07 January 2003
U.S., South Korea, Japan Begin Talks on North Korea
(Boucher discusses recent developments at Jan. 6 briefing) (5450)
The United States, South Korea and Japan began discussions January 6
to find an appropriate response to North Korea's renewed nuclear
weapons program.
At the January 6 State Department briefing, State Department Spokesman
Richard Boucher said the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group
meetings began that day with a series of bilateral discussions.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
James A. Kelly, South Korea's Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Tae-Sik, and
Japan's Director-General of Asian and Oceanian Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka
led their respective delegations.
The three delegations are in Washington "to discuss further
coordination of our policies in response to recent North Korean
nuclear developments and other issues," Boucher said.
"We'll, of course, be listening and carefully considering whatever our
allies have to say about the next steps and working with them together
on how to move forward towards what we hope would be a peaceful
resolution of these problems on the peninsula," Boucher added.
"All of us share the goal of peaceful resolution of the problems
created by North Korea's nuclear programs on the peninsula and the
steps that North Korea has taken recently," he said.
The U.S. approach, Boucher told reporters, "has been based on the fact
that we had an agreement with North Korea. North Korea's actions on
its nuclear enrichment program is not just a violation of the Agreed
Framework, but is also a violation of denuclearization agreements with
South Korea and its commitments to the International Atomic Energy
Agency."
Boucher noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency Board has
called upon North Korea to cooperate by reestablishing monitoring and
verification of all its nuclear material.
The Vienna-based agency, he added, made clear that unless the North
Koreans take all necessary steps to allow the Agency to implement the
required measures, the North Koreans will be in further noncompliance
with its Safeguard Agreement.
Boucher said the United States welcomes the International Atomic
Energy Agency's actions. The Board, he said, along with 35 countries,
is urging North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. "So
you've got a very strong statement there that makes clear that North
Korea does need to bring itself back into compliance with its
obligations that it's violated," the spokesman said.
Boucher made clear that the United States is "not looking to
renegotiate the issue. We're not looking to make some other bargain,
to make some other payment for North Korea to come into compliance
with its obligations. We do believe that the solution here lies in
North Korea visibly and verifiably dismantling these programs. We've
made that clear from the start," he emphasized.
Secretary of State Powell, Boucher said, "has also been clear that
there are channels to communicate, there are people talking to the
North Koreans."
To date, however, North Korea has taken "a series of steps that
unilaterally undermine and violate other obligations that they have to
the International Atomic Energy Agency," Boucher said.
(begin excerpts from January 6, 2003 briefing)
(begin excerpt)
Daily Press Briefing
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 6, 2003
INDEX:
NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA
-- North Korean Requests for Non-Aggression Pact
-- Compliance With International Atomic Energy Agency Inspections
-- International Atomic Energy Agency Board Statement
-- Violation of 1994 Agreements
-- U.S Non-Proliferation Interests and South Korea
-- Potential Involvement of U.N. Security Council
-- Channels of Communication With North Korea
-- U.S. Food Aid to North Korea, Monitoring and Verification
-- North Korean Energy Imports, Conventional Forces
QUESTION: I'm trying to ask when do the Koreans come in, who do they
see, when do the Japanese come in, is there a trilateral meeting, does
it wind up tomorrow, will there be a statement? I don't know what
you're attempting -- what you're hoping to accomplish.
MR. BOUCHER: The Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group meetings
begin this afternoon with a series of bilateral discussions. The
participants will meet with each other this afternoon. I can't
remember if we're seeing the Japanese first or the South Koreans
first, but that will be held during the course of the afternoon. And
then the plenary meeting, meaning all the three nations together, will
be tomorrow morning.
As we've said before, Assistant Secretary James Kelly, our Assistant
Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, is leading the U.S.
delegation, Deputy Foreign Minister Lee is heading the South Korean
delegation, and Director General Yabunaka is heading the Japanese
delegation.
The three delegations are here to discuss further coordination of our
policies in response to recent North Korean nuclear developments and
other issues. We'll, of course, be listening and carefully considering
whatever our allies have to say about the next steps and working with
them together on how to move forward towards what we hope would be a
peaceful resolution of these problems on the peninsula.
