03 January 2003
State Department Noon Briefing Transcript
(North Korea, Colombia/Peru, Venezuela, Israel/Palestinians,
Israel/China, Pakistan, Bahrain, Turkey) (5200)
State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher briefed.
Following is the State Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing Index
Friday, January 3, 2003
12:55 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
NORTH KOREA
-- North Korean Nuclear Program/US Consultations with Allies
-- North Korea's Call for Talks/Non-Aggression Pact
-- Reported South Korean Offer to "Mediate" between US and DPRK
COLOMBIA/PERU
-- Status of Aerial Interdiction Program
VENEZUELA
-- Update on Situation/OAS Dialogue
-- US Embassy Suspending Non-Immigrant Visa Processing
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
-- Israeli Demolition of Homes in West Bank
ISRAEL/CHINA
-- Israeli Security Assistance to China
PAKISTAN
-- Anti-American Protests
BAHRAIN
-- Demonstrations in Bahrain
TURKEY
-- Turkish Prime Minster's Travel to Middle East
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
12:55 p.m. EST
MR. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't have any
statements or announcements. I would be glad to take your questions.
QUESTION: May we look at Korea again today where -- from where there
were reports suggesting that the US has to compromise in order to stop
North Korea's nuclear program? You have a meeting coming up. Are you
entering it in a compromising or open-minded view or something?
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, the meeting is with our allies -- with
Japan and South Korea. We coordinate with our allies. We coordinate
very closely on all the various aspects of policy and things that we
have to do together. I think it is clear from our consultations and
from the statements that are being made that all the allies and other
interested countries like China and Russia want to see an end to North
Korea's nuclear weapons programs, uranium enrichment programs,
specifically, that they have admitted.
How to achieve this, how to proceed down this path peacefully --
because we are all committed to a peaceful resolution -- is the
subject of our consultations. So we will be seeing the Japanese, the
Koreans, next Monday and Tuesday in a trilateral meeting. We will have
further discussions when Mr. Kelly goes out. I can also tell you that
Under Secretary Bolton will be out there later this month, as well, to
talk to the Japanese, the Koreans and the Chinese about this issue.
So it is a matter of ongoing consultation and coordination with a
number of governments to try to achieve a peaceful resolution. But
what is important is that North Korea understands that it all begins
with a verifiable dismantlement of these programs.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Mr. Bolton is going to those three countries?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, Mr. Bolton is going to those three countries after
Assistant Secretary Kelly.
QUESTION: Right to South Korea and China?
MR. BOUCHER: And China. I am not exactly sure if I have -- I do not
think I have Kelly's itinerary yet -- Assistant Secretary Kelly -- but
he will be out in the region in the next week or so. Then after that,
later in the month of January, Under Secretary Bolton will be in South
Korea, Japan and China.
QUESTION: Someplace in this mix the South Korean president is coming
here, I think next month. Let's see -- the president-elect.
MR. BOUCHER: The president-elect. Yes, I am not exactly sure when,
frankly. They have talked on the phone, remember.
QUESTION: Bolton is this month?
MR. BOUCHER: January.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Richard, two things that are both basically related. What
does the US make, if anything, of the North Koreans' latest suggestion
or statement that they are willing to talk if you guys are willing to
sign a non-aggression pact? And two, what is your reaction, if you
have any, to the South Korean president-elect's offer to mediate
between the US and North Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the reaction to both is pretty much what I just
said. The issue is not non-aggression. The issue is whether North
Korea will verifiably dismantle these nuclear enrichment programs, or
this nuclear enrichment program. The President and the Secretary have
said on a number of occasions that we have no intention to invade
North Korea, we have no hostile intent towards Pyongyang, and we are
seeking, like others, a peaceful and diplomatic resolution to the
nuclear issues.
We have also made clear we are not going to enter into negotiations in
response to threats or broken commitments and we are not going to
bargain or offer inducements to North Korea to live up to the treaties
and agreements that it has signed. So, as I said, the issue is whether
North Korea will verifiably and visibly dismantle its nuclear weapons
program that violates previous commitments.
QUESTION: It's hard to -- can I ask one thing quickly?
