The United States Government deeply regrets the decision by the Government of Zambia not to accept food aid that we have offered. We believe this decision is likely to place the citizens of Zambia at a greater risk of starvation.

In making this decision, we believe the Government of Zambia has disregarded the scientific evidence and is rejecting the advice of international relief organizations, governments around the world, and the European Commission that accepting this safe maize to feed its hungry people would help avert human catastrophe.

We stand ready to provide US food assistance to those in need should the Government of Zambia reverse its decision and we will be offering food aid to Zambia each time it arrives in the Southern Africa region. We are going to keep our lines of communication open and we hope to maintain a forward-looking program of assistance focused on recovery of Zambian agriculture and other non-food assistance to the Government of Zambia.

We have been engaged very closely with the World Food Program to assist in every way we can in the situation to prevent starvation among millions of people throughout Southern Africa. There are devastating shortages of food in this region, shortages estimated at 435,000* metric tons through March 2003 for the region as a whole. So we look for other donors to contribute. We will continue to contribute and we hope the Government of Zambia will change its decision on this US-supplied food.

QUESTION: A couple things. One, you didn't mention it, but I presume this is the GM, the genetically modified maize?

MR. BOUCHER: It's biotech maize, yes.

QUESTION: Right?

*Correction: Over 430,000 metric tons.

MR. BOUCHER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And did you guys offer to mill this maize for --

MR. BOUCHER: We have done that in other places. I think part of the Zambian Government decision was not even to accept it in that fashion.

QUESTION: Okay. And the last thing is, are you satisfied that the Europeans did enough or lobbied the Zambian Government hard enough on the case that accepting the food wouldn't affect them commercially or otherwise?

MR. BOUCHER: I think "Europeans" is a very broad term. I mentioned the European Commission, which I think had made clear to the Zambians what the rules were and how that could be handled. So I think we are satisfied that they did make clear their position, the European Commission did make clear its position.

QUESTION: And the other countries --

MR. BOUCHER: He's going to pause for a telephone break? There are people doing sound in this room. Does somebody want to make a confession at this stage or should we continue?

QUESTION: There were several other countries that you guys had been push -- not had been pushing, but had been urging to accept this assistance. Zimbabwe was one. What's the status on the other countries? Do you know?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't have the specific rundown of the other countries. I do know that we are providing assistance to the region, providing a lot of assistance to the region, and we will continue to do so. It is a difficult situation where people are starving. We will continue to make our assistance available.

I believe in other countries arrangements have been worked out, such as milling, such as providing food aid. We will look and see if we can get enough non-biotech food for Zambia, but, frankly, there's just a deficit of food available. This food is safe for Americans. European Commission and European Union have said it's okay.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay?

QUESTION: And what's the amount? Then I'll drop it and let people go on to something else. The amount that they've turned down.

MR. BOUCHER: We have 12,000 tons in country. We were looking to provide 60,000 metric tons. World Food Program says they will need 120,000 metric tons through March of 2003. So we have been able to pledge so far 30,000 metric tons, but our goal was 60,000.

So there's 12,000 there. We've pledged 30,000. We were hoping to pledge as much as 60,000 out of 120,000 that's going to be needed.

I do have a list of countries that are taking genetically modified food. Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe are taking it and requiring it's going to be milled for consumption there.

QUESTION: What happens to the 12,000 tons that are in the country right now?

MR. BOUCHER: We are going to have to look at that. It is certainly there. It is still available to feed starving people because it is in country. But we will have to look and decide what to do with it.

QUESTION: Can we move to Iraq? A couple of days ago, the Secretary said that agreement was near on an inspection system. We're pretty okay, he said. Do you have that agreement?

He also said in a day or -- I think I know the answer to this, but just to get it on the record, that in a day or two we'd know, he'd know, if there's to be a foreign ministers meeting. I'm hearing there isn't.

But can you address those two things that he said were just about to crystallize?

MR. BOUCHER: We are pretty okay on the terms of the inspections. We're pretty okay on a lot of parts of the resolution. We are still working on some of the more difficult parts of the resolution.

We have been in touch -- the Secretary has been in touch with other Foreign Ministers. Today, he has been on the phone with Foreign Minister de Villepin, Foreign Secretary Straw, Foreign Minister Ivanov. He has continued to work and talk with them. We are moving closer on some of the key issues. I think we have said we have narrowed down some of the differences but we haven't solved some of those key core issues.

In the meantime, we think we have made progress in firming up the terms of the inspections, discussing the other aspects of the resolution. There was a Security Council meeting again this morning to go over a lot of that other text. So we think we are making progress there, as well as on the parameters of -- and the text of the resolution.

We think that whatever emerges from these discussions will reflect the basic principles and positions that we went in this with. You will remember as early as the day after the President's speech, we made clear we wanted a clear statement of Iraq's failure to comply, we wanted a tough inspection regime, and we wanted to make clear that there would be consequences in the event of new violations. So that is what we intend to do and we think we can do that through this process.

QUESTION: Well, before we move on to the foreign ministers meetings or no meetings, "pretty okay," I mean, is this based on the usual caveat until you have an agreement on everything you really don't have an agreement? Or have you not nailed down precisely an inspection regime although you're making progress?

MR. BOUCHER: "Nailed down" in the UN means you've -- I mean, nailed down is when you've had agreement. I can't say --

QUESTION: The whole thing or only part of it? That's what I'm asking.

MR. BOUCHER: I wouldn't say that a particular part is agreed or a particular sentence is agreed at this point. It's not quite working that way.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. BOUCHER: But when we have these additional pieces -- we are hearing more from the Council today in our consultations, so we will look at what we hear, we will look at what we can accomplish on some of the key issues, and that will -- then it will be time to say things get nailed down.

QUESTION: And the notion of a foreign ministers meeting?

MR. BOUCHER: Nothing set at this point. It's just one of the things that's in the air that we might consider if it's necessary.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the more difficult aspects -- and where do you see us standing on that progress-wise?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I can go into it in too much detail, much more than what the Secretary did the other day. The issue is how to draw the consequences and what the consequences are of a new Iraqi failure. And that's basically what they're discussing at the Ministerial level.

