In other travel news --

QUESTION:  Wait a sec.  Can I ask you about that?

MR. REEKER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  I realize that I would normally ask this of the traveling party, but is it correct that former Assistant Secretary Reich is not traveling with the Secretary to Colombia in his new position as Special Envoy? 

MR. REEKER:  I would have to double-check.  I don't have a whole list of who is traveling, but I am sure we can get that for you after the briefing, Matt, or your colleague who is on the plane can do a seat count for you. 

QUESTION:  Right.  Well, but they're not there yet.

MR. REEKER:  We'll try to get the full list of the Secretary's traveling party.

QUESTION:  And if he's not, can you find out why not?

QUESTION:  Or if he is, why?  (Laughter.) 

QUESTION:  Well, in fact, Barry, the reason that I'm asking is because I know that he's not on the trip and I'm wondering why he is not on the trip.

MR. REEKER:  I believe the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs is on the trip.  That would be Curt Struble, our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, who, as you know, is the Acting Assistant Secretary. 

QUESTION:  My question is Reich-specific. 

MR. REEKER:  Got it, Matt.

In other travel news, I would like to note that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage will be visiting the Asia Pacific region.  He is going to travel to Japan, South Korea, China and Australia December 8th through 14th as part of our continuing consultation with friends and allies on Iraq and efforts to ensure that Iraq complies with the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and other relevant UN resolutions.  His meetings in all four capitals will be with senior officials and will, of course, include discussions of other bilateral and regional and global issues of concern.  More specifically, because there was a lot of interest, he expects to be in Japan December 8th through 10th, South Korea December 10th through 11th, China the 11th to 12th, and in Australia from the 13th through the 14th of December.

One statement that I would like to highlight -- and we will put this out in paper following the briefing -- regards the ceasefire agreement in Burundi.  The United States welcomes the ceasefire agreement reached today by the Government of the Republic of Burundi and the Forces for the Defense of Democracy, a faction led by Pierre Nkurunziza.  This agreement is a significant step toward a comprehensive peace for the people of Burundi as their country continues its transition to democracy under the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Accords, which were signed back in August of 2000. 

There remains one rebel combatant group in Burundi that refuses to lay down its arms.  That is the National Liberation Front.  It's a faction led by Agathon Rwasa.  And the United States calls on this faction, the National Liberation Front, now the only remaining obstacle to the security and safety of the people of Burundi, we call upon them to join their countrymen in seeking a constructive and peaceful transition to democracy.  And we will post the full text of that statement after the briefing.

A question on that, Matt? 

QUESTION:  Could we go back to the Armitage? 

QUESTION:  Yeah, I was going to go there too, but go ahead. 

QUESTION:  Would it be way out of line for us to assume that one of the other issues besides Iraq that he will be talking about would be North Korea? 

MR. REEKER:  That may come up as a regional issue in the area.

QUESTION:  It may?

MR. REEKER:  I don't have a specific agenda for those meetings.  I am sure it is an issue that we discuss regularly.  As you know, we have been working very closely with friends and allies on North Korea and I think the international community, including the countries that Secretary Armitage will be visiting, have spoken quite uniformly about the need for North Korea to cease its program of developing nuclear weapons and do so immediately and in a verifiable way.  So I would imagine, yes, that that would be a topic of discussion while they're out there.

If I could just talk about one other subject, which I know is of interest to many of you today, and that is Saudi Arabia.  The United States welcomes today's announcements by Saudi Arabia of enhanced mechanisms to monitor and control financial flows from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

We are pleased with the continued cooperation that we have received and continue to receive from the Government of Saudi Arabia in the global war on terrorism.  We believe that such improved oversight of financial transfers, as announced and discussed today by the Saudis, that is essential to reduce and impede financial support for terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia.  We strongly support a comprehensive monitoring of charitable organizations based in the Kingdom to ensure that well-intentioned donations are used for their intended purpose and not to finance or abet terrorists. 

We also believe that such monitoring, especially of donations leaving the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, can prevent those who would assist terrorists from using the charitable generosity of Saudi citizens as cover for their activities. 

The United States is encouraged by Saudi efforts and will continue to provide technical cooperation to Saudi Arabia and other allies in the region as we all work to improve the capabilities in monitoring and countering the financing of terror.

We expect continued and comprehensive exchanges of expertise with Saudi officials, and in that vein the United States also looks forward to convening the upcoming meeting of the US-Saudi Joint Working Group on Terrorism.  That should take place in early January here in Washington.

We believe that this will further improve and formalize our cooperation in countering terrorism.  This is chaired for the United States by the Department of State's Coordinator for Counterterrorism Ambassador Cofer Black.  It's a working group that will serve as the primary mechanism in our continuing coordination of joint activities, as well as the exchange of information and the setting of mutual priorities in the battle against terrorism.

So with that, subjects on this?

QUESTION:  Let me flip back because the Armitage question might be a quick one, an easily answered question.  Will he in his stops in Japan and elsewhere be soliciting support -- I realize it is said the President hasn't decided whether to use force against Iraq, but will he be asking for their cooperation financially, logistically or otherwise on this trip?

MR. REEKER:  Well, you are absolutely right, Barry, that the President has not made any decision about military action against Iraq.  In fact, the President has said many times that that is the least desired option.  The goal is to see the disarmament of Iraq, as required under the UN Security Council resolution.

But as we have said, we have been having discussions through diplomatic channels with a number of countries around the world.  We believe that the United Nations will want to see its resolution carried out in full and we believe it's important to look at all the possibilities, to be prepared for all eventualities as we watch the process unfold and see if Iraq has made a commitment to change its approach to the international community and to live up to its obligations under the Security Council resolution.

So those discussions are continuing in a variety of different fora, including visits by senior officials.  We have discussed the Deputy Secretary of Defense who is traveling along with our Under Secretary for Political Affairs Ambassador Grossman.  Obviously, that type of discussion took place at the highest levels when, before Thanksgiving, the President met with many of his counterparts at the NATO summit in Prague.

So this is a discussion that takes place.  We have been quite clear that we think our experience shows that to keep the pressure on Iraq, to show Saddam Hussein what he must do, that we have to be prepared for all eventualities.  And so that is the type of discussion we are undertaking and Deputy Secretary Armitage will have that opportunity to discuss in person with leaders from those four countries in the Asia Pacific region when he travels there next week.

