Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

State Department Noon Briefing Transcript

(Yemen, Kenya, Homeland Security, North Korea, Iraq, Syria,
Israel/Palestinians, Turkey, Cote d'Ivoire, Indonesia, Consular
Affairs, Venezuela, Terrorism) (11760)
State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip T. Reeker briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Monday, December 30, 2002
1:30 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman
YEMEN
-- Attack on Baptist Hospital in Yemen/Three Americans Dead, One
Injured
-- US Travel Warning Remains in Effect
-- US Contacts with Yemeni Government
-- Investigation Ongoing/Suspect Arrested
-- Status of US Embassy and US Embassy Personnel
-- Warden Message Issued/Number of US Citizens Residing in Yemen
KENYA
-- US Welcomes Democratic Elections Held December 27th in Kenya
HOMELAND SECURITY
-- FBI Search for Five Individuals Suspected of Entering US Illegally
-- No Record of Five Individuals Named by FBI Applying for US Visa
-- Border Security Issues
-- Prospects for Security Alerts/Worldwide Cautions for New Year's
NORTH KOREA
-- US Policy Toward North Korea/ Secretary Powell's Remarks Secretary
Powell's Calls to Foreign Ministers/Others re North Korea
-- IAEA Board of Governors Meeting/Prospects for UNSC Action
-- Assistant Secretary Kelly's Travel to Consult with Friends and
Allies
-- IAEA Safeguards Agreement and North Korean Violation of Agreement
-- Prospects for Re-imposing Economic Sanctions on North Korea
-- South Korean President Kim's Statement on US Policy
-- Reported North Korean Withdrawal from Non-Proliferation Treaty
-- US Diplomatic Stance with North Korea versus with Iraq
IRAQ
-- US Providing Additional Intelligence to Inspectors
-- List of Scientists Provided by Iraqis
-- UN Security Council Passage of Res. 1454 Revising Goods Review List
SYRIA
-- Reported Arrest of Al-Hayat Bureau Chief
-- Reported Remarks by Israeli Officials regarding Syrian Warheads
with CW
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Situation Update/Work on "Roadmap"
-- Reports of Israeli Demolition of Homes
-- Upcoming Israeli Elections
TURKEY
-- Under Secretary Grossman and US Treasury Under Secretary Taylor
Discussions in Ankara
COTE D'IVOIRE
-- Reported Release of American Missionary Doctor
INDONESIA
-- Sentencing of American Citizen Joy Lee Sadler
CONSULAR AFFAIRS
-- Issue of US Citizenship and Passport Issuance to Reported Cloned
Baby
VENEZUELA
-- Situation Update
TERRORISM
-- US Diplomacy and Efforts to Combat Terrorism
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
1:30 p.m. EDT -- MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2002
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. REEKER: Welcome back, everybody, to the State Department for this,
our final planned briefing for the calendar year of 2002. So, in
advance, let me wish you all a very happy, healthy and safe New Year
celebration and we will reconvene here next year.
Let me start off, though, with an unfortunate statement regarding the
attack on the Baptist hospital in Jibla, Yemen.
The United States condemns the despicable attack on health workers at
the Baptist hospital in Jibla, Yemen, early this morning. That attack
left three American citizens dead and a fourth injured.
There can be no justification for an attack such as this on an
institution providing critical humanitarian services to the Yemeni
people. We extend our deepest condolences to the victims, to their
families and their loved ones.
Personnel from the United States Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, are in Jibla
to assist in this very difficult time and the United States welcomes
the Yemini Government's arrest of a suspect earlier today. We'll be
working closely with Yemeni authorities to fully investigate this
murderous attack.
I don't know if there are any questions on that situation.
QUESTION: Were they aid workers? There's been a couple of conflicting
reports.
MR. REEKER:  I'm sorry, Barry?
QUESTION:  What was their job?  What were they doing?
MR. REEKER: These were workers at the Baptist hospital, an institution
that's been in Jibla, Yemen, for over 30-some years.
QUESTION:  But they worked for the US Government.  They weren't --
MR. REEKER: No, that is not at all correct. They do not work for the
US Government. They work for the Baptist hospital in Yemen. There were
three American citizens who were killed and a fourth, as I said, was
injured.
QUESTION: Are you planning to update in any way your travel advisory
for Yemen as a result of this incident?
MR. REEKER: At this stage, I'm not sure whether they would issue a new
travel warning. I think our most recent update for Yemen, November
30th, remains in effect. It warns Americans to defer nonessential
travel to that country. All American citizens in Yemen, we think,
should exercise maximum caution, take prudent security measures, try
to avoid crowds and vary times and routes of travel. We'll see if we
adjust the travel warning to note this terrible incident of murder and
make any changes there. But it certainly remains a dangerous place in
our view and our current travel warning reflects that.
QUESTION: From your initial contact with the Yemeni authorities, do
you have any reason to believe that this attack was an individual --
was purely an individual act, or do you have any suggestion that it
was something organized by a group?
MR. REEKER: Well, Yemeni authorities have arrested a suspect, as I
noted in the statement, and we're working closely with them to
investigate the attack. I just don't have any more details at this
point. I think we have to let that investigation go forward. But they
have investigated a suspect. And with our consular officials that
traveled from the Embassy in Sanaa down to Jibla, we also had security
officials that would go and try to look into the security situation
for the other American citizens who are there.
QUESTION: So there's consular and security people in Jibla right now?
MR. REEKER:  Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Along the lines of Jonathan's question, that last
warning that you mentioned, the one from November 30th, talked about
the threat of a possible Kenya-like, the attack in Kenya targeting
Israelis. Is there any indication that this is the kind of thing that
was being planned when you released that -- the latest update on the
30th of November?
MR. REEKER: At this point, no, I can't make any connections with what
happened in this particular situation. As I said, a suspect has been
arrested by Yemeni authorities --
QUESTION:  Right.
MR. REEKER: It's an investigation. So I can't draw any conclusions.
Yemen is a dangerous place for Americans. We've made that quite clear.
These people who were murdered were living knowing that that risk
existed, but they were dedicated to helping the Yemeni people in terms
of providing the critical health and hospital care that they've made
available for many decades now.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Secretary has talked to anyone from
Yemen, or are there any plans to do so? I mean --
MR. REEKER: I don't have any calls. We've been in touch closely with
our Ambassador. I spoke to Ambassador Hull this morning. Obviously,
our officials have been in touch with Yemeni officials, as well, and
we'll look forward to working on it.
Any other questions on Yemen?
Let's start with --
QUESTION:  So can you say it was a terrorist attack at this point?
MR. REEKER: Again, it's under investigation. I couldn't give you any
more details at this point in what happened. We know these people were
killed. It's a horrible crime, but we have to let the investigation go
forward and make that determination.
Elise.
QUESTION:  Are you satisfied --
MR. REEKER: Could I -- could we just go one at a time? I'm sorry.
Elise and then --
QUESTION: Are you satisfied that the Yemeni Government is doing
everything it can to crack down on fundamentalist militants?