QUESTION: Do you think that with the situation in Chechnya that Russia might be a more willing participant if they're getting other things out of us as far as the UN Security Council?

MR. BOUCHER: I know there's been a lot of speculation on that, but, frankly, that hasn't really entered into the discussions that we've had. Certainly we are concerned about, very concerned about the situation in Moscow and we have been working and talking with the Russians about it.

We have expressed our support for their efforts in the fight against terrorism and for the terrorism that they're fighting against. But in terms of Iraq, it's all been a discussion about Iraq and the Security Council and the Security Council's responsibility.

QUESTION: So there doesn't seem to be any horse-trading going on, back room?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

Okay, Teri.

QUESTION: What's up with the meeting with Hans Blix? Is the Secretary not meeting him any more?

MR. BOUCHER: What's up? There was never a meeting scheduled over here. The Secretary was over attending the White House meetings.

QUESTION: Right. Can you tell us what the purpose of that meeting was and what you got out of it?

MR. BOUCHER: Hasn't the White House already briefed on it?

QUESTION: They said a few words.

MR. BOUCHER: I have their guidance so I could read it all to you, but I think they've already said it. I expect Ari's already briefed on it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: This is Dr. Blix's sixth trip to Washington. He has made it a practice to consult from time to time with governments, in particular with the Permanent Five Members of the Security Council. I think we checked and found in the last six months he's been to all the capitals of the Permanent Five Members.

Secretary Powell attended much of the meetings at the White House. I'm not sure he was in every single one.

Dr. Blix was last here in Washington October 4th, and you'll remember that Dr. Rice and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz came over for those meetings at the State Department with Secretary Powell.

QUESTION: That was (inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: No, I know. We decided collectively with your colleagues that the White House had briefed on the meetings today and I would leave it to them.

Okay?

QUESTION: I'm intrigued by the Secretary's phone calls, once again. He spoke today, if I've got this right, with de Villepin, Straw and Ivanov. Does this mean that basically you believe the Chinese are on board, that there's no reason for the Secretary to call Foreign Minister Tang?

And before you say that he just saw Tang over the weekend, I would point out that he also saw Ivanov over the weekend, yet he saw fit to call him today.

MR. BOUCHER: And then what would I say after that?

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Then you would say, "Ask the Chinese for their position." (Laughter.) But I'm not asking --

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. Assuming we've had all that discussion --

QUESTION: I'm not asking you what the Chinese position is. I'm asking you if the Chinese have told you that they will either support or abstain from the resolution.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. So assuming we've had that discussion already, the Secretary, has, I think, been in touch with other members of the Security Council at the Ministerial level. At certain moments, there has been more active discussion with some rather than others. He's had, you remember, in the beginning very active conversations with Foreign Secretary Straw, a little later perhaps more conversation with the French, at some points more conversation with the Russians. Indeed, during this process he's had moments when he's had a lot of serious -- or some serious conversation with the Chinese as well.

At this point, the active conversation seems to be over some issues raised by the French, and that's where we're discussing. The French and the Russians are the ones that most recently have raised some issues and ideas, and those are the ones that we're addressing our discussions with.

We're also in touch with Perm Five representatives in New York, so Ambassador Negroponte is also keeping in touch at a pretty high level with Chinese and other members of the Council. So it is not like they are being neglected, but the active discussions of these issues, the active ideas that are being discussed, are the ones we are discussing with the French and the Russians right now.

QUESTION: Okay. So my question was, actually, have the Chinese given you any indication of how they will vote?

MR. BOUCHER: And that's something you will have to ask the Chinese.

QUESTION: Have you -- have they given you any indication? I'm not asking what their indication is. Have they have given you any indication of how they will vote?

MR. BOUCHER: And that is a question you will have to ask the Chinese.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: What is the thinking at the moment on the timeframe for this? Is it unlikely that you will wrap this up this week? (Inaudible) into next week? Is that what you generally think?

MR. BOUCHER: I haven't tried to handicap this or make predictions about the timing. I think the Secretary said, in his interview the other day, that it was a matter -- look for this to be concluded one way or the other, in days or a week or so, and that's probably still the prediction we'd make.

QUESTION: Richard, can I try something? You're just the person to ask this. Has this difficult debate, and, you know, allegations, or if that's the right word, suggestions by -- I better not say the President, you'll say ask Ari Fleischer -- by the Administration that the UN is on the brink of being irrelevant, do you think this will harm US standing in the UN on other issues in the future? Do you think there will be a bitter taste after this, or does everybody understand you're just fighting hard for what you believe in?

MR. BOUCHER: No. Yes.

QUESTION: All right. No, yes. Fine.

MR. BOUCHER: The President's speech on September 12th, if you will remember, I think, where he put it to the UN quite succinctly, and said this is a question of the UN's relevance --

QUESTION: Right.

MR. BOUCHER: -- not whether they can pass a new resolution that might or might not be ignored, but whether they can succeed in achieving the goal that they themselves set of disarmament in Iraq, of ending Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, that is the question, and that question is outstanding.

That question will be outstanding as long as the UN seeks to achieve those goals, and at this moment, it's there. If Iraq fails to comply, it will be there again.

But the point is that we want to deal with this through the United Nations. The President brought it to the United Nations. The Secretary General at the same moment said the Security Council has to face up to its responsibility.

And so we want the UN to succeed. We want the inspectors to succeed. We want the UN to succeed. But succeeding means Iraq's disarmament, and unfortunately, Iraq's cooperation cannot be assumed, based on their past history.

But yes, we want the UN to show its relevance and to get that kind of disarmament. That's what -- how we want to solve this problem, if possible.

Okay. Start moving back.

QUESTION: Can you give us your reaction to the decision for the postponement of military exercises by Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus in the Aegean?

MR. BOUCHER: We welcome it. We welcome the postponement of this fall's military exercises by Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus. We think it will contribute to the stability and security in the Aegean region.

QUESTION: Can you comment on the fact that this decision came by Greek initiative?

MR. BOUCHER: We think it is a good decision and good initiative and good agreement by the various people who agreed to do it. So, yes.

Okay. Judy.

QUESTION: In the arena of public diplomacy, what can you tell us about the Muslim videos and where they're going to be marketed, if they're going to be marketed?