QUESTION:  When he has that discussion, since there is a contingency, there is an option for using force, will he ask for their support logistically, financially or otherwise should the President choose to use force, or is it too early to ask? 

MR. REEKER:  We'll just be a discussing a variety of things with them, Barry.  I'm not going to go into the details of our diplomatic conversations, particularly conversations that haven't taken place yet.  But we believe that there is a strong consensus, as evidenced by the unanimous UN Security Council resolution, that Iraq must be held to account. 

The ball is in Saddam's court and he has an opportunity now to demonstrate to the world that Iraq wishes to change, make a strategic decision and change its approach to the international community and disarm, as required under the UN Security Council resolutions, to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction that are a threat not only to his own people but to the region and to world peace as a whole.

QUESTION:  So, really, we're not saying -- the State Department isn't saying whether this trip has among its purposes soliciting support in the event the US decides that it needs to use force against Iraq?

MR. REEKER:  I think I will stick with the language I used, Barry, and that is that we are continuing consultations with friends and allies about Iraq and efforts to ensure that Iraq complies with Resolution 1441.  And so Deputy Secretary Armitage's meetings in the region will reflect that as well as other topics of interest in a regional and global context.

QUESTION:  One more, if I may, on Iraq.  I was not at work yesterday, but I noticed the White House, the Vice President's Office, the Pentagon, all joined in very critical statements about Iraq.  Could I ask -- I don't know if State was part of that, but today is a new day.  Is there any assessment you wish to offer at this interim stage in the search for illicit weapons as to how Iraq is behaving?

MR. REEKER:  Well, I think you have to look at all of the statements, Barry.  We did discuss this to a degree yesterday.  This is a process that is five or six days old in terms of the inspections process.  As you know, we are very committed to doing all we can to support and help the inspectors from the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I think it is premature to make any particular comment on that exact process as we see, first of all, what Iraq will provide under the declaration that they are required to give by the 8th of this month under the resolution.  The President, yesterday, pointed to the Iraqi regime's continuing firing on American and British pilots, the letters that Iraq has sent filled with protests and falsehoods, as indications that perhaps Iraq does not appear to be taking the path of compliance.

And let me remind you that Resolution 1441 gives Iraqis an opportunity to signal to the world a strategic shift in their approach.  The burden is on them to do this and Resolution 1441 requires active and full cooperation.  This means every single day demonstrating active cooperation by Iraq, signaling a strategic shift.  And I think the Secretary General himself said this morning this is only the beginning.  So we will keep watching that very closely and we will also be watching closely the declaration that Iraq is required to provide, a declaration that we believe must be credible and complete.

Yes, Matt.

QUESTION:  I just want to go back to what you were talking about with the Saudis.  You said that this meeting in early January will further improve and formalize the relationship?  What does that mean?  Do you expect something new to -- some new agreement to be worked up or signed between the two sides at that point?  Or are you just saying that it -- what you have now is informal, or what would exist now --

MR. REEKER:  Well, what has been created -- I think you are aware that there is a -- we have created a US-Saudi Joint Working Group on Terrorism and it's going to have a meeting in January.  I don't have any more details.  I think they are still trying to work out those details.  And that will be chaired, as I said, by the new Coordinator for Counterterrorism here at the State Department. 

QUESTION:  Well, I guess I'm asking what do you mean by formalize the relationship?

MR. REEKER:  Well, there is now a formal structure.  We have been cooperating in a variety of manners --

QUESTION:  So it's not some new --

MR. REEKER:  So, you know, I can't predict what will come out of that meeting at this point, a month or so away.  We will just continue to watch, but we do look forward to that because that is, in fact, a formal structure by having a working group in which we can have a formal scheduled meeting that will take place, this round, here in Washington in January.

Elise.

QUESTION:  At this press conference this morning, one of the complaints by the Saudi Government is that there are a lot of discussions between the US and Saudi, a lot of cooperation, but that there are so many various departments that the US is working with the Saudis that sometimes it's not centralized enough that there's enough understanding of what the Saudis really do. 

Do you think that this formal channel -- because they say that these formal structures have been going on since '96, in fact.  So do you think that this working group will enable Saudi contributions in the war on terrorism to be more obvious?

MR. REEKER:  Well, it has been obvious to us because we have been saying all along, as many of you are well aware who have asked us repeatedly day after day, that we are very pleased with the continued cooperation we have received from Saudi Arabia in the global war on terrorism.  And remember that the global war on terrorism involves many different aspects, and indeed, many different departments of our government, and undoubtedly the Saudi government as well.  When we're looking at financial issues, we have to deal with the Treasury Department.  We have to deal with the State Department.  So many people are involved.  There are law enforcement issues.  There's intelligence and information sharing.  So it's a complex process.

But to prosecute the war on terrorism, as the President has said, we need to utilize all the tools at our disposal and follow through with that, and it is going to be a long effort.  We have cells all around the world, from al-Qaida and other organizations that we have to continue to root out.  The financial aspect is very important when it comes to that, and we have made great progress and we welcome today the announcements that Saudi Arabia has made. 

So we have said that for some time, and the Saudis now are being very up-front and public about the steps that they're taking.  And so we'll continue to do that and we'll utilize mechanisms like a joint working group that will meet, for instance, in January here in Washington to keep that cooperation going, to look for areas of improvement, to share additional information.  It's an all-encompassing effort.

QUESTION:  One of the things that they seem to be looking for is more of like a point -- I don't know if you want to call it a point person, or a point group to deal with these financial issues because they say that it's too all over the place, that the right hand isn't talking to the left hand; that there needs to be one person or one team in the US government that deals with Saudi Arabia on these financial transactions. 

Do you see this group as fulfilling that function?

MR. REEKER:  I think we will continue to talk to the Saudis about that as we work with this.  We welcome, as I said, this enhanced mechanism that the Saudis have talked about publicly today in terms of monitoring, controlling financial flows out of Saudi Arabia.  And we think that those oversights will be essential to reducing or impeding the support for terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia. 