MR. REEKER: We certainly continue to work with Yemen and thank them
for the efforts they have made in fighting terrorism. I think their
government has acknowledged the difficulties and the need to do this.
That's why we're helping them wherever we can in developing their
counterterrorism capabilities and working with them, but also in
investigating crimes like this one where we don't know the full
circumstances of the crime, but certainly appreciate their full
investigation. And the fact that they have already arrested a suspect
in the case is a good start.
Elise.
QUESTION: What is the status of US personnel in Yemen? I know a while
back you had a ordered departure or voluntary. Has that been removed?
Are you at full capacity?
MR. REEKER: The Embassy in Sanaa, our Embassy there, is on a sort of
status where young dependents, underaged family members, are not
allowed to join parents at the Embassy. So it's -- I hazard to call it
an adults-only Embassy, but that is the status now. So the Embassy is
functioning in its full capacity in Sanaa carrying out all of the
important engagement with the Yemeni Government and Yemeni publics
that we need to carry out as part of our foreign policy. But we do not
have underage dependents there.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate a little bit on why it's dangerous for
Americans to be in Yemen?
MR. REEKER: I just would send you to the travel advisory, Barry. It
outlines that in some language -- some general, some specific -- and
you can pull that up any time. It was most recently reissued on
November 30th.
QUESTION: Well on the possibility that by the time I read it there
won't be another briefing for a couple of days, let me push it a
little further and ask if the US thinks that Yemen is unable -- you
made some reference to difficulties -- but is Yemen unable to assert
security and is Yemen a playground for al-Qaida and other terrorists
or are they grabbing hold? They've become, you know, more democratic.
They've made some reforms.
MR. REEKER: I don't have anything broadly new to add on that, Barry. I
answered your colleague's question about that in general. We work with
the Yemeni Government, Yemeni authorities in law enforcement
cooperation and sharing of intelligence to crack down on terrorism,
which is certainly something worldwide that we have to worry about.
Yemen has been in a dangerous neighborhood and continues to be in a
dangerous neighborhood. Our travel advisories make that very clear.
Our Embassy works closely with the Department here in Washington to
keep the public abreast of our assessments in terms of safety and
concerns in Yemen.
In this instance, we have the tragic murder of three health workers
and the wounding of a fourth -- health workers who happened to be
American citizens. We're investigating that crime. The Yemeni
Government has already made an arrest in that and they'll continue to
follow that. So we'll work very closely and try to keep the public
aware of any other information we can provide them so that they can
make their own decisions in terms of travel or residency in Yemen or
any other part of the world.
Terri.
QUESTION: Has the Embassy altered its schedule at all? Is it closing?
Has increased security been put up around the Embassy?
MR. REEKER: The US Embassy in Sanaa remains open to the public. As you
know, the Embassy has operated at a very high state of alert for a
long time. They constantly review their security posture. They take
additional steps, as necessary. And I just can't get into any specific
steps in terms of security measures.
I would note -- and this follows on what I said to your colleague --
that Yemeni support, support from the Government of Yemen for Embassy
security needs, has been and continues to be excellent, and we very
much appreciate the Government of Yemen's efforts in that regard.
QUESTION: Phil, along those lines along what you said to Barry about
continuing to advise the public so they can make their own decisions
about travel or residing there, the Embassy, in its statement this
morning, said that it was going to ask Yemeni authorities to increase
their security efforts to protect Americans.
Have you gotten any reply yet to that request? And doesn't that
request, in itself, mean that you are a little -- you are concerned
that perhaps the government wasn't providing the amount of security to
American interests that it should be?
MR. REEKER: I think if you look at the Warden message that we sent out
on the basis of what happened today, we have talked to the Yemenis and
they are investigating this crime and we're doing that. We're working
with them as well to see what other steps might be taken, anything
else they can do to provide security immediately for Americans who are
in locations such as this, working at a hospital, and others steps
that they can take.
So we've made it quite clear in our travel warnings, our consular
information, that there are dangers associated with traveling
worldwide and certainly with traveling in Yemen.
QUESTION: So, to the best of your knowledge, you don't know if there's
been a response, if they've said yes, okay, and this is how we'll do
it in terms of --
MR. REEKER: I couldn't get into that kind of specific detail of what
they're working out on the ground in Yemen.
QUESTION: But it did say, didn't it, did it not, that they were going
to ask -- we are asking the Yemeni authorities to provide additional
security for Americans?
MR. REEKER: "We are requesting additional protection for American
citizens in Yemen," is what the statement put out by the Embassy was.
QUESTION: So, to the best of your knowledge, there hasn't been a
response?
MR. REEKER: I couldn't say that. I didn't ask. They are, hopefully,
getting some sleep in Yemen now.
QUESTION: Will US personnel participate in interrogating the suspect?
MR. REEKER: I don't know about the investigation in that kind of
detail.
Anything else on Yemen?
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Did the president of Yemen contact the Secretary or the
President today?
MR. REEKER: For the President, you would have to talk to the White
House. I'm not aware of the Secretary having had any phone calls with
the president of Yemen today.
Gene.  On Yemen?
QUESTION: Yes. How many Americans are there in Yemen and how many
other organizations similar to the Baptist hospital, who are obviously
soft targets, are there? There's at least one oil company, but what
about others?
MR. REEKER: I don't know if I could get into that much detail for you.
We try to keep records based on American citizens who register with
our Embassy, and I understand that there may be approximately 30,000
American citizens in Yemen. That includes, obviously, people with dual
citizenship, Yemeni-Americans --
QUESTION:  That includes what?
MR. REEKER:  Dual citizens.
QUESTION:  Dual citizens, yeah.
MR. REEKER: Yemeni-Americans. And I couldn't give you any specifics on
the other types of aid workers, people that reside or work temporarily
in Yemen like these hospital workers.
QUESTION:  Well, how big is the Embassy in terms of officers and --
MR. REEKER: That's a kind of detail I'd have to go back and check, and
I don't think we've been providing that types of detail publicly so we
can avoid the nose counting of so-called official Americans in
countries. It's not a prudent safety measure to discuss those
specifically.
QUESTION:  Does the government have other offices outside of Sanaa?
MR. REEKER: I am aware of the presence of some Americans in Aden, but
the specifics of it I don't have with me, Gene.
Anything else on Yemen?
QUESTION: Just a technical thing on that 30,000 figure, roughly.
That's -- I mean, that's the number that have registered with Embassy?
MR. REEKER: That's an approximation we make. I can't get into the
science of how we make those approximations based on anecdotes, based
on registries, based on general information, working with other
sources.
QUESTION: And do you know if that figure is substantially lower than
it was, say, a year or two years ago, like around the time of the Cole
attack?
MR. REEKER: I really have no idea. I mean, the number, I think, is
substantially -- the majority of that number are Yemeni-Americans and
I don't know whether that number in terms of people residing in Yemen
has changed.
Anything else on this?
(No response.)
MR. REEKER: Then I did want to go to another statement that we will
also release on paper following the briefing -- a slightly more
positive story to end the year -- and that is on the democratic
elections in Kenya.