MR. BOUCHER: Now, the South Korean side of things -- we have been
working very closely with the South Koreans. We have shared concerns
regarding North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. We have noted, in
particular, South Korean Foreign Ministry statements that North Korea
must scrap its nuclear weapons programs.
South Korea and others are making this point in their dialogues with
North Korea. North Korea must understand that the international
community is in an agreement that its actions are a challenge to all
responsible nations. So that is the point that's being made by the
South Koreans in their discussions, and we think that point should be
made by them and others as they hold those discussions.
QUESTION: But are you guys willing to entertain their offer of -- is
this something you will be discussing?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not think there has actually been a particular offer
of that sort at this point. Certainly, to the extent that anyone has
contact with North Korea as the South Koreans do, as the Japanese and
others do, the Chinese and Russians, we believe it is important for
them to make this point -- that as the South Korean Foreign Ministry
has said, it all begins with North Korea ending these programs.
QUESTION: Just one quick clarification. It's hard to tell from here,
from afar, and also I know if it went through translation, but there
are accounts in which the South Korean News Agency is speaking of a
swap and exchange of halting the program in exchange for a security
agreement. I don't know if security is different from non-aggression,
and I don't know, frankly, when the Secretary rules out a
non-aggression treaty, being a very formal thing, and on the other
hand, we've said a lot of words that sound like no intent to attack
them, is there something in between that can be worked with?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not know. I do not want to speculate. There is -- I
agree with you -- alot of speculation in the press. Some of it by
people named, some of it unnamed people, saying 'well, maybe this,
maybe that, this idea, maybe that idea.' I am sure people are
presenting ideas and we will discuss ideas with others in the next
week or so and as we continue our consultations.
I think for the United States, it is very clear. This is, I think, a
position that is held by others who are looking for a peaceful
resolution. We are not willing to bargain or negotiate over
commitments that have made before. We are looking for North Korea to
visibly and verifiably dismantle its nuclear programs and we have no
intent to invade the North. Those things are quite clear in terms of
our policy. Now, how to achieve those goals is something that we will
be discussing with these other governments.
QUESTION: But that commitment -- if you're referring to the '94
commitment -- was not a commitment to end all programs. Don't you want
more than what the US got in '94? Are you just trying to restore the
'94 commitment or do you want a broad statement --
MR. BOUCHER: No, the '94 commitment -- I mean, we -- first of all,
there was a commitment in '94 that was to end its nuclear weapons
programs. That is our view of the Agreed Framework. Certainly nothing
in the '94 agreement would, in any way, permit the North Koreans to go
ahead and find another way of making nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. BOUCHER: And we have said very clearly that this program to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons is a violation of the Agreed Framework, of
the South Korea-North Korea Denuclearization Agreement, and of North
Korea's commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency
frameworks. So it is a violation of multiple commitments. And the
point is that they have to respect those commitments.
QUESTION: Richard, please explain to us your objections to this
non-aggression pact bit. I mean, I understand that you say it's
irrelevant and redundant, but that isn't the same as saying -- that
isn't, in itself, it seems to me, a reason to reject their request for
one. It isn't -- I mean, since you're saying you have no hostile
intent, it doesn't rule out a concession of any kind. So why do you
not -- why are you so unwilling to go along with it?
MR. BOUCHER: I think, Jonathan, the question is: Is that the issue or
not? And it is not the issue.
QUESTION: It's the issue to them, so --
MR. BOUCHER: Slow down. That is not the issue. The issue is not
non-aggression. Our policy on that has been made clear. The President
has made it clear. We and others have been seeking a peaceful
solution. It does not start by saying 'well, let's go back, let's rush
back to the bargaining table and start giving away things, whatever
their value, whatever their importance, in exchange for North Korea
agreeing to abide by commitments it's previously made.' Our intention
is -- we have no intention to sit down and bargain again to pay for
this horse again, as it has been put very bluntly by Jim Kelly and
others. We are not entering into a negotiation on something extraneous
or that is not the issue in order to get them to commit to something
that they have already committed to.
QUESTION: Okay, can I just try again, then?