As we go on with this and with our discussions and with our very close cooperation with Saudi Arabia, the evolution of additional formalized structures is something that I wouldn't want to speculate on.  But it's a very solid cooperation, and that's what we have received from Saudi Arabia and what we expect to continue receiving in the future.

QUESTION:  One more, if I may.

MR. REEKER:  And then we'll try to get to someone else.

QUESTION:  They talked a lot about quotes by anonymous officials and leaks of things that they're not hearing directly from the US Government and they feel that there is, whether it be people inside the government or inside the Congress that are launching a campaign of misinformation, of disinformation and lies. 

Do you see that the government is, and does this displease you, that publicly that the government is talking with one voice and then anonymous officials are saying things against the Saudis, critical of the Saudis that you haven't been saying?

MR. REEKER:  Well, there is no way for me to try to comment on what some anonymous official has been saying.  I have to take your word for it when these things appear in the media.  What we can do, and what I try to do and Ambassador Boucher does and certainly Secretary Powell has done as well, is speak to you, and speak through you to the public to make clear our views.  And our view has been all along that Saudi Arabia has been very cooperative in terms of the war on terrorism prior to, and certainly since, September 11.  Secretary Powell has made quite clear that you cannot indict an entire government or an entire nation on the basis of actions or behavior of some of that nation’s worst individual citizens. 

And so what we have to do is keep focused on our real goal.  And that's what we do.  And we try to come out here and speak publicly, answer your questions on a daily basis.  And so the other chatter in the background, I can't really comment on.  I can't offer a view on anonymous sources.  I can certainly take your word for it as people write stories. 

But instead, what I think is important is to focus on the facts, focus on what we're saying in terms of our President, in terms of our Secretary of State and other senior officials in talking about this.  We have real challenges ahead of us, and I think the Saudis made that very clear today, as well.  Nobody is under-playing the challenges we face on the financial side and any other aspects in the war on terrorism.  But working together with Saudi Arabia and so many other countries within the Gulf region, and all around the world, is going to be key to rooting out and ultimately eliminating terrorism.  But it's going to take time and it's going to take effort. 

So we prefer to focus, and we do that in our government-to-government discussions as well, on the matters at hand, on doing our jobs and trying to be as forthcoming as we can publicly about our views on these matters.  And as for the other anonymous remarks, I just can't try to address them.

Charlie.

QUESTION:  Phil, on the same general subject, the meeting in January, the task force.  Maybe you know -- and if you don't know, could you take the question -- will the subject of the Khobar Towers investigation be part of the subject matter that that joint task force will --

MR. REEKER:  Happy to ask the question.  This isn't particularly the building in which to do it, but since our Coordinator for Counterterrorism will be leading that, happy to ask that.  I don't that the agenda has been set since the exact date hasn't been set yet either.

QUESTION:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Phil can I quick, just very quickly?

MR. REEKER:  Always.  Very quickly

QUESTION:  The White House said exactly what you said last week --

MR. REEKER:  Hey, that's good.

QUESTION:  Yeah, but except they had one addendum that you haven't uttered yet. 

MR. REEKER:  Try me.

QUESTION:  They could do more.  Ari Fleischer said the President thinks the solid cooperation, blah blah blah blah, but we think the Saudis could do more, more in stemming the flow of funds.

MR. REEKER:  I think we always think everybody could do more and we're always trying to do more.  We're always looking at additional ways, additional opportunities, to stop the flow of funds to terrorism, to root out terrorism, to share information about terrorist groups, to arrest terrorists.  And you've seen action in that regard all around the world numbering in the hundreds and thousands. 

Today's announcement by Saudi Arabia is something that we welcomed.  They have enhanced mechanisms that they've spoken about publicly, and that's good.  We'll always look to do more, not just with Saudi Arabia, but within our own country and with others around the world.  And wherever we can help other countries in their efforts to fight terrorism and support this global coalition, the President has been quite clear that we stand ready to do so.

We'll come back to you.  Nick.

QUESTION:  On North Korea?

MR. REEKER:  I think we probably have more on this?

QUESTION:  When was the Joint Working Committee formed?  Is it recently? 

MR. REEKER:  I'd have to go back and get the exact details on that.  It's a good question and I just forgot to remind myself.  One of your colleagues might know, but I'll be happy to look and let you know. 

Eli.

QUESTION:  Sorry I'm late, but two questions on Saudis.  One, of the things that Mr. Jubeir said today was that there are charities that have been investigated that he knew of no direct links between these charities and terror.  I don't know if you've answered that.  If you've already done so, I'm sorry.  And --

MR. REEKER:  What's the question?

QUESTION:  Well, my question is does the US share that assessment that there have been no direct links between various charities and --

MR. REEKER:  I am not in a position, Eli, to share intelligence information or other things.  We are working very closely with Saudi Arabia on these matters.  We welcome the things they discussed today. 

And as I said, you did miss it but I'll repeat it once more for your benefit:  We think that the comprehensive monitoring of these charities is going to be very important to ensure that the well-intentioned donations are used for their intended purpose and not to finance or abet terrorists.  And clearly, the types of things they discussed today can be used to prevent those who would assist terrorists from using legitimate charitable organizations and charitable generosity of Saudi citizens as a cover for illicit activities. 

And so I just can't address any specific single one, but generally I have talked about our support for these efforts.

QUESTION:  I'm not asking a specific question.  I'm saying Mr. Al-Jubeir made a statement that there were no direct links between any Saudi-based charities and terror groups.  Does the State Department agree with that statement? 

MR. REEKER:  I don't have any information, Eli, to share with you on the basis of our intelligence --

QUESTION:  Can you take it as a question?

MR. REEKER:  No, we cannot.  We have discussed that many times before.  We are not going to try to delve into intelligence matters one way or the other on the basis of views.  So to provide you an answer one way or the other would do just that, and so those are the types of things as part of our efforts that I can't do, but I can certainly reiterate the general points that we have.

QUESTION:  And I don't know if this has also been announced, and just one more, but there has been a lot of discussion, and particularly in that press conference, about supposedly the need for proof or the need for more proof from the United States in names that have been handed over to the Saudi authorities.  There has been very little said on the record on this issue.  I don't know if you can clarify that or is that also in the realm of intelligence or --

MR. REEKER:  I am not quite sure what you would want me to clarify. 

