Exerpts: November 12 Press Briefing

Question: The meeting coming up in a few hours with Kofi Annan -- could you give those of us who write before as well as after some idea of what's on the table? Is this a coordination meeting?

Mr. Boucher: I think it's a meeting on the occasion of the Secretary General's visit to Washington for other purposes, which I could let the UN Spokesman explain if he wants to, but the meeting this afternoon is at 4:45. There is no particular agenda except we all know what the subjects are that they will probably discuss. I think the primary topic will be Iraq, specifically the follow-up to the passage of UN resolution 1441.

Other topics might include the Middle East, Cyprus, where the Secretary General has just put down a new initiative that we strongly support, Afghanistan, the Bakassi Peninsula, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all these places where we work with the United Nations. The meeting, obviously, is limited in terms of the amount of time, so how many of these topics we get to will depend on the available time. And we do expect them to come together to the C Street entrance and you will be able to ask them at that point what they talked about.

Okay. Yes.

Question: I think it was reported last night that Iraqi agents have been spotted casing US embassies in the Middle East. Anything on that?

Mr. Boucher: I don't really have anything on that. I think I would just have to say that our embassies in the Middle East, especially, but all over the world, are maintaining a very high state of alert. They are very careful about what's going on around them and they want to make sure that they maintain appropriate security measures, but I don't think I can go any farther than that into talking about what may or may not be happening around the embassies.

Question: Can you say on that subject, though, if the Veterans' Day ceremony in Manila was called off for reasons related to the problems specific to the Philippines, i.e. the Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Liberation Front or if it was for some other security reason?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I would be able to go beyond what was in the actual warden message that was sent out. I would have to look at that. But I don't think I can go beyond that.

Question: Is the US prepared at all -- the current travel advisories that are out there-- are very, kind-of weighted toward al-Qaida. Is there reason to change that shift? I mean, to shift that emphasis from al-Qaida or not shift, but to add another emphasis to?

Mr. Boucher: I would agree with you that many of the current warnings we have refer to al-Qaida, but I think we all know there are other threats out there. We have seen threats domestically as well as overseas. And so we all need to be vigilant against threats from whatever the quarter they might come from. I don't know of any current revisions in those warnings, but obviously if we think it appropriate to make that at some, we will.

Question: Iraq. I'm sure you've seen the decision by the Iraqi parliament to reject inspections. What's your comment on that? And have you heard from your various intermediaries like, for example, the Arab League or the Egyptians or whoever what they expect the Iraqis to decide by Friday?

Mr. Boucher: First of all, I have nothing much to say about the Iraqi National Assembly's discussion of this. We all know what Iraq is like. We all know who decides and one man decides everything. So the rest of this is pure theater. It is irrelevant to the outcome.

The second point, I think, to make is that the outcome has already been decided. The United Nations resolutions become binding the moment they are passed, and the requirements on Iraq are already there, the obligations of Iraq are already there, and it merely, in the resolution, allowed a chance for Iraq to confirm its intention to comply. But Iraq has no choice but to comply in these matters. It’s not a decision. It's just confirming that they intend to comply.

The clock has started ticking on Iraq the moment of the resolution's adoption. They have to declare within 30 days a full and complete declaration of their weapons of mass destructions' programs. Iraq needs to allow inspectors in; inspectors get on the ground within 45 days, probably a lot sooner, as you've heard from Dr. Blix and Dr. El Baradei. And they will report to the Security Council -- the inspectors -- 60 days after that unless there is a further violation, which will be reported immediately.

So they will be out there setting up, I think they have said, on November 18th, and there is no real choice here for Iraq.

Jon.

Question: A couple of questions on Iraq, one just detailed one. That 60-day reporting period, it's not quite clear whether it starts at the end of the 45 days or after the inspectors do their first inspection. Can you clarify that? What are your views on that?

Mr. Boucher: Inspectors should be on the ground in 45 days, more likely sooner, and report to the Security Council 60 days later.

Question: That's one little point. It's what I say, it's kind of (inaudible) point.

Mr. Boucher: No, I was going to say this is our write-up of it, which is derived from the resolution. I'll see if we can get you a more precise reading of when 60 days is -- whether it's after the first inspection or whether it's after 45 days.

We assume, I think, that the inspectors will go in and they will have to set up offices, get material together, so November 18th is not the date of the first inspection but it could be between then and 45 days. We'll see.

Question: Indeed, this came up this morning at The Washington Institute and Kay has said that you can't do much in 60 days. He thought it might take years to find out what's going on. He said the inspectors, he was sure, would be able to find what they're looking for if they had enough time.