MR. BOUCHER: The videos that we rolled out yesterday in Indonesia are part of a series that we put together to show in various Islamic countries to tell about American Muslims and their life in America, and the values of our society.

It is part of a bigger picture, though, of telling our story overseas, telling our story in many different ways at different levels, telling first basically who we are and what we are about; and this part of America, this aspect of American society, the status of Muslims in America, is one that we find very often is maybe one of the most misunderstood aspects of our society and one of the things that we think is important for us to tell America's story on.

So this is one of the ways we're doing that. We're doing that with web sites. We're doing that with speakers. We're doing that with brochures and information. We're just trying to tell America's story.

We also tell America's story in terms of what we do, the reconstruction of Afghanistan, building schools, children going to school, the kind of aid programs we have, the sewers of Cairo, and various things that we have done with our money, the things that we've actually done.

We also tell our story on the policy level, as well. We've done some, I don't know, it was 500 interviews with Arabic and Muslim media, I think, in the six months after September 11.

So on a number of levels, we have been increasing our outreach to this part of the world, increasing our exchanges, and trying to make this a part of a bigger picture where we tell people a little bit about America.

QUESTION: So these videos will start, what, next week in Indonesia?

MR. BOUCHER: They've started to run in Indonesia, and then they will be running in other places. What we have done is sort of set up a sequential rollout. This is one of the first times that we have done something like this, frankly. We have used an advertising firm. We are trying to put together a professional product with some sort of strategic decisions about where and how to use it, but we want to test it as we go along.

So we are going to start in a couple countries, see how it goes -- there will be some pan-Arab media, I think, in the coming days -- try to gauge the reaction, see how it's playing, figure out if there need to be changes in the plan, and then gradually go on to other markets.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) these videos in, say, Egypt and (inaudible)?

MR. BOUCHER: Some countries, they -- we've gotten it, some countries we haven't. And as I say, we're going to be on pan-Arab media that get to a lot of different places, as well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the source?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll see on it. There is a web site that has a lot of the information. It's called -- it's new -- it's called opendialogue.org, and it has a lot of the same information as the videos, and I'll see if I can get you a copy of the video.

QUESTION: Excuse me. What advertising firm did you hire for this and how much are you paying them?

MR. BOUCHER: The total bill for all this effort comes -- is going to come to about $15 million. That includes the production aspects of it, the creation of the whole thing from ground zero, and then the placement and purchase of time on the airwaves, and then some of the ancillary events.

And I will have to double check on the firm that we used.

QUESTION: Richard, if I may ask quickly. You said the purchase of time? I mean, in all instances, is this a fact that in all instances the US Government will attempt to purchase time and not to foist, you know, I would say propaganda, or tell other countries' television industries what to put on the air.

MR. BOUCHER: Well --

QUESTION: Is it all a matter of advertising, like advertising Coca-Cola?

MR. BOUCHER: We decided in this project to try to make sure that these mini-documentaries, these stories got where we wanted them, when we wanted them, to the people we wanted them to get to, and therefore decided that, rather than relying the kindness of strangers, that we would actually go out and try to buy advertising time where we wanted it, when we wanted it, to the people we wanted to hear our story. And so we've done that.

I'm sure if anybody wanted to offer us free time, we would probably be glad to take that, as well.

QUESTION: Richard, who had the final approval on those ads?

MR. BOUCHER: Who had the final approval on those ads? Charlotte Beers, I guess. A lot of us saw them, worked on them. I think various other people upstairs previewed them and offered thoughts, but final, you know, Charlotte had the final say-so on it.

QUESTION: When you look in and find out what firm you finally ended up hiring, can you also find out how many other firms bid for this project, and when it was advertised? And also, what countries have refused to accept payment to -- what countries' television stations so far have said no, they will not accept US money to run these ads?

MR. BOUCHER: There are countries that are undecided. We will continue to work on this in some places. But, as I said, our own strategy is to look at how is it working in the first couple places, in the first couple placements, and then decide if we need -- where to go next, and we have some general ideas about that.

We have submitted it, in some places, for censorship approval where you need that to get on the air, but we haven't made the purchases in further places because we want to make sure -- we want to decide on our own how to proceed and when and where we want to be.

QUESTION: What countries have you submitted it for censorship procedures?

MR. BOUCHER: I --

QUESTION: What's a ballpark number?

MR. BOUCHER: No, I --

QUESTION: What's the ballpark number of countries that are undecided right now?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we've got -- we know two or three places it's going to run. Did I bring my list with me? No, I didn't. We've got Indonesia first, and then some pan-Arab media during the course of this week, and then I think -- let me remember more accurately. I will get you a list.

And then as far as down the road, since it is not decided where we are going to be, and we have submitted for provisional approval in some places, we'll just -- I'm not prepared to put out a list at this point.

QUESTION: Did you say censorship approval?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes. There's censorship boards in some countries if you want to put something on TV.

QUESTION: I thought you were against that.

MR. BOUCHER: We're against boycotts and negative boycotts. I don't think that's involved in this situation.

QUESTION: Does the censorship, if you know -- is the (inaudible) --

MR. BOUCHER: Can we ask somebody in the --

QUESTION: Can I just finish the point, if I may? Does the censorship involve use it whole or not at all, or is the US willing to eliminate segments that authorities don't think --

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think anybody's gotten that far. We haven't asked if they want any modifications, and frankly, we are interested in placing this on TV. I think it's a regular process in some places.

Teri?

QUESTION: My first question is, sort of the division of labor. If Charlotte Beer's job is to come up with these ads, why are you paying another advertising company to come up with the ideas? It just seems like that would be duplication of effort, or I don't understand what her exact role in creating these ads is.

And my second question is: How are you going to decide how they're working? You said, "We'll to see how it's working." A couple weeks? I mean, this is -- these are centuries and epochs-old problems.

QUESTION: I think there's -- yes, they are, and especially when you're trying to address questions at this level.

I mean, what we're talking about here is who we are, what we stand for, what our society is like, trying to tell the story of America and Muslims in America, which is very much misunderstood, we think, in Muslim countries.

And so, what you're trying to do here is just show people who we are and get some receptivity to the other levels of dialogue, of telling them our views and what we do, so that is a long-term thing. But I think you can gage sort of initial reaction from newspapers, people we talk to, statements that are made, and just trying to get an idea of how it's playing as we go forward.