QUESTION:  I'm saying that as -- has the US in their discussions with the Saudis handed over names of people that they believe there was a high enough bar for them to take action on and the Saudis said no, come back to them and said no, you know, you --

MR. REEKER:  Again, without trying to get into the specifics our intelligence sharing or information sharing or law enforcement efforts of this, which would undermine and defeat the entire purpose of it, we continue to have a very solid cooperation with Saudi Arabia on counterterrorism efforts, including in the financial sphere. 

We have seen these announcements today and these improved oversights of financial transactions as essential to reducing and impeding the financial support for terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia.  And that is a continuing effort.  But we have welcomed that and we will continue to share information in both directions in this effort, along with information from and to other countries in that region and around the world. 

QUESTION:  So you can't say anything about whether or not the US has actually presented names, as there's a dispute over the level of proof about --

MR. REEKER:  Eli, again, I'm not going to get into that type of detail.  We have an ongoing solid cooperation with Saudi Arabia on these matters and I am just not in a position to share with you from here the types of detail about that, other than to reiterate once again what the President has, what the Secretary of State has, is that we are pleased with the continued cooperation that we have had from Saudi Arabia and we expect to continue, and we are welcoming today's announcements, the public announcements by Saudi authorities.

QUESTION:  Phil, just one more.  When we ask you these questions -- and I'll stop, okay? -- and you are saying that you can't discuss it because of intelligence reasons, and then reporters go and they talk to people on background, the Saudis dismiss all this stuffy by saying this is nonsense leaks from people who are low down in the bureaucracy.  So when we ask these questions on the record and you don't give us an answer on the record --

MR. REEKER:  Eli, we had a lengthy discussion with your colleague before you came quite tardy to the briefing and we discussed the concept of leaks and anonymous officials.  And I am afraid I can't address that.  I can talk to you about what we do talk to you about every day.  I can point you to the statements of our President and Secretary Powell and other senior officials who speak on the record without benefit of any anonymity and talk to you about these things, but I can also describe for you the limits of where we are going to share stuff publicly because we have to keep in mind the integrity of our efforts in terms of intelligence, in terms of other information sharing, in terms of ongoing investigations, in terms of law enforcement efforts aimed at rooting these things out. 

And so we try to balance that and share with you as much as possible and make clear our views in moving forward on this and how important it is to us, and how important we believe it is to other countries.  And they have spoken to that, as well. 

QUESTION:  Phil, maybe we can get a yes or -- I can get a yes-or-no answer to this question --

MR. REEKER:  Doubtful.  (Laughter.)

QUESTION:  When you say, though, that the news steps that they have announced today are essential to cracking down and stemming the terrorism, doesn't that imply that what they were doing before was somehow lacking?

MR. REEKER:  I think we have talked about, as Barry pointed out, the fact that we can always do more.

QUESTION:  I knew it was too much to ask.

MR. REEKER:  No, I am not going to try to give you yes-or-no answers because, again, the importance is in the context, and trying to answer questions in a yes or no fashion takes away the context of something.  We can always do more and we have welcomed the steps that the Saudis have talked about publicly today, which we feel is doing more.  We are always looking to do more, as well.

QUESTION:  Right.  Except that your use of the word "essential" implies that beforehand they weren't doing it. 

MR. REEKER:  I don't think it does imply that.  I'll stick with the word "essential" because we think it is very essential.  They had been doing many things.  They are going more things.  They have talked about that today.  And we have welcomed that and will continue to work on this jointly and, of course, with many other countries and international organizations. 

Anything else on this subject? 

(No response.)

MR. REEKER:  Then we were going to switch first to your colleague here.  We're switching to -- remind me what the subject is. 

QUESTION:  On North Korea.  The World Food Program has issued a fresh appeal to the international community to donate more food for North Korea and the United States has already this year given 155,000 metric tons.  I wonder whether the administration is planning more donations this time, and what about next year?

MR. REEKER:  Thank you for pointing that out.  We have provided, as you noted, 155,000 metric tons to the World Food Program's 2002 appeal, which is roughly a quarter of that organization's total goal.  I think President Bush has stated that food aid -- and that includes the aid to North Korea where we are the largest donor of food aid to the hungry people there -- food aid will be based on humanitarian considerations, factors that include the availability of food stocks and need and competing needs elsewhere and the ability to monitor distribution. 

I can't give you a specific answer on that.  We have seen the announcement from the World Food Program.  We will look at that and consider those things, but I can't make any announcements now. 

QUESTION:  You can't make an announcement that -- you're not saying that 155,000, that's it for this year?  Are you leaving the door open?

MR. REEKER:  That is what we have given this year.  That is a fact.  That is a checked box.

QUESTION:  Yes.  So there will be -- you can't say whether there will be more this year?

MR. REEKER:  I can't, no.  We have seen a new announcement.  I think we have given, as we approach the final days of this year, we have given all of that.  And as we look at this request we'll have to look at the various factors that I mentioned.

QUESTION:  There are basically two requests.  One is for 2002 to reach this at least 400,000 -- they wanted 611 but they couldn't reach it.  And then the next is for 2003.  So you're saying that there is no decision for 2003 yet as far as --

MR. REEKER:  I'm saying there is no decision on the new appeals from the World Food Program.  I don't have anything to announce for you.  I can tell you what the facts are and I can corroborate the fact that we are aware of this new appeal, but I have nothing new for you in that regard.  I can point you to what the President said about food aid and what we have done.  I can't tell you what hasn't been done yet or what hasn't been decided.

QUESTION:  Can I just ask, and forgive my ignorance on this, the appeal is for the remaining 28 days of this year? 

MR. REEKER:  You know, I am not even sure.  You would have to check what the World Food Program put out, and maybe your colleague could give you the details on that. 

Okay.  Yes, sir, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION:  Do you have anything on Mr. Grossman's activities today in Ankara, Turkey?  He has already completed his day and he is departing tomorrow for Cyprus. 

MR. REEKER:  I don't have any specific readouts of that.  We have talked about the travel of Under Secretary Grossman, as well as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.  They are traveling together and, as you note, they are in Turkey today.  They have met with government leaders.  I think that included a meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Gul and Foreign Minister Yakis. 