The United States welcomes the democratic elections held December 27th
in Kenya. We congratulate President Mwai Kibaki and are heartened by
his commitment to pursue economic reform and to demonstrate
inclusiveness in dealing with the political opposition.
We have assured President Kibaki of continued United States friendship
and support for Kenya. We look forward to working closely with him on
issues of regional peace and security, human rights, counterterrorism,
and for enhancing trade, job growth, investment, and in fighting
HIV/AIDS.
The United States applauds other Kenyan presidential candidates who
have conceded with grace and statesmanship and have pledged to play a
constructive role in the national assembly.
And we acknowledge the important role of outgoing President Moi. He
has played an important role in assuring a smooth democratic process,
and we look forward to working with the Moi Foundation in promoting
development and peace in the region.
And finally, we want to congratulate the people of Kenya who have made
a strong demonstration of their democratic commitment and establish an
important example for the region and for the world.
QUESTION: Could you say they've stepped away from authoritarianism?
You did have words of praise for Moi.
MR. REEKER: I think certainly we would say that democracy has come a
long way in Kenya since the days of one-party rule and widespread
ethnic violence at election time. Today, or on the 27th, we had a free
and fair democratic election. And so I think we've seen progress on
democracy in Kenya and we look forward to continuing our strong
relations with Kenya and working with them in the future.
Any other questions on Kenya?
(No response.)
MR. REEKER: No? Okay. Then we can turn to other matters of the day.
Barry, do you --
QUESTION:  No, I thought Elise had a question.
MR. REEKER:  Elise.
QUESTION: I have a question on these five men that are allegedly of
Arab or Middle Eastern descent that are supposed to be missing,
entered the country illegally, and the US has some concerns about
that. Is there anything you can say about that in terms of --
MR. REEKER:  What would you want me to say?
QUESTION: Well, I was told that you might have something to say about
it.
MR. REEKER: I was told you might ask me a question. (Laughter.) I
think I know what you're trying to get at.
Regarding the FBI, the five individuals that the FBI is putting out
information on and trying to locate, in working with the FBI, we have
checked visa records. There is no record of any of the five
individuals identified by the FBI as ever having applied for a US
visa, so there's no record of anyone with those names identified by
the FBI having ever applied for or, obviously, then, having received a
US visa, which I think is probably the question you wanted to ask me.
QUESTION: Do you believe that they entered through Canada? Is that --
MR. REEKER: You would have to ask the INS or someone that deals with
entry and exit from the United States on that.
Terri.
QUESTION: A follow-up. Can you give us, sort of, a status report on
how secure you believe the border between the US and Canada is in
light of the story?
MR. REEKER: I don't think it's the State Department that does border
security. I would direct you to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the Justice Department, domestic law enforcement, military or
defense.
QUESTION: But in terms of visas being granted, do you feel that most
people are coming into the country legally with visas that are granted
by the United States?
MR. REEKER: Again, entrance into the country is not the purview of the
State Department. You would have to talk to the INS about that. We
have talked at some length about the work we have been doing in terms
of the visa function, the tightening up, the increased sharing, the
tremendous growth in the number of names in our database, the tip-off
database, the other databases where we get directly from intelligence
and law enforcement the names so that they can be checked as part of
any visa application.
And, as you know, that's resulted in a significant backlog in some
places in visa things, but we've been trying to work on that, too, so
that legitimate travelers who have strong reasons to visit the United
States, whether to conduct business, to visit family, to vacation, to
seek healthcare, to pursue educational opportunities, so that they can
be allowed in because they make up such an important part of our
culture and our economy while we keep, essentially, the bad guys out.
And so we have been working very hard on that, coordinating very
closely with the other US Government agencies, obviously, and making
sure that we do just that -- let the right people in and keep the bad
people out.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: Change of subject? North Korea. Do you have any response to
President Kim Dae-jung's remarks today in which he said that isolating
and putting pressure on North Korea was a bad idea, was futile,
wouldn't work? Do you agree with him?
MR. REEKER: I would, first of all, point you to the remarks that the
Secretary made yesterday when he was able to speak to all of you very
broadly by going on a number of national TV shows that also get
international play and talking largely about North Korea.
Broadly in this subject, we share the view of the international
community that North Korea's recent actions intended to advance its
nuclear weapons capability and violating its International Atomic
Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement, these are a challenge to all
responsible nations. The entire international community has made clear
that North Korea's relations with the outside world hinge on the
elimination of its nuclear weapons program. So we continue to call on
North Korea to reverse its current course, to take all steps necessary
to come into compliance with its IAEA Safeguards Agreement, and to
eliminate the nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner.
We continue to be in close touch with friends and allies in the
region. In addition to the calls that I've briefed you on previously
that the Secretary has made over the weekend, he spoke to Australian
Foreign Minister Downer, he also spoke a couple of times with UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan, he spoke the morning with British
Foreign Secretary Straw. And so I think we've seen statements from
around the international community supporting this, making quite clear
that North Korea is the country that has developed, is developing,
nuclear weapons contrary to their commitments and that this is leading
them into a very isolated position.
They have put themselves in this position by violating very seriously
these commitments and they have an opportunity to change course, come
into compliance, give up the nuclear weapons program and pursue a much
better relationship with the entire international community. After
all, a number of countries, including the United States, had indicated
that we were prepared to pursue better relations to help the North
Korean people.
QUESTION: Can I follow up? And what the kind of thinking here at State
Department on a debate in the UN Security Council on North Korea?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think, again pointing you to what the Secretary
said yesterday -- and I'll just refer to my well-indexed transcript
from the Secretary's various interviews -- one really can't answer the
question specifically of what discussions or action might take place
at the UN Security Council. We are waiting to see what will happen in
early January when the International Atomic Energy Agency meets in its
Board of Governors session. I believe that takes place on the 6th of
January, next Monday. And that Board of Governors of the IAEA will, in
all likelihood, make a judgment in terms of what North Korea has done
and then whether to bring it forward to the United Nations.
So we will see what happens as that progresses and continue to be in
contact with others in the international community. We are not, as the
Secretary said yesterday, not at the moment preparing to introduce a
separate resolution.
QUESTION: Has there been any decision made about when Jim Kelly is
going to head to Seoul?
MR. REEKER: No, I don't think I can push that any further forward than
the Secretary did yesterday. Our Assistant Secretary for East Asia and
Pacific Affairs James Kelly will be going to South Korea within the
next week or two to consult with our friends and allies. We have been
doing that, of course, on the phone, whether through the Secretary or
through our embassies. We expect he'll travel in the next couple of
weeks, but I just don't have a specific itinerary or schedule at this
point. I'll try to keep you posted.
Jim.
QUESTION:  Do you know generally which countries he'd be going to?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think South Korea is a fairly obvious guess;
Tokyo, where we regularly confer with those allies on North Korea
policy, and certainly we've been in close touch with them through
other channels and Assistant Secretary Kelly travels there on a fairly
regular basis anyway. But I just don't have --
QUESTION:  And Beijing, as well?