That sort of would put things in limbo, or are we jumping too far ahead at this point?

Mr. Boucher: You're jumping way too far ahead, Barry. I think we've talked about this a dozen or so times. How long does it take to verify that Iraq has gotten rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction programs? Yes, probably a very long time. But if you read the UN resolution, you see that Iraq is required, first of all, to fully and completely disclose its programs; second of all, to cooperate and give unrestricted access to people, places and palaces; third of all, to comply in every other way with the other resolutions. The Iraqi requirement is to cooperate with the inspectors. This is why the Secretary and others said again and again it's a question of the intention of Iraq to cooperate.

Now, that intention, if it's violated, if they fail to comply, if they interfere, if they fail to fully disclose, that will be reported immediately. So Iraq's cooperation needs to be verified on an ongoing basis.

Were they to disclose and then ask the inspectors to verify disarmament, that, indeed, could take a long time.

Eli.

Question: Richard, you've discussed before and the CIA has put out unclassified reports. The US has accumulated quite a bit of information already on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, placements, so forth and so on.

If -- and I know you don't like to answer hypotheticals -- but should the Iraqis disclose, as they are required, their itinerary of what they have, and you have information that suggests they're lying, would that be actionable cause to have a UN Security Council meeting?

Mr. Boucher: I think I would have to refer you back to the language of the resolution, which is that failure to disclose the programs shall constitute a further material breach and shall be dealt with according to paragraphs 11 or 12, I think is the way it came out. So it provides that false statements or omissions in the declarations, as well as failure to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations.

As the Secretary has pointed out, it is the fact of those omissions or the fact of that failure to comply that constitutes a further material breach, and the language of the resolution says the inspectors are to report any discrepancies. And we will obviously make our own conclusions based on what we all know that they have to account for. They have to account for what we all know is left over after previous inspections. They have to account for the procurements that they've made. They have to account for the facilities that they've rebuilt. They have to account for programs that we knew were never fully destroyed. So Iraq has a lot to account for.

Question: Richard, if I can follow up, though, my question, I guess, is would US information alone be grounds for making the case that they have obstructed the process or, as you say, making a false statements? Or would that have to be something from Blix and his inspection team?

Mr. Boucher: As we have mentioned before, any member of the Council can report anything and bring it to the attention of the Council whenever they want. If you look at the UN resolution, the inspectors, if they find false statements or omissions, they would report the material breach in that form, or others of us if we knew that that had occurred would presumably raise it as well.

Question: So the final question is: Will you raise it if you find false statements?

Mr. Boucher: That's a hypothetical. (Laughter.) But the answer is yes, we could, if we decided to.

Question: I have two brief ones that I have very slim hopes for an answer on. But what do you make or do you have anything on the report that Iraq is trying to import this nerve gas antidote, if anything?

And two, a couple months ago, I think there was discussion about the State Department hosting or organizing some kind of conference about oil in Iraq. And as I remember, it was postponed. And I was just wondering if you could look into what the status of that is.

Mr. Boucher: The status of that is I don't remember anything like that, but let me check on it.

On the question of what's called atropine, this is a drug that has wide medical use, including in the treatment of heart conditions and pesticide poisoning. Nonetheless, any Iraqi orders for more atropine than needed to meet normal humanitarian requirements would be of concern since that could indicate preparations to use chemical weapons by preparing to protect their own forces from the consequences of such use.

I can't get into the details of what Iraq may have ordered, but obviously any orders would have to be evaluated.

In terms of discussions with Turkey, I think the only thing I can tell you is that US and Turkey do share a concern about Iraq's intentions and about Iraq's past use of weapons of mass destruction.

Question: Is it a violation? It's not a violation, I take it, to sell this stuff to Iraq, right? It's not on the goods review list?

Mr. Boucher: It's not on the goods review list because it's a medical commodity. Nonetheless, any attempt to procure large quantities would have to be looked at.

Question: But you don't want to say if there was any attempt to purchase large quantities?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I am able to because of the various sources of information we might have.

Question: Was this a discussion when the -- presumably, you've known about this -- well, if there is something to know about, you knew about it for some time. I'm wondering if this came up in the Secretary's conversation with the new Turkish Chief of Staff.

Mr. Boucher: I am not in a position to specifically confirm conversations with the Turks on a particular report. So I don't think I can do that at this point.

Question: Well, how about, forgetting about the report, did the idea, did the subject of suspicious transfers to Iraq of any kind come up with the Turks, since they are a trading partner -- in general?

Mr. Boucher: I have to check. I don't know.

Question: Just Turkey, or Turkey and other countries?