They are discussing a broad range of bilateral, regional and global issues covering the whole spectrum of issues -- political, economic, security issues.  And certainly we have discussed with Turkey our support for their accession to the European Union, which we have talked about for some time as something we think is in the best interests of the European Union, of Turkey, and of all of us, and what we think is that the European Union should offer Turkey a target date for beginning those accession discussions. 

So I don't have any specific readouts from Under Secretary Grossman's meetings, but he will be continuing on from Turkey to Cyprus and Greece tomorrow, then to Germany and the Netherlands on December the 5th and to France and Portugal on December the 6th, and in Portugal he is going to participate in the OSCE meeting in Porto.

QUESTION:  A follow-up, Mr. Reeker?

MR. REEKER:  Please.

QUESTION:  Yes.  Yesterday, the Deputy Minister Paul Wolfowitz, who is talking in London, said inter alia that you would like to see integration, not union, of Turkey and Cyprus into the European Union.  Since this is a matter of foreign policy, would you please clarify what it is about integration or accession, as you said, (inaudible) or union?

MR. REEKER:  I think we have talked about the accession of Turkey to the European Union.  It's the same phrase we have used.  You know, people use a thesaurus sometimes in their public remarks.  I am not aware of the specific remark on that, but our view is quite clear.  Secretary Powell has made it and others have made it many times.

QUESTION:  So could I ask the question another way, perhaps? 

MR. REEKER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  Is your support for Turkey's place in the European Union unqualified, having no -- with Cyprus having no bearing on it?

MR. REEKER:  I don't think I have anything to add to that, Barry.  We have also talked about the importance -- the important opportunity, the historical opportunity there is for a settlement of the longstanding Cyprus problem.  That is a process that has been taking place at the United Nations.  We have been extremely supportive of the Secretary General's efforts in that regard.

And I'll just point you to what the Secretary has said in recent days, and I know Under Secretary Grossman in his travels has reiterated those statements.  Cyprus is also a candidate for EU membership, so those are both things that we support and we'd like to see the parties take advantage of this historic opportunity and take action to resolve this longstanding dispute over Cyprus.

QUESTION:  Phil, I'm sorry.  Yesterday, you guys said that Tom Weston was heading to London and then a couple other places in Europe and then going on to Cyprus itself.  But I didn't -- this was my fault -- I forgot to ask for a date.  Do you know when he is actually going to show up in Cyprus?

MR. REEKER:  I don't.  I have to check and see if we can find anything.

QUESTION:  And if he's going to hook up with Grossman?

MR. REEKER:  Happy to check into it.  Anything else on Cyprus?

(No response.)

MR. REEKER:  Let's go to this lady here and this gentleman and then we'll keep going.  Yes.

QUESTION:  Iraq.  At the Pentagon yesterday, the President said the situation in Iraq doesn't look very encouraging, but the weapons inspectors seem to be getting cooperation.  Is the US goal disarmament or is it regime change?

MR. REEKER:  I think all of those questions have been answered before, most of them in my responses to your colleagues questions earlier.  What we're focused on right now, as the President reiterated again yesterday at the Pentagon, is Iraqi compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441; this, of course, being their opportunity to show that they have made a strategic choice, they've made a decision to change the way they approach their role in the international community, that they will cooperate with the Security Council, that they will cooperate with inspectors, that they have fundamentally changed the way the way that regime operates. 

That remains to be seen, and the President pointed out that Iraq has continued to fire on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.  They've sent letters of protest espousing falsehoods, and one has to question if Iraq is taking the path to compliance.  But we're watching this in total and we're going to see if Iraq has full active cooperations every day and is demonstrating their active cooperation and any sort of signal that Iraq is giving that they have made a strategic shift in their approach.  So we're going to keep watching that obviously very closely.

Arshad.

QUESTION:  Related to a lighter-hearted question, what can you tell us about the repairs to the roof of the old Iraqi Embassy, and does that have any implications for your expectations of a new Ambassador there under this or any other regime?

MR. REEKER:  Contrary to the suggestions in some gossip columns around the city, as we have told others that have inquired on the subject, since 1991 when relations were severed between the United States and Iraq, the residence of the Iraqi Ambassador, or the Iraqi mission to the United States, their residence has been vacant and, under the standard international agreements, falls under the custody of the Department of State. 

The roof of that residence is leaking badly, and we hired a contractor to replace the roof and stop further water damage -- part of our responsibility to see to the upkeep of that.  The cost of those repairs comes from frozen Iraqi assets, and I don't have a final dollar figure on that because it's still an ongoing project. 

So I don't think anyone should read anything into or out of it other than the fact that we're living up to our responsibilities to protect the structural soundness of this building, which is under our care pursuant to international agreements.

Yes, Eli.

QUESTION:  On Iraq, and I think this has slipped through the cracks because this is in reference to a news story last week.  It was asked about yesterday at the White House briefing.  But did the State Department have any role at all in vetting any of these inspectors in the regime?

MR. REEKER:  I'm missing --

QUESTION:  Did the State Department -- the UN weapons inspectors, did the State Department have any role in recommending Americans?  Did the State Department --

MR. REEKER:  We referred resumes that came to us as part of the call that Mr. Blix put out when he created -- when, under the Security Council auspices, obviously, he established the UN Mission for Verification.  I think it was about two years ago in the year 2000 that that took place.  There was a public call put out looking for people with appropriate experience, and as a member-nation, just as many other nations, we could also be a pass-through point for that. 

So people did contact us.  We also tried to spread the word.  I think there was a letter from Dr. Blix asking all member countries to try to get people to apply to meet their hiring needs, and so in a number of cases we forwarded curriculum vitae to the United Nations for that purpose.

QUESTION:  When you -- so, if I could just get this straight.  People sent their curricula vitae to -- curriculum vitae to the State Department and you just simply sent them in the fax machine or did you --

MR. REEKER:  Some people --

QUESTION:  Or did you evaluate them and then pass on those candidates that you thought were --

MR. REEKER:  I think there would be a general review to see if they met the requirements generally of that, somebody that the UNMOVIC organization would want to take a look at.  And those were forwarded up, I don't believe they were necessarily faxed, but they may have been, or sent through the US Postal Service or through some other form.  I couldn't tell you, but I know that we did forward some resumes to them for their consideration.  The decisions are obviously made by UNMOVIC and I think they've addressed that question fairly thoroughly themselves.