MR. BOUCHER: I will try again, too.
QUESTION: What is the difference between saying we have no hostile
intent and coming to a non-aggression pact with North Korea? What is
the difference? Why is one a concession, whereas the other is not?
MR. BOUCHER: The issue is not coming or not coming to a pact. The
issue is whether or not you allow yourself to be -- whether you put
yourself in a negotiation to get the North Koreans to agree to
something that they have already agreed to and they have already
violated. We have no intent to 're-bargain' this bargain. The North
Koreans made a commitment and we want to see that commitment
respected. That is where it all starts, that is what the South Korean
Foreign Ministry has said where it all starts, and that is what
various others have said as well.
Sir?
QUESTION: What is your reaction to Charles Krauthammer's suggestion
that you go along with Japan's developing nuclear capacity if North
Korea does not --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't have any particular comment on that suggestion. I
do not know that Japan has any particular program in that regard.
Sir?
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood you in your
answer to Jonathan. Is you have no intent to re-bargain the bargain,
i.e. the Ninth, the Agreed Framework. That's what you're talking about
there?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it is re-bargain --
QUESTION: Re-bargain the meeting.
MR. BOUCHER: -- to renegotiate the basic commitment that has already
been negotiated that North Korea will not pursue nuclear weapons
programs.
QUESTION: So, are you -- so, in other words you're not willing to give
the North Koreans anything at all in exchange for them going back --
them returning to -- they have to point the ground, well, that's a bad
word -- .
MR. BOUCHER: They have to verifiably and visibly dismantle these
programs.
QUESTION: The starting point before you'll enter into any kind of
discussion or --
MR. BOUCHER: Negotiation or -- yes.
QUESTION: Okay, that's all I needed.
MR. BOUCHER: That is what we have said again and again and again.
Back there?
QUESTION: A follow-up on the commentary and story. Is it being
considered at all to either sell Japan or North -- South Korea nuclear
weapons or technologies or they can do it themselves? Is that being
considered?
MR. BOUCHER: No, no, no, and no to the follow-up, as well.
Sir?
QUESTION: You said that our policy is clearly stated, but another one
that's been clearly stated in recent months is the preemption -- that
the US will not allow threats to gather, but will take action to stop
them. Why does that not particularly apply here with North Korea?
MR. BOUCHER: Preemption, and particularly military preemption, is not
necessarily a first choice for policy makers. The first choice for
policy makers is to deal with the issue and to deal with this issue
peacefully with the help of others in the international community, to
work together with the nations that have influence on North Korea and
influence on North Korea's future aspirations. That is the policy
choice that has been made, and that is the policy that's being
pursued.
QUESTION: Richard, when you say you have no intention of attacking
North Korea, what's the time frame on that commitment? I mean, is that
(inaudible) --
MR. BOUCHER: When the President said it in South Korea, he did not
make any --
QUESTION: -- or you might change your mind tomorrow?
MR. BOUCHER: When the President said it in South Korea, I do not think
he put any time frame on it. You can look up his original words if you
want.
QUESTION: Richard, you said the phrase "no hostile intent." Those same
words are contained in the US-North Korean Joint Statement of October
12th, 2000, when Marshal Jo was here and met with Albright and others.
Do you consider that document still to be valid?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not think this administration has ever tried to take
a formal position on that document, but as I said, the Secretary and
the President made clear we have no intention of attacking the North
and no hostile intent as regards the North. That is the policy of this
administration.
QUESTION: Sir, do you guys regard that the North's offer for talks in
exchange for a non-aggression pact with the United States as an
attempt by them to split the South Koreans from -- to deal directly
with only the United States, as they have long wanted to do, and to
take the South Koreans and also the Japanese out of the equation?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, you know, two days ago, the question was being
asked: 'Are they trying to split South Korea off and deal only with
the South Koreans and not with the United States?' And today, you're
asking: 'Are they trying to split South Korea off and deal only with
the United States and not with South Korea?'