Now, does that kind of cover the -- I mean, that's not the details of
exactly -- I can't tell you who's meeting at 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock,
but generally that's the answer, this afternoon.
QUESTION: Is there no three-way at all, even informal, kind of like --
today?
MR. BOUCHER: Yeah, that's my understanding. There's no three-way
today.
QUESTION: No, not even like an informal reception or anything like
that? Nothing? Because I understood that there was. Anyway, maybe
there isn't.
MR. BOUCHER: I will check if there's anything informal, any kind of
social activity that might involve all the delegations. But in terms
of formal meetings, it's bilateral today and then trilateral tomorrow.
QUESTION: Well, what do you think of this proposal that the United
States give security assurances to North Korea short of a
non-aggression pact?
MR. BOUCHER: There have been a lot of press reporting on this, that,
or the other proposals that may or may not be made. I think at this
point, it's important for us to talk to our allies. As I said, we look
forward to listening to them and talking about how we can proceed in
next steps.
All of us share the goal of peaceful resolution of the problems
created by North Korea's nuclear programs on the peninsula and the
steps that North Korea has taken recently. So we will be discussing
together how to move forward and whatever ideas people want to bring
to the table will get careful discussion and consideration.
QUESTION: Richard, is the US bringing ideas to the table?
MR. BOUCHER: We always have issues that we want to address, yeah.
QUESTION: On the issue of North Korea and coming into compliance again
with IAEA --
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I mean, certainly we are bringing the ideas that
we've expressed publicly, which is that the issue is not
non-aggression. The issue is compliance. It's verifiable and visible
and prompt dismantlement of the North Korean nuclear enrichment
program. That has been our position all along. Others -- I think
you've noted at the South Korean statements last week. Others have
said that, too, in their view, is where it all starts. And we will be
looking at how to push for that and how to try to obtain North Korean
compliance with those requirements.
QUESTION: But you're not bringing new ideas to the table?
MR. BOUCHER: I didn't -- I thought I started this by saying, yeah, we
would be discussing our views on how to achieve that.
QUESTION: But I thought you said that these were issues that you had
already discussed publicly, and my question was were you bringing any
new ideas to --
MR. BOUCHER: I don't -- it's not simple to say yes or no, I guess, if
you want that fine a tune on it. The process is one of ongoing
discussion and consultations with our friends and allies. Remember,
we've met with these people a half a dozen times, I would guess, since
last fall, since last October. We have had formal meetings several
times. I think the last one might have been November, maybe December.
And so this is an ongoing process. We meet with our allies and friends
in a variety of fora, whether it's travel by us, travel by them,
international meetings or these trilateral meetings. So it's an
ongoing process of developing ideas and looking for ways to address
these issues.
All of us have addressed this in very clear terms so far, I think.
We've all made clear North Korea has to visibly dismantle these
programs. We've all made clear that the reception that North Korea
will get, the benefits that North Korea will get from the
international community, hinge on their willingness to dismantle these
programs. We have all made clear, as the International Atomic Energy
Agency Board did today in a very strong statement from a very
significant group of countries, that North Korea has to stop violating
its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
So there are a lot of things we have been doing together within that
framework how to continue to proceed that, continue to pursue those
goals, continue to work to move forward. Yes, we will be discussing
with them how to do that and I'm sure we'll bring our ideas as they
will bring theirs. Are we bringing new ideas to break out of the basic
policy? No. We have all agreed on the basic policy. The question is
how to pursue it.
QUESTION: Richard, it sounded like Dr. El Baradei in his press
conference just a few minutes ago was explicitly endorsing the U.S.
approach, this sequential idea that first North Korea must cease and
desist, and then negotiations can occur. Is that your reading of what
he said?
MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. approach, I think, has been based on the fact
that we had an agreement with North Korea. North Korea's actions on
its nuclear enrichment program is not just a violation of the Agreed
Framework, but is also a violation of denuclearization agreements with
South Korea and its commitments to the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
And so what the International Atomic Energy Agency Board focused on
this morning was their recent actions by North Korea that prevent
verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And what we --
first of all, we deplored the actions that North Korea has taken. The
Board called upon North Korea to cooperate urgently, to reestablish
monitoring and verification of all its nuclear material; made clear
that unless the North Koreans take all necessary steps to allow the
Agency to implement the required measures, the North Koreans will be
in further noncompliance with its Safeguard Agreement.