MR. REEKER: I just don't have a specific thing. We certainly have been
in touch with our Chinese counterparts. The Secretary, as you know,
spoke last week with Foreign Minister Tang. Our embassies have been in
touch and we have seen statements by the Chinese as well. And as the
Secretary said yesterday, we recall these important and strong
statements made by President Jiang Zemin when he visited with
President Bush in Crawford, where he said quite directly that China's
policy was to have a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.
So this is of concern to all the countries in the region, obviously,
as well as to the United States and others in the international
community.
Yes.
QUESTION: Phil, there was a great deal of surprise expressed when
North Korea took the measures of taking off the seals to the Yongbyon
and reopening it, as if the agreement were already in place and that
they were breaking it by the actions that they were taking. However,
it seems their sealing of Yongbyon was not done unconditionally. There
were a number of parts of the agreement that had to be fulfilled from
the US and from the international side in order for that to go
through. That included normalizing diplomatic relations, ending trade
sanctions against Pyongyang --
MR. REEKER:  Let me just stop you right there because you're just --
QUESTION:  -- making a pledge of nonagression --
MR. REEKER: You're just off base and I would advise you to go back and
read your history. We can hook you up with our website and go back to
our briefings from many years ago, administrations ago, in terms of
the facts of that.
The IAEA Safeguards Agreement was an agreement that North Korea has
with the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they are in
violation of that Safeguards Agreement. We have called upon them, as
the IAEA has, to sit down with IAEA and discuss how they can repair
the damage that's been done to seals and cameras and other safeguards
measures.
So we have also pursued a policy to approach North Korea, as the
President said, to pursue a dialogue. North Korea, instead, as we
discovered and have talked about, pursued a separate nuclear weapons
program, that is, with highly enriched uranium. We presented this to
them. They told us at that time, when Assistant Secretary Kelly met
with North Koreans in Pyongyang, that they considered the Agreed
Framework nullified and have proceeded with these violations of the
Safeguards Agreement, as well as other international agreements they
have.
So North Korea has put themselves in this position. North Korea can
change course and get themselves out of this position. They have the
power to do that. It's what will bring them benefits by working,
engaging in a positive way, with the international community. And we
saw what countries like Ja
pan were prepared to do, were talking about major economic support for
North Korea; South Korea prepared and focused on much better
relations; the United States, under President Bush's policy, prepared
to pursue a bold dialogue aimed at having a better relationship with
North Korea.
So, really, North Korea needs to take the steps here and indicate that
they are ready to reengage with IAEA, get back into compliance and to
eliminate their nuclear weapons program.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: There were some economic sanctions imposed by the United
States on North Korea which were lifted in 1999. Are you considering
re-imposing those sanctions in light of what has happened over the
last two or three months?
MR. REEKER: I don't think anybody has suggested at this point imposing
sanctions. The Secretary has not asked any nation to take economic
action against this desperately poor country, North Korea. What we
have talked about, and as the Secretary repeatedly indicated
yesterday, is that the international community can continue to bring
pressure on North Korea by telling them that they've put themselves in
this position, they're in serious violation of their international
commitments. They're the ones who are developing nuclear weapons
contrary to their commitments. They've never said that they're willing
to get back into compliance and to abandon their nuclear program.
And so we have before us a diplomatic pathway that we're pursuing. We
want to pursue a peaceful resolution to this, as the Secretary said,
and we have a lot of diplomatic tools at our disposal. It's in North
Korea's best interest to get back into compliance so that they can
pursue a more positive arrangement and relationship with all
countries, all parts of the international community, which will
benefit their people.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that? My understanding was that
those sanctions were purely symbolic in the sense that they affected
things like investments and private commercial transactions which
hardly applied in the case of North Korea, so re-imposing them would
also be purely symbolic. Can you -- are you absolutely confident there
is no consideration of it, given that it wouldn't, in fact, affect the
welfare of the --
MR. REEKER: At this point, nobody has talked about sanctions. It's not
something I heard in the Secretary's discourse yesterday. I don't want
to rule anything in or out. The President has all his options at his
disposal.
But I think, to just point you back to what the Secretary said, that's
what we're focused on. And in terms of some of these specific
sanctions in terms of proliferation, other things, we could do a check
for you of what may remain on the books and what was lifted. I'd want
to go back and do a complete sort of history of that.
George.
QUESTION: Two questions. You mentioned the Board of Governors of the
IAEA. And they will make a judgment about whether to, what, recommend
something to the Security Council or issue a report of the Security
Council? How do those two interact?
MR. REEKER: I'd really let you ask the IAEA that. I note that my
colleague there has been quite available to the press. I'm not an
expert on the IAEA or its setup. It is a body that reports to the
United Nations and is constituted under the United Nations mandate.
So that Board of Governors will meet. They've already -- the IAEA
itself, its Director, Dr. El Baredei, has made certain statements, has
called upon North Korea to immediately discuss coming back into
compliance, what steps can be taken to reverse course to correct the
damage that they've done to the monitoring situation.
So when the Board of Governors meets, they will clearly assess the
whole situation there and then make their own determination as to how
they report to the United Nations and what steps, then go from there.
QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER:  Yeah.
QUESTION:  If I can think of it.
MR. REEKER:  We can always come back.
Three seconds.  Any time, George, just put your hand up.
QUESTION:  We'll come back.
QUESTION: Maybe I missed it in your answer to the initial question
which started off the North Korea round here, which was Jonathan's
question about whether you guys had any reaction to President Kim's
somewhat negative view of the tack that you're taking with this. Did
you have any specific reaction to that rather than --
MR. REEKER: In fact, if you look at all of President Kim's statements,
and you look at some of the things that he seemed to be responding to,
I think we have to be careful of responding to newspaper reports or
certain press accounts versus looking at what the Secretary said in a
very comprehensive layout of our North Korea policy.
And I would also note that President Kim Dae-jung talked about the
fact that we, the South Koreans, in his case, "will work closely with
our allies to solve the peninsula's problems, to firmly oppose North
Korea's nuclear arms program and to pursue a peaceful solution." And
that sounds remarkably like what I said just now from here and what
the Secretary said yesterday. I think there is strong agreement in the
international community that North Korea has gotten themselves into
this problem and has the opportunity to get themselves out. This is of
great concern to the neighboring countries, of course South Korea.
That is why we consult so closely with them and why we're working with
the international community to approach this situation.
QUESTION: Well, you're right. There is strong agreement among the
international community that there is a problem here, but there seem
to be differences in the way you go about dealing with the problem.
And so I'm just -- you, in other words, do not see any great rift
between Washington and Seoul right now?
MR. REEKER: Not at all. Neither with the current president nor with
the president-elect, who has also made statements as South Korea
prepares to go through its own democratic transition there.
We can do this gentleman and then this gentleman -- oh wait. We'll
take George because he gets --
QUESTION: I was reading this morning that North Korea simply wants to
withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I was unaware of
that. Maybe the Secretary addressed that, too. If he hadn't, or
didn't, do you have a response?