The point is that we, the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese and
the Russians have been working very closely on this, particularly
closely with those allies in the neighborhood -- the Japanese and the
South Koreans. However you want to interpret one statement one day or
another statement another day from the North Koreans, the fact is we
coordinate very closely with our allies. We are all in this together,
we are all working together, and we all have very similar and
consistent points of view.
QUESTION: And that coordination, has it, in the last day or so,
involved any secretarial-level discussions?
MR. BOUCHER: He has certainly been in close touch with our people and
others who are interested in the situation out there, but he has not
called --
QUESTION: He hasn't called the Russians, Tang or --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, he talked about it in his -- he talked to Foreign
Minister Papandreou, new head of the European Union, and they talked
about North Korea. And I can't remember to what extent it has come up,
for example, in his conversations with Kofi Annan in the last day or
two. But North Korea has certainly been a subject of discussion with a
number of the foreign leaders that he has been in touch with.
Ma'am?
QUESTION: I have heard from many sources, including Mr. Secretary
Powell, that aerial interdiction program for Colombia and Peru is
going to restart early this month. Do you have any updates about this
program and maybe accurate date?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not have a final date for you on the restart. I
think when the Secretary was down in Colombia he explained to the
public -- and as we explained to the Government of Colombia -- that we
were nearing the point to move into the final checks that had to be
made before we went for re-certification. Exactly what date it can
restart, I do not know, but I think, if I remember correctly, the
Secretary said it would start early in this year.
QUESTION: And also about the question that I did ask you yesterday
with peace negotiations with paramilitary groups, do you have any
reaction?
MR. BOUCHER: Did we put up an answer to that? I think we put up an
answer, if you can get it from the Press Office.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Richard, the same region?
MR. BOUCHER: Yes?
QUESTION: Any observations on how President Lula spent his first day,
you know, having meals with Castro and Chavez, et cetera?
MR. BOUCHER: No, no. Who people have meals with is not a subject of
commentary from the US Government.
QUESTION: No, well, that may not be, but the overriding question
that's being left from what's going on in Brasilia is one that is not
exactly wholeheartedly amenable to US positions, not only on free
trade. Do you have any -- I mean, do you have any --
MR. BOUCHER: First of all, I think the question I was being asked
yesterday about some new axis being formed -- I mean, let's get
serious that these are three different leaders with different nations
and different interests, and we have dealt with several of them -- two
of them in our dealings in different ways, as well.
You know, we have very good relations with virtually every country in
the hemisphere except for Cuba. It is a democratic hemisphere. It is a
hemisphere in which Brazil and Venezuela are pledged to the Charter of
Democracy. It is a hemisphere that is liberalizing its trade in one
way or the other, whatever their stances; some of these people, they
are all concerned with the issue of more open trade, better trade for
their people.
We have an excellent relationship with Brazil and we have said in our
meetings here and in our public statements that we look forward to
building on that relationship and working on the common values, the
common goals that we have with our neighbors in this hemisphere.
Cuba remains a stark exception to those values and those goals, but I
think in terms of our ability to cooperate with Brazil, our ability to
support a democratic path in Venezuela, these things are all quite
clear.
QUESTION: And just -- and the Venezuela question for the day. What's
your latest take on the situation?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me see if there is anything new. There were meetings.
We are pleased that the dialogue that was led by the Organization of
American States Secretary General Cesar Gaviria resumed yesterday. We
urge both sides to demonstrate maximum flexibility in working with the
Organization of American States to achieve peaceful, democratic,
constitutional and electoral solutions to the crisis.
QUESTION: Do you have an answer about the embassy and the visas?
MR. BOUCHER: And the visas? Did we put it up?
QUESTION: No.
MR. BOUCHER: Maybe not. Yes, it is their intention because of staff
draw-downs that effective Monday, January 20th, they will not be able
to issue nonimmigrant visas on a routine basis until further notice.
The Embassy put out a statement on December 27th.
Beginning January 20th, they will only be able to accept visa
applications for travel by high-level officials and diplomats,
third-country diplomats who are in Venezuela, spouses or minor
children of US citizens who wish to depart Venezuela temporarily, and
documented emergency humanitarian and medical cases. They will notify
the public when they are in a position again to take routine visa
applications in Venezuela.