I don't think it's -- no, we're not going to wait for 20 years of opinion polling to see if we've changed attitudes, but we should be able to gage some kind of reaction as we go forward in a sequential thing that would be maybe a couple days or a week between different countries.

On that, Charlotte Beers, indeed, came to us from the advertising world and knows an awful lot about the advertising world, but I think when he was chairman of a major advertising firm she didn't draw the drawings and make the film. And we needed, wanted, people who could conduct some of the research, help us draw the drawings, make the film, design it, recruit it, produce it, in a professional manner. And that's why we contracted outside for those services.

QUESTION: None of this came out of her budget? What was it, $2 million to start with, I think, is what we first heard about?

MR. BOUCHER: It comes out of our overall Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy budget. I think the money was actually allocated to my bureau and we made the contract.

Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Richard.

QUESTION: One more on this?

MR. BOUCHER: Okay, we're going to stay on this for a little while, then we'll keep going. We'll keep going back, if we can.

QUESTION: Richard, what is the evidence that the US believes that's it's misunderstood, that the way that Americans live is misunderstood? Because when you talk to people in the region, it's not really Americans that they're questioning; it's the government's policies that they have problems with.

So why is it that you all feel you need to explain how Muslims are treated in this country?

MR. BOUCHER: I keep reading these press reports and watching 60 Minutes and shows like that about how terribly misunderstood we are in the Arab street. I thought it was kind of obvious. I didn't bring all the data, but there's been a lot of polling done and especially when you go beyond the elites who study here, do business here, travel here, there's a lot of basic misperception about this country and especially about whether people are free to practice their religion if they are Muslim. And that's one of the elements that we want to try to explain, what kind of society we are and how we treat people and what we think of people.

And that's, I think, very basic to understanding and to listening to the kind of policy arguments we want to make, as well.

QUESTION: But does the US believe that by convincing these radical Islamists that the US is tolerant of Islam, that that's going to stop the suicide bombings?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think these ads are going to stop suicide bombers. I know that there are an awful lot of people, though, who need to know more about the United States. What they think they know about the United States is based on distorted images and rumor and common belief that may not be true; and that it's good for us to tell them our story directly, and that's what we're trying to do.

QUESTION: How long do you expect these ads to be running in these -- in each country?

MR. BOUCHER: The goal was to use the period of Ramadan to play these ads because there's, I guess, a tradition of people telling the story of Islam in their country during the month of Ramadan. And so we want to begin that dialogue over several weeks. We can modify it and adapt it beyond that as we decide to go forward.

QUESTION: Can you also tell me how long these ads have been in production?

MR. BOUCHER: How long these ads have been in production? I think I first saw the sort of mockups late spring, so we've been working on it, you know, most of the year, shall we say. I'm not exactly sure when we signed the contract and formally said okay, we're going to do this.

The gentleman next to you.

QUESTION: Yes. First of all, when you say pan-Arab media, are you talking about al-Jazeera? Is that the media you're talking about?

MR. BOUCHER: No, it's not al-Jazeera. It's other satellite broadcasters.

QUESTION: Are you going to use this on al-Jazeera?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Why not?

MR. BOUCHER: They wanted too much money.

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is there concern in the State Department that relations with Canada are being strained by the implementation of --

MR. BOUCHER: I think let us finish with one topic and then we'll come back to you after we move to him.

Eli.

QUESTION: As I take it, one of the goals of this ad campaign is to convince a lot of Muslims that this is a country tolerant of Muslims. Do you think that that message might be contradicted by the State Department's own policy of screening so many Arab and Muslim males in a number of these countries that was implemented almost a year ago? And can you see potentially how literal policies that would affect a lot of these folks might be undercut by --

MR. BOUCHER: It sort of goes back to the question of what's the relationship between this kind of telling the story of America versus the issues that people have with some of our policies. The fact is we make policy because it is good policy, we make policy because we need to keep America safe, and we make our visa policy because we have to have more stringent scrutiny of people who come into this country and what they might be intending to do.

At the same time, as we try to explain that, you need to have -- I put it usually in terms of receptivity. You have to have a certain fertile ground on which you lay -- to put out your policy, to try to explain things. And that's where you really, I think if you look at the polling and you look at the work that's been done, the focus groups and newspaper stories that have been written in this country, you see that there are a lot of people that just don't listen or don't think that what the United States is saying is true because they have -- they think we're a Godless society, they think all kinds of other things about us.

And getting out, telling the story of America, is trying to create that basis on which we can have a dialogue and discussion of policy where we know people don't disagree with us, but at least they shouldn't mistrust our intentions and our nature, and where we want people to understand that we need to keep this country safe.

We had others in the second and third row.

QUESTION: Obviously, you don't think this is going to stop suicide bombings, as you mentioned, but do you see this as a hearts and mind component to the war on terror? I mean, you're kind of talking about the program. Is it part and parcel of that effort?

MR. BOUCHER: Yes, it is part of the overall picture of the United States. We want people to have a more realistic picture of the United States. So whether we are talking about visa policy or the war on terror or trying to get Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions, we have a better basis for conducting that dialogue on policy issues.

QUESTION: Did you get any support or advice or ideas from any Muslim organizations or religious people during the --

MR. BOUCHER: If you look on the website, opendialogue.org, you will see that that is done in conjunction with an American Muslim organization called the Council of American Muslims for Understanding. This is a group that was launched earlier this year, in May 2002. It's a non-profit, non-partisan, and non-political organization that is dedicated to providing a better understanding of Islam in America to the people in the United States and throughout the world.

So they were a group that came together, I think, after the tragedies of September 11th, that thought it was important to tell the story of Muslims in America. This is one aspect, as I said, of the bigger picture of our telling America's story, and in this aspect, we found that they were good to cooperate with.

So we've been doing a lot of this with those people, and put together the website together, because we're trying to tell the same story.

QUESTION: Richard, do these advertisements address in any way the policy concerns of Muslims, like, for example, US policy towards Palestine, Iraq, support for autocratic regimes in the Middle East, and so on; or is it solely how Muslims live in the United States?