MR. REEKER: I don't know that that came up specifically. Recall that
North Korea began taking steps some years ago to withdraw from the
Nonproliferation Treaty and then froze the clock in that process, I
believe. Let me go back and check the specific history of that. They
have Nonproliferation Treaty related safeguards obligations that
certainly go beyond the Agreed Framework with the United States, and
expelling the IAEA inspectors does raise serious questions about their
intentions. And as Dr. El Baradei, the IAEA Director, said, it
certainly belies North Korea's statements that they are restarting the
operations at Yongbyon to produce electricity.
So, you know, I haven't see that specifically, that step specifically
happened. I've seen some mention of it in the press. North Korea has
to live up to its international commitments. That's the first and most
important step in terms of engaging more broadly with the
international community, including the United States.
Now, we were going to go to this gentleman and then that gentleman,
and then that lady.
QUESTION: Yes, I want to go on a tangent, if I may. Does the North
Korea case have any ramifications for the current US policy on Iraq?
MR. REEKER: I don't think so. They are two different cases. The
Secretary was asked this a couple of times yesterday. They are very
different situations, and the diplomacy and the methods of dealing
with different situations are, by that very nature, different. So I
don't -- I fail to see any implication there other than --
QUESTION: And in terms of resorting to the Security Council as an
avenue for dealing with the North Korea case, members of the Security
Council who are against using force against Iraq will argue, and have
argued, indeed, like the Russians and the French, that that is the way
to deal with both cases -- at the Security Council.
MR. REEKER: Well, again, I don't -- I guess I don't understand what
your question is. We are dealing with this diplomatically with both
cases, diplomatically through the use of international organizations,
through the structures that we have in place, these multilateral
structures. That's what we're doing. The IAEA, perhaps the United
Nations, which will have interest in this. Clearly, the UN will be
interested in this. As I said to your colleague, the IAEA is a UN
agency.
So both situations are one where we've gone to the international
community as a whole, worked with friends and allies to focus on how
to deal with problems that are presented by, in these cases, two
different nations. But each case has a different context. Each case
involves different histories, different players, and you can't just
take a cookie-cutter approach to the diplomacy or the how to deal with
them. And the Secretary went through that in several of the interviews
he did yesterday.
Let me just go over here and come back around.
QUESTION: Since the North seems to have indicated that their current
posture, in part, is a defensive response to having been included in
the "axis of evil," has there been any consideration of amending that
list or --
MR. REEKER: Let me just remind you, as the Secretary did numerous
times yesterday, they were motivated some four or five years ago to
start this highly enriched uranium program in pursuit of nuclear
weapons. While the world was focusing on the Agreed Framework, which
shut down the Yongbyon reactor and eliminated the plutonium program,
nuclear weapons program using plutonium, the North decided some four
or five years ago to pursue this other program.
The President's State of the Union address was 11 months ago, in
January of this year, where he talked about the "axis of evil." And I
think, as the Secretary pointed out, it's worth saying the actions
that have taken place since that time, the characterizations that the
President made have been vindicated by the facts that have
subsequently come out.
Now, the lady next to you was next.
QUESTION:  -- veer off a little bit.  This is not North Korea.
MR. REEKER:  Oops.  We better not veer too far.
QUESTION: Wait a second. Can I just make -- I just wonder, when you
talked about the President's axis -- his State of the Union address
being vindicated by subsequent events, I am correct in thinking that
you guys did not have evidence that they had restarted their uranium
-- this production program at the time of that speech, right? That is
correct?
MR. REEKER: I think we've said that that intelligence came to light
during the summer. That's right.
QUESTION: Okay. So, then this is not the -- I mean, there were other
things that led the President to call them an "axis of evil," part of
the "axis of evil" in that speech.
MR. REEKER:  Right.  And we've been over that plenty of times.
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I don't want you to go through that. I just
wanted to make sure.
MR. REEKER:  Now, we had more on North Korea?
QUESTION:  Concerning Iraq again --
MR. REEKER:  Does this have to do with North Korea?
QUESTION:  Some of it.
MR. REEKER: Mezzo-mezzo. (Laughter.) All right, Aliyev. I will give
you the benefit of the doubt.
QUESTION: You have a softer stance with North Korea and we think you
have a tough one with Iraq. Then the United States announced several
times that it had evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destructions,
and the inspectors' chief asked several times the US to reveal this
evidence. Why do not the administration reveal this?
MR. REEKER: We are giving intelligence to the inspection team. The
Secretary talked about that yesterday. In fact, we talked some time
ago following the Iraqi declaration that we found certainly
insufficient, that we would begin providing additional intelligence to
the inspectors and that is taking place. That is happening, and the
Secretary said that yesterday. I'm not going to go into details about
that intelligence. I think UNMOVIC, Dr. Blix's organization, has put
into place ways to protect intelligence sources and methods and that's
enabled us to obviously work with them and other countries, as well,
in sharing that intelligence.
We have also provided a significant amount of information publicly
over a long period of time, as have the British and others, and we are
always considering when we're in a position to provide more
information. But we are providing intelligence to the inspectors and
supporting them, as we promised to do, in every way we can.
Okay. One more on -- all right, we're shifting to Iraq now. Is that
all right? North Korea I really wanted to try to -- okay, sir. Please.
QUESTION: How do you intercept North Korean shipments of weapons of
mass destruction and ballistic missiles at high sea? What kind of
coordination or cooperation do you expect with South Korean or
Japanese counterparts?
MR. REEKER: I think that's a little premature at this point. That's an
option that we have --
QUESTION: It takes same type of effort like you did with Spanish navy?
MR. REEKER: Again, I think it would be premature to try to comment on
that. It's an option that we have that's been discussed. No decisions
of that nature have been taken. Our focus is on the message. Our focus
is on the message that we're making to North Korea, that they have an
opportunity to change their course, to come into compliance, to signal
to the international community that they want to keep their
commitments and have the opportunity to pursue the dialogue and other
improvements in relations that we've talked about.
So there are many options before the President and also before the
international community as a whole. I wouldn't want to try to deal
with hypothetical situations at this point on that.
Last one on Korea?
QUESTION: Phil, could you say exactly when does the United States
think that this enriched uranium program by the North Koreans began?
When do we have indication that they were working on that?
MR. REEKER: I think we talked about the determinations the
intelligence community was able to make over the summer. I don't think
I have anything more specific.
QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)
MR. REEKER:  When it began?
QUESTION:  Yeah, when do you think that they started?
MR. REEKER: Oh, that was when we determined that. I think we've talked
about four or five years ago.
Okay, we are switching subjects.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on the arrests of the Al-Hayat
newspaper bureau chief in Syria last Friday?
MR. REEKER: Do I? I'm afraid I don't. It's one I could try to look
into. If you want to make sure we get the details afterwards, I'll ask
the bureau about that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Some Israeli officials are saying today that they believe
that -- or they have evidence to indicate that Syria has over a
hundred warheads loaded with chemical weapons. Do you have anything on
that?