QUESTION:  Well, yeah.  But I'm just trying to -- I mean, I'm sure you know where this is going.  There's this poor fellow in Virginia who happens to be a weapons inspector that's the head of some S & M club.

MR. REEKER:  Your point?

QUESTION:  Well, I'm just saying, was that part of this process?

MR. REEKER:  Was what part of what process?

QUESTION:  So, did you check the resumes?  I'm saying you forwarded names of people.  Matt's saying to me, "Would you put the S & M stuff on the resume?"  And I'm asking you, though, was there a check --

MR. REEKER:  Eli, I haven't read your resume, and I don't -- (laughter) --

QUESTION:  It's not my resume.  It's The Washington Post story.

MR. REEKER:  We review generally a resume, a curriculum vitae, to see if it meets the broad needs as specified by the UN Mission.  Dr. Blix's letter outlined what he was looking for in terms of the technical expertise.  For instance, a munitions expert could be someone that would be of great value.  Someone that might have 20 or more years of experience, someone who may be well known to the media in terms of using their expertise to help the media in discussions on camera and off for those subjects. 

So that would be the kind of person, and if that were reflected in their resume, that resume would be referred to the UN for their consideration and evaluation and their decision.  And I think the UN has been quite clear in their process of doing that and I'd just refer you up to them if you have any further questions. 

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION:  What I think he's asking is, were there no background checks done by the State Department?  These resumes came into you.  You said you did a broad, general look to make sure they --

MR. REEKER:  No, we wouldn't do background checks on people we're not hiring.  We're simply referring them to the United Nations.

QUESTION:  But isn't there an implication that if the State Department passes on a resume, that there's some implication that it's approved or --

MR. REEKER:  No, I don't believe there is.  I think you could ask the UN Mission that.  We were asked in their letter, and many other countries were as well, if we could forward on any people, get the word out, and we certainly did that.  And so professionals who have experience in that realm, I think many of them probably went directly to the UN pursuant to the letters and I presume advertisements in appropriate publications or through appropriate job search firms to find the right people.  We forward those up.  We aren't hiring people so we wouldn't be doing a particular background check.

QUESTION:  Based on this incident, would you think in the future it might be more realistic if you are going to on-pass people's resumes that there be some sort of brief background check to make sure that again, based on, I think, the public's perception if the State Department passes on someone's resume, there is some indication of compliance with --

MR. REEKER:  I think what the State Department looks for at that level of passing on information is the professional experience of the individual.  Does he or she meet the basic requests --

QUESTION:  Do you check what the person puts down on the resume? If they wrote down they had --

MR. REEKER:  Again, you're just driving at something that -- we aren't hiring people.  We are passing along resumes with professional -- that list professional experience.  And that's what was passed to the UN.  The UN has addressed this subject, I think quite extensively, and you really have to talk to them about it.  It's their hiring process. 

We, as well as, as I said, many other countries, I think help the process by referring for their consideration.  And I've seen the cover letters that go with these resumes that said specifically I forward to you 2, 3, X number of curricula vitae for your consideration without any implication of recommendation or any commentary other than based on this curricula vitae, it would suggest this person has qualifications that may meet your needs.  And it's up to Dr. Blix or his team to make those determinations in terms of contracts they award and hiring they carry out, and I'll just have to refer you to him on that process, because it's his process.

QUESTION:  You're not vetting them?

MR. REEKER:  No, Eli.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. REEKER:  I've answered it about, I don't know how many times now.  I've been quite clear on what the process was, so why don't we stick with that?  And I think one of your colleagues would like to move on.  We're going to do Matt, and then we're going to this polite and long-suffering gentleman who's had a longstanding question. 

Please, Matt. Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Last week, I believe on Wednesday, you guys were assured by the Russian Government that the IDPs in the Aki Yurt camp in --

MR. REEKER:  You've got to explain your acronyms.

QUESTION:  The internally displaced people in the Aki Yurt camp in Ingushetia would not be forcibly repatriated or sent back to their homes in Chechnya.  The Russians went ahead and closed the camp on Sunday or are still in the process of closing it now, and that, from the reports there, does not appear that they lived up to the assurances that they gave you. 

What do you have to say about this?

MR. REEKER:  The United Nations, or officials from the United Nations informed our embassy in Moscow today that the Russian Ministry of Interior officials had closed the Aki Yurt camp for displaced Chechens.  That camp is located in Ingushetia.  So we're very concerned about this camp closure, which is essentially a forced eviction.  It's not clear that Russia is providing adequate alternate shelter for those forced to leave the camp when it was shut down.

As you indicated, Matt, last week we told the Russian Government of our concerns about plans they had discussed in terms of closing this camp and other camps in Ingushetia for persons displaced by the war in Chechnya, and the Russian Government responded to us -- I think we discussed it -- that it intended to close camps for fire and sanitary reasons but that all camp residents would be offered either alternative temporary quarters with appropriate plumbing and heating or the choice of returning to Chechnya.

So, obviously, the reports we have seen from the United Nations and our understanding of what has happened in that has us greatly concerned.  This is at odds with what the Russians suggested or told us last week would be happening, so we will be communicating those concerns to the Russian Government.  We believe that any returns of displaced Chechens from that region where they have sought safe haven, in this case in Ingushetia, should be voluntary, without pressure or coercion, and internally displaced persons who do not wish to return to Chechnya need to have the option of integration into Ingushetia and that the Russian authorities have the obligation of providing appropriate shelter for those that have been forced to leave the camp.

QUESTION:  You are not yet, though, at a point of accusing the Russians of going back on their assurances to you guys that these would be voluntary?

MR. REEKER:  I think, again, we have strong concerns based on what we've seen and what the United Nations have said coming out there, so we are going to raise those concerns with the Russian Government, obviously pointing to what they told us last week in response to our initial concerns and inquiries about this and would, first of all, call upon the Russians to give us a full accounting, details of the camp closure, and ensure that the persons displaced from these camps are immediately being provided with humane treatment and adequate shelter.