And presumably, you did some surveys before you set about this task, and did those surveys produce any information about the roots of anti-American sentiment and how that is separated between this perception of how Muslims live in the States and policy, these policy concerns?

MR. BOUCHER: Have I mentioned that this is part of a bigger picture? This is part of a bigger picture. This is one aspect of telling America's story on a particular part of American life. A lot of other things we do to tell America's story. A lot of other things we do to tell America's achievements, both in the United States and overseas for people. A lot of things we do with supporting journalism, supporting TV documentaries, news stories from around the world to talk about America, and also to talk about our policies.

And there's a lot of things we do in putting forward directly our views on policy to people, whether it's in websites, brochures, interviews, op-eds by our ambassadors, or whatever.

So this is a piece of a piece of a bigger picture, and that's why, no, these particular items do not, nor does -- nor do my briefings here particularly address some of the issues that are addressed in these, in these documentaries, mini-documentaries I guess we're calling them.

And the other part of your question, I can't remember, if there was one. Okay.

QUESTION: One quick question, just so I understand. $15 million to be spent over a month -- is the media being negotiated by McCann-Erickson or is the State Department negotiating directly in terms of what's taking place?

And if it's -- depending on what you determine and whether it's successful or not, what will happen from here on out? Is there going to be additional advertising that takes place if you see this is successful?

MR. BOUCHER: The answer is, I think, as with most corporations or anybody else who hires an advertising firm, is the firm, I think, actually makes the buy, but we decide where we want to be and when, and so they will do that for us, because they have the contract to do it for us.

As far as what we do, you know, beyond the initial month, that's something we'll have to see. We have contracted for the creation and production of these things, and their placement, and then we'll go on from there, but going on from there is not really decided at this point.

QUESTION: Is there money in your budget to spend for additional advertising?

MR. BOUCHER: This additional money will cover probably more than just what it -- now that we've done the production and creation of these things, we have them. I think we have enough money not just to place them for the first month, but to go on from there, but we haven't exactly decided how to do that.

All right. Are we going to finish with this topic sometime soon? Let's see. We had Joel, Joel -- Nick, we'll go back. Sir.

QUESTION: Question. It's more a fox-in-the-chicken-coop type of question. In Pakistan --

MR. BOUCHER: Is that like a hypothetical?

QUESTION: No, it's not a hypothetical at all.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay.

(Laughter.)

MR. BOUCHER: Just getting ready.

QUESTION: Either the Justice Department in Pakistan or the authorities have released a so-called militant terrorist (inaudible) -- he's a Sunni Muslim in the SSP, and the reason they released him is because they say before his detention he was elected to their parliament and --

MR. BOUCHER: That strikes me as a bit off-topic, but I frankly don't have anything on this particular issue. So rather than promise to come back and not answer your question, I'll just tell you I don't have anything on it now.

All right. We're going to finish with the topic, right? Let's go to way back. Mark.

QUESTION: Two Iraq questions.

MR. BOUCHER: I think we're still on this, and there were others who wanted to change the topic. We're going to change the topic, with the gentleman in the middle right here. Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, Richard. A question on Bangladesh.

The recent deployment of the Army to curb criminal activities has made a tremendous impact. What is the position of the State Department, and what is your comment to that effect?

MR. BOUCHER: This is an issue that we've been following. I think the deployment was October 17th, and we understand there's no definitive date to the end for army operations.

Our Embassy reports that as many as 3,000 people have been arrested through today.

We have seen credible reports of physical abuse and allegations of torture. Reportedly, at least 12 people detained by the army have died in custody. The army has also arrested members of several political parties, including the ruling party. Several senior leaders of the opposition Awami League are also under arrest.

Over the past few years, serious law and order problems have arisen in Bangladesh that need to be addressed. We hope this operation by the army, even though it was ordered by a democratically elected government, will last only as long as absolutely necessary, and that other measures will be taken to bring about permanent improvement in law and order.

We are concerned about these reports of abuses, and are monitoring the situation closely. Ambassador Peters conveyed our strong view to the foreign minister on October 24th. She said the army needed to act in accordance with human rights norms and the deployment should not be used to harass the government's political opponents.

The government has said that it has reinforced instructions to the military to respect the rights of those detained and to carry out these operations in accordance with Bangladeshi law. The army has announced it will investigate the abuse allegations and that it has increased central oversight of the deployment to prevent human rights violations and deaths in custody, so we'll continue to watch very, very closely whether that occurs.

Okay. I can't remember who had the second chance at changing topic. The gentleman in the back, I think.

QUESTION: Is the State Department concerned that relations with Canada are being strained by the application of the new Entry/Exit Registration System at the border? For the first time ever, the Canadian government has actually issued a travel advisory to Canadian citizens. It applies to Canadians born in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria. They are being cautioned to consider carefully "whether to travel to the US for any reason."

The concern is that these Canadian citizens are being unnecessarily detained, fingerprinted, and photographed at the border.

MR. BOUCHER: Well, I think we've been pretty up front in trying to get the information out on what we have done to improve security at our borders in the processing of visas.

The arrangements that we have made with Canada through a dialogue between, I guess it's Deputy Prime Minister Manley and Homeland Affairs Chief Ridge, has been an important part of making sure the Canadian border worked as smoothly as possible, and that the security of both Canada and the United States can be enhanced by our cooperation.

So we've done that. We put out the information for people who might be fingerprinted or otherwise be asked further questions or that we might require further information from as they enter this country.

If you look on the websites, I think, of the Immigration Service and the Justice Department, you'll find all that information.

So I don't think we find it surprising that Canada has told its citizens about what to expect. The more people understand the system and what they need to expect, the more they can be prepared, the better, the more smoothly the processing can go, and the better we can come to the goal of having expeditions processing but one that makes all of us safer and more secure.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. BOUCHER: There's another question back there.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up to that question. There have been talks between the Canadian Foreign Minister and the Secretary about a possible exception for Canadian citizens. Where are those talks? And obviously, this is an example of this not going anywhere.

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think it's an example of not going anywhere. There have been a number of discussions of different aspects of this, and I think I understand what you're referring to. I'll just have to check where it is.

But there have been discussions and I'm trying to remember the last time I got together they talked about it. I can't exactly remember when that meeting was.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: As a follow-up to that, what do you say to the Canadians, some of whom are very angry and say that this is a highly discriminatory practice?