Mr. Boucher: Again, I am not confirming Turkey, so how can I confirm other countries, as well? But if Iraq were trying to buy excessive quantities of this medication with the possible implication that they were going to protect themselves. It would be Turkey and other countries we would be concerned about, wherever they might be trying to buy it.

Question: Well, you'll note that my question didn't include the word Turkey but your answer, very helpfully, did.

Mr. Boucher: I see. Very good.

Charlie.

Question: Just to follow up, you cannot confirm that the State Department has held discussions with Turkish officials in Ankara about this?

Mr. Boucher: I can say that we have talked to the Turks about procurements by Iraq. Obviously, Turkey shares our concern about making sure that Iraq doesn't get anything that could further a program of weapons of mass destruction or be possibly involved with making it easier for Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction, as they have before.

But as far as a particular sale on a particular issue with the Turks, I can't get into that.

Betsy.

Question: Even though you can't say whether the sale went through and whether it went through Turkey or some other country, can you say whether a sale was done, whether goods were delivered?

Mr. Boucher: No, I can't.

Sir.

Question: On Iraq, still two more. First, one quick one. Can you say anything at this stage about the aid package for Turkey, which is been much discussed in the last few days?

Mr. Boucher: I don't have anything on that at this point.

Question: And the other thing is what have you done so far to ensure that the Iraqi opposition conference on November the 22nd goes ahead smoothly, as it doesn't appear to be going so far?

Mr. Boucher: I guess that's kind of a change of topic, but if Betsy's okay I'll go through that.

Question: It's Iraq.

Mr. Boucher: I see. All right, where are we?

Question: You told us last week you would try to do something.

Mr. Boucher: Yes. As you know, we have been working with leaders of six groups over the past few months to help them organize an event that would involve the broad-based opposition to the Iraqi regime. There are differences among the Iraqi opposition. As far as the composition of the proposed conference, we expect those problems will be worked out in a fair and democratic way.

We are currently still considering how to provide further impetus to this process and we plan to respond to the interested parties shortly with our thoughts on the matter.

I would say they have been working hard over the past few months in preparation for a conference. This is obviously an important event and it is not unusual that there should be differences of opinions, as well as high hopes and expectations.

Nevertheless, we are confident that free Iraqis everywhere will together fashion a common vision for their country's future. We are not unduly concerned by what we view as normal political differences regarding the upcoming conference. We will continue to work together with our friends in the Iraqi opposition as they work to hold a broad-based conference of the free Iraqi community.

Question: Richard, how do you plan to respond? What form would that take? And will anybody be traveling to London?

Mr. Boucher: I don't know if we'll travel. We do talk to them all the time. We have people here who work with the Iraqi opposition on these conferences and other endeavors, and I am sure they will be in touch.

Eli.

Question: This is a meta -- well, not a meta question. It's the larger point. If the State Department is encouraging a conference of Iraqi opposition to presumably talk about a government after Saddam Hussein, and, at the same time, is holding out the hope that Saddam can hold onto power, do you think that you could, in some ways, as the President said, he thinks that war is a last option, he doesn't want to go to war, that, you could be giving the Iraqis the wrong idea at this point as they have this one final opportunity to forego all of their weapons of mass destruction?

Mr. Boucher: Is there a question hidden in there somewhere?

Question: Yes, there's a question. It seems to me that either the opposition is getting their hopes up for no good reason or you're --

Mr. Boucher: I think the only answer to that is to say, as you've seen, we plan for all possibilities. We want to make sure we're ready for all possibilities. We want to make sure we're ready for what experience has led us to believe is the possible outcome. But we are also ready to try to secure Iraqi compliance with resolutions by peaceful means, if we can do that. But there will be a someday after Saddam.

Question: Can I clarify something the Secretary said at the weekend to Wolf Blitzer? He said if Saddam doesn't comply this time, we are going to ask the UN to give authorization for all necessary means. That seemed to be a pretty clear statement that you will go for another resolution if you want to use force. I know you say you don't need one, but it's your intention to do that anyway?

Mr. Boucher: I don't think I can go beyond, at this point, what the Secretary said. I'll just leave it at that. Obviously, we have said the UN, in the resolution it says the Security Council will convene to consider immediately the need for full compliance. All necessary means is clearly one way of getting that.

But as we have said before, if the Council doesn not come to agreement on what to do in that case, then we reserve the right to do what we think is necessary in conjunction with other governments. That has happened before in cases, matters brought before the Security Council, and it could happen again. We'll just have to see.

Question: But you are going to ask the UN for an "all necessary means" resolution? That seems to be what he's saying.

Mr. Boucher: That's exactly what he said.