QUESTION: And is it still the case that the Trade and Commercial
Agriculture Office of the Embassy has been shut down?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not know exactly what sections are open and what
not. Given that we have drawn down our staff there. I am sure some
sections are closed or at low levels of staffing.
In the back?
QUESTION: Yesterday, the Greek Prime Minister Mr. Simitis said that if
Turkey wants to enter the European Union, they have to solve the
Aegean crisis and also the Cyprus problem. Do the United States agree
with him?
MR. BOUCHER: I did not see that statement. I think the positions the
European Union as a whole has taken on this have been stated by the
whole European Union recently. Whatever conditions there are there
would be the ones that would be expected.
QUESTION: What's your view on the Aegean problem?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not have any new read on the Aegean today.
QUESTION: There's been a whole series of house demolitions on the West
Bank, including another one this morning or yesterday on alleged
militants. Do you have any particular comment on the latest series of
these?
MR. BOUCHER: Let me just refresh my memory. I think we have taken a
position before on this and it is basically the position we have
today. We recognize Israel's need to take legitimate anti-terrorist
action and we have been very clear about the need for Palestinian
action against violence and terror. However, steps such as the
displacement of people through the demolition of homes and property
exacerbate the humanitarian situation and undermine trust and
confidence.
We are further disturbed by reports that the demolition of homes in
recent weeks has resulted in the deaths of two civilian occupants
inside. We urge Israel to consider the consequences of actions such as
these and take all appropriate measures to ensure that civilian
casualties do not result from Israeli anti-terrorist actions.
Same region? Go ahead.
QUESTION: The Palestinians are convening their central committee,
apparently to discuss a draft constitution. Their concern that some of
their members may not be able to travel to Ramallah, depending on
Israeli restrictions, and are saying that the thing might fall through
if they can't get together. Is the US urging Israel to allow these
committee members to attend the meeting?
MR. BOUCHER: I will have to check and see if we have anything to say.
Sir? And then George.
QUESTION: You are pleased with the resumption of the negotiations in
Caracas, but there's a growing impression, as voiced by The Washington
Post yesterday, that those negotiations aren't going anywhere and
criticism for the lack of effective US leadership. It was suggested
that maybe Lula should take over and actually Mr. Chavez has asked
Lula and -- but he says to help him form a group of amigo, a group of
friendly nations. How does that all tie in with this negotiation down
there?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. That is a question you can ask him. But our
reaction is that we do not think that there needs to be some separate
group of friends formed, that we have stressed the importance of
Secretary General Gaviria's mission. We have stressed the importance
of the parties cooperating with him and taking seriously his mission
and working seriously with him to resolve the political issues.
The Organization of American States, as the body that is guided by the
Democratic Charter, is uniquely positioned and equipped to address
Venezuela's crisis of democracy, and that is where we think the focus
of the parties and the energy of the parties should be devoted. Both
sides really do have to show flexibility in that for them to succeed.
QUESTION: Due to the fact that oil prices seem to be going up now and
reserves are announced as being quite low and a few Venezuelan
shipments will be coming through, but what is the US Government
planning to do to handle this situation if the oil does not continue
to flow as Chavez predicts but a lot of people still --
MR. BOUCHER: I think you are going to have to check with the Energy
Department on that, check on the oil markets with them.
Okay. George?
QUESTION: The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz quotes an Israeli Defense
Ministry official as saying that the reason for the cutoff of US --
rather Israeli arm sales to China at US request was that the US wants
the China market for arm sales to China itself. Anything to that?
MR. BOUCHER: I did it yesterday. We talked about that yesterday. I
said there is no commercial issue here. It is just a matter of
consulting with our friend and ally on our strategic interests and
making sure they understand that and take that into account as they
decide on their policy on arm sales.
Yes?
QUESTION: -- reviewing the sanctions imposed after '89 of defense
items sold to China, is there any reviewing of that policy? There
might be some change?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't know of anything new. I will see if there is. If
there is, we will tell you. But I am not aware of any.