So we have welcomed that call from the International Atomic Energy
Agency. We think it's very important that the whole Board, a group of
countries, 35 countries that represent a broad cross-section of the
international community, the whole Board agreed on this unanimously by
consensus. This is countries from not only a significant number of
members of the Security Council, but also countries from Australia to
Malaysia, from Iran to Cuba.
So you've got a very strong statement there that makes clear that
North Korea does need to bring itself back into compliance with its
obligations that it's violated.
QUESTION: If I can follow up, just to be clear, in the face of this
reported South Korean proposal which seems to suggest somehow some
simultaneous things happening, i.e., North Korea backs away at the
same time that the United States agrees to start talking about some
kind of non-aggression agreement, is it correct to say that the United
States is still sticking to its sequential approach, that you're not
going to deal with North Korea on any level until they stop and back
up on the nuclear --
MR. BOUCHER: I think the answer is that there have been too many
versions in the press out there of what the South Koreans may or may
not have in mind, and that while they all seem to be variations on a
theme, I think we owe it to them as our allies and friends, we owe it
to them as our partners in this endeavor, to listen to them, to talk
to them, to work with them on these ideas more directly. And if
there's more to say on it, we'll prefer to say it tomorrow after we've
had a chance to really talk to them.
QUESTION: Richard, along those lines, though. Outside of the press,
you guys -- outside of the press reporting, which you have obviously
been reading diligently, have you -- have the South Koreans presented
this alleged proposal to you guys in any forum, or are you expecting
them to do that today or tomorrow?
MR. BOUCHER: We expect all the participants in this meeting -- the
Japanese, the South Koreans, as well as ourselves -- to bring forward
whatever ideas they have about how to move forward. And so I would
expect the South Koreans to do it in that forum.
We obviously have regular contact with the South Koreans through our
Embassy and elsewhere, but I think the point is that we need a chance
to really sit down and talk to them and talk to the Japanese together
about how we proceed.
QUESTION: But you're not going into this meeting blind as to what the
South Koreans might be coming --
MR. BOUCHER: No.
QUESTION: Okay, just one last thing. Has Kelly's itinerary been fixed
yet or is that still up in the air?
MR. BOUCHER: For his travel? I don't think it has, but let me
double-check. No, don't have it. Don't have it set at this point.
QUESTION: But it'll be after this week, after --
MR. BOUCHER: Later. In the next week or so, I think I would say at
this point.
QUESTION: Richard, Article 6 of the NPT requires the United States to
pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective international control. When is
the United States going to come into compliance with this requirement?
MR. BOUCHER: Is this a question that arises today, just for the fun of
it, or --
QUESTION: We're talking about complying with the NPT.
MR. BOUCHER: I mean, you want to change the subject? I mean, what does
that have to do with North Korea's obvious and complete violation of
its commitments? What does that have to do with North Korea developing
nuclear enrichment programs, pulling out cameras, kicking out monitors
and otherwise reactivating their reactor? And I think if you look at
the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva -- I'm sure your colleagues in
Reuters probably do follow what goes on there -- I think that's where
this compliance, this provision of international law is being studied
and worked on.
QUESTION: Well, then can I try something else and see if the U.S.
adheres to that? You keep mentioning the '94 --
MR. BOUCHER: What, are you going to -- is this a test of the United
States commitments internationally?
QUESTION: No, it's --
MR. BOUCHER: What's the issue here? Is it whether the United States
complies with broad international commitments given over 50 years? The
answer is yes, we do, in a variety of ways and a variety of fora.
QUESTION: The issue --
MR. BOUCHER: The issue right now is --
QUESTION: I know the issue is North Korea --
MR. BOUCHER: -- what to do about a country that has kicked out
monitors, pulled out cameras, and violated its agreements not to
develop nuclear weapons.
QUESTION: The issue seems to be whether the US will simply declaim and
deplore and denounce or whether the U.S. is prepared to do something
about it besides rhetoric.
