to
be held in France on November 23rd?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is we will participate. I don't think we've
decided on the level of participation or who exactly would represent
us.

QUESTION: Have you decided how you feel about its purpose? Is that
something the US supports?

MR. BOUCHER: We support -- I've said a number of times we support
economic reform in Lebanon, support the proposals that the government
is making. We look for them to work on these proposals and to
participate in a donors conference in a way that the international
community can support them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. BOUCHER: One more.

QUESTION: Richard, yesterday -- Barry, you should like this, it's a
follow-up on your question from yesterday.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: You said you would take this question yesterday, which was
about the World Health Organization and this $3 million that was in
question. You did take the question -- thank you -- but the answer was
ridiculously vague. Well, maybe ridiculous -- it was vague. It said
that the $3 million --

MR. BOUCHER: It said that I was correct in what I told you.

QUESTION: -- the $3 million -- the answer to the question was that the
$3 million is not in jeopardy but that the State Department is looking
for ways to re-appropriate it.

MR. BOUCHER: No, we're considering possible programming options for
the money within the context of the research activities.

QUESTION: Yes. Does that mean that you have, in fact, taken -- decided
to take this $3 million away from the World Health Organization Human
Reproductive Program and you're looking at putting it someplace else
in WHO?

MR. BOUCHER: It means what the answer says and it means what I have
said yesterday --

QUESTION: Well, I'm sorry, Richard, but I don't understand the answer.

MR. BOUCHER: -- that we are looking to spend this money consistent
with US law. And that means that --

QUESTION: Well, that means that you are not planning -- you are not
going to spend this money where it was originally intended to go.

MR. BOUCHER: We haven't defined exactly where it's to be spent, but
it's available to be spent on reproductive health activities that are
consistent with US law.

QUESTION: Is it available to be spent for the Human Reproduction
Program of the WHO?

MR. BOUCHER: We haven't defined exactly how it's going to be spent.
It's available to be spent on reproductive health activities that are
consistent with US law.

QUESTION: Are the reproductive health activities of the Human
Reproduction Program of the World Health Organization eligible under
US law --

MR. BOUCHER: They have a great many programs, and I am not, at this
point, able to tell you where this $3 million is going to be spent.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. There are people up on the Hill that have been
very specific about this. I'm looking at a letter. They say that the
funding for this program has been frozen because it uses -- it does
research on RU-486. Is that correct or not?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is: The money is not frozen; we are looking to
spend it on the World Health Organization research activities in a
manner that is consistent with US law.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MR. BOUCHER: Now, we will look at the questions of the kind of
research that they do and the kind of research that we can support,
and make sure that we spend this $3 million consistent with US law.
That's what I said yesterday. The question yesterday is: Are we
withholding $3 million from the World Health Organization? And the
answer is: No.

QUESTION: Well, but that's not --

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: Does that mean that you're asking questions about this
program, asking the WHO to give you more details of this program so
that you can find out whether it does comply?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know if we've had to ask or not. We're very
familiar with a lot of these programs and we have to decide how to
spend our own money.

QUESTION: If we can take "frozen" out of the conversation, there isn't
any other possible construction to what you just said than the US --
this administration, in its interpretation of federal law, which
varies from the previous interpretation of the federal -- is making
sure that this money isn't spent on devices that the people, the
political people who run this government, think support abortion.

MR. BOUCHER: Where do I start? Where do I start with a
misinterpretation?

QUESTION: Well, take "frozen" out of it. You're diverting money from
this program, aren't you?

MR. BOUCHER: No, we're not. We're spending it on World Health
Organization research programs in the area of reproductive health. The
question is whether -- is: Do we have a right to decide, as we have a
requirement to decide, under US law that's been on the books since
1985 and has been implemented by every administration since 1985, do
we have a right to decide how to spend our money? And the answer is:
Yes, and we're deciding how to spend our money.

QUESTION: No, I'm just asking for candor that the administration --

MR. BOUCHER: That's as candid as I can be.

QUESTION: -- that you reversed the Cairo statement of 1994 and you
don't want to support anything that appears to somebody, some groups,
as supportive of abortion.

MR. BOUCHER: That's an argument, not a question. I'm sorry, it's --

QUESTION: Well,Richard, maybe -- look, I really need to get an answer
on this, and I don't understand why you can't --

MR. BOUCHER: We've given you three answers on it. I don't know what
more there is to answer.

QUESTION: Is there a problem with US money going to the WHO Human
Reproductive Program under your reading of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment?

MR. BOUCHER: And the answer I gave you --

QUESTION: You didn't give an answer to that question. You haven't. Not
yet. You've talked about how you want --

MR. BOUCHER: I will, as soon as you stop.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. My turn? The answer I gave you is that we will
spend $3 million on World Health Organization research activities in
the area of reproductive health, and we haven't decided exactly how to
spend it.

QUESTION: Was this money at any point going to go to this entity
called "The Human Reproduction Program?" And if it was, is it no
longer going to go there, but to some other WHO entity that deals with
reproduction? I mean, if you don't know the answer to it, please say
that, because you're not answering the question.

MR. BOUCHER: Well that's a new question, Matt. And that's a new
question that I don't know the answer to.

QUESTION: Fine. I have another question. The Secretary is meeting this
afternoon with the Secretary General of UNESCO, an organization which
you said, which the President said, in fact, --

MR. BOUCHER: The President said. Yeah, keep going. I'm just agreeing
with you.

QUESTION: Was going to -- you were going to rejoin. I know that you
say that you've rejoined it now, but has that actually taken any
physical effect on the ground in Paris yet? Have you gotten the money
from the Hill to pay your dues?

MR. BOUCHER: Good question. I don't know. I'll find out.

QUESTION: Is that the subject of what this is going to be -- what they
are talking about?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure the subject will be the rejoining, but whether
it's actually physically occurred or not, I have to check.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.