MR. BOUCHER: I think you have to say that our goal is to make our country safer. That's the same goal that Canadian authorities have. We do have an enormous border, an enormous relationship with Canada and Canadian citizens, and we try to do that in a way that meets our joint interests of making North America safer, and there's an awful lot of cooperation. We're looking at all the different ways to do that. We're looking at different kinds of new agreements that can be done.

We've, I think, made the processes across our border as expeditious as possible, but in a way that lets us do the appropriate checks for the security of the whole continent, of all of us.

QUESTION: It doesn't sound like much of an agreement when the Canadian government is warning its citizens not to come here.

MR. BOUCHER: We have plenty of warnings for American citizens around the world, and it's just advice to people to tell them what to expect, and governments do that because they have an obligation to their own citizens.

So I'm not going to write the Canadian announcements for them and I'm sure they won't write ours.

Down here, sir.

MR. BOUCHER: Okay. We got a couple more Canada down here. You were asking? You got it. Okay. Eli.

QUESTION: Just because we're on the topic and I was not aware of this stuff, but do you think that terrorists might be coming into America from the Canadian -- across the Canadian border? And is this a concern? Would you say that outright that this is sort of the stem of the --

MR. BOUCHER: I think we are concerned that many, many countries in the world have had problems with terrorists. There have been, what, arrests of terrorist operatives in some 90 countries, I think, since September 11th. You are all familiar with the case that we and Canadian law enforcement cooperated with on -- the people who were trying to come over the border a couple years ago at Christmastime. So, yes, it's a big border and bad guys try to come across. I think that goes without saying.

The question is what we, in cooperation with the Canadian Government, can do to make both our countries safer.

QUESTION: Richard, does this apply -- do these new restrictions apply to people who have two passports or dual nationality, or does it apply to anyone -- I'm just using Canada as an example -- someone with a Canadian passport but whose birthplace is listed as being one of these countries of concern?

MR. BOUCHER: I think the specifics that are being asked about, and particularly in the case of Canada, is a matter the Immigration Service handles, so you need to look on there. I'm sure they have the information, the details, on their website.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that this has been going on at State, this debate. So could you look into it?

MR. BOUCHER: We don't handle the border of Canada. We don't stamp the passports here.

QUESTION: No, I understand that different countries have approached the State Department and talks are underway, including with Canada, about whether this would apply to people who have dual nationality, i.e., who have two passports, say, an Iranian passport and, in this case, a Canada passport, or whether they don't -- they no longer have citizenship of the country that they were born in but have that country listed as their birthplace in their, in this case, Canadian passport.

MR. BOUCHER: The State Department has, indeed, had discussions with other governments about some of these aspects of policy and procedure. We have -- I think I offered not too long ago to check on some of these, the status of these things. But as far as what the rules are now and how they apply, that information, I think, is publicly available from the Immigration Service.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MR. BOUCHER: Change of subject? You get it.

QUESTION: New York Times last Friday had a story about the lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi royal family from the families of the 9/11 victims, and in it it talks about the Administration consideration action to have the lawsuit dismissed, you know, arguing that it would be bad for diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

Is that a move that the State Department is currently considering, to intervene in the lawsuit?

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to check and see. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you even comment on it, though, if --

MR. BOUCHER: No, not if I don't know.

QUESTION: No, I mean, but if there are talks within the State Department to move in that direction.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm sure whenever there's a lawsuit that can affect our foreign relations or questions of immunity, most of the time when we intervene in lawsuits it's on the question of immunity because that matters to us overseas. But whenever there's a lawsuit that may or may not affect those things, we probably take a look at it. But I'll get back to you as to whether we have or have not intervened in that case.

QUESTION: I guess just to follow up in just a little more detail, could you walk through the thought process that would go into making a decision about whether or not to enter a lawsuit against a foreign royal family or foreign government?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I mean, I'm not -- I don't know. I can't answer questions I don't know the answer to. I'm sorry, I'll check on it.

QUESTION: No, but this is the sort of thing that comes up time and again. I'm sure there's some kind of thought process that the State Department goes through; it just doesn't approach each one anew.

MR. BOUCHER: We look at our equities, we look at the legal issues. Sometimes the court asks us for opinions. I know of several cases involving foreign governments where, even though we didn't decide to intervene on our own because immunity issues were at stake or something like that, or an international agreement, we'll intervene directly if we think those things are affected. But courts often ask our opinion of the impact. That may not be the full deciding factor in the mind of the court, but if they ask our opinion, we give it to them.

So whether that has happened in this case or not, I don't know.

QUESTION: Richard, I have to run out to catch another Secretary Powell interview, so let me try to swing back. He's due to go on the air again in about 15 minutes so I've got to run, but I'd like -- I'm leaving without -- (laughter) --

MR. BOUCHER: Gosh. Me, too. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I don't get to -- I get to listen to him, not to ask him questions, except at photo ops.

MR. BOUCHER: Gosh. Me, too. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But I have a question. I don't think I'm leaving this briefing with a strong understanding of why you had the two doctors down in Washington again today for the sixth time. I know the Secretary -- you say -- I heard he was in all the meetings, but he certainly was in two of the three at the White House.

I know he buttresses your position of -- they buttress your position of needing a good inspection, but what came out of these meetings that is reportable?

MR. BOUCHER: She tried that 50 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago, some many minutes ago. I was told unanimously by the front row, maybe with the exception of you, that the White House has briefed extensively on this and that I needn't bother.

QUESTION: Richard, they haven't briefed extensively. There's some White House type things. I'm looking for a little more depth from the State Department. They do impressionistic briefings. I'm looking for some substance.

MR. BOUCHER: I think I have to refuse to go into it if you're going to use -- if you're going to use my willingness to go into it as some kind of confirmation that they do impressionistic briefings.

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: I reject the premise, but let me just say we have had a number of meetings with Dr. Blix and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Dr. Baradei --

QUESTION: Baradei.

MR. BOUCHER: I'm trying to learn how to say it correctly. All along, before the President took this issue to the United Nations back in January when the President said we wanted to see inspections, our goal has been to make sure the inspectors had the wherewithal, the capability, the information, the authority, the instructions, that they needed to do a thorough job and to try to ascertain what the UN wants to ascertain; that is, has Iraq disarmed.