MR. BOUCHER: Well, that's different.
QUESTION: And so, for instance, you're talking favorably about the '94
agreement because, indeed, it requires, compels North Korea to do
certain things. Does that mean the Bush administration approves of the
'94 agreement?
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, this administration has always -- had always said,
until North Korea took these actions and North Korea said the
agreement was nullified, we had always made clear that we were
prepared to abide by our part of the agreement if North Korea did the
same. That had been something that I've stated here a dozen times,
without any question.
QUESTION: Now let me ask you something else, one last thing for now.
The undercurrent of all this material has been some threats, so let me
ask you straight out. Is the U.S. under threat from North Korea?
Clearly, South Korea is and Japan is because their missiles can carry
that far. Clearly, the U.S. troops are. Is the U.S. itself under
threat? Are these talks being held under the shadow of some threat
from North Korea to attack the United States? You've already said,
Powell has said, we have no intention of attacking them. Are you
facing an attack or the prospect of an attack?
MR. BOUCHER: United States' interests involve the United States, our
territory, our contiguous territory, our states which are not
contiguous, our interests in trade, in prosperity, in democracy, in
freedom around the world, our interests with our allies, our troops
overseas. So you can't say, apart from this, this, this, this and
this, do we have any interests? The answer is yes. We have a whole
panoply of interests in a peaceful outcome to this. We have a whole
panoply of interests that are involved in stability and peace on the
Korean peninsula. Those interests have been expressed over 50 years or
more, including the events of the early 1950s when we fought there for
the -- with the United Nations. And those interests remain.
QUESTION: And you have a proliferation interest. What I'm leading up
to is South Korea is the one that's under the gun, so I'm wondering
why South Korea doesn't get to take the lead and it has suggested a
way to try to get this settled. Now, that doesn't mean it's not going
to be done that way, but right now everything that's been said in
South Korea is being dismissed, you know, sort of tongue in cheek as
press reports. I mean, these are more than press reports. This is the
position of a government that faces somebody right across its border
with a nuclear weapons program.
MR. BOUCHER: Barry, the United States, Japan and South Korea, as well
as other governments, have a very strong interest in what goes on on
the peninsula. As you correctly point out, the South Korean people,
who live under threat of these developments in North Korea, have a
very personal and strong interest, as we all do, frankly. Nobody is
rejecting anything that's come out of South Korea. I've just declined
to get into a back-and-forth with you before we have a chance to treat
this -- to treat these ideas seriously, to sit down seriously with our
partners in this matter and to discuss them seriously and not treat
them as items to be bandied about in press briefings before we have a
chance to talk to the people most directly involved with these issues.
QUESTION: The IAEA mentioned that the possible reporting of the issue
to the Security Council. Is the United States does have a date in mind
to go to the Security Council or do you prefer to deal with this in
the region?
MR. BOUCHER: I think the Board of the International Atomic Energy
Agency made clear that North Korea needs to cooperate as a matter of
urgency with it and to comply with its obligations. And urgent is what
we mean. Urgent is what we all said together. They need to respond
now. They need to come into compliance or otherwise we, meaning the
Board of the International Atomic Energy, would take additional steps
which could include, obviously, referring the matter to the Security
Council. So they would report the issue to the Security Council when
they thought it appropriate.
QUESTION: If that happens, is there a date for that?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think there's any particular date at this moment,
but certainly urgent means urgent. We would expect to see the North
Koreans comply with this obligation on an urgent basis.
QUESTION: Richard, we've gone back and forth over the last few weeks
and the last time I looked, the U.S. position was that the Bush
administration would not negotiate with North Korea. Since words are
sometimes important, does that allow for any kind of talking,
discussion or use of other words besides "negotiate" with the North
Koreans to solve the crisis diplomatically?
MR. BOUCHER: I would, I think, make clear that our policy has been
that we don't look for -- we're not looking to renegotiate the issue.
We're not looking to make some other bargain, to make some other
payment for North Korea to come into compliance with its obligations.
We do believe that the solution here lies in North Korea visibly and
verifiably dismantling these programs. We've made that clear from the
start, and I think been very consistent.