QUESTION:  And then very briefly on a related matter, do you have any comment on what the Danish have done in terms of this Chechen, wanted Chechen person? 

MR. REEKER:  I think we have seen the reports and obviously the decision to release this individual was a decision for the Danish Justice Ministry to make in accordance with Denmark's legal system, and we have full confidence in the ability of Denmark's judiciary to arrive at the appropriate judgments based on the materials provided to them by Russia.  I think that's about all I can add to it. 

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR. REEKER:  Now, thank you for your patience and I apologize for --

QUESTION:  Back in Cairo earlier today, the Egyptian American citizen Saad Eddin Ibrahim, as you know, was released and the Court of Cassation approved a new trial for him in maybe January.  I'm not sure about the date. 

First, do you have any comments on that development? And second, I'm not sure if that tells you anything about the due process, about the judicial process the man is having back in Cairo?

MR. REEKER:  Well, let me say that we welcome the decision of Egypt's Court of Cassation to overturn the July 29 conviction of Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim and his co-defendants.  As you are very well aware, the United States has felt that this conviction was unjust.  We have talked about our views in that case and our concerns about it. 

As you indicated, we understand that the Court of Cassation will conduct a retrial.  I believe the date that we had heard was January 7, and that in the meantime, Dr. Ibrahim has been granted an interim release and upon completion of administrative paperwork should be released from the prison shortly.  So we look forward to a swift and just resolution of the case. 

The Embassy has kept in very close touch with Dr. Ibrahim and his family since the beginning of the case and we'll continue to monitor this very closely.

QUESTION:  Yeah, what about the fact that (inaudible) will have a new trial?  Does this provide any evidence from the State Department (inaudible) that he is having due process and --

MR. REEKER:  I think we have to see.  We look forward, as I said, to a swift and just resolution of the case.  We'll see what happens leading up to and on January 7, should that indeed be the date when the new trial, the retrial, commences.  And we'll be watching this very closely, as we have all along.

QUESTION:  Can I also ask on another topic?

MR. REEKER:  Sure.

QUESTION:  It's about the Palestinians (inaudible) they said that Mr. Shaath, the Palestinian Minister of Planning was in town last week, I believe.  He said that he was told by the US officials that the US would not submit, would not present the roadmap at the coming Quartet meeting.  I'm not sure if you can confirm or deny that.

And then, does the State Department, the US have any plans to present the roadmap at the Quartet meetings for discussions for endorsement?

MR. REEKER:  I don't -- I didn't see the exact comments from Mr. Shaath, so let me talk generally about the roadmap.  It may have been discussed even more recently, but if you recall last week, Secretary Powell spoke, I think it was November 25, and said that we're still working on the roadmap in close consultation with our Quartet colleagues -- that would be the Russians, the European Union, the United Nations. 

Our focus remains on moving forward in a way that makes possible implementation of President Bush's vision as he described in his speech on June 24th, the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. 

We said all along that the roadmap is a living document -- I think Ambassador Boucher may have used that phrase again yesterday -- and that discussions are ongoing in terms of how to proceed.  The roadmap itself is based on relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, the President's speech from June 24th, the Saudi Arabian and Arab League Beirut Summit initiative, and would seek to incorporate the terms of reference from Madrid, as well as previous agreements between the parties, use all of the elements of those that we can. 

So a series of steps and objectives that would clearly involve both sides, laying out obligations and responsibilities for all the sides, and I think as Secretary Powell has made quite clear, the idea of the roadmap and how the Quartet has been pursuing this is to establish some performance-based criteria rather than time-oriented, aimed at a comprehensive peace with security for all states in the region.  That has been the goal, of course. 

So these discussions are going to progress and we'll have to keep considering the practical next steps.  Everything we're doing for this roadmap is aimed at implementing the President's vision, and we're going to continue to assess the situation on the ground leading up to the upcoming Quartet meeting December 20.  I don't really have any more details at this point on that, and we'll just have to see where we are at that point.

QUESTION:  Do you take the calendar of Palestinian and Israeli elections into account before pushing the roadmap for -- do you have that in mind?

MR. REEKER:  I think the President has been quite clear that we support a new Palestinian leadership that is brought about through a free, fair, credible election process, and that is going to be a very important step for the Palestinian people, and that the new leadership should be transparent and accountable and free from associations with terror and violence and capable of taking the necessary steps to prepare the Palestinian people for statehood; that is, being responsible leaders.  And that includes preparation of a constitution. 

The International Task Force on Reform, which has been tied in with the Quartet process, has been engaged for many months on making recommendations regarding the electoral reform measures.  And I don't think I can give you a specific timetable on that at this point.  We're still looking at these things.  The task force is still working on this and consulting with all the involved parties. 

But it's important that ample time be afforded the Palestinians to enact such reform measures, and, again, through a free, fair credible process.  So Palestinian elections will be important.  Obviously, Israeli elections are upcoming as well, and we'll be watching that.   So we keep in very close touch with our Quartet partners and with both Israelis and the Palestinians and others in the region who have an interest in this. And the working -- the task force, the International Task Force on Reform also includes international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, as well as Japan and Norway.  So there are a lot of people involved in this.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

QUESTION:  Phil, same region?

MR. REEKER:  Mm-hmm.

QUESTION:  Throughout Ramadan, you guys have been airing these spots extolling Muslim life in America and talking about how -- well, talking about how all religions are free to practice, the "hearts and minds campaign" to try to win the Islamic world over to the US view.  I'm wondering against that backdrop if you guys are disappointed that Ambassador Battle's Iftaar Dinner in Lebanon last night was attended by only -- by less than 10 people and that the 90 or so who boycotted the event said that they were staying away to protest US policy in the Middle East?

MR. REEKER:  Hadn't seen that.  I didn't know that Ambassador Battle was having an Iftaar Dinner last night.  So I would probably just direct your colleagues in Lebanon to ask the Embassy their specific views on that.  I think people are free to accept invitations and I think invitations like that are always made with goodwill and sincerity in mind.  So I couldn't comment on people's -- their personal reaction.