MR. REEKER: Don't know that I'd seen that specific report, nor do I
have anything to share with you of an intelligence nature on that.
Matt.
QUESTION:  Can I go to Iraq real quickly?
MR. REEKER:  Okay.
QUESTION: I've been gone, so I don't know if you talked about this
before.
MR. REEKER:  That's a dangerous intro.
QUESTION: But I think relatively recently -- have you talked about the
Iraqi list of scientists that they've handed over?
MR. REEKER: A little bit last week, that was provided to the United
Nations.
QUESTION:  All right, then I won't ask about that.
MR. REEKER: Yeah. We didn't say anything, because it's -- (laughter).
QUESTION:  Another list?
MR. REEKER:  Another list.
QUESTION: I presume that you guys, your people up at the UN, have
already talked about the Goods Review List being adopted, but I'm
wondering if you have anything additional to say.
MR. REEKER: Making a list and checking it twice. You know that that
resolution was just passed. 1454 is the number of that resolution
which revises the Goods Review List. The Oil-for-Food program under
which that list operates was extended earlier this month, I think
around the 1st of December, for six months.
The changes adopted to this latest resolution reflect the Security
Council's desire or ideas on how best to ensure the steady flow of
purely civilian goods to the people of Iraq under that massive
Oil-for-Food program while maintaining the critical controls on items
that could be exploited by Saddam Hussein.
And as you know, we had our Under Secretary John Bolton, as well as
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in New York a couple of weeks
ago making presentations on that subject to help the Security Council
come to this decision. So they worked through those things and the
Security Council passed that resolution 13 to 0.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the Russian criticism of the new
restrictions on Iraqi imports saying that they would exacerbate the
humanitarian situation in Iraq?
MR. REEKER: I don't know if I've seen specific Russian comments. I
would note that Russia abstained on this vote from the resolution. So
I couldn't try to explain another country's action.
But the changes that this new Goods Review List will bring will
require the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations to review
medications that might have a military use when the requests are for
quantities that are grossly in excess of any civilian requirement. We
only oppose allowing the Iraqi military to stockpile quantities of
certain medicines that could be used to protect its troops if -- in
the event that Iraq launched a chemical and biological warfare.
So neither the Goods Review List itself or these changes that were
adopted today in the resolution deny any item to the Iraqi people. The
revised list requires the UNMOVIC, as well as IAEA, to refer items
that have a military application to the Security Council for review
and they do not change the -- I guess as they call it the objective of
the UN Security Council Resolution 1409, which actually created the
current Goods Review List, to streamline UN oversight of the export to
Iraq of purely civilian goods while maintaining the critical control
on goods that may have a military use.
QUESTION: Some of the items on the list, like heavy trucks, for
example, used to ship food and medicine to civilians, the new
restrictions actually include those --
MR. REEKER: I think the determination was that those items could have
a very significant military dual use, if you were, and that there are
alternative means to ship goods to civilians. Again, this -- the
changes do not deny any item to the Iraqi people and, in fact, they
keep in the goal of the original Goods Review List resolution that
Secretary Powell was very much a part of, and that is to streamline
the process, streamline the UN's oversight of the process to make sure
there was enhanced international confidence that Saddam Hussein's
regime could not use the Oil-for-Food program to get items that would
be of use to his war machine, but rather, we could still get important
goods, including medicines and other consumer goods, to the Iraqi
people.
You want to do this?
QUESTION: -- with Korea and Iraq and almost forget about source of all
troubles in the Middle East, and that's the Palestinian cause. So do
you think that you have any plans in the near future for any -- to
restart negotiations of --
MR. REEKER: Well, maybe you missed the recent meeting here of the
Quartet and the statement that was put out. We would be happy to get
you a copy of that, where we talked about how we want to move ahead,
talked about work being near completion on the roadmap. The Secretary
talked about this a bit in his interviews yesterday, as well, and made
quite clear that we're trying to put down a roadmap, put it down in a
way that it will be received with favor by both sides; and when the
Quartet met, we made a judgment that we were close to finishing it,
that it's a pretty good way forward, but that to introduce it at this
time wasn't in the best interests, so we'll keep working on it and
refining it.
And I think we've been quite clear in what we support. The
international community and the parties, themselves, support the
vision that the President set out in his June 24th speech. We support
the vision that the Arab League adopted and has said is our vision of
two independent states living in peace, side by side.
In the meantime, we've got to see that terror and violence stops. We
certainly condemn the attack on a settlement in the West Bank on
Friday that killed four students, wounded ten other Israeli civilians.
We urge Palestinian leaders to do all they can to end the violence and
terror that has so undermined Palestinian national aspirations.
And at the same time, we're seriously concerned about civilian
casualties, especially Palestinian children, that continue to result
from Israeli military actions in the West Bank and Gaza. And we've
approached the Israelis to urge them to keep in mind the consequences
of their actions and reiterate our call for Israel to take all
appropriate precautions to prevent the death or injury of innocent
civilians and damage to civilian and humanitarian infrastructure.
So we'll continue to be in close touch with Israelis and Palestinians
to calm the situation and prevent further bloodshed.
Jonathan.
QUESTION: Well, also, there was that attack the other day. The
Israelis did some more house demolition work. Do you have any comment
on that?
MR. REEKER: I'm not sure if this is something we covered last week or
--
QUESTION:  No, this was something they did this morning.
MR. REEKER: I hadn't seen those reports. I mean, our positions on that
have remained the same in terms of Israel contemplating, considering,
taking into account the consequences of their actions and taking
appropriate precautions, as I said to prevent --
QUESTION:  Are you going to condemn it?
MR. REEKER: I don't know what you're talking about, Jonathan, so I'm
not going to make a statement on something that I haven't seen yet
just because you came out here having read something that I haven't.
Yes, in the back.  Are we changing the subject?
QUESTION: Yes. No. It is Iraq and this area. Last week, two assistant
secretary, one of Mr. Grossman and also Mr. Taylor, was in Ankara. And
they have a very long list of the request from the US and they said
that they announced that they reached an agreement. I wonder what kind
of agreement you got it and the which part of the list they provide
from the Turkey?
MR. REEKER: That's not exactly the way I read what came out of the
press conference that the Under Secretary and our Under Secretary
Taylor from the Treasury Department, as well as our Under Secretary
for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, said after their trip to Turkey.
I believe they got back on Saturday. They were discussing an
assistance package, a possible assistance package for Turkey to
maintain market confidence, and I think Under Secretary Taylor said in
Ankara that we made some good progress on the economic assistance
package and we've established an agreement on the overall structure of
the assistance, providing flexibility and adaptability that is needed
to provide confidence and security to the markets. And this is
designed, our economic assistance package is designed to work with the
Turkish Government to sustain the economic reform program and achieve
economic prosperity. And Under Secretary Grossman also noted that we
are very satisfied with consultation and cooperation we've had from
our Turkish ally.