That, as we approach this resolution, becomes even more important so we have had some very detailed discussions with them. I think I pointed out other governments have, as well, at different levels. And today was a day when they could meet with the President and the Vice President and talk to them directly, hear directly from the President and the Vice President that they wanted this to succeed, that they looked for Iraqi cooperation, that we want to be able to disarm Iraq, and the inspectors could play an important role in doing that.

And that was the goal, and to talk to them to make sure that we were supporting them in every possible way, both with the authority of a UN resolution and with whatever else we could do to support them.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I don't know if it was the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, I thought I heard one of them say, cheat and retreat, deceive, you know, there's no way that an inspection system is going to be airtight and come up with all the violations. So what do you mean, succeed? You mean have tougher rules and maybe get at more of the arms caches, or what?

MR. BOUCHER: Secretary Rumsfeld made clear, as Secretary Powell has before, as Vice President Cheney did this summer, that absent Iraqi cooperation, you can't -- it's very difficult to have that guarantee, that satisfaction that you've found everything. I think we've all understood that all along.

We have also understood that the only way Iraq cooperates is with a threat of consequences. And that's why this whole resolution is crafted the way it is. That's why we want to see the strongest possible resolution that makes clear that Iraq has violated the resolutions of the past, that gives the inspectors the mandate and the authority and that makes clear to Iraq that there will be consequences if they don't cooperate.

That is the only path to secure some kind of Iraqi cooperation. But we all know without Iraqi cooperation, if Iraq is still trying to hide, deceive, if Iraq is still trying to run intelligence operations against inspectors, the inspectors are limited in what they can hope to achieve. But the whole package is designed to make sure that Iraq understands they had better cooperate, and if they do cooperate, the inspectors are there to verify whether or not they are.

Same topic.

QUESTION: Just very quickly, are you basically trying to make sure that Blix, as soon as he gets the runaround from the Iraqis, if he does get the runaround -- you can't predict the future, but you're predicting it's probably likely -- he's going to say you're obstructing the inspections and then go right back to the UN?

MR. BOUCHER: We're trying to make sure that Blix has everything from us that we can do to succeed. We're trying to make clear that we want him to succeed, that we want him to be able to carry out a tough inspections regime. He's got an important job and we want them to be able to succeed and we want to make sure that we're doing everything possible because, as the President said, military force is a last result. What we want to see is tough inspections, Iraqi cooperation, and we're doing everything we can to get it.

QUESTION: Well, can I ask, do you have an agreement from Blix that he is going to report obstruction from the Iraqis? That's the main thing.

MR. BOUCHER: As you have seen in the Security Council resolution, that's one of the things the Council will address -- we want the Council to address -- in its resolution.

QUESTION: But it's Blix's call, right?

MR. BOUCHER: It's the Council's call.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, once you've got the inspectors on the --

MR. BOUCHER: The Council gives him instructions. He has made abundantly clear again and again he'll do exactly what the Council asks him to do.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Richard, there are reports from Rome this morning that Iraq isn't --

QUESTION: Same subject?

QUESTION: Same subject. There are reports from Rome this morning that the Iraqis are not cooperating and, indeed, are having Iraqi scientists build weapons in Libya. Any comments?

MR. BOUCHER: I had not seen those specific reports, so no, I don't have anything specific on that.

We're working our way back. Teri.

QUESTION: Washington summoned the inspectors to come down, and as you said, if he's been here six times, why did he need to come here again face-to-face to have you assure him you were doing everything you can?

MR. BOUCHER: Washington invited them to come down.

QUESTION: Invited them to come down.

MR. BOUCHER: And this was an opportunity to talk directly with the President and the Vice President, and make sure as we advance through this resolution, as we advance through the different aspects, different specifics and details that are being discussed in a resolution, as we advance closer, we would hope to a time when they have the full instructions and authority of the Council, that we are working closely with them, and to talk directly to the President enhances that.

Okay. We're still on this topic. Mark? Shall we stop sticking to one topic? We'll start taking people as they come.

QUESTION: You may have stated this in the past, and if so, forgive me, but does the United States have a position on whether a future government in Iraq should be obligated to the current government's debts to Russia?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I've stated a precise position on that. I'm not sure what the legal matter -- the legal question that would be answered.

QUESTION: Is there a position?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll check.

QUESTION: In the resolution that's currently being considered in New York, does the United States want that resolution to put the Security Council on record supporting the US and British overflights of the no-fly zones?

MR. BOUCHER: The resolution that we've drafted has been put and circulated in, as it is, in blue, informally, at the United Nations. I think that makes it available to all of you, and you can read it for yourself.

QUESTION: Paragraph 8 of that resolution would appear to cover the threats to US and British aircraft --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not in a position at this point to start interpreting and discussing particular paragraphs of that resolution. We've said we want to negotiate and discuss it with the other members of the Security Council. We're going to do that through these meetings and telephone calls that we are having in private. We're not going to negotiate it in public, so I'm not going to start playing off interpretations of particular language. You can read it and make of it what you will.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Secretary Powell will meet the German Foreign Minister today, and there still seems to be a lot of tension between the two countries, so what are the expectations of the United States? What is expected of the Germans, and is there a list of expectations that has been communicated?

MR. BOUCHER: There's not a particular list that might have been communicated. I think what Secretary Powell looks forward to is a productive meeting with his German counterpart. They have spoken on the phone a couple times since the German election. It's their first meeting. They'll come down afterwards and talk to you all at C Street if you have questions about what happened, but I think I'd just basically say we look forward to a productive meeting.

The Secretary has noted there's been turbulence in the relationship and some issues that we need to work through, some real differences that we have to address, but also a lot to discuss in the war on terrorism, with regard to NATO enlargement and expansion, other NATO issues, with regard to European Union enlargement, and where they stand on that, our support for Turkey's European Union accession, the next steps on Iraq and what we're doing there.

So there's an awful lot to discuss and to work together with the German government on.

QUESTION: Has the pressure to include Turkey in the European Union increased, and is that the tool, the German-American tensions, are they the tool to get the Europeans to include Turkey?