The Secretary of State has also been clear that there are channels to
communicate, there are people talking to the North Koreans. There are,
obviously, channels that they can communicate with us if they want to.
But at this point, we have not seen North Korea do anything to
indicate they are going to visibly and verifiably dismantle this
program. In fact, what we have seen over the last few weeks are a
series of steps that unilaterally undermine and violate other
obligations that they have to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
and that is what the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency
had to deal with this morning.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Despite what I think have been pretty consistent
denials from you and other people, there's another report today, or
another report has surfaced today, that you guys are going to withhold
food aid to North Korea. Realizing that you're probably going to say
the position hasn't changed and that's not true, what's the status of
the food donations right now to the WFP in response to their current
appeal?
MR. BOUCHER: I may be able to get you more on this later. I think,
though, we have addressed it before and you'll see that what we
continue to say is in approximately the same terms. We have been a
consistently large donor to the World Food Program appeals for North
Korea. We have not conditioned this and do not intend to condition
that on political factors. We intend to continue to be a large donor.
Exactly how much we can give in any given year depends on the
budgetary situation and we are in a position right now waiting for the
appropriation so that we can make whatever commitments we will make
for this year. Looking at that situation now and seeing if there's not
a way to, well, to define further, but we have to have the
appropriation. But I think our intention is to continue to support
these programs.
Now, we have also made clear that there are a lot of demands on the
resources we have and that we want to make sure that the food gets to
people who need it. And we have been concerned about monitoring and
verification, distribution in North Korea, and that remains a
continuing issue and obviously a factor that we have to consider as we
look at how to go forward.
QUESTION: So, if you say you're waiting for the appropriation, have
you already floated it up to the Hill or to the OMB, some kind of a
figure for how much -- I mean, I presume you're still working on your
budget proposal for the upcoming year, right?
MR. BOUCHER: No, this is the 2003 budget. It's still up on the Hill,
hasn't been passed. We're under a continuing resolution now.
QUESTION: I suppose in such programs, there's always pilferage,
there's always skimming. Has it gotten worse? Is there a point where
the U.S. says, hey, this stuff isn't really getting to the people who
need it and let's hold it back for a while and straighten this
monitoring situation up a bit? Is that possible?
MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think there's a point at which you say we need to
know that this can be verified, we need to know the people who deserve
this food are going to get this food, we need to know that there have
been improvements in the monitoring situation. And that's what we want
to see.
QUESTION: Let me try. Are you saying that there won't be any
withholding or not -- withholdings won't work. There won't be any not
giving of assistance because of the nuclear situation, but there could
be modifications in the amount that you give from what you've given in
previous years because of these concerns about the distribution? Is
that what you're saying?
MR. BOUCHER: I think it's -- I can't define it any more right now
because our intention is to continue to be a major donor. We certainly
want to see the monitoring questions resolved. If they're not
resolved, that would become a factor in determining how to allocate
our resources among the many worthy donors. But political factors,
nuclear programs, are not the issue here. But we do intend to continue
to be a major donor.
QUESTION: Even though political considerations aren't a factor, has
your concern over the monitoring and the verification grown as this
political crisis has grown? Has your concern grown in the last few
months?
MR. BOUCHER: Again, it's not because of any political factors or other
developments. Our concerns are based on the inability, we think, in
all cases to verify that people are getting the food who needs it. We
don't think we're the only ones. Some of the NGOs, some of the other
donors, have similar concerns that need to be addressed.
QUESTION: With regard to KEDO and the continued construction of the
light water reactors, could you clarify what is the U.S. position
right now as to whether or not that construction should continue? And
if it should continue, why should it continue since the North Koreans
have clearly said that the '94 agreement doesn't exist any more?
MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. position is this is an important issue that we
need to discuss with our allies and friends and that needs to be
discussed among the other members of the KEDO Board. I'm not sure when
they will have an upcoming meeting, but I expect this would be one of
the questions they would take up when they do.
QUESTION: So you don't want to say what the position is at this point?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position is that we need to discuss this with our
friends and allies.
QUESTION: And why wouldn't you be pressing for an urgent meeting on
this topic?