QUESTION: Richard, what do you make of the rather strident protests,
anti-American protests going on in Pakistan today, and particularly
calls or the warnings from the leader of the new Islamic -- of the
Islamic umbrella group for the new parties that if there's a war with
Iraq, Americans won't be safe in Pakistan and his complaints about the
situation?
MR. BOUCHER: Political parties in Pakistan have organized these
demonstrations. We understand they have been orderly. Probably several
thousand people have attended. Pakistanis and others certainly have
the right to demonstrate and express their political beliefs.
I think on a broader scale it is quite clear -- the international
community has made clear -- that Iraq, in its attempts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction, constitutes a menace to world peace.
Pakistan is part of that global consensus and we look forward to
continuing our cooperation with Pakistan.
QUESTION: And you have no concerns that the new parliament is
dominated by people who have this kind of anti-American feeling?
MR. BOUCHER: As I said, Pakistan is currently part of the global
consensus that Iraq cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and
weapons of mass destruction, and we would expect to continue to work
with Pakistan in that regard.
QUESTION: Pakistan is also a member, as of Wednesday, of the UN
Security Council. I'm wondering if you've had any contacts, if these
demonstrations pose any concern on your part for how they may act on
the Council. I'm wondering if you had any conversations with Pakistani
officials about what -- about, you know, the responsibilities of a
Security Council member or what the US would like to see the
Pakistanis do on the Council.
MR. BOUCHER: I am sure we have been in touch with the Pakistanis about
their membership in the Security Council. We have generally done that
with all Security Council members and new Security Council members as
we start new terms, as we start a new year. I am sure that has been
taking place in New York. I do not know if we have had other
conversations -- we often do -- as well.
And as far as demonstrations in Security Council member countries, if
I am not mistaken, I believe there might have been some demonstrations
in other Security Council countries as well at various times -- even
in this one.
QUESTION: You've used the phrase "several thousand" but this is out of
a country of well over a hundred million.
MR. BOUCHER: A hundred-some million.
QUESTION: Do you mean to suggest that they lack mass support?
MR. BOUCHER: Just the facts.
QUESTION: Richard, they are also demonstrating in Bahrain, which is a
rather smaller country, some 400 by my count. And what is your
assessment of the public sentiment in Bahrain towards the UN mil -- US
military buildup there? Do you think this is disruptive to --
MR. BOUCHER: I do not have anything particular on that today. I think
we might have had something yesterday. But I do not think one needs to
give an assessment every day.
QUESTION: It only happened today. Anyway --
MR. BOUCHER: There have been demonstrations here and there. There have
been demonstrations in countries about Iraq. There have been
demonstrations in countries about various things. We work with
governments. We work with publics. We try to make our case. We try to
make clear what our intentions are. People have the right to
demonstrate. That is fundamental to us and we know that people who
have views should be allowed to express them.
The demonstrations in Bahrain -- now, this is about the January 1st
ones where it had something more to do with a soccer match, we think.
They were not anti-American in nature.
Ma'am?
QUESTION: Has the Chinese Foreign Ministry contacted the Department
about American military personnels participating in the Taiwan
military exercise?
MR. BOUCHER: I do not know. You would have to ask the Chinese if they
had any thoughts on that. I do not have any details particularly. I
saw the article. I do not have any confirmation, but nor any
particular follow-up on it.
George?
QUESTION: Do you have any words on the effusive comments by the
Chinese Government welcoming the words on New Year's Day of the
president of Taiwan?
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: I guess you don't have anything yet, a report yet on the
Solomons?
MR. BOUCHER: No news on the Solomons, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. BOUCHER: Okay.
QUESTION: Richard.
MR. BOUCHER: We've got one more in the back.
QUESTION: Yesterday I asked you a question about the Turkish prime
minister. I will ask again. The Prime Minister Gul from Turkey, he is
visiting -- he is starting visit tomorrow to several Arabic countries,
including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, and the subject is
Iraq, and also Monday he will go to Iran also. And did United States
sent any message with the Prime Minister Gul which he is carrying to
another Arabic countries?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think you asked me that particular question
yesterday. But in any case, I don't think I have any commentary to
make on his travels. But thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:30 p.m.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