QUESTION: And also, the Turkish Government officials including the
Prime Minister Gul, they announced that they wait second UN Security
Council resolution about Iraq. Then after they will decided on the US
requested. Do you planning to apply for the second -- another UN
Security Council resolution about Iraq?
MR. REEKER: I think you're just ahead of yourself. We've talked about
what we're pursuing with Iraq, watching the inspectors and the
inspections process go forward, supporting that effort while we try to
look for compliance by Iraq with the UN Security Council Resolution
1441, that is, disarmament as they are required to do, as they have
been required to do under some large number of other Security Council
resolutions over more than a decade. And so any other, I think,
discussions on this point are just hypothetical and I just don't have
anything to add to what we've said on this subject before.
QUESTION: There's been a flurry of stories in the Israeli press
regarding corruption among higher levels of the Likud -- vote buying,
in fact, involvement of the Russian mafia, money in the primary
elections which brought Mr. Sharon again to power -- and I'm wondering
if the US, in the light of all this which has been exposed now in the
Israeli press, if there's any concerns that the elections, the
upcoming elections, will be fair and above board.
MR. REEKER: I haven't seen those stories. Sorry, I didn't read my
Israeli press over the weekend and that sounds like an Israeli
domestic matter. Israel is a democracy which deals with issues like
that in their own methods, and I'm sure the Israeli press will play
its important role in that domestic discussion, but it's not one I'm
going to enter into.
Matt.
QUESTION: And a follow-up on that. The Labor Party officials have
indicated that they have a difficult time in getting in touch with any
of the higher level US officials and that they feel that they're
getting the cold shoulder. I realize that, you know, the primary
contact, foreign contacts are with the governments in charge, but
there are also, usually, some level of contact also with opposition
parties.
MR. REEKER:  Absolutely.
QUESTION: Even when the President visits a country, he'll talk to or
have some kind of a meeting.
MR. REEKER:  Certainly.  Right.
QUESTION: Why is this -- what kind of contacts do we have with the mix
of people (inaudible)?
MR. REEKER: We have regular and normal contacts with a broad variety
of the Israeli political spectrum. Obviously, we have to deal with the
government in office, but I can assure you that our Embassy has
regular contacts with representatives of opposition parties, of other
parties across the cultural, social and political spectrum of Israeli
life, and we'll continue to do that because that's what our diplomats
do. It's what officials in Washington do. I can't give you a specific
breakdown or readout of all the meetings we have, but I reject the
suggestion that any particular group is not -- doesn't have access and
I haven't seen those specific reports that you site.
Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, I've got two hopefully brief ones on the status of
Americans abroad, two individuals.
The first one, I understand that this missionary who was captured by
the Ivorian rebels last week -- or that you guys said you've been
notified he was missing on Friday. I understand he's now been
released. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR. REEKER: I had not seen the report that he was released. We had
seen reports as to his capture and understood that the Red Cross,
International Committee of the Red Cross, was working closely with the
rebel groups and the French forces and our Embassy was working as part
of that. I had not seen anything further. We would certainly welcome
his release as soon as possible.
QUESTION: And the second one is there were two women, including an
American nurse, who were just convicted and given jail time in
Indonesia.
MR. REEKER: That is American citizen Joy Lee Sadler who was sentenced
on December 30th by an Indonesian judge to four months in prison for
immigration violations. We understand she will be given credit for
time already served. She is required to pay a fine of 5,000 rupia,
equivalent to 60 US cents. She has been in custody since September
12th, and based on the sentence as issued, she would be released on
January 12th or 13th, as I said, based on time already served.
So we're pleased that the case has concluded and hope Ms. Sadler will
be able to rejoin her family in the United States as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Okay, you don't have any concerns about her given her --
what she says is her terminal -- the terminal illness from which she
suffers?
MR. REEKER: I don't have that kind of personal information, but we
certainly hope she's able to rejoin her family in the United States as
soon as possible, and I'm sure our Embassy will do whatever we can to
facilitate her travel back to the United States once she is released
the middle of next month.
Terri.
QUESTION: This is kind of a weird question, but do you have any
information on the --
MR. REEKER:  Uh-oh.  Wait for it, wait for it.
QUESTION:  -- the supposedly cloned baby?
MR. REEKER:  Yeah, I knew it was coming.
QUESTION:  I waited.
MR. REEKER: Do you want to identify yourself and the station that
you're with?
QUESTION: The mother is said to be an American citizen and bringing
the baby back. So does that mean the baby has to get a US passport or
a visa or something like that? And are you aware of any of these
movements?
(Laughter.)
MR. REEKER: I guess I have caught out of the corner of eye -- out of
my mind, I suppose, too -- the reporting on this general subject and
so, expecting such a question, we did do a little checking.
Without commenting on the specific situation, let me tell you about US
citizenship and passports. A child born of American citizens or
citizen abroad, US citizenship is not necessarily automatic. The
American citizen parent or parents is or are required to meet certain
requirements of US residence as established in the Immigration and
Nationality Act in order to transmit citizenship to the child.
If the parent or parents meet the requirements, the so-called
"transmission requirements," the child is considered a US citizen at
birth. In addition, an American citizen child born abroad may, in
accordance with the citizenship laws of the country in which that
child was born, may also be a citizen of that country. So for US
citizens born abroad, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad may be issued,
and that can demonstrate US citizenship.
In the hypothetical situation of a cloned baby, this would be a new
situation and therefore, at this time, we would be unable to determine
how US laws regarding nationality would apply to this child. And of
course, passport records -- I should just note for the record --
passport records are confidential.
QUESTION: Phil, it is correct, though, that even an infant must have a
US passport. Correct?
MR. REEKER: Yes. And a child, once he or she meets the -- the parents
meet the transmission requirements, the child can have a passport upon
birth.
QUESTION: Do you know if people are working on something as to what
would happen if --
MR. REEKER:  I'm not aware that anybody has --
QUESTION: Or has there been any kind of -- just simply because this
administration has made clear its opposition to the entire idea of
human cloning, although it is not, as I understand it, technically
illegal. But you don't know of anyone saying -- telling embassies to
look out for any --
MR. REEKER: I won't get into that because that's not a State
Department issue.
QUESTION:  No, I know, but you're --
MR. REEKER:  To look out for cloned children?  (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, look out for special and what might be considered
unusual circumstances.
MR. REEKER: We regularly look out for cloned news reports, but I
haven't been doing -- that's such a great line. No, I'm not aware of
any action being taken in this direction at all. Obviously, it is
something that lawyers would have to look at in the event that the
hypothetical situation was to actually be a situation that would have
to be dealt with.
QUESTION: Phil, normally, how long after a birth would it be possible
for a child to acquire a US passport, assuming normal circumstances?
MR. REEKER:  In theory, immediately.
QUESTION:  Like a day or two?  I mean, like --
MR. REEKER:  In theory, immediately upon birth.
QUESTION: So what are these transmission requirements? You mean these
requirements are referred to the previous history of the parents, not
to the post-birth.
MR. REEKER:  Correct.  Was that not what I said?
QUESTION:  No, perhaps I --
MR. REEKER:  Maybe it was too legalistic.