MR. BOUCHER: Our position is this is an issue we need to discuss with
our friends and allies in these various fora. I'm sure there will be
meeting soon where we can do that, not only with our allies like Japan
and South Korea in these meetings in the next day or two, but also in
terms of the KEDO Board sometime early in this year.
QUESTION: Just another thing. The last time we talked about this, this
came up and I can't -- the last time it had been expressly -- these
concerns had been expressed to the North Koreans was, I think, in
August or something. Do you know if they've been expressed more
recently than that? Now, I realize the year is still quite young, but
-- and if there's been a response?
MR. BOUCHER: I don't think -- there has not been a response. We did
express our concerns about monitoring and verification of food
deliveries to the North Koreans in late August to their mission in the
United Nations. I'm not sure if we've reiterated it since then, but
there's not been a response from North Korea.
QUESTION: Has the situation deteriorated, though? Because I think what
people are asking, this could be just coincidental, a time period with
the nuclear program. But is there any way to know whether the
situation with monitoring has deteriorated, has gotten worse, since
you did express it before the recent escalation of the nuclear crisis?
MR. BOUCHER: I think these have been ongoing concerns that have
existed about the programs before and that throughout this year we've
started to see these reports and focus on them. But as I said, the
food issues are the food issues. Our intention is to be a major donor,
to continue to be a major donor. We are concerned about monitoring and
we want to see those issues resolved.
QUESTION: El Baradei said that if North Korea were to come into
compliance, its economic and security concerns could be addressed, and
he also mentioned a "roadmap." Does this reflect the American
position, and can you elaborate on this?
MR. BOUCHER: No, I can't. I'm afraid, as I pointed out to one of your
colleagues, I was not watching the press conference that just
happened, so I don't have a comment on everything that was said. I
think the board certainly made its position very, very clear that
North Korea needs to bring itself urgently into compliance and to
cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that is
what the Board of the Agency wants to see.
QUESTION: Yeah, I was just wondering, with the bilateral and then
trilateral talks today and tomorrow, at what point is China brought
into these discussions or apprised of what went on and at what level
of that plenary?
MR. BOUCHER: We have ongoing consultations with the Chinese and the
Russians through our embassies, and so a lot of this material is an
ongoing discussion where we may have talks here, but we would also
expect to continue the discussion with others.
I'm trying to think. Under Secretary Bolton would expect to be in
China on his trip later this month. I'm not sure at this point whether
Assistant Secretary Kelly will have a chance to go there next week, or
not.
QUESTION: With respect to North Korea, is there any plan to get power
from either China or South Korea to diminish the need for these
nuclear reactors? And also, have you -- in talking with both the
Russians and the Chinese, well, the North Koreans are, it seems they
are building up their military even more. Is this saber-rattling a
definite concern?
MR. BOUCHER: On the issue of power, I think North Korea already gets a
considerable amount of oil and power from China and from others. We've
pointed out that any restart to these reactors is a virtually
negligible contribution to the electricity supply. It's not going to
warm North Korean houses this winter. It's not going to light their
schools during the winter. I think the percentage was something like a
potential of two or three percent of the energy needs and that's
certainly not any significant benefit to restarting this reactor in
terms of the losses of North Korea's reputation and ability to get
other benefits by its interaction with the international community.
In terms of the conventional forces, which I guess you're talking
about on the peninsula, we've always made clear that's a very
significant issue for us and that is one of the issues that we were
willing to sit down and have serious discussions with the North
Koreans on, in terms of the approach we had been prepared to take
before we saw this program develop and, therefore, before this made it
impossible to proceed on other fronts.
QUESTION: My last one. There has been some talk bandied about, which
I'm sure you're familiar with. It seems to be gaining some kind of
currency although I'm not sure how serious the circles it's being
talked about is in. But have you -- are you aware of these suggestions
of the U.S. pull its troops out of South Korea, 30-some thousand
troops out of South Korea? And if you are, has that been given any
serious credence in the administration? And would it be a violation of
treaty obligations? Would the suggestion be a violation --
MR. BOUCHER: No, I'm not quite sure what we're talking about.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. BOUCHER: Oh, those things thing. I think we made clear we don't
have any intention of doing that.
(end excerpts from January 6, 2003 briefing)
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