QUESTION:  Okay, and another attendance question.  I asked this yesterday of a senior official. Do you know, or can you find out, how many of the diplomatic corps who were invited to hear Secretary Powell's presentation today on AIDS actually attended?

MR. REEKER:  I have a list here --

QUESTION:  I can get it afterwards.

MR. REEKER:  -- and we can just go through it, if you want.

QUESTION:  No, no, no, we can do it afterwards.

MR. REEKER:  This lists acceptances and regrets, and whether somebody was doing a check-off at the door as people came or not I'm not sure I would be able to do that.  But the Secretary's speech is available certainly on our website, in text, hopefully in audio and video form as well.  So, with that opportunity, I would just like to invite anyone interested to be sure to log in and see what the Secretary had to say today.  And anyone that missed the event in person can obviously do that, as well.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR. REEKER:  I'm sorry.  We have several more Charlie.  Thank you for your efforts but -- yes?

QUESTION:  Burundi.

MR. REEKER:  Burundi.

QUESTION:  Burundi.  The UN is supposed to take up Burundi on Friday and the Ugandan President --

MR. REEKER:  Did you miss my statement at the beginning of the briefing?

QUESTION:  No I heard it.

MR. REEKER:  Okay.

QUESTION:  I want to ask you about sanctions because the Ugandan President is talking about sanctions.  Does the US support sanctions against the FNL?  And is the analysis of this situation is the prospects for peace?  You know, has an African solution been found?  Does this look like, you know, Burundi actually going to become a peaceful place eventually? 

MR. REEKER:  Well, I'd invite you to review our full statement, which I didn't share with you in its entirety, but we'll put that up directly after.  There's obviously been a ceasefire agreement, which we welcome.  That was reached today by the government and the faction known as the Forces for Defensive Democracy.  And we think that's a very significant step toward a comprehensive peace. 

Obviously we're not there yet because there remains one rebel combatant group that refuses to lay down its arms, and that's the National Liberation Front.  And so we call upon that group, now the only remaining obstacle to the security and safety of the people of Burundi, we call on that group to join their countrymen in seeking a constructive and peaceful transition to democracy.  And that's the process we will continue to support. 

We firmly support the regional efforts to bring a conclusive end to fighting in Burundi.  So, in response to your question about this being an African effort, I think that's very true.  We commend the dedication of the President of Uganda for his efforts as chairman of this effort; also the hospitality of the President of Tanzania and the President of Gabon, as well as South African officials, all facilitated this effort.  And we have to remember the work of former President Nyerere and former President Nelson Mandela, as well, who constructed the framework of the Arusha Accords.

QUESTION:  Any comment on the prospect of sanctions being imposed against FNL?

MR. REEKER:  I think we would have to look at that.  I don't have -- I'm told to look further in my stuff.  President Museveni of Uganda has publicly indicated that the region is prepared to impose sanctions to stop the fighting by National Liberation Front.  A-ha, here we go.

QUESTION:  Yes, please.

MR. REEKER:  The United States favors regionally imposed sanctions and calls on the international community to support them and we will engage in close consultations with the United Nations and our allies on these and other questions.  Obviously, until consultations are completed, it would be premature to comment further, but we will continue to provide the financial support in terms of the monitoring committee, which has coordinated the negotiations.  We have provided approximately $1 million in support for those talks. 

And again, we favor these regionally imposed sanctions because we think this organization, the National Liberation Front, needs to get with the game, consider what's best for its members and the rest of their countrymen, and join in laying down their arms. 

Yes.

QUESTION:  There was a report today -- you may or may not be prepared for this -- the International Crisis Group out of Brussels, a report that Serbia/Yugoslavia's defense cooperation with Iraq is extensive, somewhat ingrained, exacerbated by the administrative problems --

MR. REEKER:  We've talked about that at great length here from this podium many times before.  I don't have anything on this particular report from an independent group.  We have made quite clear our views on the matter and we have praised some of the steps that the Government of Yugoslavia, as well as the Government of Serbia and the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, steps they've taken to look into this and to make sure that this type of cooperation, which is in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, that that does not take place.  I don't have anything to add further and I haven't seen the specific report you mention.

Tony.

QUESTION:  Do you have anything on the upcoming TCOG meeting being postponed or canceled?

MR. REEKER:  I don't.

QUESTION:  The December 11th one?

MR. REEKER:  I don't.  We'll be happy to check on that.

Gene.

QUESTION:  Are you going to replace the 500 tons of food that was destroyed by the Israelis in Gaza, World Food Bank?  And in that connection, protection of American citizens -- there are about 15,000 in the Palestinian territories now.  Do you have any new figures?  You gave me figures about six months ago on who is being -- I mean, the number that are being detained and whether they are being tried or released without charges.

MR. REEKER:  Didn't bring those figures with me today, Gene.  You might call me in advance and I can try to have them for you.  But we'll have to check into that, as we do every other time you ask that.  I’d be happy to try to get it.

In terms of the other issues you raised, we are deeply troubled by reports that Israeli forces destroyed a UN World Food Program food warehouse in Gaza yesterday.  I don't have all the details on that but we think it's critical that the Israelis investigate the circumstances of that incident and take immediate steps to ensure that civilians and humanitarian facilities are not harmed.

As you know, we have solidly supported Israel and continue to solidly support Israel in their efforts to combat terrorism.  We recognize their need to take legitimate anti-terrorist action because there can be no excuse for terrorists' attacks against the Israeli people.  They have been forced to endure attacks over and over again, and we are pressing the Palestinians to do all they can to end immediately the terror and violence and work to restore active security cooperation and contacts to dismantle the infrastructure of terror and violence.

But we also continue to urge the Israelis, as I indicated, to keep in mind the consequences of their actions, to complete their anti-terrorist operations as quickly as possible, and take steps to prevent further civilian casualties.  We are concerned deeply about the recent civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military actions, including the tragic death of two young Palestinian boys and an elderly Palestinian woman in the past few days.  Our deepest condolences go out to the families of all the civilian victims in this conflict.

And as I said, we had seen the reports and we are troubled by the reports of this destroyed food warehouse.  So a sustained commitment on both sides to these various steps that we talk about is going to be needed to make possible a resumption of progress on the strategy that we and the Quartet and the parties themselves have outlined. 

Thank you.