QUESTION:  It was rather --
MR. REEKER: If the parent or parents meet the transmission
requirements, the child is considered a US citizen at birth and
therefore eligible for a US passport. But there could be other
circumstances, and obviously in the case of a cloned baby, lawyers
would have to take a look at the Immigration and Naturalization Act
and determine whether the single parent in question transmitted
citizenship.
QUESTION: If the single parent is the citizen and the baby is a clone
of that parent, isn't that --
MR. REEKER: That's a situation that is a case of first impression.
(Laughter.) There was a reason I didn't go to law school. (Laughter.)
A cloned baby would be a case of first impression and therefore we're
unable at this time to determine how US law would apply.
QUESTION:  A case of first impression means --
MR. REEKER:  It's a legal term.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Patient people have been waiting. Yes,
ma'am. And then we'll go back to --
QUESTION: Two brief, unrelated. New Year's Eve, historically, has been
a time where there has been an expression of for security reasons in
this country. I was just wondering if you could describe any new or
additional security measures in the run-up to this New Year's Eve,
like the change of alert.
MR. REEKER:  In this country?
QUESTION:  Regarding terrorist threats, yes, here or overseas.
MR. REEKER: In this country, you'd need to consult with domestic law
enforcement and security agencies. Overseas, I'm not aware at this
stage that we are updating our Worldwide Caution that remains in
effect for American citizens to consider threats that exist worldwide.
And then I would remind everybody who is residing overseas or
traveling overseas during the New Year's period, just as any time, to
consult our website for particular regions or countries and to keep in
touch with US embassies or consulates in those regions so that we can
advise them through our Warden systems and other methods of any other
information we do become aware of.
There are dangers out there. We want people to continue with their
lives, their business, their travel, but it's important to at least be
aware of the situation and take the precautions any individual deems
necessary.
QUESTION: So, at this point, are you aware of any likely international
alert or any particular country alert?
MR. REEKER: At this point, I'm not aware of that. Today is the 30th of
December. If we have information that comes to light that we need to
release today or tomorrow or any other day, we will do that as
expeditiously as practicable.
QUESTION: Number two, quickly. The five men at the border. Are you
aware of country of origin, ethnicity, nationality, and, if so, have
there been any contacts with these countries they have come from?
MR. REEKER: No, I would refer you to the FBI for that. The only piece
of it that we had at this stage to share with you was the fact that we
had done the check of the -- where did it go? There it is. The visa --
the check of visas. And we had found that under the names that the FBI
provided to us, there is no record of any of the five individuals as
having ever applied for a US visa.
There was, I'm sorry, Sonia.  And then Joel.  Please.
QUESTION:  Okay.  On Venezuela.
MR. REEKER:  Venezuela.
QUESTION: Well, after two months of efforts, OAS Secretary Gaviria
returns on Friday from Venezuela. The strike is still ongoing.
Venezuelan vice president says that the situation is extremely
normally and Ambassador Shapiro warns from increasing violent
situation. I just want to know what is your balance of this situation
in Venezuela?
MR. REEKER: Well, I think your encapsulating brings us up to date on
the situation there. Our Embassy in Caracas under Ambassador Shapiro
has been in contact with both government officials and with opposition
leaders to assess the political and economic situation in Venezuela
and to continue urging Venezuelans, all Venezuelans, to take advantage
of the OAS, that is, the Organization of American States-led dialogue
to achieve a peaceful, constitutional, democratic and electoral
resolution to the ongoing crisis.
I understood that OAS Secretary General Gaviria would be returning
after the New Year holiday. Ambassador Shapiro met with President
Chavez and Foreign Minister Chaderton on December 27th as part of our
outreach to the Government of Venezuela. We keep stressing this
message both to opposition leaders and to government officials in our
private messages as well as our public messages.
And since we were talking about travel warnings, I would remind people
that we still have a travel warning in place for Venezuela. There are
severe shortages of goods and services, including acute fuel
shortages, and we've seen a continuing deterioration of the political
and security situation there. And because of that, as you know, a
little over a week ago we ordered the departure of non-emergency
personnel and dependents of Americans, eligible family members from
the US Embassy in Caracas.
QUESTION: But he will return to Venezuela with a new strategy or the
strategy remains the same?
MR. REEKER: I think he's had a plan for dialogue. I would suggest that
you talk to the OAS and to Secretary General Gaviria's people about
that. We think that this offers the best opportunity for the full
spectrum in Venezuela to discuss these problems and to come to
peaceful solutions.
And the Joel had a final one.
QUESTION: Since this is the last press conference and end of the year
--
MR. REEKER:  Better not be on clones.
QUESTION: No. Aside from the three "axis of evil" countries, what
progress diplomatically -- are you sure that the diplomatic progress
that we've made with governments, various religions and NGOs are
satisfactory in combating the problems we've had as a result of the
terrorist attacks over a year ago?
MR. REEKER: I'm not quite sure if I understand the question, Joel, but
let me take a stab at it.
QUESTION:  All right.
MR. REEKER: As you can see from the discussion we've had today,
diplomacy, and, in particular, American diplomacy, affects all of us
in the United States and around the world at different levels. It's
important for our security. It's important for our economy, our
prosperity. It's important in reflecting and promoting our values
around the world in terms of human rights and other things. So we work
very closely with other governments, with other diplomats, with
international organizations, with nongovernmental organizations and
with publics.
This year you've heard us talk a lot about public diplomacy and the
important role that plays in helping others in the world understand
the United States and understand our policies. So we pursue those
efforts. Those are long-term efforts, often.
We've worked with many, many governments in the war against terrorism
because diplomacy is an important part of that. As you know, we have a
full toolbox that we use, whether it's economic steps, financial steps
that have been crucial in fighting the war on terrorism, whether those
are bilateral steps that we take working with individual other
countries or multilaterally, working with the United Nations, where
they've passed resolutions and where we've been at the forefront of
helping other countries to seize assets, to cut off flows of financing
to terrorist groups.
Law enforcement cooperation has been crucial with arrests around the
world of terrorist suspects. Intelligence sharing and information
sharing of all varieties has been very important. So we've seen
governments around the world come together, perhaps in an
unprecedented way, since September 11th, 2001, to work to fight
against terrorism because this is something that affects everyone in
the civilized world. And so we will continue that. It's not a
short-term struggle. The President has been quite clear. Secretary
Powell has reiterated to you that this will take a long time. But
we're determined and we're patient. And so we deal with all of these
different things, we juggle different issues, but all working towards
the same general goals.
And I would just remind you, as we did earlier, that there's no
cookie-cutter approach to diplomacy. There are different tools that
need to be used at different times. There are different approaches to
different countries to different problems. Everything has its own
context and its own history. And Secretary Powell, as the United
States chief diplomat, as the head of President Bush's foreign policy
apparatus, has been leading all of us in this building, working around
the globe with friends and allies to deal with problems as they arise,
to try to pursue peace and security, prosperity and a better life for
all of us.
And with that, Happy New Year to everyone.  Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 p.m.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)