MR. BOUCHER: No. I think that's one no, at least, maybe two nos, even. Yes.

QUESTION: Okay, even two nos.

Is it true that Mr. Fischer is unwelcome in the White House?

MR. BOUCHER: He's having a meeting this afternoon with the Secretary of State. That's who he normally sees when he comes here. If there's any statement on that from the White House, you can ask over there.

Okay. Eli, do you want to change the subject, too?

QUESTION: No.

MR. BOUCHER: No? Mr. Ogata.

QUESTION: I'm sure that you (inaudible) something to say about the DPRK and the Japanese talk in Malaysia. That's the first question.

And it seems that the DPRK are insisting that they want to talk about United States, about the nuclear program, not with the Japanese Government, and the United States Government are making clear that they're not going to talk with the DPRK as long as they not give up the nuke program.

So what's the step next and what is your position right now at this point?

MR. BOUCHER: Our position is the one that we've taken before, is the one that we took in conjunction with the Japanese and the South Koreans at the meeting of the presidents and the Prime Minister -- the President of Korea, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Japan -- last Saturday in Mexico.

The North Koreans should not expect progress on their agenda or on normalization of relationships without promptly and verifiably dismantling these nuclear programs. The United States and Japan share very serious concerns over that program. We have both called on the North to immediately and verifiably dismantle the program. We hope that the North will reflect seriously on the deep concerns that we've expressed repeatedly by the international community in recent weeks and that the North Koreans will act to solve the problem.

So we have been in very close touch with Japan regarding the discussions that they've had, and I think Japan did make clear in Kuala Lumpur that the issue remains high on their agenda and that North Korean compliance with international commitments is a prerequisite to normalization of diplomatic relations.

QUESTION: Same subject. Have you heard directly from the Japanese that the North Koreans in Kuala Lumpur did, in fact, reject this joint request that they dismantle the uranium enrichment program?

MR. BOUCHER: We have been in very close touch with the Japanese but I'm not in a position to characterize what the North Koreans said to another government.

QUESTION: New subject. Richard, this week, the Secretary wrote other the Foreign Minister of Bosnia informing him that your -- the US-led training and equipment military program is going to be ended. I want to know if that has anything to do with the recent allegations about sales to Iraq.

MR. BOUCHER: I'll have to double-check on that. I think we said we'd end the program at the national level and do it on a state level, if I remember correctly. But I'll see. I'll check for you. I'll double-check and get you the details.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: No, no, hold on. Does the State Department stand by the comments made yesterday by your Ambassador in Moscow that the Russian silence on the gas that was used may have cost lives?

MR. BOUCHER: We have made clear that we have asked the Russians for this information on the gas that was used. I think we've made clear through our Ambassador's statements and our statements here we thought it was important to provide that information. We are inquiring on behalf of our citizens. There are other citizens and victims who want that information.

I note press reports as I come out here that indicates the Russian Health Ministry has started to talk about this and started to, in fact, provide that information to the people who need it.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. Does the State Department stand by the Ambassador's statement that the Russian refusal to identify the gas promptly may have cost lives?

MR. BOUCHER: I think we made clear our position on that. And the Russians are now, according to reports, providing that information. So we welcome that.

QUESTION: Are you willing to say the same thing today? Does the State Department believe that the Russian refusal --

MR. BOUCHER: You've asked the question three times. I've answered it three times. I think I have nothing more to say.

QUESTION: The answer -- I'm sorry, I don't get the answer. I'm sorry. I mean, I understand what you're saying. I'm asking you, though, whether the ambassador was speaking on behalf of the State Department when he made these comments yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: I have made clear that the United States felt this information should be made public. I have said that. The Ambassador has said and others have as well. And we note that the Russians are now making it public.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: We began asking many days ago, yes.

QUESTION: Yeah. But do you believe that their refusal to say so cost -- may have cost lives?

MR. BOUCHER: I've answered the question four times now. I'm not going to answer it differently on the fifth.

QUESTION: You haven't answered it once, but --

MR. BOUCHER: I've provided a response to the question four times now and I will respond the same way if you want to ask again.

QUESTION: Okay, then I have one more. Can you be a little more -- can you expand a little bit on the Embassy warning in Mauritius that there may be terrorist attacks on Christian churches, government buildings, there?

MR. BOUCHER: Can I? There was a Warden Message from the US Embassy in Port Louis sent to the American citizen community in Mauritius. It alerted US citizens that the Embassy had received information indicating that extremists may be targeting Christian churches and it reminded US citizens to remain vigilant and maintain a heightened state of alert.

We also review information like this, and as you know, we put it out when necessary. But on this particular bit of information, there's nothing more I'm able to provide.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. You didn't use the word "terrorist." The Warden Message actually used the word "terrorist" and the Prime Minister of Mauritius is saying that he doesn't believe that this threat has anything to do with what is generally accepted to be terrorism.

MR. BOUCHER: I used the word "extremist." I'm not sure exactly what the word is in our Warden Message. I didn't have a chance to look it up. But I think we all know and we've put out worldwide warnings that indicate that there are terrorist groups looking for Americans in any number of places, looking to carry out various kinds of attacks around the world. There's Worldwide Cautions that we have out.

And we all know, and I think we've seen tragically from recent events, that as they look at official facilities that might be better protected now, they often have gone to softer targets in places that might not have had the problem before.

So I'm not able to amplify on this particular bit of information to design the exact words further, but I do think we've seen a pattern develop where we have to be vigilant in many different places.

QUESTION: But are you suggesting that there's some kind of international component to this threat?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not. No, I'm not suggesting anything particular about this threat.

QUESTION: Richard, I'm a bit confused now. Are these extremists indigenous and is there any reason to believe that their targets were particularly non-Mauritian inhabitants of the island?

MR. BOUCHER: The Embassy said they had received information indicating that extremists may be targeting Christian churches. Okay? So that's what we know and that's what we're able to tell you. Presumably, lots of different people go to Christian churches.

QUESTION: What about the Israeli cabinet?

MR. BOUCHER: No, that's internal politics. We won't get into it.

QUESTION: Are we worried they will impede our progress on the peace plan?

MR. BOUCHER: It's internal politics. We won't get into it.